D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[Jack Daniel]

What is it about 4E that pisses people off so much? Can I ask this question without it becoming an edition war? I am not talking about specific things, whether we're talking about martial powers or dragonborn; those are all secondary factors, details, many of which I dislike in 4E. I don't like many things, and don't use them in my game. Overall I would say that the merits of 4E far outweigh its faults, and therefore it is a highly enjoyable experience. I would say the same thing about any edition of D&D. But something about 4E inspires more aggression than any other edition; you don't have people saying, "God, I hate 2E! It is not D&D at all." You might have people saying, "What an awkward game 2E was, and may THAC0 rest in peace." But you don't get the hatred.

It's just a gut reaction that 4e is so fundamentally different from every other version of D&D. It did away with too many things that other editions, 0 through 3, kept in common. Just to give an example:

0e Orc: AC 7, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 90' (30'), AL C, #AT 1, dmg 1d6, SV F1, ML 6 (8)

1e Orc: AC 6, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 9", AL LE, #AT 1, dmg 1d8

2e Orc: AC 6, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 9, AL LE, #AT 1, dmg 1d8, ML 11-12, THAC0 19

3e Orc: AC 13, HD 1d8+1 (5 hp), speed 30', init +0, attack +4 melee (falchion, 2d4+4/18-20) +1 ranged (javelin, 1d6+3), SQ darkvision 60', light sensitivity, saves F +3 R +0 W +2, abilities Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6, skills Listen +1, Spot +1, feats Alertness, align CE.

4e Orc:
Battletested Orc, Level 3 Soldier, XP 150.
HP 50, bloodied 25. Init +5.
AC 19, Fort 17, Ref 15, Will 13. Perception +1.
Speed 6 (8 charging). Low-light vision.
Standard Actions:
- Battleaxe (weapon) * At-Will
Attack: melee 1 (one creature); +8 vs. AC
Hit: 1d10 + 5 damage, or 1d10 + 10 on a charge attack
- Handaxe (weapon) * At-Will (4/encounter)
Attack: ranged 5/10 (one creature); +8 vs. AC
Hit: 1d6+5 damage.
- Hacking Frenzy (weapon) * Recharge 5-6
Attack: Close burst 1 (enemies in burst); +6 vs. AC
Hit: 1d10+5 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the orc's next turn.
Effect: The orc grants combat advantage until the start of its next turn.
Triggered Actions:
- Savage Demise * Encounter
Trigger: The orc drops to 0 hp
Effect (Immediate Interrupt): The orc takes a standard action.
Str 18 (+5), Dex 14 (+3), Wis 10 (+1)
Con 18 (+5), Int 8 (+0), Cha 9 (+0)
Alignment chaotic evil; Equipment scale armor, heavy shield, battleaxe, 4 handaxes

=========

Okay, take a look at the stat blocks needed to actually have an orc appear in your game and fight a PC. The 0e, 1e, and 2e stat blocks are essentially the same, and they contain nearly the same information. (I've left out the entries on number appearing, % in lair, and treasure type -- but these things aren't combat stats, don't appear in modules, and have no equivalent in a 4e stat block, so it doesn't exactly matter.) The 3e stat block is more complicated, to be sure, but only because it includes ability scores, skills, feats, and some more specific information about saves and attacks. It's still recognizable as D&D, and frankly I could use 3e stat blocks to run a 0e game by merely flipping the AC and ignoring the extraneous stuff (like feats) that have no bearing on the earlier rules. But 4e... that's just a different animal. That orc doesn't have four or five hit points, it has fifty. That's a different game. Self-evidently, beyond argument, different from what's come before.

Again, this isn't to knock 4e or judge whether it's good or bad. It's just obviously very different.

 

[gamerprinter]

I always find myself in the atypical scenarios on these RPG discussions.

I started in 1977, played 1e, then AD&D 1e/2e - we didn't add the Character Option rules from the end of 2e, but played 2e all the way up to 2004. I didn't jump onto 3x until 3.5

3x had more interesting and longer battles than an pre-3x game, although I had super fun games especially in 2e, to the point I'd say I had the most fun in 2e... but now that I play 3x, I don't want to go back to 2e.

Perhaps because I didn't play 3x as long others have, I haven't grown tired of it yet, but its off the market. Now I play Pathfinder and prefer that game.

I've looked at 4e books, rolled up a character and played a few hours at an LGS - it never took. While it seems in enjoyable enough game, it was too alien to what I was looking for, so have not moved to 4e at all. I'm not a hater, but I'm no fan.

I don't feel let down by WotC for not meeting my needs, everybody grows and D&D has grown away from me.

I was never a grognard and easily moved from one ruleset to the next, perhaps not on corporate schedule (as in during the change-over). 4e is not my game, nor do I expect a subsequent 5e to be any better - it will go farther down the track away from my interest. D&D is gone from me.

Pathfinder is my D&D, I will pursue it to whatever their next edition is. This might just apply to me, however.

GP

 

[Azgulor]

What is it about 4E that pisses people off so much? <snip> But you don't get the hatred.

For me, 4e doesn't piss me off. It's not my cup of tea. Has WotC pissed me off in the past? Yep, and I'm sure some of that bleeds over into to my opinion of 4e. What pisses me off is when I successfully separate the two and people in the pro-4e camp are either dismissive, insulting, or ascribe motives to me that aren't there.

The dislike of 4E goes beyond mere preferences. I'm not talking about indifference, or just not being into it, but the actual negative reaction to it, "hatred" even (at least as much as one can hate a game!). You just don't see it with any other edition, at least not anywhere on the same scale.

Trust me, those of us who liked 3e & like Pathfinder have felt our share of the "Negative Reaction Stick".

Is it just me or is something strange here? If my original hypothesis is incorrect, or at least with only a vague amount of truth, what are some alternatives? Again, I don't buy the "It is just a matter of personal preferences" line. The negative reaction to 4E is just too strong, too prevalent.

Alternative #1: 4e was too radical a departure from eariler editions for some fans and they were not willing to "migrate" just because it had Dungeons & Dragons on the cover.

Alternative #2: People tried it, didn't like it, and are willing to express that opinion.

And at the risk of pouring Internet gasoline over myself...

Alternative #3: Yes, it's you. You seem very reluctant to abandon your original hypothesis & are immediately dismissive of the "personal taste" reason. I know we're just discussing opinions on the Internet here but those two viewpoints aren't exactly staking out ground in the land of objectivity.

As I believe Umbran pointed out in the WotC Layoff thread, most of these discussions go off the rails when discussions of the publisher enter the mix. People can feel indifferent to the game but strongly about the publisher & vice versa.

There also seems to be vocal segment that is very interested in converting or bring the "lapsed" back into the fold of 4e. At the very least, as this thread shows, there's a fair amount of "but why don't you like 4e?" In other threads this line of questions has been followed by posts/arguments meant to illustrate how the reasons provided by those who aren't fans of 4e are wrong.

I honestly don't get that. We're talking about opinions (by defnition, subjective) about a game.

If I play Pathfinder, 3e, MERP, Savage Worlds, GURPS, WHFRP or some other game, how is that diminishing the enjoyment of a 4e fan? My biggest beef w/ 4e was the GSL b/c, at the time, most of my RPGing was done using OGL games. Fast-forward to 2010 and I've got this kick-ass game called Pathfinder and I'm much, much happier. So 4e, isn't hurting me, either.

 

[Lidgar]

"I must spread experience points before awarding to Azgulor again..." Sigh.

 

[FireLance]

It's just a gut reaction that 4e is so fundamentally different from every other version of D&D. It did away with too many things that other editions, 0 through 3, kept in common. Just to give an example:

0e Orc: AC 7, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 90' (30'), AL C, #AT 1, dmg 1d6, SV F1, ML 6 (8)

1e Orc: AC 6, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 9", AL LE, #AT 1, dmg 1d8

2e Orc: AC 6, HD 1d8 (4 hp), MV 9, AL LE, #AT 1, dmg 1d8, ML 11-12, THAC0 19

3e Orc: AC 13, HD 1d8+1 (5 hp), speed 30', init +0, attack +4 melee (falchion, 2d4+4/18-20) +1 ranged (javelin, 1d6+3), SQ darkvision 60', light sensitivity, saves F +3 R +0 W +2, abilities Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6, skills Listen +1, Spot +1, feats Alertness, align CE.

4e Orc:
Battletested Orc, Level 3 Soldier, XP 150.

(snip)

=========

Okay, take a look at the stat blocks needed to actually have an orc appear in your game and fight a PC. The 0e, 1e, and 2e stat blocks are essentially the same, and they contain nearly the same information. (I've left out the entries on number appearing, % in lair, and treasure type -- but these things aren't combat stats, don't appear in modules, and have no equivalent in a 4e stat block, so it doesn't exactly matter.) The 3e stat block is more complicated, to be sure, but only because it includes ability scores, skills, feats, and some more specific information about saves and attacks. It's still recognizable as D&D, and frankly I could use 3e stat blocks to run a 0e game by merely flipping the AC and ignoring the extraneous stuff (like feats) that have no bearing on the earlier rules. But 4e... that's just a different animal. That orc doesn't have four or five hit points, it has fifty. That's a different game. Self-evidently, beyond argument, different from what's come before.

Again, this isn't to knock 4e or judge whether it's good or bad. It's just obviously very different.

Now, to be fair, the battletested orc is probably the equivalent of a 3rd-level orc barbarian in 3e, which, although it might not have 50 hit points, could easily have around 40 when raging (3d12+9 hit points from Con of 16 increasing to 3d12+15 hit points from Con of 20 when raging works out to around 40 hit points after maximizing hit points from the first hit die).

You should probably be comparing the orcs to this one:

Orc Drudge, Level 4 Minion, XP 44
Medium natural humanoid, orc

Initiative +0
Senses Perception +2; low-light vision
HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion.
AC 16; Fortitude 15, Reflex 12, Will 12
Speed 6 (8 while charging)

Club (standard, at-will) Weapon
+9 vs AC; 5 damage.

Alignment Chaotic evil
Languages Common, Giant
Str 16 (+5) Dex 10 (+2) Wis 10 (+2)
Con 14 (+4) Int 8 (+1) Cha 9 (+1)

Equipment: club, hide armor.​

And frankly, I think the differences are just a matter of formatting. Remove the eye-friendly formatting and game-play friendly information, and put everything into one line, and you can get the following:

4E Orc Drudge (L4): Init +0; Senses Per +2, low-light vision; HP 1 (minion); AC 16; Fort 15, Ref 12, Will 12; Speed 6 (8 while charging); Club (standard, at-will) +9 vs AC, 5 damage; AL CE; Lang Common, Orc; Str 16, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 9.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I have played nearly every edition of D&D starting with the red and blue boxes.

And I like to run and play 4E

But I also like to run and play 3.x

I would play, but not run 2E

I barely remember 1E, but would not mind playing it again, I think. It has been so long

Earlier than that, no thanks. The Blue and Red did not seem like complete games to me. I had a lot of fun with them back then, but I want more now.

Really , it is all personal preference. Even worse, personal preference among those who like to disucss or politely argue on messageboards. I am not sure why there is a huge need for multiple edition threads recently.

 

[Lanefan]

Much depends on what one wants to get out of the game, as each edition delivers something different as a strength:

0-1e: grim, gritty, death lurks at every turn and will get you that much sooner if you run out of torches; some foes can be fought, others can't and must be dealt with in other ways e.g. bribery, stealth. Survive to 9th level, retire, build your castle and then enjoy the hell out of it, because you earned every last stone of it. Or, just keep on adventuring; it's open-ended and the rules can easily be tweaked to allow for high-level play. Not fit for those who don't like bad things happening to their characters. Bring mules.

2e: story and setting uber alles. If you want to either tell a story or take a major role in one, 2e is for you. Well-suited to the long slow campaign, not so well suited to short one-off games or those with limited attention spans. Somewhat less gritty than 0-1e. Completely open-ended with rules in place for high-level play. Mules are a sign from the gods.

3e: as deadly and gritty as 1e but there's a lot more rules involved. Better suited to a shorter campaign or single adventure path. More focused on combat and the grid than previous versions. Build whatever character you want; if you can come up with a concept there's a way to make it playable, though this same flexibility leads to some truly broken combos requiring DM smackdown. Somewhat closed-ended - levels come more often but after the first 25 or so things don't work very well despite rules designed for higher-level play. Mules have rules too.

4e: even further designed for the short campaign, plays well as a one-off or tournament game. Lots of rules, grid and minis mandatory, very combat-focused. Much of the risk removed for individual characters, this leads to parties sinking or swimming as a unit. Resource management pretty much gone. Levels come even more often, still an open question what happens if you try to play much beyond 30th. No mules.

Given these design-level changes and how different the game has become from what it was, is it any wonder that people* tend to just find one they like and stick to it? For my part that point was 1e; and by the time 2e came out I'd put enough work into tinkering with 1e that I wasn't about to change system. Ditto 3e (and 2e-->3e is the biggest jump IMO), and now ditto 4e.

I can see the appeal of each edition while still not liking or wanting to play all of them.

* - ignoring for these purposes the "gotta have the new shiny no matter what" contingent, for whom all hope is lost.

Lan-"'round here, 10th level means you're pretty darn tough"-efan

 

[HealTheSquad]

I think you are right Mercurius, at least in enough cases to make it a useful generalisation.

Furthermore, I think the enormous amount of time invested by some people in 3.x system mastery (which was certainly encouraged in 3.x to a much greater extent than older editions) is the reason for the exaggerated 4e hate. No-one likes having countless hours of rules learning flushed away by a new edition.

 

[DumbPaladin]

What do you think?

I think your hypothesis is getting discounted rather soundly the more people post. You can also add me to the list of people who do not enjoy 4E, but who pre-date 3E.

I learned in 2nd Edition, took an almost 10-year break from D&D, and came back to 3.5. The change was somehow less jarring, since I hadn't played D&D at ALL for that long.

What I don't like about 4th Edition has nothing to do with any previous editions; I simply do not like certain aspects of what it IS.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

My 3.x / PF group has (more than 1 campaign):

- 3 people which started playing with Basic Red Box, then played advanced 2e and then 3.x

- 4 people started with AD&D 2e and the played 3.x

- 5 people started with D&D 3.x

- 2 people started with PF


The 2 PF "noobs" don't know 4th edition, so I can't say.

One of the 3.x people don't dislike 4th edition, consider it another game with something better and something worse than 3.x

Everybody else dislikes strongly 4th edition. 11 people, 3 different background, 4th edition failed to catch all of them.