D&D 4E Edition Experience - Did/Do You Play 4th Edition D&D? How Was/Is it?

[atanakar]

If you put half the neutral to positive and negative you get a 60% in favor vs 40% negative. It's way better than some elected persons got voted for...

Jokes aside, 4ed was way better than what most naysayers are saying. Once you gave it a true try it was an ok, if not downright good edition. Very different from what was done previously and it might have been that people were not ready for that much change. But I did get a lot of fun from it.

That is a common misconception. 4e defenders seem to think we did not give 4e a good try. That fact is many of us did give it a good try and found that we did not like it in the end. I ran a campaign for a year and still didn't like how it played. I stopped playing D&D until 5e came out.

Also, I've rejected numerous RPGs just by reading the rules because they didn't fit what I was looking for. We do not need to play a rpg to know if we will like it or not.

 

[Helldritch]

Some did give it a good try and hated it. Some gave it a good try and started to love. But a lot never even tried it. Just reading the rules is like judging a book by its cover only. It is by playing that you get the true feeling of game. I would never have played Paranoia if I had stopped at rules. They were silly... but the game was actually really fun to DM and to play.

 

[atanakar]

Just reading the rules is like judging a book by its cover only.

That is a fallacious argument. You can certainly understand that a game is not for you just by reading the rules.

 

[pemerton]

I actually like combat. Is it bad that I liked combat? Sometimes it feels like you're not supposed to enjoy DnD combat, that's it bad and gauche to enjoy bashing the monsters: you should love the social play and the ROLEPLAYING not the ROLLPLAYING (augh)... but I really enjoy a GOOD cinematic fight in an interesting environment, on either side of the screen.

I just see peope complaining about long fights, but if they're well done it doesn't rally matter that much if they last an hour.

This. To me, the essence of D&D-style heroic fantasy (see eg the Foreword from Moldvay Basic that I posted upthread; or most Conan stories) is that interpersonal violence is the utlimate mode of conflict resolution. 4e D&D gives effect to this from the bottom of the heroic tier (fighting kobolds and goblins) right up to the top of Epic (see eg @Raith5's post upthread about killing Orcus).

This is not the only way to play D&D - it contrasts with dungeon-crawl-type attrition-oriented play, for which 4e is in my view and given my skill-set not all that good a fit (although I know there are people on these boards who made that work).

But it clearly is a way, and 4e was good at it.

That's not to say that it's all combat, or even that it's about combat. But I think it is about conflict - by default if you use the 4e setting material, cosmologically-driven conflict. And ultimately that conflict will lead to fighting - otherwise a lot of real estate on the PC sheet is wasted.

My 4e campaign had some of the most complex social resolution I'd done in my RPGing up to that point (see eg this post), supported by the skill challenge framework which I think is a pretty robust mechanical system. But if I wanted to run a game in which combat was not a key site of character and story development, then I would choose a system other than 4e!

most of the fun comes from the risks of failures. Without failures, no stress, no expectation and no feeling of reward for beating the odds. A sense of accomplishment is necessary to keep your player entertain. When they do something that they feel was risky and that the lives of their characters were at stake, they get a rush that is hard to forget. Talking for hours without going anywhere is not the cup of tea of everyone. Once in a while, it is quite ok (and dare I say expected) as the Roleplay aspect is necessary. But it is not the end of all thing in an RPG. Both aspects must come into play. This brings up a much more balanced and fun game.

There are different forms the risk of failure can take.

In low-level B/X or AD&D, the risk of failure mostly rrom luck - ie a few bad rolls can lead to PC death or even TPK.

In 4e, there are so many rolls, plus - especially by mid-Heroic - ways of modifying or undoing bad rolls, that bad luck becomes less of a source of risk. The risk results from the need for decision-making. Which, to me, links back to @Undrave;s point - I think 4e is more satisfying if the combat provides meaningful decision-points even though this makes it take a bit longer, than if it's quick but nothing but dice-rolling.

On the "Roleplay aspect" - I'm not a big fan of talking for hours without going anywhere. One reason I like skill challenges (and similar scene-based resolution frameworks in other RPGs) is that they ensure that meomentum is maintained. It's not just talking - it's resolution of social conflict!

 

[Helldritch]

Yes, and no. As I said, just reading the rules of the Paranoia game did not make me want to play it (even DMing it). And yet we gave it a try and we liked it. Sometimes the presentation is not to your liking. You might have missed something that would've make you like it. Maybe you were simply not in the mood to appreciate it.

Just like the movie Dances with wolves. My first watch of the movie got me almost sleeping with disinterest. It was the worst movie ever made even though it won Oscars. I gave it an other run two years ago and I absolutely loved it. Maybe my perspective changed. Maybe it was my mood. I do not know. But sometimes, not the first try but the second will make you like something you had dismissed as bad. The same goes for RPG.

You can read about Roller Coasters all you want. You'll know everything there is to know about them. But until you try it a few times, you won't know if you like it or not.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I moved (back) to my current town in 2006. I had sold my game store, and was just a casual shopper at my FLGS. In early 2008 they had some sort of handout for 4e, wherein was described the Points of Light concept. I LOVED that concept for some reason back then. (I'm not sure how hot I'd be for it now).

I also happened (kismet!) to run into one of the fellows from my old GURPS group from the 90's. He had gotten really into Magic, and was still into comics (as was/am I).

Anyway, I said - hey, it would be fun to try out this game, any of the old guard still around? He said he thought he could round up a table, and even was willing to run the first module. I hadn't played D&D since 1st edition (except one 2e game that lasted for 2 sessions until the GM moved away) - yup, I skipped mostly 2e and all of 3e.

So 4e is what brought me back to the table. And I'm glad it did. Here I am 12 years later, and RPGs are now my main hobby.

 

[Undrave]

Man... the 5e Barbarian is such a boring call-back to the 'Good ol' days' compared to the 4e one... Who the heck prefers the same ol' boring Rage to things like the 'Blood Bear Rare' or 'Rage of the Crimsom Hurricane'?

And the character wasn't even just 'Dude with sword but A N G R Y' they did stuff and had a nice feel to them. I got Primal Power right here (one of the few books I didn't put into storage when my group stopped 4e) and both the new Barbarian give an Encounter power that kick in when they drop an enemy to 0. That's pretty flavourful. They also had class features and powers that incentivized you for having stats OTHER than STR and CON.

Though, I guess the Totem Barbarian and Storm Barbarian are inspired by the 4e Barbarian...

 

[Hussar]

That is a common misconception. 4e defenders seem to think we did not give 4e a good try. That fact is many of us did give it a good try and found that we did not like it in the end. I ran a campaign for a year and still didn't like how it played. I stopped playing D&D until 5e came out.

Also, I've rejected numerous RPGs just by reading the rules because they didn't fit what I was looking for. We do not need to play a rpg to know if we will like it or not.

There are a couple of misconceptions here though.

Sure, there are folks who tried the game and didn't like it. That's groovy. However, there are also folks who put up stuff like "video-gamey" or whatnot, who obviously had not tried the game and were simply parroting the meme du jour without giving it any extra thought. See, what you said is perfectly fine. No one is going to argue with that, or, if they do, they shouldn't. It's more the other types of claims, like, say, this gem:

You can do a lot of things with 4E, but you can't seriously try to interpret it as a physics engine, the way you could with 2E or 3E.

which is a perfect example of the typical "My favorite E is a simulation game. 4e is not a simulation game. But, my favorite E could also do anything 4e could do, so, that makes my favorite E better". The funniest part was, until 4e came along, I had never, not once, heard anyone defend D&D as a simulationist game. Which, frankly, no edition of D&D is even remotely close to a sim game and those of us who actually PLAY sim games just kind of giggle when people try to make the claim.

But, that didn't stop folks from repeating it ad nauseum that other editions were sim based. The truly ironic thing is that the reason 4e gets criticised for being a more "limited" system, isn't because it's more limited, but because it's actually upfront about what it does best. It doesn't try to pretend to be anything other than what it is, a heavily gamist system with a nice thin veneer of nar play layered on top for flavor. But, again, this is more about how the game was presented and written than any actual argument of substance.

 

[happyhermit]

...
which is a perfect example of the typical "My favorite E is a simulation game. 4e is not a simulation game. But, my favorite E could also do anything 4e could do, so, that makes my favorite E better".

How in the world could it be a "perfect example" when it doesn't: Say that their favorite edition could do anything 4e could do, OR Say that it makes their favorite edition better? It isn't a "perfect example" of something it clearly doesn't say. The post was reasonable whereas what you projected onto it wasn't.

My mind still boggles that it can be so hard to have a reasonable discussion about one edition of a game.

 

[ccs]

There are a couple of misconceptions here though.

Sure, there are folks who tried the game and didn't like it. That's groovy. However, there are also folks who put up stuff like "video-gamey" or whatnot, who obviously had not tried the game and were simply parroting the meme du jour without giving it any extra thought. See, what you said is perfectly fine. No one is going to argue with that, or, if they do, they shouldn't. It's more the other types of claims, like, say, this gem:



which is a perfect example of the typical "My favorite E is a simulation game. 4e is not a simulation game. But, my favorite E could also do anything 4e could do, so, that makes my favorite E better". The funniest part was, until 4e came along, I had never, not once, heard anyone defend D&D as a simulationist game. Which, frankly, no edition of D&D is even remotely close to a sim game and those of us who actually PLAY sim games just kind of giggle when people try to make the claim.

But, that didn't stop folks from repeating it ad nauseum that other editions were sim based. The truly ironic thing is that the reason 4e gets criticised for being a more "limited" system, isn't because it's more limited, but because it's actually upfront about what it does best. It doesn't try to pretend to be anything other than what it is, a heavily gamist system with a nice thin veneer of nar play layered on top for flavor. But, again, this is more about how the game was presented and written than any actual argument of substance.

You 4e lovers sure have a thing for telling those of us who don't like your favorite edition why how we describe our dislike is wrong.

If somebody says "It felt video-gamey to me." why don't you just take them at their word?
Of course YOU don't see/feel it.
And it's not how I'd describe it.
But maybe that person is describing it the best they can.