4E - 18 Months Later: Love it or hate it?

[rjdafoe]

rjdafoe, if they had a valid point - I would love to hear it. I gave 4e a try...and continue to try it for my friends sake,

We have a person in our group that is the same as you. To us, his arguments make no sense whatso ever.

I encourage you to do what we did if you would like to continue to game with friends - let them play their D&D every 2 weeks, and on the other weeks you join in a different game - one you and they enjoy.

In the long run, it will save your relationship with your friends.

 

[jdrakeh]

Blah. Blah. Blah. That's what I meant, yeah! Blah. Blah. Blah. Actions aren't non-actions! Blah. Blah. Blah.

At this point, I think that any further discussion with you would be time wasted.

 

[Abraxas]

I played up until this October - levels 1-14.

I voted dislike (the things I loved/liked are far out weighed by the disliked/hated) - However, the general feeling about 4e may be more about the game I was in and not the game itself. Its actually the first D&D game I ever gave up on and just quit playing.

 

[Kafen]

We have a person in our group that is the same as you. To us, his arguments make no sense whatso ever.

I encourage you to do what we did if you would like to continue to game with friends - let them play their D&D every 2 weeks, and on the other weeks you join in a different game - one you and they enjoy.

In the long run, it will save your relationship with your friends.

Indeed I feel the same way when it comes to the skills in 4e. Debates can get heated at the real life game table. Online? The insults from the people on the board just tell me which people not to take advice from when I get around to posting some of the stuff my 4e table in any case. If they can not hold temper against opinion differences, the chances of sound monster advice is pretty much nil.

The amusing part is that I am the moderate in my area when it comes to 4e for most part. Oh yeah, I actually defend 4e and try to get people to try it among my die hard 3.5 friends. So yes, I do split my time between games. I would love to have a 1e group, but that is not likely to happen any time soonish. *shrug*

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't know if I would say the WotC adventures suck.

Actually I think maybe a little too much hyperbole on my part regarding this point. There is just the feeling they could be so much more but are not.

I'd probably say they're the best example of binding adventures too closely to the rules. An adventure should consist of more than just a series of monster filled rooms loosely connected by a flimsy plot. Granted, we're playing D&D here. That doesn't mean we're 12 year olds playing D&D.

Perhaps the emphasis on being able to play the modules straight out of the book is significant here. While this is a significant advance when compared to previous editions in terms of DM workload, I still don't think they have fully capatilized on this. This should have given them more room to provide the story and role-playing glue to stick all the challenges together.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[KidSnide]

I really like 4e. I like that all characters have meaningful tactical choices and I love the fact that I can play any character with 2-4 page character sheet without every needing to look up a power in a rulebook. I also love how many of the world assumptions (like alignment and everyone-has-a-class) that were core assumptions in 3.x have been excised. I find it makes simulationism much easier in my world because my world-logic didn't match up with central 3e rules. Also, I think the short-rest / extended-rest mechanics make adventure design much easier because you can have 1-encounter days and 8-encounter days with the same party.

The major downsides are that it takes a long time for players who aren't into tactical combat to reach a basic level of proficiency, and that it continues the removal of the arbitrary and semi-illogical "magic" that were in the earliest versions of D&D and have been slowly going away. I like balance and rules that make sense, but there was definitely something fun and unexpected about the bizarre mechanics that were in 1e. Overall, I approve of this direction, but I can acknowledge that there is a downside to logic and uniformity.

-KS

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I've been enjoying 4e greatly.
Mostly because it's higher fantasy / fun, and less simulationist / AD&D legacy.
When playing in 3.5, I had a lot of simulationist DMs (among other things)

Some notable issues I had in 3.5 were:

- DM who had "his world" we just explored, with no quests.
..Just an open, monster filled world, and we only got XP by killing random monsters
..I gained no experience as a LAWFUL GOOD paladin, and after 3 sessions I quit.

- A game with evil characters.
.. I left when it simply turned into PvP

- DM who wanted us to have "strong characters", and he forced us to roll stats
..He wanted something like a +7 to +10 modifier total
..and it took me 2 hours to hit that...

- DM and wizard got into an argument.
..They fought about how DM limited spells to actually make combats
,,challenging for the whole party...

- One game we had a player quit because his fighter was outclassed on all levels
..Another game, one player changed between several martial classes before quitting...

Yes, anyone can blame the DM, but I blame 3.5 for encouraging such issues.
All 4e DMs should expect players to be powerful and "unique".

A good quote I heard is:
"[The game] is Dungeons and Dragons, not Farmers and Inn-Keepers"

 

[Tuft]

Look, this is a thread on a popular internet messageboard. It is not at all improbable that someone who doesn't have much experience with the game will come by and read this thread to see what people think of it a year-and-a-half later. If that person comes by and reads a thread full of "4e will eat your future children!" presented as fact (obviously hyperbole here), they will come away from this thread with a very negative impression of how the game has evolved. Setting the record straight by saying "No, 4e won't eat your future children, that's ridiculous," allows this hypothetical individual to get a more accurate sense of what the game is now like.

Calling a falsehood a falsehood is a good thing.

xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

 

[Dannager]

I would ask you to look up Heal as a skill - what type of action is it? If you meet a GM willing to let you use that kind of rule out of an encounter cycle, I will show you a doomed campaign in the making once those players are able to use the high level powers and actions "out of combat".

EDIT: It is one of the basic weakness in most "recharge" style magic/event systems. Once you let players leave the mechanical cycle in the name of "being creative", the system breaks down in the balance of power. So yeah, the only falsehood here is that the 4e system retains its integrity outside of the encounter cycle.

Heal is designed to be used both in and out of combat. Allowing players to make use of the heal skill in now way causes the system to "break down in the balance of power." Again, you appear to have some very fundamental misconceptions about 4th Edition. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to hold to these misconceptions despite multiple people having corrected you.

 

[Kafen]

(snipped as admin made a request)

But yeah, not impressed with 4e to go back on topic.... I will stick with 1e, pathfinder, and 3.5 as I can find it for the most part.