M.L. Martin
Hero
Doesn't work with WotC's approach of 'destroy the backlist' (metaphorically speaking) every time a new edition is released. There's only half a year's worth of product for them to shelve now, as compared to 5-8 years last year.
4e Change of mind
- Thread starter Thandren
- Start date
Doesn't work with WotC's approach of 'destroy the backlist' (metaphorically speaking) every time a new edition is released. There's only half a year's worth of product for them to shelve now, as compared to 5-8 years last year.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
A distinct possibility.
But when you figure that the game's largest customer base will also have gotten its start as a community of previous-edition players (including 1e, 2e, etc), I'm not sure the bias is unique to ENWorld but rather applies to the broader D&D community as well.
The other biases in a self-selecting internet poll are far more damaging to the poll's ability to infer characteristics of the population at large.
Vayden
First Post
I was, have been, and am a huge 4e fan. I will admit that lately I've been getting frustrated with it however. Monsters have way too many hitpoints and don't do nearly enough damage in high paragon/epic play. And even in heroic, strictly "by-the-book" encounters are often a waste of everyone's time. I'm still enjoying it, but it takes some tweaking to get the thing to run right. Where's my 4.5?
Mercule
Adventurer
I can agree with this. I've held, from the release, that 4e isn't descended from 3e. I see 2e as the actual parent of both. 3e and 4e just grew up differently and focus on different things.
Personally, 4e is much, much more my style of game than 3e. It's not perfect, though, and I can already see plenty of things I'm unhappy with. And, no matter how much I want to not play 3e again, it isn't a bad game. It brought me some fun -- just not as much as I had hoped because it didn't mesh with my play style well at all.
bouncyhead
Explorer
I voted 1. Our group pretty much raced each other to get the new core books first. My instinct was to switch, habituated as I was after switching through all of the editions since '78.
We played for a few months but found that 4e wasn't for us. It's all about personal taste but the prevailing feeling was that 4e was a new game rather than new rules for an old game (does that make sense?).
We all admired (in a dispassionate way) the ease with which it plays though and I can see why it is the answer to the prayers of many.
We liked the giant, rambling monstrosity that D&D had become over 30 years though and (understandably) a lot of what defined the game (for us) had to be cut to make it streamlined. Specifically we couldn't get to like the similarity of the classes (both on the page and in play). Nor were powers for us. We just found them a bit repetitive (I know, I know!) and preferred the crazy, erratic breadth of the older edition spell lists. We also didn't find many of the 'encounter' mechanics to our taste (though it's clear why they were introduced - they do address some nasty old issues).
We'll be sticking with 3.x. We're giving Pathfinder a go as playing a 'living' system would be preferable. Let's hope they fix some of the notorious 3.x crunch issues (we can't be bothered, we're lazy).
I think these threads are a guilty pleasure. Sure they stir up strong feelings. It's an argument about the soul of D&D.
My take (probably hopelessly misguided) is that some of those who have stuck with 3x have done so against all their D&D instincts and are hungry for a validation of their choice. Those that have moved on find the idea that many did not (against all expectation) unfathomable. 4e fits their playing style perfectly, or near as dammit, but they find the grumbling from the other room unsettling
.
I say good luck to both editions and all those who sail in them.
We played for a few months but found that 4e wasn't for us. It's all about personal taste but the prevailing feeling was that 4e was a new game rather than new rules for an old game (does that make sense?).
We all admired (in a dispassionate way) the ease with which it plays though and I can see why it is the answer to the prayers of many.
We liked the giant, rambling monstrosity that D&D had become over 30 years though and (understandably) a lot of what defined the game (for us) had to be cut to make it streamlined. Specifically we couldn't get to like the similarity of the classes (both on the page and in play). Nor were powers for us. We just found them a bit repetitive (I know, I know!) and preferred the crazy, erratic breadth of the older edition spell lists. We also didn't find many of the 'encounter' mechanics to our taste (though it's clear why they were introduced - they do address some nasty old issues).
We'll be sticking with 3.x. We're giving Pathfinder a go as playing a 'living' system would be preferable. Let's hope they fix some of the notorious 3.x crunch issues (we can't be bothered, we're lazy).
I think these threads are a guilty pleasure. Sure they stir up strong feelings. It's an argument about the soul of D&D.
My take (probably hopelessly misguided) is that some of those who have stuck with 3x have done so against all their D&D instincts and are hungry for a validation of their choice. Those that have moved on find the idea that many did not (against all expectation) unfathomable. 4e fits their playing style perfectly, or near as dammit, but they find the grumbling from the other room unsettling
.I say good luck to both editions and all those who sail in them.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
My take (probably hopelessly misguided) is that some of those who have stuck with 3x have done so against all their D&D instincts and are hungry for a validation of their choice. Those that have moved on find the idea that many did not (against all expectation) unfathomable. 4e fits their playing style perfectly, or near as dammit, but they find the grumbling from the other room unsettling
I think your take is spot on.
Garnfellow
Explorer
I was initially looking forward to 4e. I had had a great time with 3.5e, but there had been enough very handy innovations and advancements that it seemed time to consolidate everything back into a revised core. I was a huge fan of the announced design team. I liked just about everything I had heard about the high level goals of the new edition. I bought Star Wars Saga edition, thinking it would likely be a glimpse into 4e, and loved what I saw.
And then the previews starting coming.
At first, I just thought WotC was just running a suboptimal marketing campaign, and that the actual game would be spectacular.
But weeks, and then months went by, and while I saw several things in 4e that did sound very cool, the general sense I got was that this really wasn't the game I was looking for. And that sense only grew with each new preview. So by the time the books hit the street, I wasn't so much angry or disappointed as I was just . . . indifferent.
I've looked through the 4e books, and I would gladly play in a 4e game if someone were to run one. I'm sure it's a fine game, and much fun could be had with it. But for me, 4e is just too much of a change with too few improvements to justify jumping systems. I'd be going from a perfectly good, if flawed game of dungeoncrawling that I know well and own all the books for to a perfectly good, if flawed game of dungeoncrawling that I don't know well and don't own any of the books. Why bother?
Given my investment in and general contentment with 3e, 4e either needed to be largely compatible with 3e OR a significant improvement, and ideally both. And unfortunately, it doesn't really seem to be either.
Part of trouble, too, may be the old "uncanny valley" effect. From a distance, 4e sure looks a lot like the D&D I've always played. Fighters fight, wizards throw spells, dragons provide gold and XP.
But on closer examination 4e's *just* different enough to really put me off. If it were a game that were a lot less -- or a lot more! -- different from older forms of D&D, I'd probably have an easier time accepting it. But as it is, it's got that weird part real/part fake Polar Express thing going on that, on a visceral level, I just can't shake.
And without a usable GSL, third party publishers can't fill empty 4e niches for me that might have drawn me to the game. Although I love to play with different RPGs, for almost 10 years the OGL kept my interests and my wallet firmly within the d20 family. I mean, an entirely new edition of Ars Magica came and I didn't even give it a look.
Now? Last weekend I ran my first Mongoose Traveller game. And I had a freaking blast.
And then the previews starting coming.
At first, I just thought WotC was just running a suboptimal marketing campaign, and that the actual game would be spectacular.
But weeks, and then months went by, and while I saw several things in 4e that did sound very cool, the general sense I got was that this really wasn't the game I was looking for. And that sense only grew with each new preview. So by the time the books hit the street, I wasn't so much angry or disappointed as I was just . . . indifferent.
I've looked through the 4e books, and I would gladly play in a 4e game if someone were to run one. I'm sure it's a fine game, and much fun could be had with it. But for me, 4e is just too much of a change with too few improvements to justify jumping systems. I'd be going from a perfectly good, if flawed game of dungeoncrawling that I know well and own all the books for to a perfectly good, if flawed game of dungeoncrawling that I don't know well and don't own any of the books. Why bother?
Given my investment in and general contentment with 3e, 4e either needed to be largely compatible with 3e OR a significant improvement, and ideally both. And unfortunately, it doesn't really seem to be either.
Part of trouble, too, may be the old "uncanny valley" effect. From a distance, 4e sure looks a lot like the D&D I've always played. Fighters fight, wizards throw spells, dragons provide gold and XP.
But on closer examination 4e's *just* different enough to really put me off. If it were a game that were a lot less -- or a lot more! -- different from older forms of D&D, I'd probably have an easier time accepting it. But as it is, it's got that weird part real/part fake Polar Express thing going on that, on a visceral level, I just can't shake.
And without a usable GSL, third party publishers can't fill empty 4e niches for me that might have drawn me to the game. Although I love to play with different RPGs, for almost 10 years the OGL kept my interests and my wallet firmly within the d20 family. I mean, an entirely new edition of Ars Magica came and I didn't even give it a look.
Now? Last weekend I ran my first Mongoose Traveller game. And I had a freaking blast.
Last edited:
bouncyhead
Explorer
That is eerily perceptive. It is like you have scried my very mind...
kitsune9
Adventurer
My sentiment exactly. There are a lot of RPGs out there that it doesn't make sense for people to have "one rpg to bind them and to rule them all" mentality.
I haven't played 4e so can't really say anything about it.
Garnfellow
Explorer
I've been thinking lately that many people experienced a very strong, gut level "Do. Not. Want." from 4e, and it seems to not always be just a reflexive "anything different is bad!" response. The uncanny valley makes some sense -- to me, at least.
