D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

The key in my opinion is that 4E is a tightly focused game where 3.5E was broad and unfocused. Reading about how people played 3.5E, two separate tables could be so different that you'd never know they were playing the same game. Some 3.5E players focused on some parts of the game, while others focused on different parts. People got used to D&D being a large tent everybody theoretically fit under. With 4E, I believe they decided that the broad focus of 3.5E kind of weakened the core appeal of D&D(kill the monsters, take the treasure), and they decided for the new edition to focus the game like a laser on what they considered the core experience. People whose tastes conflicted with 4E's specific focus essentially got "fired" from the D&D community. People don't like being fired.

 

[BryonD]

People whose tastes conflicted with 4E's specific focus essentially got "fired" from the D&D community. People don't like being fired.

Heh, probably best not to go there......

 

[Mercurius]

In Europe and South America, soccer games have been frequently known to end in riots where people die. In America, Big 10 football has brought about massive property damage, and sofas burned in the streets. Getting passionate and over-reacting is something humans are very good at.

And here, we have a nice, comfortable internet and message boards - where you are mostly anonymous, and if you act like a complete jerk very little happens to you. Much of the degree of dislike presented seems to me to be more about the medium than the opinion of the game.

I like this hypothesis, Umbran, you win . But seriously, I think you are onto something here. What seems to be "hatred" is probably not as heartfelt as it seems; as you said, the internet provides a context for people to vent and take on the appearance of greater feeling than they might actually be experiencing. It is similar to giving someone the middle finger from the safety of your vehicle as their car turns down another road.

This is not to say that some people don't have honest-to-gods feelings of dislike for 4E, but that--and this is the bottom line I think you were getting at--it is magnified by the medium.

Maybe that Marshall McLuhan fellow was right after all.

 

[Greg K]

Reading about how people played 3.5E, two separate tables could be so different that you'd never know they were playing the same game. Some 3.5E players focused on some parts of the game, while others focused on different parts.

This sounds just like my experience with both 1e and 2e as well.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It wouldn't be a surprising hypothesis. I think 3E did more to revive and expand the game than any other edition of D&D including 4E. D&D seemed like a game heading for extinction prior to 3E. Not only did 3E do the most to expand the player base, but it did the most to expand the business base of the game too. More companies were able to ride the D&D popularity wave than any other version of D&D. I've never seen such a larger number of independents publishing D&D material as I saw during the 3E version of the game. The OGL was great for the marketplace as a whole. So if there is a disparity of players that started with 3E hating 4E, it would not surprise me because of 3E's tremendous influence on reviving and expanding the game.

As far as my own story, I started with basic. I've enjoyed all editions except for 4E. I've always known D&D wasn't a perfect fantasy simulation. But I find I prefer my fighter-types to have somewhat realistic fighting styles versus min-maxed powers. I like my magic varied, interesting, and longer lasting than an encounter or a round. It was the 4E magic system and the modular design of every character that drove me away. I couldn't stomach the lack of creativity in class construction that the modular model followed. Killed my creativity and desire to play any of the classes.

If the game play destroys my suspension of disbelief as 4E did, I don't want to play it. Previous editions of D&D never jarred me out of the world like 4E does with its gamist rules. I felt like D&D turned into a table top game with 4E and I never felt that way about any previous editions. Previous editions seemed all about story and roleplaying. I could run encounters without a map if I felt like it. I don't feel that way about 4E at all.

That's why I dislike 4E and always will. Maybe someday D&D will return to its roots and bring me back. But I can't imagine it. 4E was too far off the train tracks and D&D will never be like it was. I'm fortunate Pathfinder exists to allow me to keep playing a version of D&D I like and that still stimulates my creative juices.

 

[Elf Witch]

I started with 1st ed and played through every change and for the most part embraced the changes. I went into 4E with an open mind and found that it was not my cup of tea.

I do actively dislike it not because they dared change my game but because of the changes themselves. I will be the first one to admit that 3E has some major issues when you get to higher levels and there is a lot of DM prep work needed to run the game. But I don't think the changes in 4E actually fix this in a way that I find enjoyable.


I find that there is so much about 4E that just ruins the game play for me. As a player I like challenges and knowing that there are big bad things out in the world that can hurt my character and even affect it for more than just a few minutes. 4E feels to me to be a giant video game just hit reset and everything is okay.

I also find the classes to be bland. They tried to fix it so all the classes are equal in power and that just made the game boring to me. Who cares if some classes are a little more powerful than others mechanically. In all the games I played in this was never an issue. I sure have read about it being an issue on boards but never actually experienced it.

It is the same reason I like rolling stats because it encouraged different characters not everyone being the same even if they were the same class.

To me 4E approached this in the same way a lot of little league sports seems to give everyone a trophy for playing and everyone is the same no one is better than anyone else.

There is nothing about it that really appeals to me or the way I like to play the game. Of all the gamers I know only one group went with 4E and are loving it. Most of the others range from being meh to hating it.

One of the things I hear a lot is that it does not feel like DnD. With older editions even with changes they still had the same basic feel to them it did not feel as if it was a totally new game. 4E is a totally new game it is the new DnD. Whether or not that is a good or bad thing depends on if you like the new system.

 

[howandwhy99]

So back to my main point: It is my view--more of a hypothesis than a theory--that most of those who have reacted negatively to 4E are people who were new to D&D with 3E; in other words, it is the contrast and difference between 3E and 4E that people are (for the most part) not liking, not the contrast and difference between older editions and 4E.

What do you think?

I'd agree most folks who do not prefer 4E are primarily 3E standouts. They have options like open OGL, older books, and Pathfinder to scratch their itch. Paizo is still putting out excellent adventures and trying to push the envelope for their design as well. Wizards are doing their thing and pumping out a good game too. The other portion of gamers, those who prefer the older pre-d20 materials, are finding new, open minded players and have a slew of clone and rules light games to choose from as well as the original books (which have gone up significantly in auction price).

Add in all the exciting games from both indie theory designers and independent publishers' offerings, ranging across the whole spectrum of design, and it's not so much a war anymore, I think. It's more of a celebration of gaming. And that's a good thing in my humble opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But can anyone answer that question? And does that, therefore, mean that everyone's definition of D&D is functionally meaningless? Maybe so. But I would take it one step further: because no one has come up with an adequate definition of what D&D is, we cannot really say that 4E is not D&D because of the continuity of themes, tropes, and rules that it does share with the D&D lineage. In other words, it has enough D&Disms that the owner of the trademark felt they could brand it with the name "D&D," and those who enjoy playing it--and many besides--call it D&D. When it comes down to it, it is only a relatively small percentage of D&D players that would actually claim that it is "not real D&D," even among those that don't like it.

It has enough D&Disms...in your subjective opinion.

To put it another way, the onus is on those declaring that 4E is not "real D&D" to support their claim in order for it to hold water beyond their own subjective inclinations

I disagree, since I see this as an entirely subjective matter. If it isn't D&D for one and it is for another, both viewpoints are valid for their holders.

The only time an onus if proof arises at all is when one tries to convince the other of the validity of his viewpoint.

Yes, it is a matter of perception. But I think your post only further supports the notion that 4E is D&D in a sense beyond any individual's viewpoint, that is as an inter-subjective agreement. You are still you, even though the parts that make up you are different than what they were 10 years ago; why? Because you are more than the sum of your parts, you are more than just any iteration of who you have been at any given time in your life. You are no less you as a 40-year old as you were you as a 4-year old. You are the entire process, the enter being-in-becoming.

I am only the same me only so long we all agree that sentience is the defining characteristic of human identity, not my physical composition.

D&D doesn't have that luxury, and even if it did, there is no agreement on what the universal essential defining characteristics of the game are. If there were, this thread would not exist.

The Theseus's ship analogy doesn't quite work because you use the phrase "the one he started on." As soon as any changes are made, it isn't "the one he started on." By that definition, only OD&D is real D&D, and everything after--including the supplements--isn't "the one he started with." Therefore the definition and analogy is false.

The classic SoT analogy is valid- they are both things, not conscious beings. Depending on now you examine them, you can reach either conclusion.

As long as the changes are close replacements, for Theseus and his men (even the ones who joined mid-journey), it is the same ship by any standard they care about- its smells, sounds & textures; its dimensions; the way it handles and parts function; it's graceful lines. It's builders would recognize it...as would anyone who is a shareholder in ownership.

OTOH, at some point it is more new than old, thus in some way a different ship. Not that the crew will notice or care.

However, I'd the changes improve or worsen the ships handling or appearance, Theseus and crew (again, even those who joined mid-voyage) will note the change, and may even lament that the ship is not the same...though they may not agree upon what particular change did it for them.

And despite this, Theseus' creditors will insist that it's the same ship he left on and where's their payment, thank you very much.

The same is true of D&D: by some standards, 4Ed is still D&D, by others, it's not even close.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For more on how many changes it takes before a game changes it's identity, check out the "chess" hijack of the Tablepocalypse thread.

 

[Mercurius]

Celtavian, your post reminds me of what I don't like about 4E, despite overall being a fan. It isn't just the power structure (which I like in principle, but find the application lacking; I would rather see it more diversified, rituals re-integrated, more spells, etc) but a few other elements. Magic items come to mind - in no other edition did magic items seem so...unmagical. I think the rarity thing helps a bit, but overall something is lacking.

Now the reason I stick with 4E is that, despite the things I don't like, I think the overall rules system is superior to 3.5. I won't go into details, but I do so it as an overall move forward. It is a two steps forward, one step back thing; the key is finding how to correct that step back...I'll let you know if I figure it out!