D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[Theo R Cwithin]

I started with BECMI, and played 2e in college, but really got back into gaming with 3e (actually 3.5e). Right now I'm oscillating between 3.5e (and variants) and Basic/Labyrinth Lord. Really it just depends on what type of campaign I want.

The main reasons I didn't get on the 4e wagon were mostly practical and aesthetic, rather than mechanical. I simply didn't like its presentation at the time it came out, and didn't know anyone interested in playing it. I'll soon be taking another look with the Essentials 4e stuff, though, as that seems to more closely align with my D&D sensibilities.

In the end, though, I don't actually care why anyone likes or dislikes my particular edition(s) of choice. The only important thing to me is finding good people to play with when I can, and playing whatever game we all enjoy.

 

[Azgulor]

What do you think?

Doesn't match the experience of myself or my players.

Started with Red Book Basic rules & Blue Book Expert rules. Moved to AD&D 1e and played well into 2e. Eventually abandoned D&D during the 2e days & came back to D&D around the time 3.5 was released.

4e doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

 

[pawsplay]

What do you think?

Nope.

I started with Basic D&D, played a bit of AD&D 1e and 2e, and stopped playing D&D as a game of choice, before returning to 3e. 3e was simply a much better game, which fixed many of the aggravations I had with D&D, although by no means perfect.

I don't dislike 4e because it's "gamist," whatever poorly conceived construct that is supposed to be, but because I don't like the design. I sincerely considered getting Gamma World, just for a lark, but I stared at the art on it and as I contemplated the photographed references to shifting and dailies and all those little symbols, I could feel my interest waning, much as one might feel one's consciousness growing faint right before taking an unexpected nap. It has nothing to do with what 4e might be in relation to 3e... I play a large number of games, without any tremendous loyalty. But I enjoy 3e, and only a handful of things about 4e are appealing.

I like Fantasy Craft, which also departs from many 3e memes and is also very focused on simple monster design, clean mechanical effects and abilities, and clean scaling of PC abilities across all levels, all design goals of 4e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm a player dating back to 1977, and I've come to a slightly more generalized view: the dislike stems from legacy issues, regardless of your preferred prior edition. By that I mean that I can objectively look at 4Ed and see it's a well designed RPG, but the way it does things jars with the way things should be done for a game called "D&D."

Yes, it's sort of a genericized version of the dreaded "It's not D&D to me" argument.

Simply put, had it been advertised as "A next generation RPG from the makers of D&D," it would have been free of legacy issues, and could have developed it's own mythology. It would have more space in which to grow, unimpeded by preconceived notions about what it should or shouldn't be.

Clearly, those legacy issues matter more to some than others. Just as clearly, opinions differ on whether the new or old mechanics model certain aspects of the game better than others. Some just think the benefits of unified mechanics outweigh whatever other negative issues that may arise.

 

[billd91]

I think you're wrong. I don't think you can necessarily tie it to which version someone started with. Either 4e works for you or it doesn't. But if I were to do some armchair sociology, I'd be inclined to put my hypothesis in the other direction

In my case, for example, I started with the Holmes Basic set in 1981 and moved to AD&D shortly thereafter. I've played through 2e and made the transition to 3e with some skepticism. I was, however, won over by the changes in the game and the respect the designers had for the game's roots, even as some mechanics were changing.

4e, by comparison, I approached with some optimism only to be really disappointed by the substantial changes in design and philosophy in those designs. Many of the roots, respected by the 3e team, were deliberately left behind as I see it. Turns out, I don't even like most of the gamist changes to the mechanics.

You may think the game changed more radically between 2e and 3e, but I don't agree on any level with that. 4e's the most substantially different animal in that family.

EDIT: Allow me to add a caveat - I don't much like the mechanical changes - for D&D. I'd be more accepting of them in a different game like, say, one for Asian martial arts cinema.

 

[Corathon]

I am one of the folks who started with AD&D and prefers it to either 3E or 4E. I don't hate 3E or 4E, but I have no desire to play either. Since that is indifference rather than hate, I guess this goes along with the hypothesis in the OP.

OTOH, I did buy 3E stuff to "steal" things (e.g. monsters, spells, magic items) for my 1E camapaign. I don't do that with 4E, as the game seems too alien for it to be worth the effort.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO, Dausuul's post, above, is correct to a very high degree.

I would add only, "de-emphasis on exploration; increased emphasis on combat" combined with "combats that take far too long (and thus individually bear a disproportionate amount of the weight in terms of a satisfying game session)".


RC


EDIT: I started with Holmes Basic, Christmas 1979.

 

[radmod]

I started in '76 with whatever edition that was (Basic?). I loved the changes from 2e to 3e simply because some of them were rules that I had already instituted, would wanted to have instituted, or fit with my own variations of 2e. 4e is radically different.

One thing I'm not hearing here to a loud degree (which surprises me) is that many old school (2e and later) players simply don't want to play 4e because it's now a "kid's game." That's actually the first thing people say when I ask them in person.

 

[Tuft]

What do you think?

Nope, does not apply to me either.

I first came into contact with AD&D 1st ed for four glorious hours, and got to borrow the DMG and MM overnight, dreaming about meeting the wonderful magical beings therein. Then it was four long years of seeking and false starts until I got to play the game again.

1st ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D heavily house-ruled to support lots of percentile runequest-like non-combat skills, Shadowrun 1st, 2nd, 3rd ed, Earthdawn, Feng Shuei derivates, Space 1899, AD&D 3rd and 3.5 ed.

And yes, I tried 4th Ed weekly for one year, levels 1-25... and am one of those that seriously dislike the system.

Well, I pretty much got told by WOTC that 4ED wasn't for me. I'm one of those who like "traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people", to use the infamous James Wyatt quote.

I love non-combat magic, and the non-combat part of solutions. People might fight in the other part of the room, but give me a simultaneous non-combat task, and I am happy. Let it involve magic, and/or NPC interaction, and I am doubly happy. I managed that even when we played in an "Aliens"-inspired military campaign (thank god you could steal from Bishop).

The 4ED rulebooks were the first rulebooks since I discovered this that I could go through without finding something I truly liked and *wanted* - and my regular DM likes collecting old and odd systems from bargain bins at various cons, and usually lets me leaf through those

I miss non-combat magic (face it, 4 ED rituals are a serious non-hitter; by the time we reached lvl 25 in the 4E campaign I think I had collected over 50 rituals, and still hardly ever got to use them) and I miss non-combat monsters. My first love was the original 1st ED MM way back, and then not the monsters you could defeat, but those that you could *meet*.

 

[Reigan]

When you design a game based on the question "why have you stopped playing our game?" the people still playing it may not like the result.

WotC did the same thing with essentials, redesigning the game for people who were not playing it and upsetting a good proportion of gamers who are.