For the Dragonsfoot crowd, on the great rollercoaster of D&D editions, 3.X went off the tracks at some point, and 4Ed didn't successfully land on another set of rails.
Yep!
D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
- Status
For the Dragonsfoot crowd, on the great rollercoaster of D&D editions, 3.X went off the tracks at some point, and 4Ed didn't successfully land on another set of rails.
Yep!
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Ya know, I've had this very thought more than once!
I'm actually gaming with a guy who fits your hypothesis; he started playing with 3e, and insists that 4e is dumbed down and whatnot. Ironically, he can't even remember when his beloved samurai can and can't swing both swords. And forget about casters, optimization and DMing; this guy is a total newbie. Amusingly, he's said that he'd like to try older editions--which I think I can talk one of the older players into DMing for us. I'm looking forward to his reaction after finding out that there're no samurai per se, or catgirls in the retro clones.
I certainly fit your hypothesis too; I started during 2e as a kid, and then a couple years later 3e came. I was really resistant to 3e, though in retrospect I don't know why. There were plenty of things that bugged me about 2e, and I didn't know anything about 3e. But finally I got the 3e core books, loved them, and never looked back to 2e. Conversely, when 4e was announced, all I thought was 'Hm, maybe they'll make the game even better!"
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
I've been playing since around '79, so I don't fit the hypothesis either. I also have a cousin and at least 3 members of my 2e group that would't fit either.
My dislike of 4e stems from long combats and the rules lawyering the system introduces (I'm definitely a fan of rules-lite systems).
For a while, some of the "sacred cow" changes really bothered me, but not so much anymore.
My dislike of 4e stems from long combats and the rules lawyering the system introduces (I'm definitely a fan of rules-lite systems).
For a while, some of the "sacred cow" changes really bothered me, but not so much anymore.
Like many others I began playing DnD with the old Basic & Expert sets, then moved on to 1e AD&D and eventually 2e AD&D. About midway through 2e AD&D's lifecycle I began to explore (numerous) other Fantasy RPGs and eventually came to realize that while I had enjoyed DnD/AD&D for many years, there were RPGs much more suited to my particular tastes and preferences for Fantasy gaming. Newer editions of DnD such as 3.X and 4e (and all their off-shoots such as Pathfinder, etc.) have moved even farther away from my personal preferences. Of all the various DnD clones I have looked at the only one that I would consider trying is FantasyCraft, but even that one isn't as well suited to my particular tastes as other games.
Jack Daniel
Legend
RE: Gamist Roots
There's this myth out there that D&D has "gamist roots". The narrative goes something like this:
Chainmail came first; it was a wargame. Then came 1e, which was a role-playing game that listed movement rates and spell areas in inches. Then came 2e, full of narrative pretensions and White Wolf envy. 3e put things back in the dungeon, and 3.5 put minis back on the tabletop -- but these rules were also simulationist, because the monsters had ability scores (gasp!). Now we have 4e, which foregrounds the game qua game and might as well be a minis skirmish game, but that's okay, because it all started with Chainmail.
But that's a bloody caricature, libelous in its lack of nuance. Even in the days of 0e and 1e, the story-telling, world-building, and play-acting components of the nascent RPG hobby were just as prominent as minis battles and so-called "funhouse" dungeons (which, for some reason, are looked back on as "gamist" because if the supposed illogic of "rooms full of monsters, traps, and treasure") -- if not moreso, since role-playing elements were the new thing, the very features which set D&D apart from wargames.
4e has not returned to some mythical point in the past history of the hobby when miniatures and "roll-playing" were all, and "role-playing" had yet to be invented. The role-playing was there early on. 4e is, simply put, the most unabashedly gamist incarnation of D&D ever. But that, in itself, is *not* where the dislike comes from. There's nothing *wrong* with 4e taken on its own. The probelm, as so many have already noted, is legacy. 4e is a good game, even a good RPG, but it's only passing-fair D&D.
When you line up all the sacred cows, fluffy and crunchy alike, and slaughter them wholesale, you're going to have unhappy customers who preferred live cows to hamburger. Some of us can't imagine a D&D that doesn't have hit dice, or wandering monsters, or the mage reaching 5th level and learning his first 3rd level spell. Never mind the fact that tiefling warlocks, shardmind ardents, and dragonborn warlords do not resonate archetypically with longtime players of D&D. 3e kept continuity with previous versions of the game: it had hit dice and spell levels and random encounter tables. 4e does not have these things: it has broken with the past in a very radical way -- too radical for those who profess an avowed dislike for it.
There's this myth out there that D&D has "gamist roots". The narrative goes something like this:
Chainmail came first; it was a wargame. Then came 1e, which was a role-playing game that listed movement rates and spell areas in inches. Then came 2e, full of narrative pretensions and White Wolf envy. 3e put things back in the dungeon, and 3.5 put minis back on the tabletop -- but these rules were also simulationist, because the monsters had ability scores (gasp!). Now we have 4e, which foregrounds the game qua game and might as well be a minis skirmish game, but that's okay, because it all started with Chainmail.
But that's a bloody caricature, libelous in its lack of nuance. Even in the days of 0e and 1e, the story-telling, world-building, and play-acting components of the nascent RPG hobby were just as prominent as minis battles and so-called "funhouse" dungeons (which, for some reason, are looked back on as "gamist" because if the supposed illogic of "rooms full of monsters, traps, and treasure") -- if not moreso, since role-playing elements were the new thing, the very features which set D&D apart from wargames.
4e has not returned to some mythical point in the past history of the hobby when miniatures and "roll-playing" were all, and "role-playing" had yet to be invented. The role-playing was there early on. 4e is, simply put, the most unabashedly gamist incarnation of D&D ever. But that, in itself, is *not* where the dislike comes from. There's nothing *wrong* with 4e taken on its own. The probelm, as so many have already noted, is legacy. 4e is a good game, even a good RPG, but it's only passing-fair D&D.
When you line up all the sacred cows, fluffy and crunchy alike, and slaughter them wholesale, you're going to have unhappy customers who preferred live cows to hamburger. Some of us can't imagine a D&D that doesn't have hit dice, or wandering monsters, or the mage reaching 5th level and learning his first 3rd level spell. Never mind the fact that tiefling warlocks, shardmind ardents, and dragonborn warlords do not resonate archetypically with longtime players of D&D. 3e kept continuity with previous versions of the game: it had hit dice and spell levels and random encounter tables. 4e does not have these things: it has broken with the past in a very radical way -- too radical for those who profess an avowed dislike for it.
BryonD
Hero
I loved 1E because, to me, the very idea of a fantasy RPG was amazing.
I did not know of any others at the time and didn't care because one was enough.
Then I found BETTER fantasy RPGs.
I love old school D&D for being groundbreaking. I'd happily play the occasional nostalgia one shot. But it isn't close to being my game of choice.
I certainly don't HATE 4E anymore than I HATE pokemon. I'm probably slightly more indifferent to pokemon than I am to 4E, but only in a trivial sense because the bottom line is the same amount of play and cash flow to both games.
So I pretty much fit the conclusion. But, honestly, it seems to be a coincidence that has nothing to do with the reasoning presented.
I did not know of any others at the time and didn't care because one was enough.
Then I found BETTER fantasy RPGs.
I love old school D&D for being groundbreaking. I'd happily play the occasional nostalgia one shot. But it isn't close to being my game of choice.
I certainly don't HATE 4E anymore than I HATE pokemon. I'm probably slightly more indifferent to pokemon than I am to 4E, but only in a trivial sense because the bottom line is the same amount of play and cash flow to both games.
So I pretty much fit the conclusion. But, honestly, it seems to be a coincidence that has nothing to do with the reasoning presented.
Ycore Rixle
First Post
I think Dausuul's post on p. 1 sums it up extremely well.
I don't fit the OP's hypothesis. I've been gaming since 1981. Started with AD&D/1e. And I dislike 4e. I can play it, I can enjoy it, and I can totally see how a lot of other people love the heck out of it. But I don't like the rules so much. It's still an RPG, and a bad RPG to me is like bad sex or bad pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good. But sheesh, this 4e... I've had better.
I don't fit the OP's hypothesis. I've been gaming since 1981. Started with AD&D/1e. And I dislike 4e. I can play it, I can enjoy it, and I can totally see how a lot of other people love the heck out of it. But I don't like the rules so much. It's still an RPG, and a bad RPG to me is like bad sex or bad pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good. But sheesh, this 4e... I've had better.
Hungry Like The Wolf
First Post
I hated 3E because of the glut of rules/books players argued to bring to the game. I loved the aesthetics, feel and design of 4E. It all felt very comic-book to me which was awesome. But the same problem kept coming up after a year, players began to argue over books.
I guess my opinion is a bit different but I basically fit your group of players who grew up with 3E.
I guess my opinion is a bit different but I basically fit your group of players who grew up with 3E.
This is where I fall as well, though I started with 2E in the early 90s. Gave it up in college, tried to get back in at 3E after college (false start, bar hopping and chasing women always won out), tried to get back in at 4E once I got married (played and realized it wasn't what I remembered), then went back to O/AD&D, which has hit the spot.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Staggeringly wrong. Congratulations of some sort are in order, methinks.
Hm. Well, shall I add you to the list of those who owe me a beer, in some country over [one of] the other side
And in response to S'mon's above post, I once saw it humorously(?) put, that 3e is TETSNBN, whereas 4e is TATSNBN (abomination, rather than edition, accordingly). Heh.
Last edited:
- Status
