D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[Wycen]

The field of history is not a science.

 

[delericho]

I think what fascinates me about this topic is not whether one likes a game or not or what one's personal preferences are--as they say, there is no accounting for taste--but what makes one actually dislike a game, or have a negative charge against it.

What is it about 4E that pisses people off so much?

It's just such a wasted opportunity.

By the end of the 3e era, it was quite clear that there was room for improvement. DM prep took far too long and was too labour intensive. The game was too complex, with cascading modifiers that meant that a change to a character's stats (for example) could mean that large parts of the character sheet needed recalculated, and stacking rules that were a good idea in principle but which were annoyingly complex to handle in practice. And monsters were both loaded down with too many intricate powers (often trivial powers) and yet only lasted about 4 rounds (so never got to use them).

WotC had also published SWSE, which was an excellent game (albeit not without its flaws), and could have served as the basis for a truly excellent new edition.

So, we could have had an awesome new edition. Instead, we got 4e.

A lot of the existing complexity had been removed. Unfortunately, it was then immediately replaced with micromanagement of effects, recharges, saving throws, and the like. They'd replaced the up-front complexity of DM prep with even more in-game complexity.

Monsters now only had a few key powers, and many more hit points. So, they'd fixed both of the problems of the previous edition. Unfortunately, while either of these fixes alone would have been ideal, the effect of the two together was to have monsters run out of new and interesting things to do after 5ish rounds, but then have them hanging around for another 20ish rounds. In other words, combat grind was the result.

And they'd also wedded the game firmly to the battle-grid. Editions pre-3e could be run without minis just fine. 3e could be run without minis without losing much. 3.5e moved closer to the battlemat, but could still work without. But 4e, with it's focus on tactical positioning and many powers that move the user or his target... I simply can't imagine playing 4e without the grid.

Now, to their credit, there have been some large improvements with 4e. DM prep is now much easier than it was. The balance issues of the previous editions have been largely cleared up. And I think the Skill Challenge concept is simply genius.

But then, that might be the most damning thing of all: 4e is just good enough to leave me really dissatisfied with 3.5e, without itself actually being an improvement.

Such a wasted opportunity.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

4e owns, Pathfinder owns, both have flaws, I came in with 2e and fine editions pre-3.5 to be difficult to play unless lots of rules are either ignored or heavily houseruled.

Also I'm currently DMing a 4e game with new things added on (houserules) in a long and suitably awesome storyline (not just a one/two shot) with character that do far more roleplaying then they do dice rolling (woops there goes that). The setting is a living breathing world that the PCs have a real effect on, it's not Points of Light, and I allow pretty much anything in the CB. It's yet to become "gamist" in any way.

I am, it would seem, an impossibility.

My take is that 3e and 4e are both D&D, they're both fun games, they just scratch the itch in different ways. Haters gonna hate.

Also DMing anything before 4e is the biggest pain there is.

Also also, before ranting on how <edition> is gamist and nobody can roleplay it, pause.

Take a breather.

Ask yourself: "Are there people there who play 4e and roleplay in it both happily and successfully?"

Ask yourself: "Are they a) horrible liars, b) just messing with the entire world as an elaborate prank, or c) insane?"

If the answer to the first is yes and the answer to the second is no, guess what? Your initial rant is wrong. It is not simply "a bad opinion," it is factually incorrect. Now, "I have problems roleplaying in this edition" is perfectly acceptable. "I dislike how this edition works" is fine. But when there are literally people on this very message board that you claim don't exist, then your argument is lacking some weight.

 

[GreyLord]

In my personal experience...I have found TO A PERSON that the only ones that will not even give 4e a chance or even play it to try it out are those who started with 3e.

Older gamer at least will let you give it a whirl and see if they like it or not. 4e overall is a LOT like 3e...so those claiming it's not are full of it in my Opinion. You take away the powers of Melee classes...make skills like they were in 3e...and suddenly it's more similar to 3e/D20 than a LOT of the OGL games that came out based off of 3e. Some of the older games don't like it, either because they are big 3e fans and how it works already...OR they see 4e as being too much like 3e (many of the "sacred cows" killed by 3e are seen as killed by them in 4e...such as how AC works on an ascending system, skills as being core, feats as being core...etc.).

Others, who don't see it as an offshoot of 3e, actually seem to enjoy 4e. Most seem to prefer AD&D MORE still...but they like what they've seen of 4e.

In that light I would tend to agree with you. Of those that used to play in the old groups back in the 80s that stopped in the late 80s, 4e seems to appeal to them FAR more, and of course I've already described reactions above to other older gamers.

I find it odd how strongly the younger guys (well...younger to me...I suppose they are older then the REALLY new ones starting out) who started with 3e are opposed to it. Some of them seem to be on a crusade in our area.

Edit PS: Personally I don't see EITHER 3e or 4e as D&D...that sacred cow was killed by 3e...so there was no sacred cow to continue killing with 4e...it was already dead and buried. That doesn't mean they aren't fun systems however...just based off the D20 fantasy dynamic instead of the old Gygax D&D dynamic.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, 4e has a TON of old-school elements. Cows they brought to life after 3e killed them, if you will ;p

 

[prosfilaes]

Also also, before ranting on how <edition> is gamist and nobody can roleplay it, pause.

How about before making strawmen, pause?

 

[DumbPaladin]

Pretty much this, saying it as well or better than I could.

BTW, WTF is a "shardmind ardent"?

I'm guessing it's a miniature you can buy from Wizards of the Coast for $5.95 ...

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think that liking or disliking a game is a matter of taste. I think trying to lump the various tastes of a large number of individuals under one umbrella is both tossing out a lot of useful information for little gain, and asking for trouble in a social sense.

/Agree



(would have commented via xp but I need to spread the love first)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Is it just me or is something strange here? If my original hypothesis is incorrect, or at least with only a vague amount of truth, what are some alternatives? Again, I don't buy the "It is just a matter of personal preferences" line. The negative reaction to 4E is just too strong, too prevalent.

I remember some strong hate directed at 3e just a few years ago. I think it's just that the current in-print edition is the strongest emotion-magnet. Gamers who don't play it, even if they don't necessarily hate it, are more likely to talk trash about it.

It's like the top 40 music hit list. I can't count how many times in the past few months I've heard guys say "Ugh, Lady Gag again? Turn that trash off!" just like guys talked about the Spice Girls in the 90s. Nobody really expresses hate for the SGs now though, because they're out of plain view. Lady Gaga gets plenty of it though, just by virtue of being today's Big Thing.

 

[Chrono22]

Well, I'll just say, I would fit your hypothesis, except that I actually played a heavily, heavily houseruled version of 3.5 before pathfinder was released. It was practically a new game. My preferences lie closer to 4e's overriding design goals. I just didn't like their heavy handed approach and methods.
Anyway, one reason I really dislike 4e, is because of how god awful corny it is. As has been said upthread, D&D as a game is derivative. IME DnD up to 3.5 tried to hold itself up as being like the stories it imitated; it was like conan, the lord of the rings, arabian nights, the three musketeers, pirates of the caribean, etc... 4e DnD sold itself as... DnD. Everything from the artstyle to the presentation, just seemed very artificial to me. It just isn't inspiring for me, toplay in a game that is like a game that is based off of a story.

I'm also heavily biased against WotC as a company. It seems that I can't agree with any choices they have made for the last few years.