D&D 3E/3.5 4E Ruined My Love For 3.5

[Infiniti2000]

I've been doing this since the days of AD&D 1st edition and I currently do it now for my 3.x games. Why does one have to switch to a new system to do so?

You stopped quoting too early. Your answer lies in the next sentence. And, if it's not clear, let me point it out: you are essentially making a new system by doing so (in 3.X or AD&D 1e), but in 4e it's explicitly built in.

 

[AtomicPope]

I played 4E at the D&D Exp. It was a paradigm shift, but after a couple of games it made sense. I left only partially impressed.

Went to GAMA, played in a 3.5 game. Spent the entire game wishing it was as fun and easy as I remembered 4E to be.

Is this just me, or has anyone else discovered that, after playing 4E (and letting it sink in a bit) you become a convert? I wasn't convinced initially, but after my 3.5 experience, I'm left counting the days ...

I was sick of 3.5 after playing Star Wars Saga.

I'll never play D20 Modern again. It's lame compared to Saga. Right now I'm just marking time until 4E. I even went so far as to tell my 3.5 group that if I can get a 4e game on the same night I'll switch over (they're reluctant to switch). That changed their minds

 

[AtomicPope]

In all likelyhood, they were playing 3.5 because their buddies were, and were on the boards for the same reasons as everyone else- to gain tips.

Look at it this way: I hate GURPS. I really hate GURPS.

But for 4 years, I played a lot of it because the game group I was in played a lot fo GURPS. We played other games as well- RIFTS, HERO, D&D, Mekton, Mechwarrior, a playtest of ACE...but GURPS probably accounted for 25% of all of the campaigns run in that group, more than any other game except maybe D&D.

And despite my dislike of the game, I played it anyway because I liked the gamers (well, most of them, anyway). Had there been a site like this for GURPS (and I had had a working modem) back then, I would have been on it trying to get tips from other GURPS players.

Now, I still buy GURPS supplements- they're among the best out there- but if asked to play a GURPS game, I'd have to ask who else would be participating- if the group wasn't cool, I wouldn't play.

I agree. I played GURPS and didn't really like it. I felt Champions (HEROES) is better (The game that GURPS is based off of.) But I still played GURPS.



I only play 3.5 because it allows me to hang out with a group of friends once a week. I stopped playing DnD and picked up the new World of Darkness.


I play 3.5 but I don't like it. I play WoD and Star Wars Saga and I really like them.

 

[Surgoshan]

I will wait until I get the books before I make an assessment about 4E. But from my point of view, they feel like two very different games...the claim that 4E is killing one's love for 3.5 is like saying Clue killed one's love for Monopoly. (shrug) Which happens, I suppose.

Well, Clue is a lot of fun whereas Monopoly is boring and quickly gets bogged down by its mechanics. The analogy works.

 

[Gothmog]

Well, I really wasn't talking about the WotC boards; you're right in that I have no experience with them. I was referring mostly to ENWorld.

In any case, I just find it hard to believe that so many people would "hate" D&D v3.5 and yet still play it and that it would remain the most popular RPG in the world.

Doesn't make much sense to me....

Hey Wolf, I remember we used to talk about some stuff like this years ago, but for me what finally broke my enjoyment of 3.x was how frontloaded the rules and the rules assumptions were to playing the game. When 3.x came out, I loved it- the options were new and shiny, and it was so different than anything else out there. With time (about 2 years) the shiny faded, and I quit seeing 3.x through beer goggles and instead witnessed its full hideousness. 3.x didn't allow me to run the kind of games I wanted to, and in order to try to shove the square 3.x peg into the hole, I had to shave off and radically modify the rules to accomodate my group's gaming style. Thats a metric buttload of work, especially when there are other systems that do fit my style better with MUCH less work.

However, getting people to switch from D20 or 3.x games can be like pulling teeth, especially if they have become accustomed to the degree of customization and power creep inherent to the systems. I've met lots of people who I'd call D20 Nazis- people who refuse to play any game that isn't in some way D20-based. So we kept playing some D20/3.x games and I posted here for advice/ideas, and because ENWorld is one of the most friendly and civil communities on the net.

With time, I got my group to try Savage Worlds and WHFRP2, and after a couple sessions so they could get the feel of them, we universally decided to stick with them. Yes, both of those systems play faster and looser with the rules, and leave more to DM fiat, but that works for us- it frees up the constraints we felt under D20 games. Now, I mostly try to post positive things about SW, WHFRP2, and Dark Heresy, and stay out of the D20 threads as a detractor, simply because hating on/criticizing something is rarely constructive. D20/3.x is a perfectly suitable system for some people, but for us is was a nightmare. 4E looks to be returning to the general feel of the 1e/2e era, where everything doesn't have to be codified, and the rules and rules assumptions are not the focus on the game. This is a big plus for me, so I'm cautiously optomistic about 4E.

 

[ThirdWizard]

i dont think you will feel the same in 8 years. in 4E they focused on the underlying math, and made a deliberate effort to fix it.

there will be synergies, sure. but i think they have minimized the number of times a DM has to just houserule veto things.

the more options the player has, the more abusable the system is. just like in oblivion. if 4E limits options, i think that can be positive.

I think what is expected from an RPG changes with time, and as the pendulum swings one way, it inevitably swings back. Eventually what we want becomes what we need to get away from, and, for a time, what we once loved is old and useless. Only to be dusted off and smiled upon later. I also think that's normal and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[pukunui]

Hey Wolf, I remember we used to talk about some stuff like this years ago, but for me what finally broke my enjoyment of 3.x was how frontloaded the rules and the rules assumptions were to playing the game. When 3.x came out, I loved it- the options were new and shiny, and it was so different than anything else out there. With time (about 2 years) the shiny faded, and I quit seeing 3.x through beer goggles and instead witnessed its full hideousness. 3.x didn't allow me to run the kind of games I wanted to, and in order to try to shove the square 3.x peg into the hole, I had to shave off and radically modify the rules to accomodate my group's gaming style. Thats a metric buttload of work, especially when there are other systems that do fit my style better with MUCH less work.

This.


I had an epiphany while talking about art in a different thread (on the WotC boards, in fact). I realized that 3.5's art is a fairly good reflection of the rules themselves. Most of the art is stripped down with abstract backgrounds or no backgrounds at all. Much of the art is quite drab as well (people seem to favor browns and blacks and other dull colors). It do a good job of illustrating the text, but the vast majority of it does a very, very poor job of evoking any sense of wonder or mystery. I think the number of pieces of 3.5 art that I've found to actually inspire me can be counted on one hand ... and that's sad.

I'm sooo glad that WotC has noticed this and has taken steps to rectify it with 4e art. I think in a few instances they've gone too far in the opposite direction ... practically every weapon glows with a computer-gamey aura. In fact, some of the art is just too plainly computer-generated for my tastes. But I'm very happy to see the return of contextual art with landscapes and detailed backgrounds. I find this sort of art to be much more evocative and inspiring than the clearcut images with no backgrounds and little vignettes with abstract backgrounds that are so prevalent in 3.5 books.

 

[Greg K]

I was sick of 3.5 after playing Star Wars Saga.

I'll never play D20 Modern again. It's lame compared to Saga. Right now I'm just marking time until 4E. I even went so far as to tell my 3.5 group that if I can get a 4e game on the same night I'll switch over (they're reluctant to switch). That changed their minds

Myself, I'll never play Star Wars Saga (despite SW:SE's good points, I don't like the skill system, the combining of skills or per encounter abilities) and I'll only play 3.5 using several third party products (including Elements of Magic: Revised to replace arcane magic and the Book of Iron Might for combat maneuvers).

As for d20Modern, I'll play it with just a few minor tweaks (including a damage track)- unless fx are involved. If fx are involved, I'll play if Elements of Magic:ME (EN Publishing) for magic and the Psychic's Handbook (Green Roinin) is used for psychics. Oh, and regardless of fx being used or not, if martial arts are involved, Blood and Fists is mandatory.

 

[Capn_Danger]

I was sick of 3.5 after playing Star Wars Saga.

I'll never play D20 Modern again. It's lame compared to Saga. Right now I'm just marking time until 4E. I even went so far as to tell my 3.5 group that if I can get a 4e game on the same night I'll switch over (they're reluctant to switch). That changed their minds

I've been running 3.5 Eberron for two years now, and just picked up Saga because my campaign is almost finished and I want to try some sci-fi.

After reading the Saga corebook and reading about 4th ed changes, I must say I'm SO ASTOUDINGLY GLAD that we only have two or three more sessions with my 3.5 game. I'm just tired of rules complexity and excessive rolling bogging down the story or cinematic action (I once made an epic-level thri-kreen ranger with something like 11 attacks per round. I never played him for fear of stopping the game on my turn every round).

I've been dreaming about a system that is fluid, simple, open-ended and meant to facilitate storytelling, not tabletop wargaming with a story element on the side. You need structure in a system to help you decide what happens in a fair and consistent manner, but not too much structure that you get bogged down with the details. Thats a pretty thin line, and my hat goes off to anyone who can get the balance right.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I first learned that 4e was coming out when I was at this past Gencon. I had just bought a $100 first run printing of Castle Whiterock and was ready to run my bog standard dungeon campaign.

I was initially somewhat disappointed, and the displeasure in the 4e announcement room was palpable IMO. But after seeing their presentation, the new edition started to grow on me. I went to a few Gencon seminars about it, and by the time I left I was still slightly on the skeptical side but I was definitely on a "fanboy" trajectory.

I played through the upper levels of Whiterock before the gaming groups I was in all disbanded. After this happened, I lost all interest in 3e as the preview material started coming in. What I really liked were the changes to the fluff - it seemed to me then (as it does now) that they were changing the game to match how I first imagined D&D, particularly that sense of adventure. After having played through a few demos, I can't go back to 3.x - it just seems clunky and out of date, both on a mechanics level and a fluff level.