4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[S'mon]

When you're reliant on London public transport and have a bad back, you learn to love those half size paperbacks.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I for once definitely hated Essentials when it was published. The previews and reactions to them and the books themselves led me to refuse to look at the books themselves for a long time (~ 2 years). In our group the original 4e was very well received and the fact that every class consisted of exactly the same building blocks (ADEU) was one of its biggest boons. One of players who'd never considered playing anything but a fighter in 1e to 3e suddenly discovered he loved playing a wizard!

Well, when the two classes are nearly the same, why not branch out into wizard.

I kid, of course.

I slowly got around on some of the Essentials books, e.g. the Monster Vault (despite the high amount of re-hashed material) but I still dislike the majority of the Essentials classes and the revised layout that mars every book released after.

With the math in MM1 being so far off the mark, I'd figure the rehashing was a good thing. It wasn't a MM4, it was a greatest hits for new players; which is exactly what MM1 should be in any edition.

But yeah, the little I did read of Essentials was not pleasant due to the small book and single-column text. A normal sized hardback, double column, would have worked better.

I mean what's the purpose of the double fluff for every power and feat? And did really anyone feel the new, repetitive presentation of classes with their integrated paragon paths was anything but more confusing and verbose than the original?

SOMETHING needed more verbage. It wasn't good fluff, but I think removing the the one-sentence and replacing it with a short bit of fluff was a good improvement. The fluff on some powers were more cute than useful, and felt like M:TG flavortext; fun to read but useless for understanding the ability being used.

Don't EVEN get me started on the lack of fluff in the Monster's Manuals though.

I also hated (and still hate) the half-size paperbook format - luckily that was only temporary.

God's yes. A Real Player's book (correct size, double column and having both HoFK and HoFL in it), a DM Kit (DMG, module, screen) and the Monster Vault (Monster Manual and Tokens) would have been optimal. Alas...

 

[pemerton]

Don't EVEN get me started on the lack of fluff in the Monster's Manuals

I don't recall whether you took part in this thread. I refer you to post #40, and then a series of post from around 80 or so onwards, in which a number of comparisons of various 4e monster entries to the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual rebut the claim that there is anything particularly sparse about 4e flavour text, and in fact show that for many monsters it is richer.

 

[Mordikenn]

4th Ed. was fun as a tactical miniatures game, but I expect my D&D to be more RP based and realistic.

 

[Siberys]

4th Ed. was fun as a tactical miniatures game, but I expect my D&D to be more RP based and realistic.

*sigh*. Welcome to the boards. Though honestly you seem to be about four years late to the party. :/

 

[Sunseeker]

4th Ed. was fun as a tactical miniatures game, but I expect my D&D to be more RP based and realistic.

A game cannot make you RP. It can encourage you, it can help you learn how, but it can't point a gun to your head and beat up your mom. If you have difficulties RPing, that's a table issue. And "realistic" is something very few aspects of any edition of D&D can ascribe to.

 

[Derren]

A game cannot make you RP. It can encourage you, it can help you learn how, but it can't point a gun to your head and beat up your mom. If you have difficulties RPing, that's a table issue. And "realistic" is something very few aspects of any edition of D&D can ascribe to.

A game can throw stones in your way when you try to RP though. And thats exactly what I think 4E did with its hard coded combat styles, PCs who are good at everything, huge difference between PCs and the rest of the world, "you don't need what you don't kill" world design and level scaling obstacles.

Also "the others also didn't do it that well" (imo still better than 4E) isn't a very good excuse.

 

[Sunseeker]

A game can throw stones in your way when you try to RP though. And thats exactly what I think 4E did with its hard coded combat styles, PCs who are good at everything, huge difference between PCs and the rest of the world, "you don't need what you don't kill" world design and level scaling obstacles.

I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic here. PCs aren't good at everything, the difference between PCs and the world is dependent on the world in question, and I have no idea what "you don't need what you don't kill" means.

Also "the others also didn't do it that well" (imo still better than 4E) isn't a very good excuse.

It's not an excuse. When you say "D&D should provide this thing!" you're either
A: expressing an opinion on something D&D should add.
B: Expressing an opinion on something D&D has done and should keep doing.

D&D has not done the realism thing. Soholding the expectation that D&D should do something it has traditionally not done is unrealistic.

 

[pemerton]

PCs who are good at everything

This doesn't make sense to me, for two reasons.

First, 4e PCs aren't good at everything. All are good at some things. Many are good at several things. None that I've seen or heard of are good at everything. (Maybe Arcana-check wizards come closest.)

Second, suppose that 4e PCs were good at everything - why would that inhibit roleplaying? Rick in Casablanca is, as far as I can tell, good at everything. And is a very compelling character. The X-Men are all good at everything, or nearly everything - and they are intereseting characters who sustain many many multi-protagonist stories. Why wouldn't a 4e group be the same?

huge difference between PCs and the rest of the world, "you don't need what you don't kill" world design and level scaling obstacles.

Didn't we already do level scaling in another recent thread? (Or this one, even.)

HeroQuest revised, Robin Laws' famous game of narrativist roleplaying - arguably the poster child for narrativist roleplaying - has scaling obstacles. Scaling obstacles don't get in the way of roleplaying - they facilitiate it, because they make the focus of play not operation and mechanical advantage (how can I get my bonus big enough to beat this DC?) but rather what am I going to do to overcome this challenge which I, as a player, know to be within the mathematical capabilities of my PC if only I'm prepared to do what it takes.

I don't object to your simulationist preferences, but I don't understand why you keep insisting that those who play non-simulationist games can't be roleplayigng. I honestly think it would help you to become a bit more familiar with some RPGs other than D&D, GURPS, HERO and their surrogates.

 

[Bluenose]

I don't object to your simulationist preferences, but I don't understand why you keep insisting that those who play non-simulationist games can't be roleplayigng. I honestly think it would help you to become a bit more familiar with some RPGs other than D&D, GURPS, HERO and their surrogates.

Including those two in a selection of "Simulationist" games makes me laugh (not that familiar with HERO, though I know it by reputation).

Actually, I could make an argument that with a GM who really understands the scenario, Heroquest would be as good for Simulation as any other game. It worked for Free Kreigspiel, after all. It would merely be a type of Simulation that focused on the outcome of actions rather than the process that outcome was arrived at.