6 months later: impressions of 4e

[Greg K]

IME, here is a quick list of thematic comparsons of 3e vs 4e (and previous editions):

3e:
* Good for hack n' slash dungeon crawl D&D, bad for narrative or plot-focused games. [
* The magic item Xmas tree was assumed in the core rules, but if you wanted to run a magic light game, it was difficult to do
* The focus on the game was rules mastery and builds, not on gameplay

The above has not been my experience at all (except for the x-mas tree assumption. However, working around the x-mas tree, however, has been no more difficult than previous editions. Just shows different experiences.

* I'll get some disagreement on this last one probably, but 3e felt from level 7 or so on like a superheroes game.

I just disagree on the level. For me it starts around 11-13,. However, I felt that was the case with 1e and 2e as well. I have never liked DND above 10th level. Unfortunately, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, etc. disinterest me in playing those tiers so it is a wash.

4e and previous editions:
* Good for hack n' slash dungeon crawl D&D, AND good for narrative or plot-focused games

To my friends, 4e only feels good for hack n' slash dungeon crawls/ tactical minis and not good for a long term campaign. 3e, on the other hand, we find more appropriate for campaigns in a simulated setting (not that it is perfect). Different strokes and all of that.

 

[BryonD]

Gothmog,

Your post adds just another drop of reinforcement to my opinion that 4e appeals to people who were not able to get everything out of 3E that was there to be had.

 

[Mallus]

Your post adds just another drop of reinforcement to my opinion that 4e appeals to people who were not able to get everything out of 3E that was there to be had.

It's better to say that 4e appeals to people who used 3e and found that it wasn't the right tool for their job.

 

[Gothmog]

I just disagree on the level. For me it starts around 11-13,. However, I felt that was the case with 1e and 2e as well. I have never liked DND above 10th level. Unfortunately, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, etc. disinterest me in playing those tiers so it is a wash.

I agree, I never have been a fan of D&D above 10th level either, for the reasons we've both described. However, I've been pleasantly surprised by 4e's high level play so far. Granted, we did one-shots, but I'm looking forward to working characters up to that level to see if its still as fun as the one-shots were.

To my friends, 4e only feels good for hack n' slash dungeon crawls/ tactical minis and not good for a long term campaign. 3e, on the other hand, we find more appropriate for campaigns in a simulated setting (not that it is perfect). Different strokes and all of that.

I think this has more to do with previous gaming experience than the system as a whole. 3e had everything so codified and spelled-out, that it felt like it was more a computer game than a RPG. I guess I'm more of a "wing-it" DM who doesn't want to fiddle with stats or justifying things based on rules, so 4e's approach appeals to me more in that way.

When I started playing AD&D 1e, we used minis and I've been a big fan of them ever since. 4e's inclusion of minis doesn't bother me because we're already so used to gaming that way that we lose nothing, AND still have all the roleplaying we've always had. Thats the other thing- to me roleplaying has always been about character background and crafting a personality for a character in the context of the game world. Some folks really liked 3e's more mechanical approach to roleplaying (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc), but to me it was irrelevant and felt tacked on. When we played 3e (and even 4e now), we rarely, if ever, use those skills. When I do use them, I have the player say and act as his character would, and if a check is called for, we roll it, but it only modifies the reaction of the NPC to the roleplaying- it is not a determinant for how well the character does.

 

[Gothmog]

Gothmog,

Your post adds just another drop of reinforcement to my opinion that 4e appeals to people who were not able to get everything out of 3E that was there to be had.

Possibly- although I tried and tried for about five years to get 3e to fit my playstyle. We tried various 3PP books, Unearthead Arcana variants, and house rules, and never could get 3e to do what we wanted to. I even asked for help on these boards at various points with certain issues I had, and while the advice was appreciated, it never solved my problems with 3e. Part of it was mechanical and numerical in nature, and how power scaling worked in the game. Reworking that would have been a huge undertaking, and would have essentially involved me writing a new edition of the game. Rather than spend so much time monkeying with fixing rules that didn't suit my tastes or playstyle, I moved on to other games that did scratch the itch I had.

I really like 4e because it does scratch my gaming itch almost perfectly (barring some weirdness with healing surges, long-term injuries, and use of Powers). We've made a few tweaks to the 4e system regarding those three issues, and its working like a dream for us now. I know 4e isn't for everybody and isn't perfect, just like 3e isn't for everybody, and is far from perfect.

Did I get everything out of 3e that was possible? I think my groups and I made a huge effort and took a lot of advice and did a lot of research, but in the end, 3e came up lacking for us. 3e just doesn't do certain types of games well, and while there was a lot of high-quality 3e stuff and variants we tried (Midnight, Arcanis, Grim Tales, Conan, etc), none of it really addressed many of the core issues we had. For me and my groups, 4e was the evolution of the game we needed to start having fun with D&D again, because it did address nearly every problem we had.

 

[renevq]

stuff

I was going to write a very long post detailing my thoughts on 4e, but then I read this really good post which mostly reflected my own experiences. Kudos.

I'll just add a few observations:
* I love the way classes are balanced against one another. In my experience, in 3e fighters were good until about 5th level; casters were good from about that level on, well played caster at all levels. Also, in my view, non-casters followed a linear power curve, casters an exponential one. Put these two things together and you had a titanic power difference between classes which forced DMs to use wonky solutions to make players feel useful (i.e. anti-magic zones, et al) which made encounters unfun for some players. A solution appeared in the form of Bo9S (which I absolutely loved), but that just drew cries of power creep. Thankfully this is fixed.
* 3e can be used to make very cool plot-centric campaigns (I've played in more than a few), but you have to take into account that characters are going to go up in power very quickly. I tried to run a campaign where the characters stayed at the same power level vis a vis the campaign world (the world levels up with them) and it epically failed. I've found that the tier system coupled with the flattening of the power curve allows me as a DM to make a campaign the way I like it (If I want a heroic campaign, I make a heroic tier only game).
*The de-emphasis on system mastery. One thing I found in my group is that depending on the DM, the game was going to favor either optimizers or people who thought character weaknesses made for flavorful characters. If it favored optimizers, non-optimizers felt useless, and if it went the other way around, optimizers felt restrained (guilty). Now nobody in the group feels useless, and optimizers can concentrate on tactics and party optimization, which benefits everybody.
*Combat Powers let me add a mechanical effect to what I am imagining my character is doing, which encourages my combat narration.
* Dynamic terrain is a must. It adds to the gaming experience and lets some powers really shine in some situations and other powers in other situations. Not to say the same wasn't true in 3e, but it is moreso in 4e. Flat terrain is boring in both games.
*One of the greatest additions i've seen to combat enjoyment is minions. It adds a very cinematic element that has really shined in the games i've seen it in.
*I've had no problem as far as non-combat abilities are concerned, because it's always been my opinion that most of them should be relegated to roleplay and character background. If your background says you were a good baker before you started adventuring, you should be able to make good rolls without having to sacrifice skill points that should have gone to adventuring skills.
*I love the way skills have been streamlined, especially the 1/2 level to every skill. 12th level paladins (2+int skill points, Knowledge: The Planes not a class skill) who've been battling demons their entire careers should be able to know more about them than peasants who've never left the dirt farm without again sacrificing precious skill points to be able to do so.

Again, these are my observations so YMMV.

It's better to say that 4e appeals to people who used 3e and found that it wasn't the right tool for their job.

QFT.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I’d like to address this point:

I'll get some disagreement on this last one probably, but 3e felt from level 7 or so on like a superheroes game. PCs started in 1e, 2e, and 3e very fragile and mundane (which can be fun), but by level 3 they were heroes. In fact, many 3e groups I played with STARTED PCs at level 3 to avoid the "boring levels" (and this practice was also common among many posters on these boards). After level 7 or so, PCs became ridiculously powerful in comparison to other characters and monsters in the game world, much moreso than in previous editions.

Together with this:

4e starts heroic, and stays heroic throughout, but doesn't stray into the superheroes area from what I've seen. Starting 4e PCs are tougher and assumed to be special, but then again, monsters and NPCs are tougher as well. Rate of gain of PC power is more linear rather than exponential, and the underlying math of the system is superior and MUCH more stable throughout all levels. We've played 4e from 1st to 8th level now, as well as two short-term high level adventures (15-18th levels and 25-27th levels), and the game holds together very well and keeps a heroic tone the whole time (meaning the PCs are tough, but vulnerable with mistakes or bad tactics) without becoming bogged down and unplayable like 3e was for high-level play.

For starts, I believe that the playability (or lack of) of 3E at high levels is a problem with the players, not with the system. While I’m a good example of a DM who feels very uncomfortable running games for high-level characters, and have therefore chosen to end the majority of my games at about 10th level, I’ve seen various groups playing through the end levels of 3E (or even into epic level) without problem.

Some people are just fine with scry/buff/teleport, CoDzilla, or psions that are hell on wheels. I’m not comfortable with easy resurrection, for example, and 4E have made nothing to make it easier to me (in fact, it now seems even more absurd with the tier-based cost). I was comfortable, though, with rings of invisibility that allowed people to become invisible for longer than a round.

I’ve pointed that to explain what I believe is a strong advantage of 3E in face of the newer D&D: it’s able to accommodate more than one playing style in regards not only to the described GNS models, but also in regards to power level. If high levels were not playable to you, you didn’t have to play them. E6 is an example of an alternative I’ve learned from on enworld, but starting a fresh game is good as well.

On the other hand, 4E transformed all of the 30 levels of play in a giant walk from the 3rd level to the 9th. No options for those who like to play it deadly, 1st level-style; no options for those who love when the mighty wizard saves the day for the 3495th time.

As with anything about RPGs, what some people see as bugs, others see as features. For me, though, we’re always losing something when the system in unable to accommodate more than a single playing style, no matter how prevalent that style becomes over the others.

Cheers,

 

[Yair]

Well, my group has just decided, after trying 4e for months, to abandon it. So obviously we aren't pleased with it.

We like a lot of things about 4e. I think that, as someone else said above, 4e is D&D that finally got what it's all about and did it right. Hoiwever, we found the grind of combats boring, and the tactical-wargame aspect overwhelmed our game. We found that a lot of powers didn't make sense, and worse that the specific rules that must constantly be adhered to sucked the descriptions out of our play. We found that the roleplaying was in practice overshadowed and overwhelmed by long, ardous battles that took up hours. We found, having played from 1st to 9th level and with a brief foray to level 22, that increasing level was pointless, not really changing the game and increasing its difficulty. We found that knowing the powers and how to use them, especially at high levels, was difficult. As a DM, I found that the brief monster descriptions were too often confusing and unclear, and that I often forgot to apply this or that power. We found the rules too complex, getting in the way of play - you always look up the rule (power card description), or just wing the rules knowing that you're perhaps violating them (what's the DC for breaking down that door? Can you run when flying? ...)

4e was great in allowing dynamic, high-action combat, in exotic locales - but the combats were too slow, which neutered any excitement at them. The actions described were great, but in time become repetitive and the effects in-game didn't really match the pompous descriptions. It had good improvisation rules, too, but the players still felt confined to the hard framework provided by their powers and the combat grid. It was extremely balanced, but at the cost of versimilitude (you use your three daily item powers, and then when pull out another one... it doesn't work).

So my impression with 4e was ultimately a disappointment. Because I think this is in many ways the best edition of D&D, we have decided to move on to another game, one with less emphasis on tactical wargaming and more support for roleplaying.

And yes, I'm well aware all of my complaints can be handled with a few house rules and a change of style in DMing. I don't want to make the effort, I want to move on to greener pastures. I think we need a change of pace, more than anything else.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I’d like to address this point:


Together with this:


For starts, I believe that the playability (or lack of) of 3E at high levels is a problem with the players, not with the system.

I can change the system. I can't change the player.

Playability is what Usability is in the world of software and the web.
If a website lacks Usability for sight-impaired users, it is the website that lacks usability, and it as the website that requires an improvement for this users. (This is of course not always possible. A website for creating photo books will never be a good idea for blind people. ) If the web site is not changed, the sight-impaired user will look for a different web site.

If a game system lacks playability for some players, the playability of the system has to be improved for these users. Or you have to switch to a system that works better for you. But you can't expect the players to change themselves!

This both applies to 3E and 4E or any other game system.

But don't assume that because I compare to vision-impaired this means that some players are "incapable". Another example could be a software that has a complex menu structure but lacks shortcuts. Some users might never miss the shortcuts, but others will get annoyed and look for alternatives.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think D&D 3e had it right actually, and that is exactly why it had such a large following (and 4e seems to have split the fanbase so much). 3e gave us a game that may not have appealed as much to those who really wanted it's focus to be sharper and more narrow... but it more than made up for this in being much more capable in accommodating other play styles, add in the fact that it's the most common and well known of rpg's and you have a winner.

I'm not so sure that it really was a winner - sure, you could accommodate other play styles, but the further it diverged from its origins the messier it tended to become. In many cases, it would have been more effective to use another system in the first place.

A good example is playing races significantly different from and more powerful than the human norm. Sure, it was possible - but it didn't work well and tended to seriously nerf some character concepts (such as spellcasters). There are other games which are much more suited to this (like most points-based games).

Thus yes everyone had to tweak it to get exactly what they wanted... but everyone could find something within it that appealed to them and that they enjoyed and it was worth it because hey, everyone plays D&D.

Not always - there have been quite a lot of people who have gradually become frustrated with trying to tweak D&D to exactly the kind of play experience they want, and finally realized that D&D 3.X just didn't work well as a generic fantasy system.

D&D 4E doesn't pretend to be generic, and is quite up-front and honest about it, which I find refreshing.

4e has changed so that it no longer appeals to a certain portion of it's fanbase, it just isn't fun for them and it's so far away from what they want that many feel by the time they get it to that point it won't be worth it. I also feel like this is why many don't see 4e as any type of evolutionary step.

Others, on the other hand, seem to enjoy the "D&D experience", but became frustrated with the 3E rules and switched to other games. Many seem to be willing to give 4E another try.

Oh yeah, and D&D is still a generic fantasy roleplaying game... in fact with it's nebulous setting and breaking of most of D&D's tropes...I'd say it's more "generic" than it's been in awhile. The problem is that it's changed the playstyles that it supports well, not that it has or hasn't become generic.

D&D always was about a bunch of humanoid near-nobodies gradually becoming more experienced and more powerful as they slay monsters and treasures until they could kick the butts of demigods. Take away the geometric increase in power and the loot, and it doesn't really feel like D&D any more. Sure, the setting details may vary, but the playstyle is something fairly closely entwined with D&D.