NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5357074" data-attributes="member: 48965">Hey, first let me say I am sorry for my part in taking this thread off track... That back and forth definitely was unnecessary and shouldn't have persisted for so long. So I apoogize to everyone enjoying this thread... The above, IMO, is a pretty good observation, my players noticed the difference between how 4e felt in play and how our other games felt in play almost from the beginning...and I do think it's not only that grid-centric nature but also it's increased focus on group tactics that had alot to do with this new feeling. The jarring thing was that we had never had this problem before with D&D. Now before I get into the problems I had with the grid/tactical nature of 4e I want to comment on somethig else I had issues with as far as core 4e when first released goes.   I think a really big aspect of the way 4e felt different was in how the original corebooks were constructed, in all honesty they just didn't fire my imagination or inspire me to want to play different characters and run games in the way older editions did... I think this also resulted in me being much less familiar and thus much less comfortable in running 4e as I was never able to power through reading it, and gain a complete understanding of the rules... the weird thing is I'm not having this problem with essentials, even the RC seems more readable and inspiring... though to be honest I think the true test of this for me will be the Monster Vault and whether it inspires me as far as adventure material goes like previous D&D monster books have always done. That said I think the grid/tactical nature of 4e also caused my group and I to look at the gameplay experience differently. My players slowly transitioned from making characters inspired wholly on what they imagined would be cool (and who were not tactically sound in a group way)... to a point where trying to make characters whose powers and feats were tactically sound and meshed well with the group was more important than the "character" they had imagined in their head. And I guess as much as I didn't care for it I understood this shift as group tactics and survivability really are much more focused on teamwork in 4e (and honestly no one wants to be that guy who caused someone else's character to die.). However this definitely created a game that became more focused, along with my players, on combat, tactics, power selection, etc. to, IMO, the detriment of the other aspects of the game. For me as a DM... I started creating my "encounters" in the way I saw that WotC's modules and books set them up... as static, tactical pieces, with monsters already situated and a prescribed "start" area for PC's... and where interesting terrain and cool monster powers became more important than the actual reasons and consequences (storywise) of the combat. after awhile this started to feel stiff, non-malleable and unsatisfying for me insofar as what had always enthused me about runing games.  That added with my lack of rules mastery with 4e caused me to grow less and less enthused with 4e.  Now I know this isnt the fault of the game but it definitely was a paradigm shift that I experienced when trying to play 4e.</blockquote>

Verification