Farewell to thee D&D

[Charwoman Gene]

Immersion feeds a lot from these small, and apparently insignificant, consistencies that a DM has to present his players with.

I find immersion in this manner to be a hopeless cause. The rules will always find some proud nail that will poke at the "world physics" This will break any detail based immersion. I prefer to simply accept the handwaving at the high level, make one SoD and get on with the show.

 

[BronzeDragon]

I find immersion in this manner to be a hopeless cause. The rules will always find some proud nail that will poke at the "world physics" This will break any detail based immersion. I prefer to simply accept the handwaving at the high level, make one SoD and get on with the show.

In a way I do agree with you. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I moved to a very low-magic system (Conan).

I always found magic to be one thing that was hard to mesh with a consistent world. Especially stuff like raising the dead or divinations and teleporting.

 

[Hussar]

*shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.

Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.

/whoops, never post before seeing the red text.

I really do have to wonder though, what is the point of posting a lengthy list of complaints if you have already made up your mind?

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Pathfinder is like her twin sister who moves in and might seem to act nicer in quantifiable ways, she doesn't remember how you liek your eggs and its freaking creepy she's replacing her twin sister and wearing all her clothes and assuming her identity.

Maybe, but if she knows all her sister's moves and even tosses in some new tricks to sauce things up a bit I don't need her to know how I like my eggs....that's what houserules are for.


Wyrmshadows

 

[WayneLigon]

D&D may be a harlot, but she still knows how to attract young men

A friend of mine has a teenaged son almost ready for college. While D&D/d20/3E was not his parent's cup of tea, he and his friends preferred it. They played the heck out of 3E. They are right now on the cusp of going away to college - they are the target demographic for D&D; if you will, they're the 'important ones', the always-connected generation that WoTC has probably set it's hopes on.

They were skeptical of 4E. Then they tried it. I got this from her the other day:

Anyway... they were all skeptical "What no Druid?", "Wait a minute, I'm a first level wizard with 23 hit points and I have two spells to cast as many times as I want in a day? That's weird."

Time passed. Eyebrows raised... "Oh really! These Warlocks ROCK!"

When they left two of them had a standing order for a 2-day mailing core set from Amazon, a third is probably going to get one as well, but he has to check finances.

They are changing over everything they are playing to 4E.

 

[Celtavian]

/whoops, never post before seeing the red text.

I really do have to wonder though, what is the point of posting a lengthy list of complaints if you have already made up your mind?

Mostly to get it out of my system. That's why I stated it didn't seem worthwhile to argue it. It was a very personal view of the system that I know wasn't going to be acknowledged as valid by those who like 4E, and I knew wasn't going to change for me were it argued. Those complaints are things I personally don't like because the mechanics take me out of the game.

Same as the complication of 3E mechanics took alot of people out of the game or turned them off to 3E. You can't make someone like something they just don't like.

I felt like it would be unfair to say "I hate 4E" and give no reason. I wanted to make sure those who questioned why I didn't like 4E had very specific reasons why I did not like the game. Last time I posted my dislike of 4E, I had not played the game and did not feel qualified to question it.

Now I have played 4E. I do not like it and I know exactly why I do not like it and can support my reasons better than when I was just a player reading about 4E. Some of my earlier criticisms were correct and some were not, but other critcisms I did not even know would bother me raised their head like minions and encounter powers. So I wanted to ensure that those who had told me to give 4E a try and thought it was great know that this time when I say "I do not like it, the reasons are manifold and come from experience both as a DM and player.

I played two times a week including one very long weekend session since 4E hit the shelves. I ran one campaign to see if I liked DMing and played in the other. Both times I burned out on the game and grew weary of it for many of the reasons I stated and a few more beyond.

I would have found a post stating "I hate 4E" without cause easier to attack as I have often seen done. But a post that is clear and concise as to the reasons and coming from a position of experience with the system easier to accept as it is an opinion of the mechanics rather than an attempt to paint 4E as bad for everyone. I understand different strokes for different folks. So I would have preferred just commiserate with those that find the game as dissatisfying as I do versus arguing with those that like 4E who won't see my complaints about it as valid.

 

[Celtavian]

It's funny, becuase it feels like criticizing 4e is all the rage here on ENWorld...I wonder how much of these perceptions stem from our individual tastes.

It pretty much is all indvidual tastes. That's why I don't think it is an arguable subject. It's just something that is. Some people will not like 4E and some will love it.

I didn't post this viewpoint to join the "I hate 4E fanclub". I did that argument a while back and decided to give the game a try after being convinced to do so by a few posters on here like Mustrum Ridicully. I thought the argument that I should give 4E a shot before I decided it wasn't any good a worthwhile argument. So I gave it a shot.

I thought I liked it at first. But the more I played it, the less I liked it. Since that didn't happen with 3E, I can only surmise that my personal tastes as far as games go don't jibe with 4E. 4E isn't an unplayable system or anything of the kind, it just isn't a system I want to play. So I agree with your assessment, it is all about individual tastes.

 

[Celtavian]

Celtavian, I appreciate your concerns about 4e on a theoretical level after having read the rules.

I strongly encourage you to play the game (a few times) before assuming that the game plays as you imagine it will play having read the rules.

While opinions of course vary, one comment that comes up with great frequency from first time players of 4e is that it plays better, and more fun, than they anticipated having purely read the rules. And there are things that, when combined with each other, end up working better than the individual parts seemed to work when reading them.

Put aside for a moment D&D itself. I am sure in your life that you have encountered things that you thought would work out one way based on your knowledge of the people and facts in question, but which actually turned out fairly different than you predicted. D&D 4e, for a lot of people, tends to work out like that.

Give the game a try a few times before concluding it's not for you. You may be pleasantly surprised.

If not, I wish you luck in finding a different gaming group that does better meet your tastes. I have heard a lot of good things about Pathfinder, for example.

The above opinion comes after both playing the game and running it. I already had the discussion about the theory of the game versus actual experience playing it. I chose to try 4E and have been playing it two, sometimes three times a week for fairly lengthy sessions. The above is what I experience and what I didn't like about the experience.

The breath weapon of small dragons is fairly insignificant. I don't see the breath weapons of larger dragons being anymore significant given the great amount of hit points creatures have. That is where that criticism comes from.

But I did play the game. I gave it a try. I wanted to give it a fair shot to sweep me up like I did with 3E when it was coming out. I didn't get swept up. Instead I was turned off by it. I'm kind of disappointed as I was hoping to like 4E as I've played every new edition of D&D since it has come out.

 

[Celtavian]

I've posted my thoughts on this issue here. I will refer to that post at future occasions, which I predict will happen with some regularity.

I don't disagree with your assertion about powers. I very much think they were written with the idea you stated in mind.

But I hope you don't mind me disagreeing that the drama rather loses it impact when people are blowing off their encounter powers not because it would be a dramatic point in the story, but rather because they can. That is what I experienced. Every single encounter, encounter powers are used whether or not they are needed.

You can say that is not as it should be. But as I said, I found with 4E as it should be is the farthest thing from a 4E players mind as they would rather use every power they can every time they can use it.

And though you seem to have accepted the theory of 4E (which I agree with), versus the actual use of encounter powers, which seems to be the farthest thing from dramatic I've ever seen in a game.

Encounter powers are used every encounter. As I said I have players blowing every encounter power whether it would be dramatic or not. Why? Because 4E encourages them to do so. It encourages the use of encounter powers every encounter. Not just when it would be dramatically interesting to do so, but every single encounter.

Encounter powers are like watching the same action sequence every five minutes. I don't quiet understand how that is good for dramatic tension. I tried to picture it in my head, but after the 10th or so time the fighter had used Serpent Strike or my rogue had used Torturous Strike, the dramatic tension left me.

Now I used to get that sense of drama you are talking about when a wizard had to go from occasionally blasting off a single spell to unloading whole arsenal and a few magic items to turn the tide of a battle. When a priest had to cast a heal spell to keep the fighter from getting crushed because they knew if he went down the whole party was going to fall like dominoes. Or when the fighter's damage shot up because he just landed an insane crit or cleaved down five enemies on one powerful swing of his sword. Now the the rogue had trouble with dramatic tension and needed some work. So I'll not try to comment the rogue.

But the other classes had moments of drama that were truly special. Not encounter powers that get used every encounter regardless of whether or not they are necessary, which for me kills the drama of the powers. Which is why my beef is specifically with encounter powers and not dailies or at wills. Dailies do provide a drama boost from my experience as they are used when things go bad and at wills are just a replacement for swinging the sword. But encounter powers, those are drama killers that get used every five minutes. I can't stomach encounter powers.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.

Actually, it does mean something to many of us. I never want to hear my surgeon say, "This'll be my second one!" I don't want my accountant saying, "Wow, I was a dentist for 20 years all this new math is exciting!" We live in a meritorious society but a great deal of merit comes from time served. Experience does mean something, even when you have none.