For real this time: What is your stance on 4e

[Rumspringa]

I chose option A: "love" 4e and will not go back to 3.x, but it's rather an overstatement.

I think 4e is better than 3e, I hope to play more of it, but I would play 3.x (and 2.x, 1.0, BECMI, etc.) again if someone had an interesting idea/campaign ready to go.

I sort of agree. I stopped lurking to vote on the poll. I was so so about 3x and eventually stopped playing, going back to reworked versions of OD&D.

But after the release of Star Wars SAGA and now 4e, I like what WOTC has done. Its different and not perfect( I detest the online component's pricing) but I like the game for now.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Not too bad but a better poll would've been "Are you a 4oron or a 3etard?" With only those two choices.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not too bad but a better poll would've been "Are you a 4oron or a 3etard?" And those are the only two choices.

For once I agree with you. 4oron here.

Regarding this poll, I most explicitly do not "love" 4E, but I do like it more than 3E and intend to run it, so I picked option one.

 

[lutecius]

I chose option A: "love" 4e and will not go back to 3.x, but it's rather an overstatement.

I think 4e is better than 3e, I hope to play more of it, but I would play 3.x (and 2.x, 1.0, BECMI, etc.) again if someone had an interesting idea/campaign ready to go.

no no no. you have to love every single bit of 4e (though you can't possibly hate it). And whether you actually played it is only relevant if you don't like it.

I have the books, will learn the system but will not likely play or run 4E. There are vast improvements over 3E, [Reach, spells, Mega-damage builds, AC issues, ranges beyond 200' ]but other parts scream "Dumb action movie" and "more board game than role playing game" to me.

Same here. 3e certainly needed a makeover and i'm a bit jaded about it so i don't think i will play it anymore. But my first shot at 4e confirmed my doubts.
It's a wasted opportunity. Could have been great with a little effort but ended up being erm... not my thing.
Glad i didn't buy it.

 

[EricNoah]

I got a chance to play a 4E game, and it was fine. And I will play again if given the chance. But it was not so good I would be willing to switch as DM at this point. I'm havng fun with 3.x, no one in my group wants to change, I have tons of material, I have electronic tools to help me prep. I'm set for now.

I might look at 4e as a source of some possibile house rules for some things that do look better (as opposed to merely different).

At some point, if a 3rd party publisher comes up with a product that a) focuses on the heroic tier (I'm not really interested in the higher end of the scale regardless of game or edition), b) shows me how I can remove certain 4E elements that I don't want to deal with (marking, bloody, low-level teleports, non-magical rapid healing) and how that affects other parts of the game, I could see myself being quite interested in that. From what I have seen, 4E is a pretty intricately balanced/interlocked set of rules. If I remove "bloodied" or marking, I could see it trickling down to other areas of the rules (what is a fair replacement if I take away marking powers from classes, what changes do I need to make to monsters, are there feats that should be removed or changed to accommodate that, etc.).

I also wouldn't mind seeing 3rd party rules for levels -1 and 0 (i.e. what happens or what is possible with PCs one or two levels less powerful than 4E's 1st level characters).

 

[jdrakeh]

Too bad I only own one copy and they are getting hard to find nowadays.

Its available as a PDF which, despite low marks for a bad scan at RPGNow, prints legibly in color (it's also legible in black and white, but slightly less so due to the yellowing of the pages in the scanned copy).

 

[xechnao]

I got a chance to play a 4E game, and it was fine. And I will play again if given the chance. But it was not so good I would be willing to switch as DM at this point. I'm havng fun with 3.x, no one in my group wants to change, I have tons of material, I have electronic tools to help me prep. I'm set for now.

I might look at 4e as a source of some possibile house rules for some things that do look better (as opposed to merely different).

At some point, if a 3rd party publisher comes up with a product that a) focuses on the heroic tier (I'm not really interested in the higher end of the scale regardless of game or edition), b) shows me how I can remove certain 4E elements that I don't want to deal with (marking, bloody, low-level teleports, non-magical rapid healing) and how that affects other parts of the game, I could see myself being quite interested in that. From what I have seen, 4E is a pretty intricately balanced/interlocked set of rules. If I remove "bloodied" or marking, I could see it trickling down to other areas of the rules (what is a fair replacement if I take away marking powers from classes, what changes do I need to make to monsters, are there feats that should be removed or changed to accommodate that, etc.).

I also wouldn't mind seeing 3rd party rules for levels -1 and 0 (i.e. what happens or what is possible with PCs one or two levels less powerful than 4E's 1st level characters).

What you are describing here would be my ideal version of the D20 rules for D&D. I am not a D20 fan but this would be D20 best manifestation at its core.

 

[Pinotage]

I've briefly played 4e. It was OK. Fine game, but wouldn't make me give up any of me current 3.5e games. Right now, I'm more than content with those, and see no reason to switch to a very different system. I don't currently intend to buy the books, but when more material comes out, I might give it another look in a year or so.

Pinotage

 

[Aus_Snow]

Its available as a PDF which, despite low marks for a bad scan at RPGNow, prints legibly in color (its also legible in black and white, but slightly less so due to the yellowing of the pages in the scanned copy).

This is true, but also, I see copies turn up on eBay and elsewhere all the time. Not so pricey either.

Not like the OD&D stuff that went through eBaY Australia recently. Yikes! $61 (AUD) for the three booklets, and $10-$20 (AUD) for each of the supplments.

RC goes for considerably less, every time I've seen it.

 

[baradtgnome]

I chose - I like 4e but still love 3.x more, but I have not played 4e or own the books. That does not exactly describe our situation, but it was the closest.

I have heard some interesting things, and will likely 'borrow' some ideas that improve game play as house rules, but so far it has not been enough for me to part with my $ to fully evaluate. (money that I CAN afford)

There is tremendous inertia for 4E to overcome.
We have a long running campaign that won't be over any time soon
We are largely satisfied with the playability of 3.5E with some house rules
1/2 our players are adverse to learning new rules & buying new books
There would be a significant flavor difference in the campaign world. That world started in AD&D and moved into 3/3.5 without much disruption. I don't see that as the same without significant work by the DM (me) to make adjustments to switch to 4E. I am not leaving >25 years of world building behind.

At this point, though it seems interesting to me and quite likely to be an improvement over our existing rule set for playability, it does not present a compelling argument when weighed in the balance.