How other games have helped you appreciate 4e

[Simon Atavax]

I was highly resistant to 4e at first, not for any solid reasons (hadn't read the PHB at all) but for three (relatively) minor gripes:

1. I initially thought the game was too high-powered. (CON score = starting HP + bonus????)

2. I initially hated the idea of "powers". (Bah! Just a supers game!)

3. I initially hated Dragonborn and Tieflings (Bah! Demon Men and Dragon Men!)

But then I started to read the PHB in depth, and a few things gelled, inspired largely by two games I have loved over the years: Gamma World (1978) 1st Edition and GURPS (3rd edition).

1. In Gamma World (1978; see my avatar) PCs start very high-powered. Their CON score is, in fact, starting HP, almost exactly like D&D 4e. Yet Back In The Day I never once felt that Gamma World was "too high powered." The reason? The monsters you face in GW are truly frightening. As I read through my 4e PHB I kept thinking, "Kind of like old-school Gamma World." Then, thinking as a DM, I thought, "If the PCs in this 4e game are 'too powerful', I'll just amp up the monsters. Just like back in the days of Gamma World."

2. In Gamma World (and, for that matter, Rifts), it was usually the case that you would play a "dragon man" or something of the sort (mutant animals especially). I stopped hating Dragonborn and Tieflings almost immediately as I harkened back to the Good Old Days of Gamma World 1e, where we routinely had mutant alligators, mutant rabbits, mutant wolves, and mutant nothing-in-particular-freaks as PCs. It was both heroic and old school.

3. As for my "powers" hatred, I soon realized, upon reading the PHB, that "Powers" is just a word. I realized that GURPS has done the same thing for years, just using the word "Skills." Perhaps that's why the PHB described Fighter powers as "Exploits" and Wizard powers as "Spells", etc. The GURPSyness of this approach really drew me in.

Anyway, I know that my reflections on Gamma World and GURPS aren't going to help anyone else embrace 4e, but I just thought I'd throw it out there as a personal mini-epiphany. It was funny to me that some of my objections to 4e were that it was "teh new shinny MMO!!1!one1!" when in fact it ended up rthat as I read through the PHB for 4e it more and more reminded me of the good times I've had with GURPS 3e, and the amazingly good times, tinged with nostalgia, that I had WAAAAY back in the late 70s/early 80's with (sob, sniff) Gamma World 1e.

Has anyone else found that something in other games has helped you appreciate what 4e is doing?

 

[Simon Atavax]

ooops.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno if it less appreciate and more understand right off the bat. But the Encounters and Dailies of 4e, reminded me a lot of Storytelling which talks about; Scenes, Chapters, etc. So the idea of viewing gaming like a narrative and story had already gelled in my mind.

In the same-vein, the Feywild and Eladrin automatically reminded me of Arcadia and Changelings from Changeling. So right off the bat it was something I adored (+ my already fascination with Fey).

 

[Treebore]

Actually my experience with other games has helped me appreciate that 4E is not the best game for me. It is not what I want, I don't enjoy it very much, and there are other systems I like much better. GURPS 4E being just one example.

however I do "see" your point. My experience with other games definitely helps me understand things better, a bit more insight, etc... Plus help me decide how good the game is in comparison to those other games.

Just in my case I rate 4E lower then several, rather than higher than all of them.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I can say how other games have helped me appreciate d20 more than I can specifically 4e. I think one of the things about d20 I liked the most was the skill system, which reminded me a lot of Shadowrun and the WEG d6 system (among many others).

I will say that Castles & Crusades has helped me to appreciate 4e. 4e uses a similar mechanic to the SIEGE engine, and I love it.

I will also say that prior editions of the D&D game (and Star Wars Saga Edition) make me appreciate 4e even more. Some of the things I missed from prior editions are back (love the save vs. death, for example).

3rd edition is probably what made me appreciate 4th edition the most. 4th edition included the elements of 3rd edition I liked and addressed most, if not all, of my criticisms of 3e.

Anyway, kudos to the designers on a job well done. I'm looking forward to what comes next.

 

[JeffB]

Speaking as a DM/GM I could cite lots of games that really make me appreciate 4E- there are many games where I've really enjoyed the setting/world and/or flavor etc but the game system/mechanics itself let me very cold.

Lejendary Adventures is one- pure Gygaxian goodness-what a fun read- a "reimagining" of D&D if you will. The spells, their names, the monsters, the magic items, etc- Just awesome flavor- but yikes, what a goofy system (and it's still loads better than DJ was).

But really the previous editions of the D&D game are what makes me appreciate 4E so much. Over the years I've come to realize much of what I loved about the previous versions of the game was the stories-the settings- the flavor/fluff-the great modules, etc. The actual rules I've come to not really care for. All the things I really liked about OD&D/B-X,1E and 2E were not the rules/mechanics themselves. I constantly was having to do serious amounts of tinkering. That's work. I don't like that kind of work (I know some do, I do not). 3E got back to alot of that classic 1E flavor (both intentions and supplemental material) and with a set of core mechanics that was a big improvement- but again ended up being too much work- preparing the game- the godawful amount of rules, high level play, etc etc. Not for me thanks.

C&C is another example- C&C came close to giving me what I wanted, but I find I have to tinker as much as I did with previous versions but in a different way- I like rules light systems that are narrative in nature (like say Herowars/Heroquest), but the SIEGE mechanic just doesn't quite sit well with me- sure it's simple and fast but isn't granular enough for me nor does it really inspire/encourage narrative. With C&C I have to ADD a bunch of stuff (skills, feats or other material from other vesrions of D&D). So again that's more work. That said, I do like it quite a bit- and I've no issue playing or running it- it works.

So with 4E now I have that set of rules that are pretty flexible (more-so than the pre 3E systems), but that is not laden with and bogged down in minutiae. It has enough granularity, while still inspiring/encouraging narrative. The game is focused and streamlined in many areas. It's much easier to prepare for and run than 3.X. It has a focus on "fun" (I hate to say that, because of all the WOTC marketing BS-but it's true, for me). It has a focus on cutting through the BS slave to the rules mentality and getting on with the adventure itself. As I've gotten older, these are the things I really appreciate in a game (any game). I'm even enjoying the re-working of the "fluff" (Planes, etc) as it smacks of B/X D&D to me. 4E is not perfect , but overall it does what I want/need "right outta the box" with minimal fuss.

In turn 4E has made me appreciate other game systems more than I used to- As an example I've always absolutely loved CoC for it's subject matter. But I've also come to realize CoC's genius is that first and foremost it is about the characters,the adventure and the excitement (or dread )- While there are huge differences in theme and and actual gameplay obviously, 4E has that similar mindset of "lets get on with the adventure" (while this is not prevalent in the rules themselves, the DMG enforces this quite often directly, and the MM indirectly with it's no-nonsense approach to adversaries)

 

[Khairn]

Actually my experience with other games has helped me appreciate that 4E is not the best game for me. It is not what I want, I don't enjoy it very much, and there are other systems I like much better. GURPS 4E being just one example.

however I do "see" your point. My experience with other games definitely helps me understand things better, a bit more insight, etc... Plus help me decide how good the game is in comparison to those other games.

Just in my case I rate 4E lower then several, rather than higher than all of them.

Agreed.

Being a game-aholic has helped me to better understand what the designers were trying to accomplish with 4E. I can appreciate the single mechanic, the driving focus on balance, the use of roles, and the sheer variety that powers and their sources offer for future splats. But I can also see what has been traded away to make room for those goals, which is why I know that 4E does not meet my needs & expectations when it comes to the type of game play I enjoy.

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the few 4E games that I am now playing. It's just not my fantasy rpg of choice.

 

[Gothmog]

Savage Worlds was one of the games that helped me appreciate 4e more. Before I tried SW, I always thought RPGs needed to be rules-dense to have any value. SW showed me how wrong I was, and that in fact for my playstyle, a rules-moderate to rules-light game served me best. 4e was also "savaged" in the way the game plays, and 4e's feats are much more like SW's Edges than 3e's feats. 4e is a fast, furious, and fun system to run- and when I first read the 4e books, I could see the SW influences immediately.

WHFRP2 also helped me appreicate 4e more. 4e weapon properties remind me a lot of the WHFRP2 weapon qualities (impact, slow, tiring, etc). Kudos to the design team for realizing they could utilize a mechanic like weapon properties to further differentiate weapons rather than just by damage, threat range, and crit value. And obviously, the PoL themes are very Warhammer-esque (and I LOVES me PoL settings!).

Finally, 3.x D&D helped me appreciate 4e more, mostly in a "thank god 4e is here!" sort of way. 3.x showed me exactly what I didn't want in a rules system- rules dense, rules-opaque, a HUGE number of built in assumptions, degree of rules interconnectedness, caster dominance, reliance on magic items, CR/EL, LA, save or die, and the list goes on and on and on. So while 3.x was a grueling experience for me and my group, it really helped my group see how brilliant 4e was, and how it was a near-perfect fit for our gaming styles and preferences. Somehow, 4e has also recaptured that 1e AD&D style and flavor, as well as ignite our imaginations like no edition has before. This is a great time to be a gamer!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

4e helped me appreciate other games a lot more, if that counts

 

[That One Guy]

I dunno if it less appreciate and more understand right off the bat. But the Encounters and Dailies of 4e, reminded me a lot of Storytelling which talks about; Scenes, Chapters, etc. So the idea of viewing gaming like a narrative and story had already gelled in my mind.

In the same-vein, the Feywild and Eladrin automatically reminded me of Arcadia and Changelings from Changeling. So right off the bat it was something I adored (+ my already fascination with Fey).

Agreed. Much love for the Changeling. Lost and Dreaming.

Anyway, on topic...
Actually, while playing in a 4e game a friend convinced my old DM, my girlfriend, and myself to give DDO a shot. There was a thread on here a while back on DDO that I mentioned this in. Basically, DDO is a heckuva' lot better. But, I still am not going to pay to play it. But, my DM and I got into a conversation about how DDO was fun(ner than it used to be), but the mechanics of the game were bound to 3.x. It sort of made us both agree that 4e's mechanics are more fun (I had been on that side of the fence for a long time). We both agreed that 4e would make good MMO mechanics, but I would still prefer to play it in person.

Tangent thoughts...
Does it bother anyone else that the WotC party line is oddly true? The whole... 'it's made for fun now!'(tm) being accurate (this question is aimed at pro-4e people)? Also, how the flaws (I mean, things in the system that most pro-4e people disliked) of 3.x are so widely agreed upon. Do these things seem odd?