Is 4E charmless?

[Jack7]

If the point is a definitional one, that is to say "without charm," then no, the game has charms. Though I suspect what Hairfoot meant was a connotative one. So far that edition lacks allure, magic, a sense of being captivating, fascinating, or compelling in most ways. And it is far too much a gamey-game for my tastes. A game whose entire intention and ambition seems to be nothing more than, "being a game." It exists for itself.

The best way I can put it is that it is a game that employs the general conventions of role-play games, but it is far less a role playing game than a game written with the intention of being "gamey." As a matter of fact, that might be one way to put it. It seems really gamey at many points and kinda gamy at others. It is a role play game without much by way of role play. Or maybe I should say it is role-play packaged as a video game or fantasy film fight-scene. Which, I like explosions as much as the next guy, maybe more. But how many times can you blow up the same monster before it bores ya stiff?

Nevertheless it has good points, and in some ways it is extremely original and provocative. And in other ways it is even sort of unique, and I still like it better than 3rd edition myself.

For me 4E seems more like the kind of girl you'd like to date while you're on shore leave in some distant part of the world than the kind of gal you'd like to marry. She's looks really attractive on the outside maybe, but you don't speak the same language, or really have very much in common. Then again 3E always seemed to me more like the girl who asked you to the prom before you could ask out who you really wanted and you had to say yes because your families knew each other from way back and everybody else thought it'd be a swell idea. You though didn't really think much of the notion. You went, but after it was all over you said to yourself, "I kind suspected that was what that would be like."

AD&D, now I can marry that gal. However I wouldn't mind seeing her get a new hairdo and made over real nice every few years. I really don't need a whole new wife every time I turn around, I'd just like to see the old one stay in shape, make herself up pretty, and improve over time a little.

That's LOW Darrin, even for you!

Yeah, but it made me laugh.
Out loud.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno... D&D has never had much charm for me to begin with. The most charming books have been the fluff books for Sigil made during 2e. The rest, meh.

But, really that just shows charm is something you develop by having good settings, characters and such. It has nothing to do with rules really.

 

[Elda King]

Well, I love 4E, but I understand this feeling. 4E feels different, and not in all aspects it's better. Maybe because the rules are set in a too unpersonal style, with powers being set in a formal structure rather than being written in full phrases. Maybe it's because the core books have much less flavor than I hoped. Perhaps it's only because when I met 3E, it was all new for me... And still, I think 4E is better. I have fun playing, the fluffy is better and it incites my imagination to read the books. I won't, however, set aside 3E; both are great and worth playing, to me.

 

[Herschel]

As a proud grognard, I was quite negative about 4E when it came out. I initially resented Hasbro for taking a shotgun to my most sacred gaming cows, but I'm quite sanguine about it now.
...
Does anyone else feel like 4E is a sort of RPG Stepford Wife, or just me?

I felt this way about 3E. For me, charm was replaced by munchkinism run amok. 4E feels far more like "real" D&D to me, even with the numerous wonky bits.

 

[nightwyrm]

At the risk of bringing MtG into the discussion, this discussion reminds me of Vorthos vs Melvin player archetypes.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

But Uwe Boll is a great film maker! In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Sige Tale is the best fantasy movie ever made! It's faster than Lord of the Rings, has more combat powers than Conan the Barbarian, and even has an all new magic system. Peter Jackson sucks, I'm enshrining In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale in my DVD collection.

Ah, and now we have the successor of "it´s without charm." "It´s like an Uwe Boll movie!" Quite harsh, but creative - as i´ve come to expect from the ENworld community. Keep them coming, guys.

No, wait! I´ve got one myself! 4e is like a Bollywood movie: Lots of different characters, but most of them turn up later in the film. Feels slightly familiar to the western eye, but is something new and quite different nevertheless. And movement powers rule.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ah, and now we have the successor of "it´s without charm." "It´s like an Uwe Boll movie!" Quite harsh, but creative - as i´ve come to expect from the ENworld community. Keep them coming, guys.

No, wait! I´ve got one myself! 4e is like a Bollywood movie: Lots of different characters, but most of them turn up later in the film. Feels slightly familiar to the western eye, but is something new and quite different nevertheless. And movement powers rule.

It will really becomes Bollywood when PHB II introduces the Bard in regular campaigns - then everyone can sing and dance and kick ass to the song of the Bard! (And now I know what the Bards Healing Power does when it lets him slide his allies! He brings them to dance!)

 

[cwhs01]

IMO 3e and 4e rulesets are about equal in charm units (i've measured them in triplicates p<0,05).

Its just that 4e is more playable, easier to use and i suspect, easier to homebrew to. Which is a good thing imo.

Both rulesets suck in the flavour department compared to most contemporary games, from savage worlds to WoD, and especially any of the indie games.

However, WoTC fluff to 4e is (at this point in time) better than the stuff for 3e.

 

[Shemeska]

It has the charm of a Uwe Boll movie.

Ouch!

 

[cwhs01]

What I'm find is that, if anything, the smooth game-play makes room for the charm of the setting and the unfolding campaign events to shine through even more. I would never even have attempted to run a Ptolus 3e campaign because all of the high-level mechanical complexity of the characters, NPCs and monsters would have driven me crazy and distracted me from breathing life into the city.

This is more or less how i feel about the two editions. 3e is very good rulewise, but a little to cumbersome for my taste. It limits me in how and what types of games i can GM, as i just couldnt be bothered with spending the wast amount of time doing the number crunching to make my own adventures. And it also limited me as to what i could improvise during play.

Perhaps this is some of the reason behind the current discussion?

3e punished you for not spending a lot of time memorizing rules, statting out encounters meticulously and planning games. Similarly it rewarded you for spending a lot of time preparing. Which then became a necessity, and a problem for casual gm's (at least when playing above level 8-10).

4e with its simpler system, (suposedly) balanced ruleset and easier encountercreation rules and monsters, makes improv possible for more casual dm's. More time can be spent on fluff and background stuff. And one probably needs to spend time on fluff, or risk the game looking like an advanced version of Descent.


I think this may be true (even with the disclaimer that i haven't actually gm'ed 4e yet...). And i very much prefer the 4e approach.