Nebulous
Legend
I would have LOVED magic in 4e if it was a slightly obscured subsystem of the normal rules. That said, i really do think 4e has its own charm, but it is a very different charm from 1e, 2e, and 3e.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Is 4E charmless?
- Thread starter Hairfoot
- Start date
- Status
I would have LOVED magic in 4e if it was a slightly obscured subsystem of the normal rules. That said, i really do think 4e has its own charm, but it is a very different charm from 1e, 2e, and 3e.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
But that day hasn't come yet. All game systems I ever played always had short-comings limiting what I could play. 3E and 4E are no different. But the subsets they allowed are different. Your comparison would work better if it was something like switching from Windows to Linux or Mac.
Keefe the Thief
Adventurer
I know its a tangent but i appreciate how much the computer-comparison has gained on the new-Coke-comparison. Keep it up, people!
Hmm.. at the risk of being utterly reckless, I suppose I might as well wade into this battle and fly a big, generic "It's all good" flag, which I typically hate doing. My 4E fighter almost died like 10 times last night, but didn't, so I'm feeling invincible. Plus, another data point can't hurt, I suppose.
I'll just say up front that *I* think some editions have been more weighted toward rules presentation than the flavor or any effort to charm, but that doesn't have to stop anyone from having a good time. My ability to have a good time with any edition has always been more dependent on having the right mix of people than anything else. Anyway, here are a few thoughts. Take them or leave them.
I started with 2E and had never played any RPG's (unless Legend of Zelda or Dragon Warrior counts). Back then, 2E charmed the heck out of me. It was all I knew, of course, but I also didn't have any fan community telling me it was dry compared with 1E, that I shouldn't support it because it wasn't written by EGG, etc. I didn't pick it up with any preconceived notions. I apparently used my own fantasy novel familiarity to subconsciously fill in the blanks that I ran into. If you'd asked me why, I probably would have told you, "I thought that's what we were supposed to do." We all had a great time.
A while back when I started reading 1E, I was like, "WOW, this is fun to read!" because it felt like an old school fantasy novel (to me) with rules for a game mixed in. It read ALOT differently from 2E, but I didn't like 2E any less because of it. Regardless of whether it was fun to read, I'm a homebrew kinda guy. If I make the flavor up, it's easier for me to manipulate it on the fly. I hate feeling like I have to memorize 100 pages of someone else's setting before I can have fun.
Last year I bought the 4E books. I read through alot of the PHB, but grew bored reading it. Just felt a little sterile after my 1E refresher. Then again, I'm reading it from the perspective of having read 1E, 2E (and 3E) AND alot of Dragon magazine articles AND alot of online stuff. There's alot of material that I would have probably found more interesting (DM's guide stuff maybe?) if I'd never played before (how many times can you read the basics of worldbuilding?). It still has to be in there for the new folks, but given my experience, I'm not surprised I don't find it enthralling. Now, despite the books seeming a little dull, they're much more helpful to me in game - I find them very easy to reference on the fly because I don't need to sort flavor to get to the heart of some issue or other.
I know, I know, the old books weren't meant to be table references, but I'm just not that smart. I usually need to reference stuff to satisfy my own need for rules consistency.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, so I'll wrap up. I'm just trying to say that maybe the 4E books have less charm to me, but maybe I'm just more jaded now. Regardless, I just don't get too hung up on it. I still read all the editions and let them all influence my games. Besides, like I said, my fun at the table usually depends on having the right mix of people - people that bring their own charm.
OK, I'm ready to be called an idiotic bastard...
I'll just say up front that *I* think some editions have been more weighted toward rules presentation than the flavor or any effort to charm, but that doesn't have to stop anyone from having a good time. My ability to have a good time with any edition has always been more dependent on having the right mix of people than anything else. Anyway, here are a few thoughts. Take them or leave them.
I started with 2E and had never played any RPG's (unless Legend of Zelda or Dragon Warrior counts). Back then, 2E charmed the heck out of me. It was all I knew, of course, but I also didn't have any fan community telling me it was dry compared with 1E, that I shouldn't support it because it wasn't written by EGG, etc. I didn't pick it up with any preconceived notions. I apparently used my own fantasy novel familiarity to subconsciously fill in the blanks that I ran into. If you'd asked me why, I probably would have told you, "I thought that's what we were supposed to do." We all had a great time.
A while back when I started reading 1E, I was like, "WOW, this is fun to read!" because it felt like an old school fantasy novel (to me) with rules for a game mixed in. It read ALOT differently from 2E, but I didn't like 2E any less because of it. Regardless of whether it was fun to read, I'm a homebrew kinda guy. If I make the flavor up, it's easier for me to manipulate it on the fly. I hate feeling like I have to memorize 100 pages of someone else's setting before I can have fun.
Last year I bought the 4E books. I read through alot of the PHB, but grew bored reading it. Just felt a little sterile after my 1E refresher. Then again, I'm reading it from the perspective of having read 1E, 2E (and 3E) AND alot of Dragon magazine articles AND alot of online stuff. There's alot of material that I would have probably found more interesting (DM's guide stuff maybe?) if I'd never played before (how many times can you read the basics of worldbuilding?). It still has to be in there for the new folks, but given my experience, I'm not surprised I don't find it enthralling. Now, despite the books seeming a little dull, they're much more helpful to me in game - I find them very easy to reference on the fly because I don't need to sort flavor to get to the heart of some issue or other.
I know, I know, the old books weren't meant to be table references, but I'm just not that smart. I usually need to reference stuff to satisfy my own need for rules consistency.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point, so I'll wrap up. I'm just trying to say that maybe the 4E books have less charm to me, but maybe I'm just more jaded now. Regardless, I just don't get too hung up on it. I still read all the editions and let them all influence my games. Besides, like I said, my fun at the table usually depends on having the right mix of people - people that bring their own charm.
OK, I'm ready to be called an idiotic bastard...
ExploderWizard
Hero
2E was released in the summer of 1989.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Shameless and without compromises, I say: http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/mustrum_ridcully/1384-no-compromises.html
You have feats and spells that are nothing but probabilistic bonuses to a couple of systemic measures: hit points and a bunch of "health" conditions. You also have an artificial turn based movement system along a couple of terrain effects. There is also a good list of skills (and let me add some utility spells here) explained what they are about which rather indicates what are the important activities of the setting. So you know you can expect to find people that can create traps, ride horses or whatever it is in there. And finally you also have an artificial alignment system.
This is 3e explained in a short paragraph (IMO). Not really special the way you want to say here I think.
4e really does nothing for ME -- which says zero about what it should or does do for YOU. Charm is not an absolute, even if you provide some clear definition - it's a matter of opinion.
Having said that, I do have a clearer grasp now of the things that do seem to prevent me from digging it, many alluded to or stated outright here, and seemingly falling into the arena of 'charm' as I would define it.
'Charm', in my view, can also be faint praise...my first car was 'charming' - which meant unique, quirky, and far-too-often unwilling to actually start. It did have its own charm.
4E seems to have streamlined and efficient/clear mechanics, over which you rest your own flavor much of the time - - which sounds great, but my mind works in a way where mechanics influence flavor....so rolling 52 six sided dice for my physical adepts jump check in Shadowrun IS a form of flavor, or an influence on it.
When I create a wizard in 3.x, the various odd (and even admittedly potentially BROKEN) mechanics make the wizard have its own feel. In 4E, my big soldier hits the monster with his sword for X damage, and knocks him back with the force of the blow 2 squares. My wizard then steps up and casts the Grim Shadow of Spelunkus, which does Y damage, and the fear of the shadowy beast causes the enemy to move backwards two squares.
It works extremely well it seems from a mechanics standpoint, and you can slap all kinds of different flavor text on it, but for ME it doesn't feel different enough to be flavorful and charming. The trade off seems to be speed and flow of the game in exchange for uniformity of mechanics...and for some people BOTH choices are good ones....for me I like non-uniform mechanics even if they cause some delays/confusion. (Heck, I use a non-standard magic system in 3.5 that makes the mechanics even MORE different!)
In addition, while I recognize that I don't have to have Eladrin, and Dragonborn, and the Feywild, etc...the fact that they take up real estate in the books makes it implied that you are supposed to use them. Even though I'm my own master, it's just weird to find so much of the 'Core' to be completely incompatible with my world.
Having said that, I do have a clearer grasp now of the things that do seem to prevent me from digging it, many alluded to or stated outright here, and seemingly falling into the arena of 'charm' as I would define it.
'Charm', in my view, can also be faint praise...my first car was 'charming' - which meant unique, quirky, and far-too-often unwilling to actually start. It did have its own charm.
4E seems to have streamlined and efficient/clear mechanics, over which you rest your own flavor much of the time - - which sounds great, but my mind works in a way where mechanics influence flavor....so rolling 52 six sided dice for my physical adepts jump check in Shadowrun IS a form of flavor, or an influence on it.
When I create a wizard in 3.x, the various odd (and even admittedly potentially BROKEN) mechanics make the wizard have its own feel. In 4E, my big soldier hits the monster with his sword for X damage, and knocks him back with the force of the blow 2 squares. My wizard then steps up and casts the Grim Shadow of Spelunkus, which does Y damage, and the fear of the shadowy beast causes the enemy to move backwards two squares.
It works extremely well it seems from a mechanics standpoint, and you can slap all kinds of different flavor text on it, but for ME it doesn't feel different enough to be flavorful and charming. The trade off seems to be speed and flow of the game in exchange for uniformity of mechanics...and for some people BOTH choices are good ones....for me I like non-uniform mechanics even if they cause some delays/confusion. (Heck, I use a non-standard magic system in 3.5 that makes the mechanics even MORE different!)
In addition, while I recognize that I don't have to have Eladrin, and Dragonborn, and the Feywild, etc...the fact that they take up real estate in the books makes it implied that you are supposed to use them. Even though I'm my own master, it's just weird to find so much of the 'Core' to be completely incompatible with my world.
Perhaps before someone actually DOES this, can't you create a really flippant and dismissively short summary of ANY rules system?
I'm closing this because it's nothing but an invitation to another battle in the edition wars.
As an idea for how this thread could have proceeded, consider what could have happened in a thread that was talking about what someone liked about one of the 5 (6? 7?) editions of the game.
As an idea for how this thread could have proceeded, consider what could have happened in a thread that was talking about what someone liked about one of the 5 (6? 7?) editions of the game.
- Status
Similar Threads
