D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[tankschmidt]

Yeah, I'll play 4e because it's easy to find enough people to get a game together, but it's not "all that" or a bag of chips. I prefer the simple mechanics, the common-sense rules, and the freewheeling spirit of OD&D. Plus I there is just so much material that is compatible with it.

 

[Khairn]

Like the OP I'm in 3 groups, and like the OP I have only 1 group that is inclined to play 4E.

The reasons most often cited to me for not playing 4E are "it feels incomplete", then "a single mechanic for everything" and finally the increased number and importance of "gamist elements".

 

[Maggan]

each time I couldn't show we consitently had at least one PC death (4 instances) in the group (sad bit was most of the time it was the same player through no fault of his own).

If I were you, I'd take that as an opportunity to flaunt my superior knowledge of tactics and great skill at leading the party, instead of as an indicator that a leader is necessary for group survival.

We are using a leader to great effect, and it's gonna be interesting to see what happens to those who don't. We're running a delve at a con in a few weeks, and we'll see how that plays out, with many different combinations of roles and classes.

There was also one encounter (undead) that I was part of I knew if I didn't show that night they would have had a tpk (ranger, wizard and fighter went down. Leaving the cleric [me], the rogue & warlock)

Well ok, but isn't that because facing undead without a cleric always has been a bad idea in D&D, and not because your cleric has the leader role?

/M

 

[Nebulous]

We're enjoying it quite a bit. I have some problems with 4e yes, and i can't say that it is my favorite version of D&D, but it does some things extremely well. I think it is the best tactical miniatures game i've ever played, and fortunately i'm at a time and place where i enjoy that level of immersion. I miss the versatility of mages, but i think that will change as the game continues to evolve and i work with the players to houserule exactly the kind of game we want.

4e does feel like a video game to me, but it's a fast paced video game that we're collectively enjoying. I'm reminded of Icewind Dale actually; low on plot, high on combat.

 

[Ant]

4e doesn't do it for me. It did, however, fire up my passion for OD&D which I am extremely grateful for.

Tonight was actually a very interesting experience. I ran a 3.5 game (around 12th level PCs) but pretended I was DMing OD&D. We didn't use minis and I winged monsters based on core 3.5 mechanics. So we still had feats and skills and such, just in a more free-form manner.

It was totally awesome.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4e doesn't do it for me. It did, however, fire up my passion for OD&D which I am extremely grateful for.

Tonight was actually a very interesting experience. I ran a 3.5 game (around 12th level PCs) but pretended I was DMing OD&D. We didn't use minis and I winged monsters based on core 3.5 mechanics. So we still had feats and skills and such, just in a more free-form manner.

It was totally awesome.

In another thread, ExploderWizard pointed out that sometimes we lose ourselves in mechanics (especially in later games). Maybe new editions like 4E (whether we hate or love them) can remind us of that.

 

[Emirikol]

4e feels 'forced' to me. Towards the end of 3.5 (and this isn't an edition war), players were really being creative in using a skill + attack to do cool stuff. There were hundreds of combo's for actions each round.

Now we're forced into your "only good choices" which are the forced action powers which is like playing inside a cardboard box.

Tonight we're going to experiment with seeing if the skill checks can be combo'd with the power actions WITHOUT slowing the game down even more.

jh

 

[Darkthorne]

Maggan,
In regards to that encounter the ONLY reason I made such an impact was because they were undead (turning) and my healing ability. If they were not undead we probably would have been jam much sooner. Also tactically I do not see errors on anyone's part, it's just a matter of no healer type someone dies unfortunately.

 

[catsclaw227]

... and a lot more rulings as opposed to rules. By the book isn't cutting it for me.

In my opinion, 4e does a LOT better job of this than 3.x did.

 

[Mercule]

The only thing that WotC has done is to name the roles. The roles were always there, in every edition, since the concept of an adventuring group coming up against a bunch of monsters first existed. Saying that you're somehow forced to make a group with these roles filled is such utter nonsense that I have to wonder if this group is just being contrary to be contrary.

Indeed. When I was introduced to D&D in 1982ish, part of my intro -- even before rolling stats -- was a bunch of terms for the different roles. They were, of course, different than today, but they were there. I distinctly remember being advised to play a "brick" for my first character (but went with thief, and still love the "striker" role).

Only time will tell whether 4e "does it" for me. One thing I can say for sure is that the elimination of Vancian magic can only improve the game, IMO. I just tried playing a Wizard again and hated it. Spell slots have vexed me since I started playing. They are a huge reason why I took a break from D&D for several years. They haven't gotten any better with age or experience.