I've experienced D&D4

[Sammael]

System mastery was built into 3.0 from the get go. Monte Cook explained it very clearly, and gave examples. It just took people a month or two to "figure it out."

And guess what? 4E is exactly the same. I ran a 4E adventure at a local game day a couple of weeks ago, with pre-gen PCs. It took one of the players, who is a natural powergamer, less than half an hour to figure out at least one broken combo for every other PC. And he only played 4E once or twice before! Breaking a game doesn't require a Pun-Pun level of munchkinism. Most of it is just mathematical reasoning.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

After more than a year of 4e it still causes division like no previous edition (in my experience), contra some initial arguments that "it's just new, that will settle".

It still hasn't. It continues to divide the D&D community and at the moment I'm afraid I don't see that changing much. Having played several of the previous editions I've never seen such a large (sometimes acrimonious) and enduring split.

Is 4e D&D? As someone pointed out, it simply "is" because the owners of the name have put out a game with that moniker. Is it "your D&D"? Maybe not. Does it matter? Not if you have a group willing to play what you want to play, but perhaps so if your group has a 4e split in it.

Whatever the reasons may be, 4e does seem to be causing a deep divide and that is sad. Maybe things will settle down eventually and it will simply take longer? Though what "settle down" actually means in this context, I'm not entirely sure.

 

[BryonD]

Classic or not, it's irrelevant. It IS D&D period. (And yes because WotC says so).

If your opinion is that it's not, you are wrong, period. Contrary to popular belief opinions can be wrong.

Actually, if you are standing on the "because WotC says so" argument, then you are avoiding the actual point by substituting a tangential fact in place of the opinion being expressed.

Since you are refusing to engage the opinion element of the matter, it is a non sequitur that opinions (in particular this opinion) can be wrong.

 

[Pig Champion]

What it isn't, is hater-friendly.

Errr....nevermind, on second though, it's not worth it.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Classic or not, it's irrelevant. It IS D&D period. (And yes because WotC says so).

If your opinion is that it's not, you are wrong, period. Contrary to popular belief opinions can be wrong.

You are incorrect. If someone says the game is not D&D to them then they are 100% correct.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From my point of view, both sides have dogpiled plenty of times. Pots and kettles, glass houses throwing stones, Hatfields and McCoys, and all that.

Here's the thing that I think many folks fail to get - if you really dislike an entire edition, there's little to be gained by coming into an internet forum and declaring your dislike. If your mind is pretty much made up, and you aren't looking for insight that might lead you to reconsider your opinion, what is the point? Wouldn't you would be far better served to simply not play it, and ignore posts about the edition you don't like, and concentrate on things you do like?

This isn't to say that such an opinion isn't valid. Far from it. But if you don't have much to gain from discussion of the matter, then anything bad that happens from it means your overall experience from the post is probably going to be negative.

I pretty much agree- but my response has an additional nuance. I try not to add fuel to the fire when discussing 3.X vs 4Ed, but I DO feel the need to correct others who misrepresent assertions I have made, or make blanket statements about the fans of either edition.

Call it a character flaw.

 

[Neonchameleon]

System mastery was built into 3.0 from the get go. Monte Cook explained it very clearly, and gave examples. It just took people a month or two to "figure it out."

And guess what? 4E is exactly the same. I ran a 4E adventure at a local game day a couple of weeks ago, with pre-gen PCs. It took one of the players, who is a natural powergamer, less than half an hour to figure out at least one broken combo for every other PC. And he only played 4E once or twice before! Breaking a game doesn't require a Pun-Pun level of munchkinism. Most of it is just mathematical reasoning.

Pray tell, what were these broken combos that existed within already pre-generated 4th ed characters?

Also, I agree that 4th Ed doesn't feel to me like previous editions of D&D. I wouldn't be playing it much if it did feel like AD&D (1e-3e) and it's doubtful I'd play it if it felt like OD&D.

 

[Mournblade94]

Errr....nevermind, on second though, it's not worth it.

Honestly, this is a written format. If you have something to write, by all means write it. If it was not worth it than why respond with anything in the first place?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Making 1st level combat feel like 7th level combat isn't my definition of improvement.

Really? Making combat feel like the middle of the commonly agreed on sweet spot is a bad thing?

---------------

I find myself much in the same boat as Bullgrit actually. I've played exactly two sessions of 4e (we're doing Scales of War). In those two sessions we've had a couple of fights (both dragged badly, mostly due to players not bothering to actually read the rules) and a fair bit of RP.

The funny thing is, after the first session, between sessions, I emailed my DM and asked him if I could try one of these extended skill challenge thingies. My doppleganger warlock (with a personality borrowed liberally from Iskarl Pust of Steven Erikson's Malazan books crossed with Mike Resnick's Lucefer Jones (of Lucifer Jones stories) decided to try a bit of a con. He wanted to convince the local townsfolk that the ogre that the party had taken down was actually single handedly defeated by yours truly.

So, one 4 win/2 loss skill challenge later (I have no idea what the DC's were) and now people are coming up to my character, buying drinks and hailing me as this big hero while the rest of the party is pretty much ignored.

To me, this was very, very cool.

The actual sessions? Total drag. First session took like three hours to resolve a simple combat with a handful of goblins in a bar. Yikes.

I can totally imagine that if I were going into the game with a fairly negative attitude, I'd simply take that as justification for disliking the system and write it off. But, I've been reading a lot of what's been written about the system, listening to the podcasts, so I know there's more to it. And I was right. The game shaping up to be a lot of fun so far.

I think it all comes down to you get what you put into it.

 

[Pig Champion]

Honestly, this is a written format. If you have something to write, by all means write it. If it was not worth it than why respond with anything in the first place?

I suppose you're not familiar with the quick edit. Anything else you'd like to know, mother?