I've experienced D&D4

[Stormonu]

When 4E had been announced but was still in the works, I went through a phase of trying out several different games with my group to see which path we'd want to take. The current group I was playing with had only ever played 3E D&D; changing systems was new territory for them.

We tried Castles & Crusades, Chronicles of Ramlar, L5R, WoD Vampire (I'd played some 2E back in the 90's), Alternity and Serenity. Most of the games fizzled after the 1st or 2nd session (save WoD, L5R and Serenity; I liked Chronicles, but the others preferred D&D 3E), but we were experimenting and that was okay and partly the point.

When 4E came out, we gave it three separate tries* (I DMed two of the three attempts), each lasting to about 3rd level (KotS lasted the longest, with 5th level PCs) before we just got disinterested and went to another game. I would constantly swing between utter loathing and "I must have done something wrong in that last session, let me try it again". Utter loathing eventually won out.

While there were certainly some things we liked about 4E, our opinions were felt we came to the same conclusion as Bullgrit. It wasn't that we weren't willing try a new system - we'd tried plenty - nor do I think it was that we didn't give it enough of a chance; we certainly gave it more time that a couple of other systems we liked a lot more.

Currently, we are now playing WoD, and probably will be playing L5R this summer. I'd been contemplating trying 4E Dark Sun, but after reviewing the preview material, I'm reconsidering getting it. I just don't think 4E will ever please me.

* The first two games were one after the other - I ran a KotS game and when it ended in a TPK, one of the players ran his own mini-campaign and we ended that game after defeating a mini BBEG. Our 3rd attempt was last October with a remake I did of the Ravenloft Night of the Walking Dead. Inbetween those stints, I ran a game for my wife, sister-in-law, 7-year-old son and his 10-year-old friend in 4E.

Incomplete Night of the Walking Dead, if you want to see what I was trying to do 4E:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Kudos on giving it a try despite your apprehension.

My eyes rolled and then immediately glazed over at the tired old 'this ain't D&D' line.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Look I love 4e. I love 3.5, 3e, OWoD, NWoD, Traveller, Alternity, and the best RPG in the whole wide world: Paranoia XP. Seriously, I'm an RPG whore. I'll play anything 3 times.

In my time here, I've gathered that many people are not like me.

So here's what I have to say: If you read the rules to a game and they don't sound fun to you, you're probably right.

How thoroughly reasonable of you!

No, seriously. It seems sadly quite rare to come across here (these days,) but still, it's encouraging. Then again, as you say -- *you* are rather, uh, 'flexible' in your affections.

And I totally agree, with the reading a game and knowing enough about liking/disliking. Here's an example: When I was first told about 3e, I didn't want anything to do with it. When I was first shown the books, I pretty much just cast a jaundiced glare their way. . . then curiosity made me start to read them. I discovered a game appealing enough to try, certainly. The rest is history.

I read 4e and was, let's just say, underwhelmed. Though that is a mild term for it, I know (i.e., remember) how this would probably go otherwise. So there it shall remain.

 

[Mournblade94]

My eyes rolled and then immediately glazed over at the tired old 'this ain't D&D' line.

You didn't have to read it at all. the 'tired' old line is no less true for people whether it has been said once or a thousand times.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whether one can read a game and know they'd dislike it would depend on the depth and breadth of their experience.

With 33 years in the hobby covering more than 100 systems- 60+ in my current collection- a read-through was sufficient for me to shelve my 4Ed books for the long-term.

And unless I'm talking to someone who is clearly new to the hobby, I'll grant anyone who thinks that a read-through is sufficient for them to decide the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Stuntman]

I think the "This isn't D&D" comment is the one that is generating a lot of comments. I think that everyone has their own ideas of what D&D is. What he seemed to think D&D should be is fragile level 1 characters, and really fragile goblins and kobolds. That is some of the reasons why he does not feel that 4E is D&D. As you know 4E level 1 characters can all take at least a few hits before going down. The same for non-minion goblins and kobolds which have traditionally been rather easy to take down. This is quite a departure from previous editions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, as for that phrase, I agree in sentiment but not in detail.

 

[Dire Bare]

My eyes rolled and then immediately glazed over at the tired old 'this ain't D&D' line.

When some cranker on the boards starts yelling in absolutist terms, "4e is NOT D&D! It's just NOT!" I feel the way you do about the line.

However, what I think Bullgrit was really saying (if I may put words in his mouth, er, or on his blog), is "4e just doesn't give me that old D&D feeling." Which is fine. I personally love 4e and can't imagine going back to older editions (even Pathfinder), but it's cool that it isn't for everyone.

I do hope with a few more sessions and an open mind Bullgrit changes his opinion, but if not, that's okay. If you don't find something fun, why waste time with it? Play whatever games float your boat!

 

[Abraxas]

Well then you might consider playing 4E, because those higher level combats are run much faster than in 3X. Having run and played the game into Paragon levels, and played an Epic one, it runs so much faster that there's no comparison. In 3X I ran a Shackled City battle (the Temple of Wee Jas, if you're curious) that lasted four play sessions of 5 hours each. That's 20 hours. And the battle wasn't even particularly interesting. Nothing in 4E can touch that.

So you might not like 4E (and that's you're choice, obviously) but the notion that high level combat runs slower is absolutely counter to everything I've experienced. Heck I haven't heard from anyone who's run an Epic level game who says 3X would have been faster. I freely invite people to come out of the woodwork to tell me that is an incorrect notion.

--Steve

Hey, an invite

I've played 4E since its release - in fact we played a game tonight. Our characters are 17th level - not yet epic, but getting close.

IME to date, combats are taking longer & longer. Tonight we had 2 encounters in a 4-1/2 hour session. Of that 4-1/2 hours 1/2 hour was setting up, 1/2 hour was deciding what to do between the encounters and 1/2 hour was wrap up. The other 3 hours was combat. 5 PCs (Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue) vs 5 monsters in the first encounter (2 skull golem whozits and 3 vampires -insert ominous name here-) and 7 monsters in the second (an Iron Golem and 6 drow something or others). [I don't know exactly what sort of monsters they were so forgive the names]
This trend has been continuing since we made paragon levels. In the heroic tier we used to get through 3,4 or 5 encounters in a 4-1/2 to 6 hour session. This has been steadily declining to our current 2 encounters a night (rarely 3). And this isn't an inexperienced DM - he has DM for us from 1E to 4E and all Es in between. He runs demo games at the FLGS (and I've played in them - low levels go much faster)

In comparison, I was DMing the Age of Worms AP and the PCs made it up to level 17. In the same 4-1/2 to 6 hour time frame we would routinely go through 4 - 6 encounters a night.

As for the OP - I can definitely understand where he is coming from - the primary reason I'm still playing 4E is because of the group - but I am much happier Playing in a friends Eberron 3.5E game and DMing my Pathfinder game.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Halftime results of this thread:
- TEAM A: Discussing things we have discussed before 1000 times: 8
- TEAM B: People creating hits on Bullgrits blog: 10

I admit, i´m not sure yet who will win. I would tell you on my blog, but i don´t have one.