I've experienced D&D4

[Hunter In Darkness]

Actually yeah, it is. Says so right on the cover and by the only people allowed to make that claim.
.

Ah the classic comeback to it does not feel like D&D to me. No wotc says it's D&D it is end of story. Some folks can't let other folks have an opinion without pointing out how wrong they are it seems.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I agree. I would like to point out though that there are usually 1-3 threads (such as this) on the first page of General on why 4th edition sucks. I don't think they help.

Ah my friend the war caused to much bad blood and is far from over. People like to say it is but look at posts and threads like this. If the edition war was over you would not get what we have here and as many threads closed of edition fighting as we do.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Holy Smokes! When I ran Age of Worms, and my group was only 13th level, Spire of Long Shadows, we couldn't do more than a couple encounters (maybe 3 MAX) in a 6 hour session. Now, we like RP, but it didn't take up THAT much time.

sheesh.... even after 30+ some years DMing, I must really suuuuuuuuck. Could anyone else get through 4-6 encounters in mid-high level AoW adventures? Now I am genuinely bummed...

I've been DMing for 30 plus years as well. I run combat very quickly relative to other DMs I've played with. But my experience with high level Age of Worms matches yours.

Ken

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I do think things are friendlier

Pathfinder has been successful enough to assure people who don't like 4E that there will always be a supported version of D&D that they can go forward with. So, there's a lot less fear influencing the debate.

I personally am glad that we've ended up with two systems. It seems like there are radically different expectations and play styles among us; over time Pathfinder and 4E can each evolve to cater to their respective groups, without worrying so much about alienating part of their customer base.

Ken

 

[Mournblade94]

It's a perfectly plausible belief if the person claiming it has only played one previous edition of D&D. However some people appear willing to claim that the major rules changes in 4e mean it isn't D&D any more. The same people are willing to say that when 1e came out divorcing class and race, when 2e developed kits and Players Options, when 3e came out and trashed the traditional saving throw development, well those major rules changes don't make a difference to whether it's still D&D or not. From from certain points of view this appears blatantly illogical.

I've played D&D since the red box Moldvay. The other rules changes did not change the paradigm of the game as 4e did. The statement is perfectly logical.

 

[BryonD]

I love 3E largely because it is so unlike the "D&D" things that were inferior to other games in prior editions.

Obviously, just my opinion. And I respect the idea that D&D is, in large part, about the setting and certain elements. I can respect that 4E throwing that out the window could make a big difference to people who found those elements important. But it makes no difference to me. Just as the setting elements mostly staying intact did not influence my personal preference for 3E.

I also respect that "feels like D&D" references a fairly abstract play experience. And it could certainly quite correctly be said that both 3E and 4E feel very different than prior editions in some ways. And the abstract nature of that certainly allows that 3E and/or 4E can both share elements of play feel that make them exactly like "the D&D they know and love" to one person, and in no way like "D&D" to another person.

I do find the idea that it is D&D simply because the cover says so to be laughably simplistic and in no way useful to discussion. Golf and Hockey could legally trade names tomorrow. I doubt the fans would stick with the game that had the *name* they grew up loving. A word or phrase is nothing.

But for me it is about "does the system create the best game system for my enjoyment". There are multiple RPG systems out there that get the job done. One of the very best happens to have the name D&D on it. But "D&D" really has little to do with it and none of the other with that label are top choices.

 

[ShadoWWW]

I'd like to tell my point of view.

I like the idea of DnD as heroic high fantasy game. If I want to play something else I choose another game (and there are plenty of them, e.g. Fate). I tried the 3rd edition and it was great. However, there were some issues I disliked:

1) Slot system for spells. I liked to play wizard as long as he had spells available and it was not too long. Then it was not fun for me.
2) Too complexity. It was most obvious in the end of the 3.5 era. All the Complete books (Complete Warriror, Complete Divine etc.) made me sad and was just waste of money. There were smply too many rules (especiallu feats). Nevertheless, there was one great book above all in the last era: Unearthed Arcana. I miss a book like this in 4E.
3) A game was too low-powered at the first level and over-powered after the 13th level.

Then 4E came out. First, I was suprised it had so much common with board games, power system (its key words) was like Magic card game and roles has certainly come from WoW. But I gave it a try and I was pleasantly suprised.

The game wasn't as heavy as 3E and it was good. Simple core rules and clear exceptions in form of powers. Yeah, wizard could always practise sorcery! Too complicated feat and skill system has been gone. It seemed to be a mix of wargame, Magic card game, WoW and it had a smell of heroic fantasy system I've always expected from DnD. And it was extraordinary fun! Even as a first-level-wizard! DMG and DMG2 were neat and to run monsters was not any burden but easy and fun.

Yes, 4E is not perfect. I can see combats in Epic Path (21st to 30th level) takes too long and I hope there will be a fix. Skill challanges would be more tuned as well (as e.g. in Spy Game) and to get RP more involved.

After all, DnD 4E is the funniest RPG I've ever played.

 

[Mournblade94]

However, there were some issues I disliked:

1) Slot system for spells. I liked to play wizard as long as he had spells available and it was not too long. Then it was not fun for me.
2) Too complexity. It was most obvious in the end of the 3.5 era. All the Complete books (Complete Warriror, Complete Divine etc.) made me sad and was just waste of money. There were smply too many rules (especiallu feats). Nevertheless, there was one great book above all in the last era: Unearthed Arcana. I miss a book like this in 4E.
3) A game was too low-powered at the first level and over-powered after the 13th level.

The expansions made it much more complicated. I had a list of books I allowed. I didn't for example allow Warlock because I thought it broke the magic paradigm. I did not allow use of incarnum because it DEFINITELY broke the paradigm. Maybe if I read Incarnum in depth I would have allowed it, but I was not impressed. I never used the book of Nine swords.

I did use almost all of the complete guides. Even these though I would pick and choose rules.

I think this phenomenon has less to do with system than expansion. I cannot speak to the added complexity that PHBII brought to 4e I just don't know about it. My feeling is, that 4e has not run out of room.

In 2e you had the Combat option books adding fatigue and weapon grandmastery bonuses (I always want to pluralize it boni). I played with these rules and they added complexity. I even incorporated some of these combat options in my early 3rd edition campaign in 2000 or something. THAT was a disaster. The combat option rules were loopy for 2nd ed, I tried to meld them to 3rd ed. UGHHHH. What a gross mix that was.

3rd ed you had the book of nine swords and incarnum; some others i can't remember. I did not use these largely because I was expecting COMBAT OPTION results. In hindsight the combat options made my 2nd ed game wonky; I expected the book of nine swords to have the same result. I only gave Incarnum and BoNS a casual read through.

IN both these cases the new rules were addendum. They felt shoe horned. Maybe 4e's focus on balance design will prevent that I don't know. I suspect there will be similar problems but only time will tell.

 

[Umbran]

It is however VERY 4e friendlily and tends to lead to dogpiles if one dislikes 4e too much. YMMV

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.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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

That is the price you pay for getting a system that also makes 20th level combat feel like 7th level combat.

DS