D&D 4E My First 4E Game: Disappointing. Yours? (UPDATED with player feedback)

[Zil]

The problem is that "D&D feels like a computer game now" is not a subjective feeling. It is an analogy. It needs to be based on some kind of reasoning, which can be rational or irrational. It is the sort of statement to which one might respond, "Why?" and reasonably expect an explanation.

Fair enough. One should probably expect to receive questions asking for examples as to why they feel it is like whatever. But that does not mean that one should be labeled as irrational just because they feel this analogy is true.

(And on top of that, if you intend to use the defense "this is my purely subjective opinion and no one can disagree with it because its subjective!!!" you don't get to complain when you get pummeled by other people's purely subjective responses. If D&D "feels" like a computer game to you, and nothing can talk you out of it because your feelings are purely your own, then, to me, your attitude "feels" like the attitude of someone with an irrational fear. What are you going to do, try to reason me out of that opinion? You burned that bridge already.)

If someone really wants to change another persons opinion, pumelling them with negative labels or open hostility is not the (dare I say it) rational way to go about it . I'm not saying you're doing any of that by the way.

Look, let's say I like my games to be dark, gritty affairs. So I need the threat of lethality and I need some realism. Now if I look at a rule set like what we know so far of 4E, I can say that it does not look to me like it fits. Heck, 3.x doesn't completely fit, but at least it fits better than 4E. 4E has introduced a number of what I consider distracting non-realistic mechanics, they've made players much more heroic than the rest of the world, and so on. Sure, I could probably re-jig 4E to do what I want, but if other game systems do it better 'out-of-the-box', then how am I irrational to say I don't think 4E (as much as we've seen of it anyway) feels right for me and that product Y feels better for my games?

On the other hand, let's say I like the feel and pace of some on-line games, or I really like having the players as heroes at first level or I want to reduce the dependence on the cleric as the party medic or I really disliked the Vancian spell system. Why then, maybe 4E is the game for me.

In both cases, it comes down to the type of game that a person likes. Neither point of view is right or wrong. It is entirely subjective in both cases, so there is no point in getting upset when someone doesn't like (or likes) 3.x/Pathfinder/4E/whatever. No version of D&D (or any game system) is right for everyone.

 

[Marmot]

I DM'd the first Raiders with a friend a couple of weeks ago. I took the pre-gens, crossed out their names and wrote in the names some of our personal "iconic" characters from past campaigns who fit the roles.

Even though it was really just more a chance for us to see the mechanics in action, I think the fact we were using "our" characters made allowed us to "suspend our disbelief" more quickly and have a little roleplaying fun at the same time.

By the way... after some of the NPCs retreated into another area, the combined two-encounters-worth-of-monsters-at once resulted in the death of the PCs and forced the others to flee for their lives. I've noticed this "unintended double-sized encounter" is a common cause of some of the playtest TPKs I've seen blogged about.

 

[Cadfan]

Look, let's say I like my games to be dark, gritty affairs. So I need the threat of lethality and I need some realism. Now if I look at a rule set like what we know so far of 4E, I can say that it does not look to me like it fits. Heck, 3.x doesn't completely fit, but at least it fits better than 4E. 4E has introduced a number of what I consider distracting non-realistic mechanics, they've made players much more heroic than the rest of the world, and so on. Sure, I could probably re-jig 4E to do what I want, but if other game systems do it better 'out-of-the-box', then how am I irrational to say I don't think 4E (as much as we've seen of it anyway) feels right for me and that product Y feels better for my games?

You gave reasons, so you're automatically exonerated on this score. "I don't like RPG X because I like A, B, and C in my RPGs, and RPG X hasn't got them." Fair enough. If you then proclaim a love for RPG Y, and in the opinion of others RPG Y hasn't got A, B, or C either, then you might get challenged on that. But no one could say you're being irrational from the starting gate.

On the other hand, let's say I like the feel and pace of some on-line games, or I really like having the players as heroes at first level or I want to reduce the dependence on the cleric as the party medic or I really disliked the Vancian spell system. Why then, maybe 4E is the game for me.

But now you're trying to get yourself in trouble. For the latter three items, its clear that they are traits of 4e. The characters as heroic at level 1? Basically check, although it seems clear that level 1 PCs mostly whomp on kobolds, and are technically outmatched by an equal number of human guards, so there's some debate there. Reduced dependence on a cleric? No argument. Elimination of Vancian magic? 95% true, since Wizard per day spells are still Vancian.

But "feel and pace of some on-line games?" People are going to ask you how you reasoned that 4e has the feel and pace of an online game. And if you haven't got an explanation, they might start questioning why you're saying such things.

In both cases, it comes down to the type of game that a person likes. Neither point of view is right or wrong.

It is true that what you like or dislike cannot be right or wrong, likes and dislikes defy description in terms of correct or improper. However, the argument that 4e "feels" like an online game is not a subjective, personal opinion.

"I don't like the taste of anchovies." This is personal and subjective, and cannot be wrong.
"I don't like anchovies because they taste like chocolate fudge brownies." This can, in fact, be wrong.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Larry, Curly, or Moe?

This.

Why I oughtta!

 

[Tewligan]

But were there ever any TRPGs that preceded WoW that required a certain level to use? Because I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'll just give you this one.

Smathis, you saved me a lot of effort by saying a lot of what I was going to say - thanks! You did leave out one thing, though, in the part quoted above. Magic bardic instruments in 1e required the user be a certain level, so there is precedence. Okay, NOW all my points are covered!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Why I oughtta!

Sorry!! I REALLY could help it.

 

[The Little Raven]

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

What MMO is this, and to whom do I send my credit card information?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You see huge-breasted panda bears with twenty foot glowing purple penises in normal life?

i don´t play it... i just saw some reports on television^^

Jumping in to defend Derren: he started playing with 4e so we can´t blame him to feel uncomfortable without the tight rules or similarities to MMOs.

I started with 2nd edition and i feel uncomfortable when there is no skill system (and in principle, skill system in 3.0 was great... it just didn´t work without supervision, and there were skills which had to be maxed, leaving certain classes without choice... etc...), wing it wouldn´t work for me here (not to be mistaken: i used something like skill challenges inexplicitely for a while now and i am completely happy with them.) I also feel uncomfortable with some powers (too powerful maybe? stressing your suspension of disbelieve?), but the reasoning behind them - narrative control for players - is a principle i believe in.

The straight jacket which is called 3.x is perfectly fine. It gives the master nearly everything he needs... but thats the problem... as soon as players learn the rules, you are forced to search in many many books to find an appropriate rule, just to proof your players, that you used them correctly... and in the worst case, you don´t find any and have to worry about doing it wrong.

 

[Lizard]

What MMO is this, and to whom do I send my credit card information?

Second Life and Lynden Labs, respectively.

 

[smathis]

Smathis, you saved me a lot of effort by saying a lot of what I was going to say - thanks! You did leave out one thing, though, in the part quoted above. Magic bardic instruments in 1e required the user be a certain level, so there is precedence. Okay, NOW all my points are covered!

Actually, I should be the one thanking you, Tewligan. I was fairly certain there was a precedent for that but I couldn't recall it off the top of my head. Thanks for sharing that.

That leaves the OP with only 2 points of possible similarity -- one of which I basically gave him because I agreed to assume he was 100% correct in his comparisons between 4e and MMOs.

Yeah, I'm kinda getting the impression that MMOs owe a lot more to D&D than 4e does to MMOs.

I could be biased though.