Now that 4e is out, are you into it or sticking with a prior edition?

[Angel Tarragon]

I'm not converting; I'm splitting.

I have my 3rd edition homebrew that I have sunk countless hours into, and plan to continue to support it and well as continue to work on it.

I also plan to work up a very small area of a new homebrew for 4th edition.

 

[Sunderstone]

I miss the days when not only were miniatures not required, they were barely hinted at in the rules.

QFT. I never minded (and actually liked) using minis for the important/epic battles, but its probably the biggest slowdown in my games currently. The drawing of each new area to be exact.

Each new edition of D&D seems to hardwire minis more and more into the rules.

 

[dredgelawn]

Each new edition of D&D seems to hardwire minis more and more into the rules.

Dude! I know what you mean. I remember the amorphous days of AD&D where we could just run up to the bad guy, cast a fireball, and not worry about hitting your fighter that was tangling with him anyway!

Those were the days!

 

[Ahnehnois]

When I first heard about 4e almost a year ago, I said I'd stick with 3.5 but that I'd look at 4e with an open mind, maybe see if I could use anything from it.

Not that I've seen 4e, I'm *really* sticking with 3.5. Not that 4e is a bad game, but it's certainly not the game for me.

 

[Sunderstone]

Not that I've seen 4e, I'm *really* sticking with 3.5. Not that 4e is a bad game, but it's certainly not the game for me.

I was a little less open minded than you. I didnt like most of the changes that I read were going into 4E. Now that Ive perused the 4E PH, I still have zero interest in a 4E game. My group and I prefer 3.5 both in rules and most definately in "flavor".

 

[Coplen]

I'm sticking with C&C, but I'll gladly plunder stuff from 4E for house rules.

 

[Hussar]

On being friendly:

I dunno. I'm just sick and tired of reading the exact, word for word, same crap about 4e that I read for EIGHT YEARS about 3e. It's to ____ey (pick the word du jour). Same crap. Thread after thread. This is broken, that is broken. This takes away from role play. It's the ROLL play edition. It's all about the money. On and on and on. The same crap all the time.

When people post actual criticisms, look they get reasonable responses. Stalker0's excellent threads on the math of skill challenges. I might not agree but, no one's bashing him for pointing out what very well might be a mistake.

You want people to be nicer? Whenever you see someone using hot button language to describe and edition, virtually pelt him with dice. Don't let people away with it. On either side of the fence.

If we could get people to actually post criticisms of substance rather than vague, inflamatory crap, you'd see the politeness and friendliness of the site go WAY up. Continue to post nothing but negativity and you'll be answered in kind.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Playing in a new game that will be 4th Ed once it starts in a few weeks with a completely seperate group (all old friends, back together again after a couple year hiatus due to work schedule).

Currently DMing an Eberron game that I'll probably let finish in 3.X, simply because of the amount of conversion I'd need to do at time. But I could change my mind based on the experience in the game I'll be playing in. (same gaming group I've had for past 5 years).

 

[La Bete]

It's the ROLL play edition. It's all about the money. On and on and on. The same crap all the time.....

Indeed. Hate 4e all you want, but smack talk like "It's a fine tabletop wargame, but it's not a roleplaying game" is just BS. In fact it's as rude as the now-banned (?) "that's a fine house rule, but it's not the RAW".

It's just being said for effect - it's untrue (and even the person saying it knows it) - it adds nothing of value to a conversation, and I certainly believe it's normally said just to get up people's noses.

Reasoned arguement on the other hand - I've seen a good, thoughtful post about how the skill challenge process interferes with roleplaying - I didn't agree with it, but it was certainly a rational, and friendly debate.

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

Now that i've spent some time looking at the 4e core books I've really decided that it's not the game for me. I have over $1k worth of 3e/3.5e stuff that is mostly backwards compatible with all of my 2e stuff (worth a fortune).

4e basically took a big dump on the last 15+ years of gaming for me.

Early adopting right now is a bad choice as the PHB II isn't even out (so how could I even begin to contimplate converting my game yet, when all the classes aren't even out).

Sure, the 3.x system has experienced quite a bit of bloat, and the inherent power struggle of being around for so long. But with that comes a multitude of options that, for the most part, benefit the game players.

One game I run is a really high level game. One that has truly epic heroes and bad guys. The PCs are strong enough to make changes in the world, but are dwarfed by the power of other beings. They can fight the most dangerous dragons, but their abilities are far from that of one character who in times long gone by had the arcane might to age a sun, and killed a solar system by, effectively, turning it off.

4e . . . yeah, 30th level and that's it. Nothing there shows me the power that 3e offered.

I've been working on that game for over a decade.

I wanted to like 4th edition, but I think that it is entirely too soon for a product like that to really capture the hearts and minds.