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

[Henrix]

I'll be starting a small 4e campaign to learn the system as soon as possible, then we'll convert our main campaign.

The other group I DM is playing Shackled City, on it's last legs, so we'll stick with 3.5 'til it ends. Then start a 4e campaign.


I like 3.5, but I really like the new rules (with a few exceptions, but that's what houserules are for, right?), and I like change. I'm really tired of some aspects of 3.5, particularily at high levels.

And the times I've run 4e (prerelease and yesterday at WW D&D Game Day) we've all had a terrible blast! The players have had enormous fun, and as I DM I've relly felt that it is a lot easier, flexible and fun!

 

[Pinotage]

Sticking with 3.5e for all my main games (PbP only) but might give 4e a whirl at some later date when I have the time and inclination. Don't think I'll ever completely switch though.

Pinotage

 

[Edgewood]

Here's the thing: in order to concede that 4e is just a cash grab one must also concede that there were no fundamental problems with 3e. That's not a concession that many 4e fans will be willing to accept (especially people like me that largely gave up on 3e in lieu of other games).

Agreed, 3e has problems, just as time will show that 4e has problems, etc, etc, ad infiniteum. But I feel that the change to 4e has a different motivation. it follows the business model that WotC always follows; the idea that as soon as the line begins to show a slump in sales it brings out a new edition (which is not a bad thing mind you, they have to make money). I feel that when 3e came out, it was to revitalize a dying and neglected product, correct the mistakes that TSR made, and of course, the driving force of all business, to make money. The release of 4e, IMO seems to be driven by the latter reason only. Judging from the amount of people in these forums and on others I frequent who refuse to make the switch, I don't see 3e as neither suffering from being a dying and neglected game nor having so many mistakes that required correcting. Did 2e have enough wrong with it to justify a new edition to 3e? Does 3e have enough wrong with it to justify a new edition to 4e? I think that the reasons for the changes have different motivations. To me, the change from 2e to 3e was needed to jump start the hobby. the change from 3e to 4e....well I think it's just to jump start WotC's bottom line.

 

[Edgewood]

For a while, and when 3e covered the things I wanted I went to 3e. And I'm sticking with 3e for a while and then moving to 4e when it covers the things I want.

Do you plan to keep some elements of 3e while incorporating 4e into your game, or do you feel that your switch will be a complete one?

 

[Blackwind]

Not going 4E. On the other hand, I've been b****ing and moaning about 3.x for at least two or three years now (having been an early adopter of both 3.0 and 3.5, mind you, and DMing multiple campaigns in both), so I'm thinking of going either C&C or 1E/OSRIC at this point for my D&D campaigns.

 

[der_kluge]

I'm running a Wilderlands PbP in 3.5, and by all accounts, 4th edition is apparently a major pain in the butt for online games (given how much movement and miniature combat plays a role). Plus, given that a bunch of class options are missing, I can't really port my game over unless I make some players make drastic changes to their characters.

So, for now, we're sticking with 3.5, although I could see switching it to Pathfinder as I really like what they've done with that system.

I'll probably play some 4th edition in the future, and may even switch whole hog to it, but I'm in no hurry to do so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed, 3e has problems, just as time will show that 4e has problems, etc, etc, ad infiniteum. But I feel that the change to 4e has a different motivation. it follows the business model that WotC always follows; the idea that as soon as the line begins to show a slump in sales it brings out a new edition (which is not a bad thing mind you, they have to make money). I feel that when 3e came out, it was to revitalize a dying and neglected product, correct the mistakes that TSR made, and of course, the driving force of all business, to make money. The release of 4e, IMO seems to be driven by the latter reason only. Judging from the amount of people in these forums and on others I frequent who refuse to make the switch, I don't see 3e as neither suffering from being a dying and neglected game nor having so many mistakes that required correcting. Did 2e have enough wrong with it to justify a new edition to 3e? Does 3e have enough wrong with it to justify a new edition to 4e? I think that the reasons for the changes have different motivations. To me, the change from 2e to 3e was needed to jump start the hobby. the change from 3e to 4e....well I think it's just to jump start WotC's bottom line.

There is enough "wrong" with 3E to warrant trying out different game systems. If the different game system is 4E D&D, well, why not that.
Off course there is also enough "right" with 3E to stick with it.

The major motivation for WotC, regardless of 3E or 4E was to make money with it. There can be no doubt about that.

The motivations of the designers, in both cases, was to make a good game, possibly the best they could do with the resources they had. I think they succeeded at both.

But that doesn't change the fact that my group looks at 4E, and sees the further stream-lining and simplification (some might say "dumbing down") of 4 and _LOVES_ it. And whenever we play 3E, and whenever one of the 3E artifacts come up, we always think about how that won't be a problem in 4e anymore. Off course, we haven't seen the problems of 4e yet (well, except that the below mentioned DM had trouble finding good feats for his Cleric ). If 5E comes around, we might feel similar. But that's the nature of edition changes, I suppose...

In fact, we're running the Savage Tides campaign currently, and the DM is seriously considering switching it to 4E. I am not sure it will happen, since conversions are a lot of work, but the promise of easier and faster play at the game table might be very much worth it.

So, ultimiately, we'll go with 4E.

 

[AZRogue]

Moving to 4E without reservation.

When 3E came out it looked very interesting. The number of options was amazing. After playing for a while, though, the game ended up just boring everyone. Tedious was the word most often used at our table; the whole thing just bogged down under its own weight. The campaign switched smoothly back to our old 2E/AD&D rules from before. We also continued playing MERP/Rolemaster and d20 Modern.

4E just looks very inviting and is very fun when played at the table. It fits the bill for my group and feels like a game and not like doing taxes. Everyone's tastes are different, though.

 

[CalicoDave]

My group is going to take a serious look at Pathfinder. I like what I've seen so far and have suggested the change over.

If the group doesn't want to switch to Pathfinder we will stick with 3.0

 

[Xsjado]

I don't currently have a regular group so I'm pretty well placed to go straight into 4e. I haven't really played enough of 3e to have any particular loyalty to it and the new edition seems a lot more intuitive once you get all the old mechanics out of your head. After meeting a few other people at game day who also want to play 4e, hopefully I'll be able to get some decent gaming in over the summer before I go off to uni.