I too can admit to judging 4e in a very emotional and reactionary sort of way. My first response to hearing about 4e was, "Didn't they just revise 3.0 and give us 3.5 less than five years ago? WTF?" Then I started to read more and finally I found the books and actually got a little reading done. Now that I've read through the rules and such, I've found that 4e isn't for me. There's just too many changes that seem arbitrary (IMO) and the whole emphasis on making every class "useful" in every round of combat has really turned me off the system. Just my two coppers.
Presidential Election Politics and What Turned Me Off From 4e
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
I too can admit to judging 4e in a very emotional and reactionary sort of way. My first response to hearing about 4e was, "Didn't they just revise 3.0 and give us 3.5 less than five years ago? WTF?" Then I started to read more and finally I found the books and actually got a little reading done. Now that I've read through the rules and such, I've found that 4e isn't for me. There's just too many changes that seem arbitrary (IMO) and the whole emphasis on making every class "useful" in every round of combat has really turned me off the system. Just my two coppers.
Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
It really is amazing how gaming editions for D&D have become much like talk of politics or religion in our society. The mere mention of any edition can lead to harsh discussions. I try to avoid them like the plague.
Our own drive to be "right" pushes us to extremes. Now, I don't see a war being started over D&D, but a flame war certainly could. Certainly, we're gaining more and more in polarization.
It's okay that we all like different game systems. It's okay to like different flavors of D&D. And you know, it's okay to like more than one game system. I started with AD&D 2e, have been using the various 3e rules, some d20 D&D spinoffs, and am now getting into 4e. There are parts of each system I like and parts I don't. I don't hate any of those editions, nor am I going to push my ideas on other gamers.
I think my sig says it all, really. Don't worry about the tools you use to game. Just sit down with some friends, and have some fun. Grab some beverages, chips, pizza, or whatever. And make it fun.
Keefe the Thief
Hero
Ha. I remember when magic missile summoned real missiles that hovered beside the mage! Editions who don´t have that are not worth playing. 
I read the thread title, and came here to post a hilarious picture of a kitten with a caption that reads, "In b4 the lock!"
Oh, how disappointed I was....
Oh, how disappointed I was....
Mark Hope
Hero
Irda Ranger
First Post
Considering the differences between politics and RPGs, that makes perfect sense.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
I came into the thread with the expectation to see a train wreck of a post and a thread.
Well, really, only the title is a false advertising train wreck. If it had been "Becoming Informed, and What Turned Me Off From 4e" it might have been nearer to the subject of the post.
The post itself is rather mild and seemingly well thought . . . if only after all that was written some proper capitalization was used. Normally, I will never take the time to read someone who doesn't take the effort to capitalize. But I kept reading (gawking) hoping to find what it had to do with presidential elections . . . and I just couldn't follow the attempted connection.
Well, really, only the title is a false advertising train wreck. If it had been "Becoming Informed, and What Turned Me Off From 4e" it might have been nearer to the subject of the post.
The post itself is rather mild and seemingly well thought . . . if only after all that was written some proper capitalization was used.
Normally, I will never take the time to read someone who doesn't take the effort to capitalize. But I kept reading (gawking) hoping to find what it had to do with presidential elections . . . and I just couldn't follow the attempted connection.Choosing not to play 4e without trying it isn’t a bad thing. Just as—if you weren’t going to vote—you wouldn’t need to learn about the issues or the candidates.
If one of the people in your group wanted to run 4e, and you refused without giving it a try. Well...then I’d start to say that your analogy would perhaps come into play.
Or if you wrote a negative review of 4e without having played it.
If one of the people in your group wanted to run 4e, and you refused without giving it a try. Well...then I’d start to say that your analogy would perhaps come into play.
Or if you wrote a negative review of 4e without having played it.
Remathilis
Legend
A game is not the sum of its parts. Its more than that.
Joe's points are pretty much the most common 4e complaints I hear. They could become archetypal. As far as I can tell, the four major complaints about 4r boil down thusly.
1.) The game is too MMO/CCG/Skirmish Minis game, and depends too heavily on online pay-to-use components and an endless stream of supplements/cards/minis/tiles to play.
2.) In an attempt to re-balance the classes against the themselves, yhe game has ruined all sense of what a "fighter" or "wizard" should be able to, most often by giving powers equal to magical effects to non-magical classes and removing powerful (and potentially game-breaking) options from spellcasters.
3.) Much of D&Ds fluff has been re-branded, and the resulting world fluff (as sparse as it is) and the associated crunch (such as races, monsters, or magic items) do not seem to carry the D&D feel from before.
4.) The rules seem to emphasize episodic, narrative play that is heavy on combat, action, and dice rolling and seem poorly suited to open, simulation-style play that relies more on random generation or non-combat task resolution.
They are all, in the end, legitimate targets, but I think focusing on any one (to the exclusion of all else) is dangerous, and often leads to these hot opinions being tossed and the ensuing flames to begin.
To the point, I think Joe's points are (while large in his mind) some of the weakest to point out. The first three are squarely in area 2 (class re-balance) and the last seems to be area 4. Specifically, they trend toward the classic narrative of "fighters don't get cool toys, they get armor, weapons, and a good to-hit. Wizards get poor defenses* but can use Real Ultimate Power." The last is purely subjective, since combat-oriented D&D has existed since the days of OD&D.
(* One can argue how "squishy" an invisible, flying, stone-skinned wizard really is, but I digress.)
Joe's points are pretty much the most common 4e complaints I hear. They could become archetypal. As far as I can tell, the four major complaints about 4r boil down thusly.
1.) The game is too MMO/CCG/Skirmish Minis game, and depends too heavily on online pay-to-use components and an endless stream of supplements/cards/minis/tiles to play.
2.) In an attempt to re-balance the classes against the themselves, yhe game has ruined all sense of what a "fighter" or "wizard" should be able to, most often by giving powers equal to magical effects to non-magical classes and removing powerful (and potentially game-breaking) options from spellcasters.
3.) Much of D&Ds fluff has been re-branded, and the resulting world fluff (as sparse as it is) and the associated crunch (such as races, monsters, or magic items) do not seem to carry the D&D feel from before.
4.) The rules seem to emphasize episodic, narrative play that is heavy on combat, action, and dice rolling and seem poorly suited to open, simulation-style play that relies more on random generation or non-combat task resolution.
They are all, in the end, legitimate targets, but I think focusing on any one (to the exclusion of all else) is dangerous, and often leads to these hot opinions being tossed and the ensuing flames to begin.
To the point, I think Joe's points are (while large in his mind) some of the weakest to point out. The first three are squarely in area 2 (class re-balance) and the last seems to be area 4. Specifically, they trend toward the classic narrative of "fighters don't get cool toys, they get armor, weapons, and a good to-hit. Wizards get poor defenses* but can use Real Ultimate Power." The last is purely subjective, since combat-oriented D&D has existed since the days of OD&D.
(* One can argue how "squishy" an invisible, flying, stone-skinned wizard really is, but I digress.)
Similar Threads
