"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[AllisterH]

There's a reason why Fireball was KING in 1e.

Of course, this assumes you actually would get fireball as don't forget that not only were spells under DM control, spell acquisition was NOT a certainity.

Having a 16 INT meant you only could know 11 spells per level AND only a 85% chance to learn a spell. Being a wizard in 2e vertainly wasn't the swiss army knife that people attribute it to being now....

 

[BryonD]

"Better?" How about the less judgement-loaded term, "different."

If I may be picky, I think the key term here is "equal", not "better".

I personally find 4e to be greatly inferior. But 4E had a different target audience than me in mind. All things are most decidedly not equal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All things are most decidedly not equal.

Things rarely are.

 

[Plane Sailing]

All things being equal, 4E is a far better game from a DMs standpoint.

1. If you don't like 4E from a personal taste standpoint, you likely aren't going to want to DM it.

2. If you are a heavy simulationist DM, or are a DM who likes crafting things down to the last detail, 4E likely isn't for you.

For most everyone else, 4E DMing is where its at.

No more comments like this please. Making blanket statements like this are almost by definition false, because it is your opinion and it will differ from other peoples opinion.

Worse, it is in danger of being an opening salvo in an edition war.

Thanks

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm not fond of 4e. I played 1e, 2e and 3e. I see how 4e evolved and why it was designed the way it was. For the goals they had, they did a good job. I just don't have the same values.

I don't value balance above all. I don't like rigid class frameworks. I don't believe high level characters should be good at everything.

I understand the issues with high level play but as a DM, that's the "big leagues." If you can keep your setting coherent, rational, and functional without constantly nerfing the spells you are an 18th level DM. Have a cookie while doing your game prep.

Part of it is the realization I couldn't re-run my recently finished 3e campaign under 4e without a near total rewrite. (A godswar had restricted all magic to <=2nd level and dragons took over because without magic the races of man couldn't pose a real threat). In 4e what does the loss of magic mean? Okay, I've kicked wizards, clerics, and warlocks in the vitals. Fighters, rangers, rogues & warlords are now able to do dragon-killing attacks and will heal up on their own just fine. That or I have to majorly overhaul the entire game system. Double blarg.

There's nothing like realizing a campaign you ran for ~7 years and 24 levels is almost conceptually incompatible with a rules system to make those rules unappealing.

I must confess that part of my 4e dislike stems from the terms of the GSL, the timing of the GSL release, the way HasbrWotC dropped PCGen support, a lack of printed Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and the utterly less than impressive Gleemax/DDI. It was like they looked at every ancillary aspect of 3e that I used and eliminated it. (For the record my 3.x game shelf is ~90% WotC)

 

[Herschel]

Well, here is a new one for you. I don't like 4e. It doesn't have elements that I like my games to have in them. I played it for several months and the only reason I liked it is because of who I was playing it with. The rules themselves bored me.

I feel the same way about 3rd Edition. He made an interesting but short-sighted point, I'll give you that, but wizards have never been a 'balanced' class. One thing I loved about early (first and second) editions was how hard they were to keep alive to get to that power level and how relatively useless they were until they got a couple of levels on them. It made someone playing a wizard want to play the whole thing, not just the really powerful incarnations. In my experience, some of the best RPing/strategizing came from beginning wizards because they didn't have unlimited burts or whatever. They also made good use of cantrips.

 

[Herschel]

3E is generally a better DM experience than 4E for most people who don't specifically dislike 3E.

People who dislike 3E are most likely going to dislike running it...

Won't this apply to any game you substitute??

No.

3rd Edition is far more labor-intensive and less "flexible" than any other edition to run. There are rules for EVERYTHING. If you like that, it's all good, but you have to admit it's quicker and easier to run a game in another edition with all else being equal.

Admittedly all else is rarely equal. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Herschel]

I dislike 4Ed as a replacement for 3.X. (IOW, its the New Coke problem.)

Coke "Classic" tastes like a combination of battery acid and dish soap. Grognards ruined what could have been a great change.

/smart-alecy comment to mood lighten

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To really experience "battery acid" Coke, you need to try it in Germany. They like theirs extra carbonated over there. You can fill your glass and let it sit an hour and it will still be bubbling like crazy.

 

[Mercule]

To really experience "battery acid" Coke, you need to try it in Germany. They like theirs extra carbonated over there. You can fill your glass and let it sit an hour and it will still be bubbling like crazy.

Oh, another reason to go to Germany. I can't even stand to pour American Coke into a glass because it loses too much fizz.