"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)
- Thread starter Mercule
- Start date
- Status
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Every time I DM 4e, it's like beating myself over the head with a halibut. Filled with nonsense.
thecasualoblivion said:
What is a better game to DM is always subjective. Nothing is ever equal. This idea of 4e being the Holy Grail of DMing Majesty has more "truthiness" than veracity.
"Better?" How about the less judgement-loaded term, "different."
I understand that the game may be easier to set up and run for the DM, but I don't like the compromises and design decisions that make that possible.
Simply put, the things I don't like as a player, I also don't like from a DMing standpoint.
IOW, not "better," just different.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I said that 4E is generally a better DM experience than 3E for most people who don't specifically dislike 4E.
People who dislike 4E are most likely going to dislike running it.
People who dislike 4E are most likely going to dislike running it.
Imaro
Legend
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??
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
You're getting your motives a bit mixed, methinks.
Someone might not like 4e because it is a worse DM experience for them.
I don't think anyone who thinks 4e makes a worse DM experience would like 4e.
The reasons 4e doesn't make a good DM experience for them isn't because they don't like 4e, but rather, the other way around.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I don't dislike 3E. I was a bit frustrated with it towards the end, but I happily played nothing else for years. One doesn't have to dislike 3E to prefer 4E.
I much prefer running 4E.
Similarly, one doesn't have to dislike 4Ed to prefer 3.X.
I don't dislike 4Ed- I think there are some really good things in it and I'd happily play it. If it were from another company and had a different name, I might be singing its praises.
I dislike 4Ed as a replacement for 3.X. (IOW, its the New Coke problem.)
Last edited:
This may sound silly but did anyone here ever play by the rules a 1e/2e wizard?
You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).
Unless you were playing a specialist, you didn't really get to choose your spells and you had limited slots with no easy scroll creation to get around it.
Seriously, of the loss of the power of spellcasting in 4e versus 3e, it should never be forgotten that the 3E spellcasters SIGNIFICANTLY got a power-up from the transition from 2E to 3E.
Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.
You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).
Unless you were playing a specialist, you didn't really get to choose your spells and you had limited slots with no easy scroll creation to get around it.
Seriously, of the loss of the power of spellcasting in 4e versus 3e, it should never be forgotten that the 3E spellcasters SIGNIFICANTLY got a power-up from the transition from 2E to 3E.
Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Truth
Add in to this:
1. 1E/2E games rarely went far past level 9
2. Combat took less time at the table, hence you tended to fight in a greater number of battles. Your spells per day had to go farther.
3. Wizards did not get bonus spells for high Int.
4. Save or Die type spells tended to dramatically decrease in power as you leveled up thanks to how saving throws worked.
- Status
Similar Threads
