D&D 4E the 4e debate: a typology of players
- Thread starter ppaladin123
- Start date
Silverfox13
First Post
This is me:
#12. confounded elitist troll - The gamer that can't believe he stumbled into a thread that actually catoregizes people based on some random list compromised from data on web forums. Not only feels that the thread and it's posters are stupid and by adding this is now included in the group. May slit wrists from self loathing and angst.
#12. confounded elitist troll - The gamer that can't believe he stumbled into a thread that actually catoregizes people based on some random list compromised from data on web forums. Not only feels that the thread and it's posters are stupid and by adding this is now included in the group. May slit wrists from self loathing and angst.
bjorn2bwild
First Post
Until further reclassification, put me down as 9, with some 10, a little bit of 11, 8, and 5 thrown in for good measure.
I've enjoyed all editions of DnD, and no doubt will enjoy 4e. The DM and the people you play with decide if it's fun. That being said, a streamlined set of rules makes for an easier time of that. I like most of what I'm seeing, but, just like every edition in the past, there are a few things that I expect my group to tweak in order to make it a little more like the DnD we know and love.
If our 4e playtest was any indication, we're going to have far fewer arguments and rules nit-picking come June, and that's certainly a good thing!
I've enjoyed all editions of DnD, and no doubt will enjoy 4e. The DM and the people you play with decide if it's fun. That being said, a streamlined set of rules makes for an easier time of that. I like most of what I'm seeing, but, just like every edition in the past, there are a few things that I expect my group to tweak in order to make it a little more like the DnD we know and love.
If our 4e playtest was any indication, we're going to have far fewer arguments and rules nit-picking come June, and that's certainly a good thing!
pawsplay
Hero
X. "The stunned and disappointed": These guys have problems with 3e but they also really like some aspects of it. Each has a different set of concerns so they often disagree with each other about whether a change is an improvement. They tend to think 4e is unnecessary because the core of 3e is still strong, but 4e could be good, too. They may also like occasional pieces of 4e architecture and are quick to pick up pieces that can be house-ruled into their game. Unlike the 3e holdouts or house-rulers, they were interested in 4e, but believe 4e will be overall, worse than what they have with 3e.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I'd be a 2, maybe a bit of 3 due to the ideas I can steal, combined with a 5a and a 12 , both posited below:
5a. "House-ruler of another edition (or game)" - you can achieve this definition by replacing every instance of "3e" in #5 as written with "xe".
12. "Missing the missing links" - these people are the conversionists, who want to be able to use a 4e adventure in a 2e setting with 1e characters using 3e rules ideas, while keeping the conversion workload down to a dull roar. In other words, they want at least some semblance of backwards-forwards compatibility, along with official support for earlier editions *and* 4e; otherwise, what's the point?
Lanefan
5a. "House-ruler of another edition (or game)" - you can achieve this definition by replacing every instance of "3e" in #5 as written with "xe".
12. "Missing the missing links" - these people are the conversionists, who want to be able to use a 4e adventure in a 2e setting with 1e characters using 3e rules ideas, while keeping the conversion workload down to a dull roar. In other words, they want at least some semblance of backwards-forwards compatibility, along with official support for earlier editions *and* 4e; otherwise, what's the point?
Lanefan
lutecius
Explorer
Am I the only Vrock (Type I) here?
I was really looking forward to a new edition. I was hoping it would fix the issues I’ve had since I first played dnd in 1988, that 3e failed to rectify. Dndisms that never made sense to me like fire-and-forget spellcasting, ill-defined ability scores or AC not being damage reduction.
I was willing to ignore the arrogant marketing, the new stuff I hated like the dragonborn warlocks & warlords and just wait until the things I liked, like bard, druid or sorcerer were released.
But the more I read about 4e, the less I like the direction it is taking.
Not only it dropped the ball on most of my gripes, but it creates new abstract aberrations of its own like per encounter/day mundane abilities or the clunky "marks".
So it's not too much change for me. Just not the changes I wanted.
I was really looking forward to a new edition. I was hoping it would fix the issues I’ve had since I first played dnd in 1988, that 3e failed to rectify. Dndisms that never made sense to me like fire-and-forget spellcasting, ill-defined ability scores or AC not being damage reduction.
I was willing to ignore the arrogant marketing, the new stuff I hated like the dragonborn warlocks & warlords and just wait until the things I liked, like bard, druid or sorcerer were released.
But the more I read about 4e, the less I like the direction it is taking.
Not only it dropped the ball on most of my gripes, but it creates new abstract aberrations of its own like per encounter/day mundane abilities or the clunky "marks".
So it's not too much change for me. Just not the changes I wanted.
Similar Threads
