D&D 4E What can change your opinion about 4E?

[BryonD]

There is no reason to love or hate 4e - there is reason to recognize what it does well, and what it does poorly, and to use it when you want its strengths.

I agree with this.

I've accepted the "hater" label. But I actually don't think that term applies to me other than as a simple handle for which camp I'm in. 4E is probably fun. But, for me, for an on-going roleplaying campaign its strengths are in areas that provide virtually no added value and its weaknesses are in areas that are the most important to me.

At this point I don't see much of anything that could cause me to switch. It doesn't just have to be a game I'd be willing to play, it has to be better than what I already have. I can think of five or six games I'd rather play.

So I guess the best thing Wizards could say to get me to reconsider buying their product would be: "We are proud to announce the release of the fifth edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game line."

 

[Dragonblade]

At this point, its impossible for me to not like 4e. Its like the designers read my mind and took everything I have ever disliked about D&D and dumped it, and took everything I ever wanted and added it in.

No level/ability drain
Static HPs
More HPs and cool stuff at level 1
At-will powers
No Vancian casting
The term "level" has a consistent meaning across class, monsters, items, powers
No more scry-buff-teleport
Smoother power scale across all levels and classes
Attacker always rolls and static defenses
Saving every round to end ongoing effects (No more sitting out the combat because you failed a save)
No save or die
A plethora of cool magical items and gear but less dependence on them
Exception based monster design
Reduced emphasis on simulation and more emphasis on narrative and cinematic action
Less DM prep time
Cool powers now spread across classes instead of hoarded by casters

 

[Dragonbait]

I've GMed 4ed several times now with the pregens and the adventure offered on here, and I like what goes on behind the screen. It really all comes down to character creation and character options, I suppose.

I know that I dislike the skill system so far. I don't mind the list, but if it's just like SW SAGA, I'm going to house rule skill points back in.

What would make me go to a "wait and see" position:
Lack of character cusomization. Of course, the longer a system exists on the market, more options become available so this could become more '"wait 3 months to a year and let the class talent options and feat options build up"

What would make me anti-4E
If the characters are very specific and can not diversify (the announcement that multi-classing is not a good idea in 4E).

 

[Greg K]

At this point, there is nothing that is going to make me pro-4e. There may still be things that I will borrow, but there are already at least five or six deal breakers for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I change my mind on 4e all the time. I'm critical, but I'm a glorious malcontent. I'm critical the same way I am about my government: I want to like it, I think it could be the best there is, but I keep getting shown examples of what I DON'T like. And some of what I REALLY DO.

Mechanically, I'm feeling a lot of what they're doing. Conceptually, I'm having some problems.

Fortunately, FFZ will be waiting with it's arms open for a fast-paced, character-based, ever-so-smooth experience pretty soon after 4e, and until then I can stick with 3.75.

 

[EricNoah]

If the character generator program is a lot better than I suspect it will be, I might be swayed. And if I can remove some of the base classes that I don't really want to deal with if I don't want to, and tinker with class abilities that don't work for me.

 

[Patlin]

I like what I've seen so much I'm having trouble imagining a dealkiller. I feel like I have a pretty good feeling for the flavor of the rules and how the game will play, at this point. Maybe it would be a deal-killer if their weren't enough powers to choose from, or it the powers were wildly imbalanced, but that's sort of a stretch.

 

[Wormwood]

Contrary to appearances, my opinion on 4e can *easily* be changed.

Essentially, the more of 3e's sins that are carried over into the new edition, the more likely I am to wash my hands of the whole brand.

* Is play constantly being stopped to reference some fiddly little rule?
* Is a single evening devoted to resolving one, maybe two battles?
* Are my players spending too much time twiddling their thumbs?
* Am I forced to just make up ad hoc numbers because doing things 'by the book' is more trouble than it's worth?

Ultimately, the only question that really matters:
* Am I having fun running this?

I can answer "yes" to that final question for the other games I run (Buffy, Spirit of the Century, Call of Cthulhu). If 4e fails in this regard, then my fanboy status will be terminated.

 

[Halivar]

Thus, only rarely is a game actually outright bad - they are only good or bad with respect to what I'm trying to accomplish in a particular campaign.

So... wanna join my Synnibar game?

I'm also very much excited about 4th Ed. The only thing that would turn me 180-degrees is if I purchased the rulebooks and found only rules for combat (a la DDXP; see my sig for why RP is so important to me). I don't think there's a kitten's chance in a dingo den that's gonna happen, though.

 

[JeffB]

For me to turn around to a positive view of 4E again boils down to taking a look at the books once they arrive (or possibly the KOTS adventure) and seeing just how big of an issue the tactical boardgame aspect is going to be (or not). Put simply: I absolutely hate minis, tokens, boards and grids. Totally ruins the RPG experience for me.