Why do I complain about 4E?

[Wisdom Penalty]

I'm not sure I understand the ugliness being thrown at the OP. I'm all for the newest edition of D&D, but that doesn't make me blind to the concerns held by those that aren't. I think his post was insightful, avoided the common hysteria or bitterness of such things, and generally brought up some good points.

I'm a bit chagrined, however, at what I personally perceive as a continued fracturing of the gaming community.

First we had:

4E vs. Everything Else

And then we had:

4E vs. 3.5/3E vs. Everything else

Then we have:

4E vs. 3.5/3E vs. PF vs. Everything else

I saw PF as the heir to 3.5/3E, and the voiced sentiments that it is straying too close to 4e design concepts, thereby losing some of its steam and its intended audience, is disappointing. While choices are good in ice cream, I don't think that holds true to gaming systems. People with established groups don't care, but people looking for a group that plays "their game" have an increasing number of difficulties the more fractured the community become.

Personally, I think PF is evolving into a better game than 3E/3.5E. It's not putting lipstick on a pig; it's taking well-thought and playtested moves toward fixing 3.XX flaws that seem - inasmuch as possible with the myriad opinions - universally held. Would we expect a company with the pedigree of Paizo to do any less?

Would we want them to do any less?

I don't think there's any shame in adopting the concepts of 4E that can work in a 3E game to make it better, and I don't think there's any shame in having that be the direction of PF (and other 3E derivatives, for that matter). Note that I'm not saying this is the direction of PF, only that it should be.

Add "IMO" to all statements above.


Wis

 

[Gallo22]

Honestly, I think the 4.0 haters are being closed minded. 3.5 has major flaws and 4.0 fixes them. The need for 4.0 is not just to close the OGL, its was to strengthen D&D and get back to its heart.

1. 3.5 is a pain to prep. All of the math ties into each other for saves, feats, skill points, HD, etc. 4.0 fixes this.

2. Monsters became over complicated and over detailed with features they don't need most of the time. This slows down play. 4.0 fixes this.

3. Dependacy on durations and buff spells as well as a mess of a multiclassing system makes game balance in 3.x a mess as well. 4.0 fixes that.

4. Unnecessarily complicated features like EL, CR, ECL, monster levels, treasure, magic item creation. All fixed in 4.0

5. Running the game advice and tools being easy for a new DM. Not possible with 3.5, very possible with 4.0 game play teaches players to DM. Amazing if you ask me.

6. Skill points making characters not have the right skills at the right level at the right time. 4.0 fixes that, while keeping skill training and differences between characters.

I get that change is scary. I get that 3.5 seemed amazing, and many things about it were. But it had issues. Major issues in the math and learning curve of the game. D&D needed to become easier for new players and DMs while keeping the look, feel and game play of the D&D legacy. WOTC has succeeded by far.

OP, you need to play and run a bit of 4e before you judge it. I think you'll be surprised.

I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no other way of saying it, maybe your just not as experienced as others who play or DM D&D. I have had little to no problems with the list you just cited.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no other way of saying it, maybe your just not as experienced as others who play or DM D&D. I have had little to no problems with the list you just cited.

I'm not sure "must have a lot of experience to be able to run a system without problems" is really an endorsement of said gaming system.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure "must have a lot of experience to be able to run a system without problems" is really an endorsement of said gaming system.

Now, I bought the 4e corebooks, however I don't consider myself pro-4e. It took a long time to realize the "bugs" in 3e and I don't believe a system can be fully evaluated in a week or two of play. It boggles my mind because I remember 3e being touted as near perfect when it came out by it's supporters as well.

I think your quote above is exactly what it is boiling down to with alot of people. Why go to a system that is untested, doesn't retain alot of what has become familiar (fluff wise/ gameplay wise) with D&D, has less options (whether those options are optimal or not), costs more vs. less actual material, etc. and practically forces you to buy more sourcebooks for the breadth of monsters and character classes you had with the core 3.5 books? Especially if you do have enough experience with 3.x where you are comfortable and have overcame it's flaws that matter to you? I mean between WotC and 3PP you probably have more material now, than will exist 5 years into 4e's lifecycle. And there are still publishers who will support it.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

1st ed AD&D could have been just as adaptable, if someone had bothered to write up class descriptions and weapon vs armour tables for a sci-fi game. We could call it D&D-modern. That wouldn't prove that 1st ed AD&D was an exceptional game.

They did EXACTLY this. Anybody remember Buck Rodgers/XXVc?

No?

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Rechan]

I've never understood the pain people feel about the 1.5 to 1 change for diagonal movement. A square blast radius makes as much sense to me as a ridiculous looking stairstep pattern.

Indeed. I was stunned when I saw people fighting about the Succubus becoming a Devil, the Cosmology changing from the Great Wheel, and other such things.

I had no idea people cared about that stuff, much less cared to the point of getting nasty or refusing to change editions. I've never cared about anything that strongly in D&D (Okay, maybe kobolds).

The response was almost like insulting someone's political affiliation or religion.

 

[Rechan]

Why go to a system that is untested, doesn't retain alot of what has become familiar (fluff wise/ gameplay wise) with D&D, has less options (whether those options are optimal or not), costs more vs. less actual material, etc. and practically forces you to buy more sourcebooks for the breadth of monsters and character classes you had with the core 3.5 books?

Because none of those things bother me.

Especially if you do have enough experience with 3.x where you are comfortable and have overcame it's flaws that matter to you?

At least for me, it's not a matter of "overcoming the flaws" but "putting up with those glaring, nasty, unbarable flaws just to play an RPG with other people". The only reason I would play D&D is because "everyone knows it"; I'd have much rather be playing another system, period. 4e took away a lot of the excruciating things that made 3e almost unbearable.

 

[Imaro]

Because none of those things bother me.


At least for me, it's not a matter of "overcoming the flaws" but "putting up with those glaring, nasty, unbarable flaws just to play an RPG with other people". The only reason I would play D&D is because "everyone knows it"; I'd have much rather be playing another system, period. 4e took away a lot of the excruciating things that made 3e almost unbearable.

Hmmm, this doesn't apply to you since you've already decided the expense and time is worth it FOR YOU. What I was commenting on was that those who have actually solved the things they don't like in 3e or "gasp" actually enjoy playing it have a smaller incentive and need a little bit more than hype about it solving all their (not your) problems.

 

[Henry]

They did EXACTLY this. Anybody remember Buck Rodgers/XXVc?

No?

Why do you suppose that is?

For the life of me, I don't know. That was a darned cool game, especially the SSi GOld Box Computer adaptations.

I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no other way of saying it, maybe your just not as experienced as others who play or DM D&D. I have had little to no problems with the list you just cited.

Yet, I have at least half of the same problems as he does, and I'd like to think of myself as a pretty experienced DM. My problem, however, is that with 3e came lots of number crunching that did NOT come with earlier D&D games, and it's bugged me since about 2003 or so. That's why my favorite 3E games have always been below 10th level - that's the point when the number crunching, the dice pool rolling, and the bonus stacking becomes a chore instead of fun. And for a game with 20 levels, telling me to stick to the first 10 just doesn't cut it.

"Doctor, my arm hurts when I move it like this."
"Well, don't move it like that." *da-BUM-bum!*

 

[Rechan]

What I was commenting on was that those who have actually solved the things they don't like in 3e or "gasp" actually enjoy playing it have a smaller incentive and need a little bit more than hype about it solving all their (not your) problems.

Oh.

Well, that's obvious: play what you like.

But it seems like the OP, and the various edition wars, is "No! You shouldn't like what you do, you should like MINE! Cuz yours sucks." The OP said as much: he wants people realize 4e sucks and return to play 3.5.

Hey, you want to play 3e, fine by me. Post about 3e, play 3e, rub those 3e books all over your naked body.

But, I won't go into your 3e threads and yell at you for playing your game, or why I converted, in hopes of getting you to jump ship, so why should 3e players do that?