Why do you keep playing 4e?

[Ahglock]

Well, for me, I was stuck in the mode that everything had to be statted out "correctly". If there's a magical effect, it should be based on the spells, right? The 3rd-level hedge wizard in town can't create magical rings, right? (And he can't just be a "hedge wizard", he's a 3rd-level wizard.) You can't just give a monster the hit points and feats you want, it has to be "legal"... right?

This is just plain stupidity on my part, thinking I had to run games that way, but I never was able to get over it. Well, maybe I would have but eventually I stopped caring.

So along comes 4E and it says, "Hey, you're the DM, your job is to provide a challenge with as much flavour as possible. Don't worry about Fey monsters having low hit points, feat chains, or the magical prowess of hedge wizards as compared to PCs. Just use your imagination, follow these guidelines to get the level of challenge right, and kick some ass."

In other words: When I prep for 4E, I feel like my imagination is unfettered.

Thank you for your response.
I can totally see that. 3e, does imply you should be by the rules for NPC creation. I just don't stat most thing sin 3e. Shopkeeper, the only thing stated is like his will save and social skills, and maybe spot to see if he notices slight of hand. I don't bother making him a level 7 commoner or something. So this does not come up much, but if I were designing a monster to fight, well Humanoids I followed the rules everything else no ruels folllowed except what is cool.

Still do for the most part in 4e, i pick a class etc. for an Elven whatist enemy. If the guy is just a human or dwarf or whatever, if fits my playstyle to keep his capabilities mostly the same as the PCs. I don't like having human abilites other humans can't learn for some reaosn. The one exception to this is HP and saves. Whether they are a solo or whatever determines HPs and saves, but what I call active abilites work just like the PCs. In 3e though it was not even implied you could or should fudge the HP. Before I got more lax I had a lot of NPCs who mysteriously rolled max HP.

 

[Ahglock]

Part of creating an adventure in 3.5 was adjusting the monsters to your groups difficulty rating. Adding/subtracting levels to monsters in 4e takes 30 seconds, in 4e you were lucky if you could do it in 10 minutes.

Creating classed monsters in 4e is very fast as well. I am probably slow, I created a 12th-level wizard in 15 minutes for 4e, in 3.5, that would take me at least an hour.

Spending a bunch of time on numbers/statblocks and not the actual creation aspect takes away from my enjoyment OF creation.

Monster Roles (artillery, brute, etc) is also great because I can just look at the role and then get an idea of what I want to mix that with. AND the fight will turn out fluid even if I just have soldiers and skirmishers (without needing to make a statblock for a spellcaster)

Thanks for the response and the same to all the others with a similar its easier to create balanced and fun encounters responses.

I guess for me I never really fully stated things in 3e so I am not seeing any time savings, and my rules nerdiness was high enough I could instantly see what monsters could do. Weird thing is its actually taking me longer to create 4e enounters. Wiereder even still its a good thing. In 3e while I may put in a fireplace, a desk, chair, floor rug, and a small table it was all just flavor text for the room. In 4e, with all the pushes and slides the environment matters more so I have more to consider. But while more time is put into the environment, something is actually gained from it past flavor text.

 

[Ulrick]

Thanks everybody.
Just reading this thread makes me excited to start the 4e campaign this coming Sunday!

Like I said in my original post, I've only run 4e a couple times as a DM. I ran the little adventure in the back of the DMG and I really enjoyed doing so. My players like it, too. The second adventure I ran I winged most of it.

In preparing for my 1st campaign adventure, I've used the encounter "budget" system in the DMG. Very useful, very fun. I was thrilled how easy it is to convert standard creatures from the Monster Manual into solo or elites.

I made my first minor reoccurring villain in less than 10 minutes--fully statted, fully ready to play. Tonight I'm creating the main villain.

IMO, The only thing that 4e lacks thus far is firearms. My campaign world is more like 16th century Europe with cannon, pike and shot. But I think these will be easy to add with not much problem.

 

[Wormwood]

IMO, The only thing that 4e lacks thus far is firearms. My campaign world is more like 16th century Europe with cannon, pike and shot. But I think these will be easy to add with not much problem.

Personally, I like the following house rule for firearms:

Pistol = hand xbow
Musket = crossbow
Arquebus = superior crossbow (adventurer's vault)

Manning a cannon? Probably a skill challenge of some sort

 

[Filcher]

Oh and this too.

I am pleased with how quickly and easily I was able to purge the Great Wheel from my memory.

Great what?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

IMO, The only thing that 4e lacks thus far is firearms. My campaign world is more like 16th century Europe with cannon, pike and shot. But I think these will be easy to add with not much problem.

I guess I should post my firearm house rule ideas soon, eh?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

For a few reasons, most already covered (ease of DMing, death of the wheel, etc).

That said, I would add I enjoy the fact group play is dare I say mandatory. It's much better than the adventures of CoDzilla/Mage and his friends, and much more rewarding in general.

I'd also add that I have more time to world build (my favorite part of Dming) as oppossed to spending hours crafting a two to three 4 round encounters per session.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I guess I should post my firearm house rule ideas soon, eh?

How far up the technology tree do they go?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How far up the technology tree do they go?

I have simple that are basically one-shot per encounter magical items, and slightly better ones that can be reloaded as a standard action.
I have "faster" firearms that can be reloaded as a minor action. Magical enhancements create "advanced" versions of the firearms (shotguns, semi-automatic, full-automatic).

Common Theme: Firearm encounter powers work like basic attacks but vs Reflex instead of AC, and for more advanced ones you get blasts (shotguns) and bursts (automatic). It's intended to be balanced with normal weapons, of course.

So, pick what you like. I've got the idea since we are running also in a 4E D&D Warhammer camaign and firearms are more common there...

 

[jbear]

Great post Firebeetle, you hit pretty much everything that makes 4e a far superior gaming experience for me and my groups. I'll add a couple points I particilarly enjoy as well.

H. While magic items are still assumed to be a part of the game, they are not the core of the character's abilities like they were in 3.x. Gone are the days of the magic item Xmas trees! Now, the abilities and skills of the character are of the most importance, and while magic items are nice to have, they aren't necessary.

I. The new cosmology gets my brain going, and is far more compelling than the old one. I loves me some Shadowfell, Feywild, Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, and Primordials!

J. 4e has a MUCH more solid framework to build on than 3e. The math works at all levels (we've played 1-7th, 15th, and 25th level adventures) without falling apart, and prepping and running high level games is EASY. I don't think WotC has even started to do some of the cool stuff the 4e system could handle- the next 5-7 years are going to be an exciting time!

K. I like that 4e focuses more on teamwork and mastery of PLAYING the game, rather than system mastery. I'd noticed this over the years of 3e, but it wasn't until someone earlier in the thread linked to a Monte Cook article saying they designed 3e to be a system mastery game that I realized the designers intentionall did this. IMO, thats horrible game design. While all games have some system mastery (even 4e), making it a core goal of game design seems like flawed reasoning, and counter to actually playing the game. Basically, this is saying that they designed the game to be fun for some people (rules lawyers), at the expense of others (more casual gamers, or ones that didn't get into system mastery). I know over the years I saw many new players take a look at the 3e books, and say "no thanks", or get frustrated when someone who put system mastery first made a PC that completely overshadowed their character. Thankfully, that reasoning is now gone.

L. 4e is new player friendly. In the entire run of 3e, I tried to recruit 9 new players- only one stuck with it, and he was really into number crunching. During the last six months, I've tried to recruit 4 new players, and ALL of them are sticking with it (and three of them are women who tried 3e and HATED it). The game is streamlined and easy to understand, without all the rules minutiae and baggage of 3e, but its still complex enough to allow for experienced players to be satisfied too. Thats a win/win situation!

M. Making monsters is a ton of fun. I like that monsters are not designed around the same principles PCs are. That means I can just design a monster how I want, and if I follow the guidelines, I can be 95% assured that it won't be over or under-powered, and will be a fun experience for the players. Compared to this, the whole CR/EL thing was a complete mess.

hehe, that's quite funny... and I'm sure not a coincidence at all...

I finally managed to organise a gaming group of fellow dads I knew from my son's kindergarten... no mean feat playing dnd and having very young kids.

I designed it so the 4 person party was accompanied by a character that anybody could play depending on whose house we were at. This way the host's wife was welcome to join in and play.

After such a difficult time getting the ball rolling now I find myself in the curious position that I have 9 people who want to play...

yes, each players wife now wants to play regularly, my own wife has joined permanantly (and for the first time is into the game)... actually one of the original players has conceded his spot to his wife as he is not a dnd fan and she is.

It's very 'New Player Friendly'.
It's very 'DM friendly'.
I enjoy the ease the system allows to tinker with the rules and make it the kind of experience I want it to be.
I love the concept 'Say Yes' to your players... this is meant to be fun!
I could repeat some things others have said too but that would be unneccesary.
I find that the simple, fun and well oiled mechanic of the game leaves me a lot of time to be creative with the creation of plot, characters and challenges...

oh, and I like the idea that characters earn experience and thus become more powerful not just from the brutal slaughter of creatures defending their lairs or their posessions from greedy blood thirsty adventurers. Skill Challenges: Love them!