Why I'm done with 4e

[keterys]

I stopped DMing 3e because I found the system created far more work for me than it created fun. Especially if I wanted to present a genuine challenge and have contingencies for the full gamut of options for higher level characters. That said, I bet I could still run it as E6, and I _was_ and could run plenty of d20 OGL type stuff just fine.

I stopped playing 3e because no one's running it in any of the four gaming groups I play with... but even before that, I had grown tired of rocket tag syndrome, crazy items and spells, and the general strategy of build optimization. But I'd still be playing if any of the other DMs hadn't dropped 3e, cause I value playing with my friends over little details of a system.

And I'm often surprised by people who do attach more signifigance to the system that they'll drop a group over it. I do get it to a certain extent, though. I mean, I'd never stick around to play FATAL, but I'd hope that it's more because of core group dynamics - like you want to roleplay more, or powergame more, or slay more, or whatever more instead of them. Such things often trend a group towards one game system over another, and friction between such feelings often create conflicts between players and/or GMs. Eh.

Anyhow, I asked about Pathfinder, to see if anyone else was interested. From what I'd read, it hadn't changed enough that I'd want to DM it, but nobody seemed interested.

I suspect it's just one of those things that varies from gaming group and location.

So, here's to playing lots of game systems, and everyone enjoying themselves. Frankly, the more systems you get exposure to, the more you can see the strengths and flaws and just house rule your way to freedom.

 

[Obryn]

So, here's to playing lots of game systems, and everyone enjoying themselves. Frankly, the more systems you get exposure to, the more you can see the strengths and flaws and just house rule your way to freedom.

Yep!

Every new game I play expands my horizons. Frankly, some games are better at doing some things than others. What game your group plays depends on what you value in your gaming - not in what's objectively good or bad about that game.

So, out of this philosophy, I've decided I like to play games to their strengths and play them away from their weaknesses.

If I want a gritty, low-powered fantasy game, I'm far more likely to pull out WFRP2e and run it than I am to try and modify 3e or 4e to give them more "grit." Frankly, WFRP2e is a much better system for arm-chopping mayhem than D&D of any flavor. If I want to run Temple of Elemental Evil, I don't see much I'd gain from converting it to another system... I'll just run it in 1e, which is still an awesome RPG. If I want to play a horror game, Call of Cthulhu (usually d20) is my system of choice. For Star Wars, I have a variety of choices - but for me and my group, Saga Edition works the best.

I respect the folks who can find one game and play it for 20 years, but I honestly don't understand it. I don't think I can be one of those folks. I have a lot of gaming itches I like scratched, and while I've played many wonderful games, I doubt I'll ever find a game which scratches all of them.

-O

 

[MrGrenadine]

It seems to me that if the player doesn't want the narrative to go in the direction that certain mechanical choices suggest, he can simply not choose those choices. If CaGI doesn't fit with the narrative of the moment, the player can simply choose a different power to use.

I just don't see how 4e is constraining in the sense you're talking about.

Well, if the flavor of a power doesn't sit well with a player, then the player should absolutely avoid it--regardless if its the optimal choice for the type of character or campaign--because since a character gets a small number of Encounter and Daily powers, there better be a darn good reason not to fire off an available Enc or Daily when the opportunity arises.

In other words, a power that deals 2W, or an attack that can hit or control many foes, is too good to be sidelined just because the narrative rubs the wrong way.

In the case of Come and Get It, if the character is supposed to be purely martial fighter type, with no powers that can be construed as arcane or divine, and he's fighting something that can't hear and/or understand him, then that power just doesn't make much sense. If the player can't or won't rewrite the flavor text so its more logical to him or her, better to pick another power altogether.

 

[fuzzlewump]

You are talking about character creation. I am talking about game play. As has been described above, the narrative in actual play MUST be adaptable to the circumstance. Which is fine. But you can't claim that the narrative idea is established when the power is selected and at the same time insist that it is only reasonable to expect to vary the justification as needed. Which is the point I was responding to.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. For the Fighter example, when I make a fighter I want someone who is cocky and arrogant and is an annoying target that enemies want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically. So I choose come and get it. I notice that it pulls enemies and allows me to attack them. That fits with my concept well, so I go with it. Narrative first, then Mechanics. Also, no need to vary justification at all. Why should I have to?

If you want to play a role playing game in which the mechanics follow the narrative rather than leading it, then the 4E structure isn't going to do it for you.

I want a play a roleplaying game in which the mechanics come after the narrative. I play 4E. Either I'm in denial, and have been for the past year and a half, or something is wrong with your stereotype.

I think there's a notion you're bringing up that characters following the same mathematical frameworks means that mechanics come first, but I just don't see how this is the case. Does the fact that 3E has different math and subsystems for each class, which are abstractions as well, mean that narrative comes first?

On the other hand, mechanics will always be a big part of D&D. Is it especially heinous in 4E? I don't think so. If you wanted to play a Plate-wearing Wizard in 3E, you basically can't because the mechanics won't allow you (in the same way 4E won't allow you, by imposing penalties.) My narrative has been crushed by mechanics in the same way in either edition. A more free-form system would allow me this concept, but D&D is limiting by design.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm playing a little devil's advocate here anyway. My true stand is that Narrative doesn't play with Mechanics, and mechanics doesn't play with narrative. Maybe only on sundays, after church, but with strict supervision. Basically, my players do not compromise on narrative, they play whatever concept that want, then they do not compromise on mechanics, building the best character they can. One of my players is a warforged fighter wielding a mordenkrad clad in plate armor. But, he is actually a human Samurai of the Thousand Flashing Blades, wielding a katana and clad only in noble's clothing. Another is a paladin, I forget the race, but he is actually a human monk.

Maybe my methods are atypical, and that's why I don't fit into your generalization, but at the end of the day, I end up with narrative coming before mechanics even while playing 4E.

 

[Scribble]

I like role playing games!

 

[Phaezen]

I like role playing games!

Over-the-top heated rant accusing you of saying that 4e is not a roleplaying game.



Personally I am willing to give any system a go for a good game, I will even play a system I have tried and didn't personally enjoy if the premise of the adventure/campaign is interesting enough.

 

[Mallus]

I mean, by your argument, anything goes because we're role-playing in a fantasy setting.

That isn't my argument at all. My argument goes something like this...

1) Describing how certain 4e power effects look (and function) in-game can be an interesting, creative challenge for the DM.

2) Most, if not all, 4e powers can be described in such a way that they make sense in-game (that is, 4e powers only appear nonsensical if you deliberately choose to narrate them that way).

So in your fantasy, molds can become angry due to taunting, and attack the creature taunting them.

I have to admit I find the idea of 'angry mold' to be pretty funny.

But it is also kinda stupid. If one of my player's CaGI'd a mold/ooze I'd simply describe it as having chosen to attack that PC out of it's own, free, fungal will.

In other words, a power that deals 2W, or an attack that can hit or control many foes, is too good to be sidelined just because the narrative rubs the wrong way.

Let he who is without gamist optimizer tendencies cast the first CaGI.

In the case of Come and Get It, if the character is supposed to be purely martial fighter type, with no powers that can be construed as arcane or divine, and he's fighting something that can't hear and/or understand him, then that power just doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. When a player uses it the target decides to attack his or her PC. No magic or Jedi mind-trickery is involved (it's all done with metafiction).

I like role playing games!

I like arguing about CaGI!

(the amount of truth in that joke pains me, it honestly does...).

 

[Scribble]

Over-the-top heated rant accusing you of saying that 4e is not a roleplaying game.



Personally I am willing to give any system a go for a good game, I will even play a system I have tried and didn't personally enjoy if the premise of the adventure/campaign is interesting enough.

Yeah I'm pretty much the same- I can also almost always find SOMETHING to do that's fun in a game. Even RIFTS!

I think because I tend to let my imagination come before any rules. The rules are just there to make the game a game, and provide some challenge to your plans... but I prefer them to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Even if that means the rules (if mapped directly to imagined event) seem strange.

I prefer scenarios like "Make a DEX check-" to "Ok on page 43 is the jump table, hang on let me make my physical leg bend check, and cross reference that with the gravity score, and um..." Yuck...

I've never been one to feel my "narrative" has to be inspired by the rules. I find the other way somewhat limiting actually..

 

[Nightson]

I get what BryonD is trying to say. It's not a matter of the mechanics, it's a matter of user interface.

In some games, your options are things the character could decide to do.

In some games, your options are things the player decides to do.

In one game you might have your typical D&D level of skills, and you might use, Use Rope or Acrobatics and cut a line and make a jump check and land right next to the enemy pirate captain.

In the other game, you might have a power called 'Right Behind Them' which allows you to show up right next to an enemy. The player uses it, and the DM describes cutting the line and swinging over to the other pirate ship and landing behind the captain.

Now in both cases the same thing happened in game, but you used a different determination of things.

In 4e, those narrative player choices aren't all the powers, and most of them aren't big, but they are there, but there's touches of them in things like martial encounter and daily powers. And for someone who dislikes that I can see why it could be a problem, I could conceive of someone who had trouble staying in character when such things came up.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. For the Fighter example, when I make a fighter I want someone who is cocky and arrogant and is an annoying target that enemies want to take down both to shut up and shut down physically. So I choose come and get it. I notice that it pulls enemies and allows me to attack them. That fits with my concept well, so I go with it. Narrative first, then Mechanics. Also, no need to vary justification at all. Why should I have to?

You need to go back and read the quote I responded to.