Why I'm done with 4e

[Maggan]

I was done with 4e

My perspective is one based on conflicting experiences.

My favourite RPGs are Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Any edition, so far. It's all great fun.

I primarily run these games for my group, and have a somewhat similar style when doing so. Lots of social interaction, investigation, few combats, abstract battles not using minis, event based and so on.

The kind of adventures where my group choses not to play D&D. That's what I do best. I ran Tomb of Horrors, and it sucked. I ran Iron Kingdoms, and it turned into WFRP.

But the allure of D&D is always there. I've played D&D since 1984, and have fond memories of the Expert Set opening up outdoor adventuring and exploration on a scale I hadn't seen before. So I played D&D BECM up to level 26, then played Dragonlance and Ravenloft and other classic stuff. Good stuff and bad stuff.

When D&D4 was released, we decided we wanted to try it. One DM bravely took Keep on the Shadowfell and ran us through it. The resulting experience nearly tore our group apart. We couldn't agree on how to play the game, I hated it, and the tactical parts of it were uninteresting to me. Counting squares ... argh!

So I said that I would never play D&D4 again. And some other said they'd never play any previous edition again, because they loved the elements I hated in 4e. So no D&D for us.

It was a strange experience. So we went on to Dark Heresy, with another GM. Then there was a shakeup due to working schedules, and we lost our DH GM. So what to do ...

I stepped up and ran a WFRP arc that was nigh on perfectly executed both by me and the players. It was loads of fun, and it had everything I love about playing roleplaying games. But it took its toll on me, and when we wrapped up the seven sessions, I was a bit burned out on deep and complex plots. And I wanted to try something different, move out of my comfort zone, to see if I could learn something that made my WFRP games a lot better. Things can always be approved, is my belief.

So I bought Dungeon Delve. We created new PCs. I concocted a flimsy campaign premise, and then we dived into it. Very much focused on tactical combat and character advancement. I was planning on running a few of the delves while we were deciding on what to do next.

Sitting on the DM side of the screen totally changed my opinion of the game. I loved it. And the players loved it. We had had our internal flame war on play styles, expectations and pros and cons and all that, and we emerged with a greater understanding of what we wanted from the game.

The delves segued into Scales of War, and that will segue into Revenge of the Giants. The players are psyched, and we are chugging along. Before, we would change games every 7 or 8 sessions (we play once a week), but now we soldier on. D&D4 scratches a lot of itches that my players like to have scratched, while still being fun for me to run.

It doesn't play like CoC or WFRP. And for me it shouldn't. I just need to learn or even relearn how to make the game more D&D:ish, and drop some conceits I've adopted from running other games. To make the experience more like what my group thinks of as D&D. It's all possible within the rules, I just have to work a bit harder to bring it to the surface, since I'm entrenched in my primary style of game mastering.

So the short of it. I understand and respect the opinions of those who feel D&D4 is not a game for them. I've been there myself, and I hated the game. At the same time I think I understand the opinions of those who feel D&D4e is their kind of game. That's where I am now.

I think I would reject playing a PC in D&D4, but I love DMing it. At the same time, if someone said "show me your best game running skills" I wouldn't pick D&D4, instead opting for WFRP.

Strange that, to find conflicting views on the game, all wrapped up in one single gamer.

/M

 

[Iron Sky]

Well, a good DM tries to run the campaign he would want to play in.
An excellent DM runs the campaign he would want to play in.

I generally agree with this rule, but I've run campaigns I would have had no desire to play in (at least as it turned out going).

For example, I had a d20 modern game I ran that was intended to be a monster-hunting game and ended up being a survival-horror mystery game (that I used to have no desire to play - now I'm more open).

 

[BlightCrawler]

With 3.x's bloat issues (particularly for prestige classes), the solution was simply to exercise DM control and exclude the material you didn't want. 4e's problems are inherent. You can't play 4e without being smacked in the face with design issues every single session.

Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?

Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.

Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored. Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.

Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a game. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.

 

[Imaro]

Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?

I don't think that's what he said.

If you're really interested in understanding the OP...I think what he's getting at is that 4e is a much more gamist system as opposed to simulationist. For some people a more simulationist system allows them to get into the imersion of the game better... for others a gamist system does a better job... for the OP he seems to prefer a simulationist system, simple as that.

Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.

Wow is that what he wants? Really, because I got a totally different impression by actually reading and thinking about what he posted. Instead of just trying to fling snark.

Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored. Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.

So you agree both systems have problems (albeit different problems)? Then why is it so hard to grasp that someone might prefer dealing or working around one set of problems as opposed to another? Why do you seem to think choosing to deal with a set of problems different from the one's you choose to deal with is somehow wrong?

Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a game. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.

Apparently disliking 4e is not alright (at least with you). You're using hyperbole, he never said he wanted a system to ignore... he said he wanted a system that was less intrusive to his game.

 

[mmadsen]

What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system.

No, what he wants is an old-school game that doesn't pretend the rules can model anything and everything that might come up in free-form play.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I appreciate all the responses. My intent was not to inflame the Edition Wars so much as to see what others' experience was after playing 4e for awhile.

We played it to 3rd level. (Five sessions, I think?) It was ... okay.

Perhaps oddly, I agree with almost all of your observations about 4E, but I still don't hate it. I hate aspects of the rules (quite a lot), but I like aspects of the rules (quite a lot). The weirdest example of this split is that I really like healing surges and HP ... yet really hate the overall healing rules.

We may play 4E again (game is currently in limbo due to football season and the DM's obsession with it). Nobody is against playing, but nor is anybody clamoring for it. It's just kinda blah. I know that I'll never DM it, and I know that I'll never get attached and obsessive over my 4E PC like I do over my other PCs. But I'll play it, if the game continues.

 

[Arawn76]

no, what he wants is an old-school game that doesn't pretend the rules can model anything and everything that might come up in free-form play.

becmi?

 

[Ariosto]

BlightCrawler, that's a looong stretch from what I read in Soraios' post. Sorry: nothing there about "ignoring the rules system" -- just a desire not to have it get in the way as 4e apparently does for Soraios. I happen to prefer 1e and its ilk partly because I find 3e too cumbersome. Does someone "not actually want a game" but prefer "cooperative stories" because he or she chooses 4e instead of, say, Chivalry & Sorcery, RoleMaster or Powers & Perils?

 

[enrious]

Wait. You like 3E's rule system better because it's easier to ignore the rules system?

Wow, that isn't even close to what he wrote. He said there was a lot of "bloat" in 3e (and gave the example of more and more prestige classes), but by pruning things down to the essentially the core of 3e by going close to the core 3 books ("the core system"), but in his opinion that wasn't even an option in 4e as "the core system" of 4e is unpalatable for his/their tastes.

I sincerely don't understand how you could reply to what he said with what you did.

Uh, yeah. What you want is an excuse to tell campfire stories, then, not a game system. Playing the rules and using the rules is part of the fun. It's also a part of good game design.

Combative opening statement undermines a faulty premise (that playing and using the rules is part of the fun, presumably for everyone).

Because I've played 3E and its problems are just as inherent. They cannot be ignored. Well, unless you've played the game for years and got used to them. Then you don't ignore them, you just internalize them.

As has been said elsewhere, I don't think they tend to be the same issues, althought I agree both have inherent problems. I think happiness is reached when you find the system with the problems you can live with.

Not liking 4E is fine, but wanting a game you can ignore is baffling. It tells me that you don't actually want a game. You want improv tools and cooperative stories. I'd suggest you check out the Jeepform style of roleplaying.

Faulty premise still faulty. I understand this is a continuation of your original paragraph, but please reconsider this in light of what he actually wrote.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I find this interesting. As a casual observer of WoW I notice the simmiliarities right away. (Treasure parcels, marking/agro, recharge times on powers, perception/surprise rules - monster sight radiouse, the artwork, etc) But actually hardcore players say they don't see it.

Now I say I'm a casual observer of WoW as i do not play it, I tried got a toon up to level 8 (Yippy-skippy, I know) I used to work in a LAN gaming center and that was the game of chioce, my sister in law and her bf are addicted to it, so I watched them play when i spent a month staying with them.

Yet, the wow players with level 80 toons say they don't see the simmiliarities at all.

I'm a WoW player. I have 2 80s, 6 or 8 characters (I refuse to use the term "toon") in the 60-70ish range. I love WoW for what it does, but I don't want any of that anywhere near my tabletop games. I see the similarities in 4e, and that's one of the reasons why I don't like it. Any tabletop rpg that attempts to emulate a video game will fall far short of the real thing - just like any video game that trys to emulate a tabletop game will fall short. 4e trys to be a hybrid, and unlike peanut butter and chocolate, it just doesn't work.