Why I'm done with 4e

[MichaelSomething]

There seems to be a group of people who can't find happiness in 3rd or 4th Edition.

There's a whole world of RPGs out there to explore! It make take a lot of work, but there is an RPG out there for you! The Song of Ice and Fire, OSRIC, True 20, Mutants and Masterminds, GURPS, Shadowrun, and Kobolds ate my Baby are just a few of the RPGs out there!

 

[Wik]

How would that be different in any other edition?

In one way, not much. In another, a lot.

IN earlier editions (particularly those before 3e, but 3e, too), if I opted out of a combat, I'd be sitting on my hands doing nothing, but for a far shorter length of time. Also, individual combats meant more and less, at the same time (particularly before 3e). In 4e, the game is built towards X number of players, and if one PC opts out of the fight, the game instantly swings in the favour of the monsters.

I have opted out of fights in earlier editions. In 2e, I had a gnome who would attack inanimate objects, purely for laughs, in fights I knew weren't "Important", and that was okay. A few years ago, in 3e, I found myself in an encounter that I (as a player) was uncomfortable with, so I had my character opt out. And that was fine - I wasn't screwing over the group, because of the way resource management works for 3e.

Were that to happen in 4e, I'd be out of the game for an hour or more, and it would seriously hurt the group.

This isn't a bad thing, really. Just an element of the game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Glad you've found a game more to your liking!

Pathfinder does indeed look pretty promising (I'll know for sure, when I eventually get my copy . . . later this month), for those who favour the features and emphases clustered around the 3e section of the RPG spectrum.

But certainly, as MichaelSomething says, there are *so many* alternatives, if D&D (or, perhaps, simply any 3e- or 4e-type D&D) doesn't suit your group(s) so much. I think M&M 2nd edition might have been mentioned (prior to MS's brief list) upthread. Either way, I'll just throw in a quick recommendation - we've found it to be extremely liberating, and just tons of fun. At the same time, fairly familiar to those who've played any d20 game.

Anyway, good luck with whatever your group decides to do, now and in the future.

 

[Dimitris]

..
So sorry the game didn't work out for you! Thanks for letting the world know; hope you didn't think it was going to change anyone's opinion either way.

Pathfinder is successful and IMO its success proves that OGL / 3.5e could and will be the open standard system for D&D - type worlds.

Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games.

If you prefer the 4e game than the OGL / 3.5e game, it's ok. But don't change your game to 4e because THIS was the decision of THE D&D company and THIS is going to be the new D&D and it is safer to be a follower and go with the crowd. As you have noticed, 4e became just another system. OGL / 3.5e is alive, updated and well supported.

Technically, 4e reminds me an non-interesting wargame based on cards instead of rules and mechanics.

 

[Jack99]

Obviously 4e didn't improve the game. It was another game. It may be very nice game. I know a lot of very good games.

How is that obvious?

 

[Dimitris]

How is that obvious?

It's not compatible.

 

[GnomeWorks]

It's not compatible.

You could say the same for 3.5 versus earlier editions...

 

[Imaro]

I like it because those effects are based on the fiction. That's what makes it so flexible - that and a DM who adjudicates the effects impartially.

What exactly, are the "effects" based upon fiction that you are speaking of? If you're talking any effect the Player makes up and the DM ad-hoc's, well then that's player inventiveness + great DM'ing... but unless every stunt's purpose is to cause damage, it's not 4e that's giving you these effects... it's your playing and DM'ing skill.

 

[Imaro]

No snark comprehended!

Interesting. If you'd asked, I'd have said that this section gave me all the tools I needed to adjudicate stunts: strength vs. fortitude to shove someone and push them, for instance, or dex vs. reflex to grab a tapestry and use it to entangle (slow or daze them). Have I extrapolated all that from other sources such as blog posts, message board posts and podcasts? If so, I'll be a little embarrassed.

So (since my books aren't nearby) I'm going to assume that section deals with damage only and I pulled the rest out of my butt. If so, it's high quality buttformation! I encourage my players to use the environment to their advantage, just so they won't get lazy and rely solely on the cards, and have even given everyone the equivalent of +1/tier when using stunts. My results are that I see a stunt about once a game, and no one has felt constrained by a lack of options.

Hmmph. If it's not in the DMg, I think I'll go pitch a DDI article.

Hey I think that's great, but I think this happens alot... Page 42 is lauded for all these things but it really doesn't do anything but list level appropriate DC's and level appropriate damage. As far as attribute vs. save, well I think there were enough examples of this used in the game to instill the idea that this is (mostly) how resisted actions work. Though again there aren't really any hard and fast rules about which to use and it's mostly a DM call... for instance, in your above Tapestry stunt I probably would have had A Str +Dex vs. Ref and if necessary treated Str+ Dex as a skill for DC purposes...since in essence the character is taking an action and doing two unrelated things (ripping the tapestry down then entangling his foe.).

As far as effects besides damage, page 42 doesn't really give any guidelines.

 

[Belphanior]

Honestly PC, and no snark intended, but what is so flexible about 3 different categories (low, medium & high) of damage? I mean I could get behind this argument if page 42 gave some kind of guidelines for creating an effect other than damage (as more often than not players can do damage more efficiently, and usually with a standard bonus effect, by using their powers) but it doesn't. There are no guidelines for adjudicating anything besides how much damage a "stunt" should do. So I am asking... what is so flexible about this?

I'm not Piratecat, but you seem to be operating under a very common misconception. Some people think that because there is only one table on page 42 that it only deals with one topic - which would be the categories of damage.

This is not what page 42 actually is about.

Rather, it handles three separate things.

1. "The DM's best friend"
This is the good old circumstance bonus of 3.x, just providing a +2/-2 modifier for good or bad situations. This could be clever tricks, useful distractions, particularly (un)convincing lies, and so on.

2. "Cast the Action as a Check"
You have the option of resolving an unusual action as either an attack roll or a skill/ability check. You can pull the rug out from under somebody's feet to knock them prone, throw sand in their faces, maybe even use a scarf to tangle up a construct's gears. Whatever the DM is willing to let you get away with, really.

3. "Improvised Damage"
Based on how devastating and common a source of hurt is, the table tells you how much damage an unspecified hazard might deal.


Part of people's misconception comes from the table, but also the example used: swinging from a chandelier to push an ogre into a fire. This makes people think that the stunt (swinging from a chandelier) causes 2d8+5 fire damage.
It doesn't.
The stunt lets Shiera knock an ogre back 1 square. The damage comes from the fact there's a brazier over there. It's important to keep these two things apart, because the damage would have been determined the exact same way if Tide of Iron had been used to knock the ogre back. The example simply combines two seperate rules into one action, but that doesn't mean that all actions are like that. Some improvised damage comes without using a stunt. Some stunts don't do improvised damage at all.