D&D 4E Why I'm "Meh" About 4E

[airwalkrr]

It looks like 4E is shaping up to be a great game. It just doesn't look like it is shaping up to be D&D. When I think of D&D, it conjures up images of elf mages and dwarf fighters locked in battle against orcs and dragons. Tiefling warlocks and Dragonborn warlords just don't seem very D&Dish in that context. This is exactly the problem I have with certain editions being "setting-specific." Greyhawk really blossomed during AD&D 1E and fell out of vogue after that. Meanwhile Forgotten Realms crept in and became the smash hit of 2E, spawning a barrage of supplement books the likes of which has never before been seen. While Forgotten Realms remained popular during 3E days, Eberron really snatched up the goodies that 3.5 had to offer and made the system its own.

For years attempting to run 3.5 I have cringed when players requested playing a tiefling or half-dragon in my Greyhawk campaign. There simply isn't much of a precedent for it if you want to stick to the original setting materials. And for that matter, I think with magic items and spells and psionics, player characters already have plenty going for them. Supernatural heritage should be left, I feel, for the monsters and opponents, at least when running a classic campaign like Greyhawk. But with so much of the game recently designed to hand players these options, it is very frustrating for me to deny it to them. At the same time, Greyhawk is what I know and like. I don't care to change it so drastically and I really don't care to run another campaign. I would simply run AD&D but no one seems to have held on to their books and my players aren't interested in such a retrograde move anyway.

Anyway, back to how this all relates to 4E. This just isn't my system because it is too fantastic. I don't really want, for lack of a better word, monsters like eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn running around my campaign pretending to be members of human or humanlike societies, especially not as common PC choices. I believe the primary reason WotC has added them to the line-up of PC races is because players are growing tired of the conventional fantasy races like the dwarf and elf. I'm not tired of them, so I really see no need to adopt a what is essentially a new setting just so I can use a new set of rules, which I'm sure are well-designed. (Don't get me wrong. I think mechanically, WotC has made a lot of positive changes to the rules since taking over from TSR.) It isn't as easy as using the new rules and saying "Sorry, but tieflings, eladrin, and dragonborn don't exist in my world." That will just cause long faces and resentment among my players. I have a hard enough time keeping "optional" races like illumians and raptorans out of my campaigns as it is. I don't think it would be as simple a matter to keep core races out of the game. Imagine sitting down to play a 3E game to hear the DM tell you "Sorry, but elves don't exist in my world." As a long-time player of primarily elf characters, such a campaign probably wouldn't hold much interest for me.

I probably will end up playing 4E at some point, because I imagine it will become "the game" within a few years much like 3E did. But when it comes to DMing, I'm gonna cling to my old editions as long as I can find players who will let me.

 

[takasi]

If you currently pick and choose which races are available in your 3.5 campaigns, why would this change if you switched to 4E?

 

[Lackhand]

I do not share your emotions, but totally see where you're coming from. The chassis of 4th edition doesn't seem to be a problem for you -- it's possible that all your problems could go away with the publication of a 4th edition greyhawky campaign setting from Necromancer or Paizo or similar?
It's not quite the same as a homebrewed declaration that "There are no dragonborn here!" because it's a specific trope of the world, and it sounds like you might be helped by having authority to appeal to.

I'm just curious.

Oh -- and I wouldn't be so quick to lump the Eladrin in with the Tiefling and the Dragonborn. I can't see myself running Tiefling or Dragonborn as is, though I have no problem with the niche that they serve, so I'll definitely be making cosmetic changes.

But the Eladrin really is, wholly and completely, a Grey Elf (from what's been shown). I wouldn't worry about them.

 

[Thaumaturge]

My counterpoint is: which is more likely to "cause long faces and resentment", using what you describe as "great game" with some stipulations and constraints, or using a game with fewer of the "positive changes"?

As a player, I am much more willing to play in the sandbox of the DM's choosing if we are using the newest/bestest toys. I understand the desire for even an all human (or elf, or dwarf, etc.) campaign, but if (and we don't know if this is true yet) 4e is mechanically superior to 3e, why not use the superior system?

As a DM, though, I understand using the system a) with which you are the most comfortable and b) which most directly promotes the "feel" you desire.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Wolfspider]

Nevermind.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First point is that "eladrin" are just high elves renamed. Forget everything you knew about those OLD eladrin. (Stupid name choice on WOTC's part IMO, but there you have it.)

But beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It doesn't sound like you're really heartbroken to lose gnomes and half-orcs, and even if you were, they'll be making a return soon enough. The real issue seems to be that you want to prevent your players from playing races they like, because those races don't fit the campaign you have in mind... so you're instead going to force them to keep playing a version you consider mechanically inferior, just because you think that'll make it easier to say "no"?

Seems like this is more of a management issue for you. If you really want to be Mr. Hardcore DM, grow a pair and just tell your players they can't play tieflings or dragonborn. I've played 3e games where no divine magic existed or where there were no arcane spells above level 5, just because the DM said so. I had no problem with either case, because the DMs were good enough to make it worth the restrictions.

On the other hand, if your goal is to make the game as fun as possible for players... why not let them play the new races? Just because you have one tiefling PC doesn't mean you have to stick Bael Turath into your campaign world. He can be a Drizzt-style Only Good Tiefling In the Word if that works better for you.

 

[Thaumaturge]

On the other hand, if your goal is to make the game as fun as possible for players... why not let them play the new races? Just because you have one tiefling PC doesn't mean you have to stick Bael Turath into your campaign world. He can be a Drizzt-style Only Good Tiefling In the Word if that works better for you.

I'm fairly "pro-4e", but I disagree. If I want my game to be "as fun as possible for players" and also want to run a campaign based on Pax Romana, then elves, dwarves, dragonborn, teiflings, etc. don't fit and neither do psions or laser guns. Maximizing fun, would require me to restrict choices for the players.

Thaumaturge.

 

[kennew142]

It looks like 4E is shaping up to be a great game. It just doesn't look like it is shaping up to be D&D. When I think of D&D, it conjures up images of elf mages and dwarf fighters locked in battle against orcs and dragons. Tiefling warlocks and Dragonborn warlords just don't seem very D&Dish in that context.

[Bold face is mine, for emphasis.] This is exactly the type of post that starts flame wars. It may not look like D&D to you, but there is nothing that makes the style of D&D you prefer to be the one and only definition of D&D. There is something incredibly elitist and narrow about saying: 4e won't look like D&D because I don't like X, Y and Z and they're in the game.

 

[Dire Lemming]

Interesting. I share your feelings about 4E, but for completely different reasons.

I wouldn't say I'm bored with generic fantasy, I usually play human characters anyway, but I don't mind the inclusion of Tieflings as a core race. I do mind the removal of Gnomes though, and myriad other things that I won't go into detail about.

What's interesting is that despite those races, the 4E fluff looks to be extremely boring and derivative with the removal of most of the interesting stuff. I'm actually kind of confused as to just what they are going for, but I suppose "Cool" would be the best word to describe it.

I personally wouldn't have an issue if I were your player and you told me that there were no elves in your campaign unless I'd already made a character that was an elf and now had to make a new character. Not because I never play elves anyway but because it's the DMs prerogative to make the world what he wants it to be. If you can make it fun and interesting without them, all the better!

I've always felt that more options for the DM are better. Some DMs can run a great game but aren't great at creating working content that boring job should be WotCs. But instead they're trying to simplify everything and remove options that the DM could easily have removed on their own but not so easily put back in. As they say in wood working, (I think) If you cut off too little you can always cut off more, if you cut off too much, you're screwed.

EDIT: Wow, I must be the slowest poster on earth, I was the first to reply when I started typing this.

 

[iskurthi]

Seems like this is more of a management issue for you. If you really want to be Mr. Hardcore DM, grow a pair and just tell your players they can't play tieflings or dragonborn. I've played 3e games where no divine magic existed or where there were no arcane spells above level 5, just because the DM said so. I had no problem with either case, because the DMs were good enough to make it worth the restrictions.

Generally speaking... getting a game together doesn't necessarily involve telling 4-6 other people that they're going to play in your vision and like it. Knowing what your players like and what kind of consensus you can all find is part of DMing. For example, if you know that the majority of your players cannot control themselves when it comes to wanting new splatbook stuff and will absolutely leave and play something else if you go hacking out big chunks of material (and may not be easily replaced), then that's totally different from being in a group where people don't really care all that much and just want to play whatever (or are enthused about your vision).

If your group are splatbook addicts, then 3.5 allows you to limit how much you have to say no... because there are no more new splatbooks!