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

[airwalkrr]

Some posters have commented on the issue of whether or not I want my players to have fun. That's a valid point, and the answer is "yes." But this is a two-way street here. I went through a phase when I thought it was cool to play monsters and it lasted about 6 months before I burned out on the idea. Since then I have stuck with what I know and enjoy, which is mostly elf wizards. Now I'm not saying that I expect other players to play elf wizards exclusively. I just happen to enjoy a campaign that is medium-fantasy or Tolkien-esque, whether I'm running or playing. I do step out of my comfort zone when I am a player from time to time (though I do have my limits), but if I am the one putting the lion's share of effort into campaign design (i.e. being the DM), I believe I have the prerogative to play my preferred style.

Bottom line: It isn't a crime for a DM to want to have fun in his own game too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This is good. We need more people who are 'meh' about 4e expressing their views. Too much love n' hate at the moment.

The OP has a good point. 'Out there' PC races don't fit into Greyhawk. So if you run Greyhawk 4e you have two choices. 1) Say no to your players. 2) Modify the setting. Either is viable.

 

[TheSeer]

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 think what you need to look at is that bolded section. If your players are clamoring for something you don't want to give, there are three choices:

1) Do the same as you do now and get the long faces and just tough it out
2) Get new players - the ones you have must not fit with your game style. Find ones who do.
3) Look at *WHY* these people want to play something else and see if it is a good reason. Maybe they are just tied of playing regular humans. It is a fantasy role playing game after all. Many people don't wanna just play themselves. They want to do the fantastic, be someone they aren't. And the best way to do (in some opinions) is to go all out and play that stereotypical cranky dwarf, haughty elf, or something brand new, like tiefling and dragonborn.

And if after thinking about what is best for your players, your game and yourself, you still come down to not wanting to have unusual non-humans in your game, then figure out which of #1 or #2 you are going to have to do.

 

[maggot]

I'm in total agreement with the original poster. D&D seems to have two camps: those that think it should be about a few, traditional humanoid races; and those that embrace everything that the game has to offer. I'm in camp one.

4E seems to have embraced camp two from the beginning. I wonder why they couldn't have the followed the model where the core had the traditional humanoid races and the expansions had the everything goes type. This would have satisfied both camp one and camp two.

Alas, they did not chose this. They chose to make the core assume dragonborn, tieflings, and teleporting eladrin. This forces the game-one DM to trim down the races via a process he/she never had to use before: banning stuff from the core. This is uncomfortable for camp one DMs, but very familiar to camp-two DMs because they do this stuff all the time.

Thus the edition feud is on. 4E flavor haters vs 4E flavor loves. Camp one vs camp two.

 

[Khairn]

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.

~

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.

Airwalkrr, I understand where you are coming from and agree with you. Based personally on how I GM and the types of games that I use the D&D system for, 4E just isn't looking to be a replacement for what I currently use. I may end up using 4E for more "over the top high fantasy" games, (did I really say that? ) but at this moment in time it won't be taking the place of any of my regular games.

I agree that 4E will probably become "the game" in the future, and like you I'll probably end up playing it. But I don't think I'll have any problems finding players for my games. Interest in my area about 4E is lukewarm at best, and as one of the few GM's who regularly open their games to new players, I rarely have a problem getting groups together.

 

[Benimoto]

Personally, I doubt that players are tired of playing the classic fantasy races. In my (anecdotal) experience with Eberron campaigns, maybe one out of a group of four or five players would play any of the Eberron-specific races (shifter, warforged, kalashtar, changeling). The rest would play humans, elves and dwarves.

Think of how many half-orcs or gnomes you had people playing under 3rd edition, and you'll probably have a good idea of how many people are actually going to play tieflings or dragonborn. Maybe that's enough to annoy you, but I don't find it a problem.

And, in Greyhawk especially, I don't see that occurring. Most of the players I know that are heavily into Greyhawk play humans of varying ethnicities, with a certain segment playing dwarves and a few scattered elves. That's because most of the history and plot in Greyhawk revolves around humans, and most of the population is human. Sure new players might want to play one of the more fantastic races. Just let them play it for a few sessions, and then when they get a feel for the setting ask them if they might want to make a new character who is more involved in the background of the campaign.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

I can only advice to be up front with your players about where the campaign takes place, and what kind of flavour you're intending to give it, and which elements of the new edition you don't think fit in. Then go from there.

On the other hand, if there is one thing every roleplayer should be able to, it's working around his own assumptions and get creative integrating new stuff into traditional settings. If one of your players really wants to play a e.g. dragonborn, and has a good backstory for it that also fits with your campaign flavour, you might try to give it a spin. Just as your players should be able to talk to you about the game, so should you with them, and if the experiment doesn't work out, you can still talk with the player in question to see if he'd go along with a more fitting character instead.

If you think you'll like 4E, I'd say campaign world considerations should be not that insurmountable a stumbling block to pass it up.

 

[Mort]

Some posters have commented on the issue of whether or not I want my players to have fun. That's a valid point, and the answer is "yes." But this is a two-way street here. I went through a phase when I thought it was cool to play monsters and it lasted about 6 months before I burned out on the idea. Since then I have stuck with what I know and enjoy, which is mostly elf wizards. Now I'm not saying that I expect other players to play elf wizards exclusively. I just happen to enjoy a campaign that is medium-fantasy or Tolkien-esque, whether I'm running or playing. I do step out of my comfort zone when I am a player from time to time (though I do have my limits), but if I am the one putting the lion's share of effort into campaign design (i.e. being the DM), I believe I have the prerogative to play my preferred style.

Bottom line: It isn't a crime for a DM to want to have fun in his own game too.

I'd take this a step further and state - if you're not having fun DMing you shouldn't be DMing.

But as to the main point - I think you're overcomplicating things. The simple question is - Does 4e model the kind of campaign you want to run better (with better being more "better for you?" as in easier, simpler, faster or whatever criteria you set) than previous editions? If the answer is "yes" then 4e is probably a good fit for you, if not then it's not.

 

[TheSeer]

I'm in total agreement with the original poster. D&D seems to have two camps: those that think it should be about a few, traditional humanoid races; and those that embrace everything that the game has to offer. I'm in camp one.

4E seems to have embraced camp two from the beginning. I wonder why they couldn't have the followed the model where the core had the traditional humanoid races and the expansions had the everything goes type. This would have satisfied both camp one and camp two.

Alas, they did not chose this. They chose to make the core assume dragonborn, tieflings, and teleporting eladrin. This forces the game-one DM to trim down the races via a process he/she never had to use before: banning stuff from the core. This is uncomfortable for camp one DMs, but very familiar to camp-two DMs because they do this stuff all the time.

Thus the edition feud is on. 4E flavor haters vs 4E flavor loves. Camp one vs camp two.

And if that type of play is what you and your players want, then you just ignore the extra races. The problem comes from when you want one thing and your players want something else. You are the DM, if you don't wanna use that other stuff, it's your game. But then you have to decide whether or not to compromise, keep a hard line, or take your ball and go home. WoTC isn't forcing your into choosing to compromise, it's your choice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm in total agreement with the original poster. D&D seems to have two camps: those that think it should be about a few, traditional humanoid races; and those that embrace everything that the game has to offer. I'm in camp one.

4E seems to have embraced camp two from the beginning. I wonder why they couldn't have the followed the model where the core had the traditional humanoid races and the expansions had the everything goes type. This would have satisfied both camp one and camp two.

Alas, they did not chose this. They chose to make the core assume dragonborn, tieflings, and teleporting eladrin. This forces the game-one DM to trim down the races via a process he/she never had to use before: banning stuff from the core. This is uncomfortable for camp one DMs, but very familiar to camp-two DMs because they do this stuff all the time.

Thus the edition feud is on. 4E flavor haters vs 4E flavor loves. Camp one vs camp two.

I don't like putting people in such camps. I think people should be open for some middle ground. You might not like Dragonborn in FR (and get angry about if you hear they will be there), but maybe you like them in a different campaign - a homebrew, a yet-to-be-published campaign setting, in an adapted one.

The Great Wheel isn't appropriate for all D&D campaigns. Neither is the Astral Sea. But there are campaign settings for which these work well, and others that don't.
Not all races are equally valid for all campaigns either.

It's the DMs responsibility to figure out what kind of campaign he wants, and what races and cosmology he uses them. He better take into account what his players like, though, because fun at the expense of others isn't a good idea for a cooperative game like D&D.