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

[Khairn]

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.

QFT

As the debate between editions gets more and more heated, remembering that simple question is a must. There are a lot of players who believe that 4E will make their game "better" and a lot of players who believe 4E won't make their game "better".

As additional information is released players from both sides of the debate may change positions which is completely understandable. Being able to share our current impressions and opinions is the main reason why many of us are here.

 

[Stogoe]

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

This.

Seriously, if you don't like things that are different than what you've seen before, by all means keep beating your players with the ban-hammer. But it doesn't seem like a fun way to play.

 

[Greg K]

When I think of D&D, it conjures up images of elf mages and dwarf fighters locked in battle against orcs and dragons.

I agree with this for core rules. However, I have no problem with seperate setting products or homebrews deviating strongly away from this assumption. Then again, I am a big fan of AL Quadim, Darksun and Ravenloft. I just don't consider those core DND.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I think you opening statement is an interesting one - from what I've seen of 4e so far it seems that it is designed to make that setup more interesting for all concerned.

Admittedly there are other things added to that (races and stuff) which you don't want... but it might be that the pros of 'martial power sources' and wizards who have more magic than just the prepared spells (and easier DM prep for encounters) could outweigh for both you and your players the potential downside of losing access to certain races that don't 'fit' in your current campaign world.

I could understand players being disappointed in losing their favoured races (gnomes or half-orcs perhaps) more than players disappointed in not getting to use shiny new races, but I don't think that any of our campaigns that I run or play in have used any non PHB races, so I can't comment further there.

The thing is - I seem to recall that you are an inveterate rule-tweaker, and I've read and participated in many interesting house rules threads that you've started over the years. I bet that the 4e books would be worth it to you even if you don't run a straight 4e campaign, purely for the rules ideas it would give you for your own setting!

Cheers

 

[Imp]

I'm not really that thrilled with the new races in 4e: I'm not gonna use dragonborn, I'm not sure I'll be able to make tieflings alien and scary like the heirs of a fallen tainted evil empire ought to be, and I'm kind of suspicious of eladrin, which haven't really been discussed much besides the little bamfing bit.

My solution will be to wait a bit to adopt 4e, until several iterations of the core books come out and I have a better view of what the game looks like.

I've become more positive about the game in recent weeks but we shall see.

(Never really had a problem with banning races in 3e, because straight-up humans are such a compelling choice.)

 

[maggot]

And if that type of play is what you and your players want, then you just ignore the extra races.

Or I can just ignore 4e. Certainly easier on my pocket book than buying a game to ignore a third of the races and classes.

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.

Camp-two ("everything that's available") players don't work well with camp-one (traditional humanoid races) DMs, and vice versa. I've played in some games with demon, pixie, and half-dragon PCs, and the campaigns did not hold my attention. Conversely, I've tried to run a game with more of a kitchen-sink approach and found my desire to continue the campaign waned pretty quickly.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm kind of suspicious of eladrin, which haven't really been discussed much besides the little bamfing bit.

Yeah, they have. They're the "sorcerous elf" archetype (with elves being the "woodland elf" archetype), since the two were strong enough to deserve support in the game (but the original elves didn't really portray both archetypes well at all). They live in the Feywild for the most part, and the use of eladrin invokes "eldar."

Plus, the old eladrin were a creation to feed the needless symmetry model of the Great Wheel (have to have a CG outsider race for the CG plane or the Great Wheel is lopsided).

 

[helium3]

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.

What I'm most interested in is why you only want to play in one campaign setting with a specific set of rules and no other. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I'm a big fan of changing things up fairly regularly and I'd love to understand what the fundamental difference between us really is.

Perhaps an analogous question is easier to tackle. Let's assume that you've just told me that you only eat mint chocolate chip ice-cream and I've in turn divulged that I like about fifteen different flavors including mint-chocolate chip. We could chalk it up to different tastes, but I'm willing to bet there's a more specific reason. What reason is that?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

BTW, Greyhawk can VERY WELL fit those things... why not?


is it canon legacy? it's not because it was done that way before things can't change.

 

[Mistwell]

Honest question - Does the fact that playtester reports say that they feel it is a better version of D&D have any impact on those folks who say the game doesn't look like D&D to them?