Why we chose not to go to 4e D&D

2

Comments

  • Triptych
    Triptych
    Posts: 18
    I do see. Also thanks for replying for once and not calling me a troll or some kind of name...

    As for your first reply to my previous post...

    I feel I am simply presenting a third view point. That everyone is correct and wrong at the same time.
    Groups choose an edition based on their personal tastes, so how could a group be wrong in choosing 4th over an older edition (or homebrew)? I do still feel it is childish to argue over an issue of taste, we may as well start "debating" what console is "better".

    From my understanding of D&D history, hasn't every DM (of every edition) altered there game in some way, shape or fashion? D&D to me that what D&D is, taking a rule framework, a setting and doing what you want with it to change it to the tastes of you and your group. Is not alerting part of the hobby?

    Why is such a bad thing if I choose to use the 4th edition framework and alter it rather than using a 3.5 (or older) frame work and doing the same thing? I find 4th edition to be easy to work with as a DM and I like that fact that things such as npc stats don't take forever to create. I only get about an hour a day to do "nerdy" things and this is a good fit for me. I don't have the time or experience to make my own system.

    The only reason I entered into this debate as I'm sick of the 4th edition bashing, it's been out for a good while now. So if it's not the game for you then don't play it. WOTC isn't going to come into your house and destroy your non-4th edition books and make you play 4th.

    People are entitled to like 4th or hate it, but what I don't like is the elitism of a section of the D&D community over 4th edition. They can't just play what they're playing and be happy about it, they activity have to come out and bash 4th, but why? Why would you have such a fit if a new edition wasn't inline with your personal tastes? Wouldn't you just stick with your current edition and be happy?

    To sum it up this is what bugs me:

    *D&D Player*: I play , I'm happy with my choice.
    *Me*: Cool, I play 4th edition. I'm happy with my choice.
    *D&D Player*: WTF you edition sucks! STOP GIVING MONEY TO THE WOTC OVERLORDS. There's too much combat in your edition and obviously no room to ROLE PLAY AT ALL! Go play WoW you pathetic excuse for a tabletop gamer.

    *In ending, everyone here is right! The system you play is the best (for you and your group).*
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    Don’t get me wrong i call it like i see it and someone using troll tactics is a troll. Just because i haven’t taken the time to punctuate your nature of being doesn’t mean i rescind it.

    I have articulated that this debate, for me, is not an issue of taste. It’s an issue of people not being aware of the problems inherent with gaming. The precedent that mechanics and unimaginative writing are worth more than creative fiction and interesting flavour. At least with Console debates you can make the argument that each console has games worth playing but not with the 4th edition and majority of media being produced by the major publishing companies. It’s all unimaginative tripe and hard mechanics.

    Everything you said in your response was Bull.

    “ I dont like that people are having a fit over 4th.”
    Is countered by
    “I’m coming to these forums to have a fit”

    Nice come here and tell us to shut up and let you rant because you’re special.

    “Modifying systems is the heart t of role play, so leave 4th alone”
    Is hilariously countered by
    “i don’t have time to modify systems because im busy”

    Since 4th out of the three cores doesn’t have rules for 95% of the character choices people want to play that means that you’d have to spend time to make up new rules or sink 40$ on a new book “the book of rules for X” to be able to play that also then you’d have top spend time learning it. I like how you self admit that a key “bonus” to playing 4th edition is that you can just spend money to be told how to play.

    So all your points you yourself defeat and you don’t address anything i brought up. So your here to scream "leave 4th alone":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
    and tell us that we can’t have a problem with 4th edition but you can have a problem with us. And seeing a show you’ve actually ignored facts of my argument like “i hate 3rd and 4th edition, they both were bad and served as cancers to the hobby” it tells me that you’re not reading my responses and are just putting up whatever to stir the pot.

    That makes you a troll.

    FYI I did have a fit over 3rd, it was garbage but it was what we played a the time. I did actually complain about and did bash it just like i do 4th. 3rd was my first exposure to gaming and i played it as much as anyone else. But after a while i realized that the rules and changes my player group made were just as valid as the sinkholes of poorly written books that were being produced and eventually we all stopped buying into 3rd and then eventually we moved to something better. So that pint is moot as well.

    The argument is one more akin to cars

    Car Driver: I drive , I’m happy with my choice.

    YOU: Cool, I drive 4th edition. I’m happy with my choice.

    Car Driver: you do know that your car is just a grey box that costs double and even quadruple the price of most other cars, doesn’t come with all the parts at once and runs slower than most everyone else’s. You should get a better car, its garbage.

    YOU: Your childish for arguing about my car sucking. Its a matter of opinion. I can drive whatever i want and no one can argue that.

    Car Driver: okay but your still driving a waste of money and nobody here is going to believe otherwise with your attitude.
  • autumnschild
    autumnschild
    Posts: 153
    I drive a Scion xB!
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    Scions suck, Gremlins are better and they will never go out of style.
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    ...Lol
  • Triptych
    Triptych
    Posts: 18
    Invictus.

    Good work on changing what I said in your points. It's also awesome that you put me down as a troll to basically discredit anything I say. If my replies didn't quiet match up to your posts it's because I was talking about the main issue of this topic and not just your personal opinion on the matter.

    I tried to end the argument on a high point by saying we were both right, but that's not good enough for you.

    I do love the fact that your superior knowledge of tabletop game triumphs any like of a D&D edition I might play. I can't argue with your view point that your opinion will always be correct, so in essence you win the argument. You also win because you clearly have have vast amounts of time and energy to devote to this topic as I do not (in regards to your double replies to my posts).

    I'd like for hostilities to remain in this topic and for us to discuss other aspects of the hobby (in other topics) in civil and maybe even in friendly terms.

    Good Day.
  • raohthekenoh
    raohthekenoh
    Posts: 3
    I think a lot of the reason that Wizards went away from the open source system is because they saw that most of the third party mechanics were junk, and much of their flavor was junk too. Allowing them to market their products in the same league as Dungeons and Dragons makes their product look poor by comparison. Of course that's just one way of looking at it I suppose.

    Not every possible build and ability and character concept needs to be equal for a gaming system to be good/valid. It's up to the Game master completely. If I tell you we are playing a game in feudal japan, and you want to play a rice farmer, you aren't going to be equal to the samurai, you aren't going to be as valid or as important as him, you aren't, period. and you made the decision to get involved with that. Also, you should probably link the free systems that you think are better than 4e, or any other system, because if you do, then people can look at them and if they are so awesome then we will all be instantly converted.

    If I'm running a D&D game, anyone who is playing in it should know that combat is going to be a big part of the game, because D&D has pretty much always been a combat game, with a very Large chunk of it's rules devoted to combat. Most people want to hack, slash, and get their loots. 4e is a great system for hacking, slashing, and getting loots. There are other systems that are better for talking about things, but most people generally don't like them as much.

    Tl;dr - listen to your GM and don't create characters or play in games that don't fit your game style. Not all characters need to be balanced in every situation etc. Some people like combat balance.

    ALSO, invictus gets awesome TG level trollin points for this whole thread.
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    *Triptych*

    My “victory” was a foregone conclusion, obviously being right tends to lend to that.

    A system that denies choice to the player is a bad system.

    A business model based on allowing only an elite few’s creativity to be accepted as usable quality is wrong.

    Labels are contagious. Calling a subject childish spreads to all those involved. If i called video games “murder simulators” then people would tend to think that only violent people play them, case in point the “video games breed violence” nonsense the media loves spouting and politicians like to use as campaign material. I consider this tactic trollish and you discredited yourself by using such tactics.

    I don’t understand what you mean by “superior knowledge” anyone can tell you that the greater amount of freedom is better than a lesser amount of freedom.

    Yes, taking 10 minutes per response means i have vast amounts of time compared to you, I’m totally not just “making the rounds” when i log into Obsidian portal.

    *Other Guy*

    Yes it does. Fact. The system itself must be a level playing field for all character and play options. It is up to the Game Master AND the Players to decide what THEY are doing with the system afterwards.

    A Good system will allow all character choices to be built and for them to be equal.

    A Bad system will emphasis one aspect to the point of making it the only viable option to survive.

    A Terrible system will only include one aspect of the rules in its books and begin selling more character options as extra books for pure profit.

    Your samurai example is invalid because it deals with the player and Gm. A samurai and farmer and their importance has nothing to do with a mechanical system. That’s the game itself. Try to divorce the game from the system. If you have two players and one builds a samurai and one builds a farmer they should be equally good at their respective abilities. But the samurai shouldn’t be automatically better because the game is garbage and over focuses on combat.

    I refuse to put up the system/s i use under the simple fact that you won’t be converted, you’re a gamer. Picking up new free systems just doesn’t happen. You’ll go
    “why should i take the time to look into a new system when i already have 4th (or 3rd or M&M or Exalted or WOD) and I’ve already invested time and money in them.”
    Doesn’t matter how good or bad it is, this will happen.

    The system/s i use Is/Are better and more comprehensive then 4th will ever hope to be. But this thread isn’t about them it’s about what’s WRONG with 4th and why so many people are unhappy with what just happened to the game that likely got them into role-playing.

    4th edition being hack, slash, get loot... makes it a Video Game!

    “I put my cursor over the monster and it dies; now I get gear and experience.”

    At least in 3rd you could make interesting characters that didn’t need physical combat as a main priority. But even 3rd was garbage for being over battle focused.

    That Guy Said:
    “listen to your GM and don’t create characters or play in games that don’t fit your game style. Not all characters need to be balanced in every situation etc. Some people like combat balance.”

    You miss the point; a good game system is already balanced to make all character options viable and fair. Players and GMs and game style do not factor into this. They take a perfectly balanced system and apply their own style to it afterwards.

    And to comment on the humorous nature of some sort of belief in “GM says what goes” The Gm is a player just like everybody else id warn any GM who thinks they have some sort of draconian right to control peoples characters with this: “players can game without a GM, one of them will start running for the group but Gm’s cant game without players.”

    4th is worthless, Dungeons and Dragons has always had some semblance of balance:

    Warrior/ Combat- The power set for being a combat master, always good at fighting and usually wins a fight head on with monsters. Doesn’t deal and doesn’t break the rules of the game.

    Rogue/ Skill- good at doing stuff other then fighting, plus this stuff is always available. Hiding, climbing, making stuff, leading, being good at not fighting. Usually hardy and able to in most circumstances fight and deal.

    Wizard/ Magic- Cant fight at all but more importantly BREAKS THE RULES.. you can do anything but have limited resources on how much or how often you can do anything. You can invent new ways to break the rules and righteously screw over the other two. But the combat character will totally slay you in a fight and the skill character is likely going to be hard to find until he stabs you in the back or convinces you to be his friend.

    1st-3rd had this balance with a lot of bleed over in 3rd. It wasn’t perfect and was still combat focused but it was there.

    In 4th EVERYONE is just a Warrior.
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    “I do love the fact that your superior knowledge of tabletop game triumphs any like of a D&D edition I might play. “

    What you said here just kinda clicked as i was cooking. 4th Edition being a steaming pile of wasted time and money doesn’t make your gaming experience poor. This is what I’m talking about, a system does not make a good gaming experience, the players do.

    It’s frustrating to hear someone link the two together; gaming and a game system are not the same thing. One is a bunch of folk having a good time socializing and playing an awesome version of “pretend” and the other is the guidelines everyone agrees to adhere to adjucate the game.

    I think everyone one here posting has said “have fun with your gaming” so obviously the thread isn’t titled “4th edition players suck..Lolz” the thread is about why people don’t like 4th...if you like 4th you don’t Need to be here. Yes opinions change over time that is the basis of debate but unless you’re going to offensively (not insulting offense. assertive offense) make reason for why 4th is good then there’s no need to refute anything here. All you’re doing is putting up a shell for other people to argue against. You’re not here to have your opinion on 4th changed obviously from your opening responses so you’re not even curious to why people hate it, look here:

    _“I get why fans of the older D&D editions hate 4th ed, but seriously you guys truly go out of your way to attack 4th edition while telling 4th edition fans about how your game is so much better! I think a bunch of people need to get off their high RP horses and accept 4th edition and its player base rather than constantly attacking us.”_

    Attacking us? You decided to take people not liking your system personally and then called THEM childish for not liking it. Most of the gamers who left when 4th showed up started with D&D and now their game has become something they dislike, and your saying they’re not allowed to complain else they’re childish?

    At best its people expressing why they didn’t like it and hopefully looking at each other’s responses and trying to compile exactly What it was that set them away from this edition. And in the end this set of wrong things should serve as a lesson for what to not do when making a game system.

    My reason was lack of choice, disgusting marketing and the elitism implied by the system designers.
  • countamantea
    countamantea
    Posts: 5
    I agree with what Invictus has to say, but this stuff is OLD NEWS. Wizards of the Coast is not TSR, and they bought D&D a loooooong time ago, so why this crusade now? They are probably going to make a 5th edition in a few years, are you going to be freaking out about their obvious capitalist money-making schemes then too?

    Protip: You can catch more bees with honey. You'd convince more people that 4th edition is bad by telling them more about how great and imaginative OD&D and AD&D were rather than 2 pages of vitriol. Seriously, the highlights of your post have been about why the Ravenloft stuff was so great (Van Richten's guide to vampires has like a total of just 2 pages of rules and stats)
  • Triptych
    Triptych
    Posts: 18
    Dear self,

    In future do no get annoyed at people attacking 4th edition constantly (even though its been out for over a year now) and do not dear speak back to them.

    They are obviously right to dislike such a system that I personally enjoy, because these people are superior to myself. Your personal choice and enjoyment are wrong, how dare you enjoy your 4th edition experince you mmorpg scum.

    The next time your group chooses a new gaming system you must make a thread about it here and proclaim your choice and pick a system that you do not personally like to make fun of. If anyone takes offensive over your attack of a system they personally enjoy, then please call them a troll as this discredits them and it's funny!

    Anyone called Invictus will win any argument because he is right from the beginning and arguing with him will only draw the wrath of the god's who watch over this enlightened being. His Vulcan like logic is no match for you. He is right, end of discussion.

    Now go back to your dark corner holding your 4th editions tightly while you cry and listen to Linkin Park.
    Because you don't belong here, you're a soulless excuse for a tabletop gamer as you like 4th edition which is like a video game rpg and video game rpg's where never influenced by D&D ever!

    I'm very disappointed in you for enjoying a D&D system that's as shallow as the grave you deserve to be buried in.
  • Dra8er
    Dra8er
    Posts: 30
    Don't worry, by my calculations (& the rate at which HASBRO is cranking out material) D&D 5th Edition should hit stores just before the holidays 2012!
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    Countamantea

    I
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    Triptych

    Are you kidding me? You
  • drubixcube
    drubixcube
    Posts: 19 edited December 2009
    to sum up:
    "if you're not having fun, you're not doing it right."

    oh, and:
    story, story, story.

    I haven't met a single seasoned gamer who loved 4E at first glance. And i've never met someone new to the hobby that found a rolemaster critical chart even remotely comprehensible. Different strokes, folks.
    Post edited by drubixcube on
  • Triptych
    Triptych
    Posts: 18
    I decided talking to myself was a lot more productive than talking to you.
    As I won't take my own points and twist them into a completely different meaning. (Want a high five?)
    I like how you keep whipping out the troll reference because I won't argue with you on your own terms.
    Unless I respond in two posts with 8 big paragraphs I'm trolling apparently.

    Does the inclusion of caps mean that you're mad? :)

    I doubt that we're done here. I did try and settle this argument a number of times but saying we can agree to disagree but that wasn't good enough.

    I'm sure you will come back and tell me that this whole post was about Transformers and what does have to do with D&D? As you skim everything I type and decide what I was trying to say in a second.

    You seem to have two minds about this conversation/argument/debate/flame war etc.

    You ask me to back up my points to prove my side of the argument but then you tell me you have been right from the start..........seriously what the frak (just watched the BSG finale so excuse the language)?

    I'm sorry but that's my idea of hell. Stuck in a never ending loop of slight annoyance.

    I have have a theory that anytime I make a reply you will reply just to have the last say.
    So no matter what you say in your next post I'm going to reply with a single . and see how
    can hold out before you reply and call me a child or a troll etc.
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    No you didnt, you responded on a debate with stuff and nonsense, if you werre talking to yourself you would have Kept it to yourself.

    You seem to be incapable of written comprehension:
    [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
    "You are not allowed to discredit an argument between people just because you are too lazy to look at either side of the issue and try and see through each side’s perspective. Else you invalidate your opinion as there is nothing substantial to back it up. You need to get off your high horse."

    "And as an afterthought who the Hell do you think you are too call other people’s opinions childish? IS your opinion better than everyone’s? Where do get off walking in here and going “lolz internet debates are 4 loooosers LOL” Both sides of the argument are debating here so why are you alienating them? In fact why are you opposed to intelligent discussion?
    Go fail somewhere else Troll."

    "By you saying the argument is childish you are indeed calling the opinions encapsulated inside of them childish, which guess what? Is a troll move. Its discrediting the ideas and opinions of everyone involved and at the same time trying to take some sort of moral high ground. Ridiculous."

    "love the idea that your “entitled” to your opinion of disagreeing but no one is allowed to call you on your opinion for justification. It’s a very
  • kingtruffle
    kingtruffle
    Posts: 3
    "Onsilius" has said nothing that I can disagree with. If I were to subscribe to a newsletter, it would be his.

    This topic to me seems to boil down to:

    -Taking note that 4th was undeniably influenced by MMORPG's (More poiniently WoW), which was influenced by tabletop role playing (More precisely 3rd), which was influenced by Video game RPG's (More or less Final Fantasy 7), which were upgrades to older Final Fantasies which was based on Dungeons & Dragons it is easy to see why people might think that this circle of incest might have created a product of lesser quality. Frankly I agree. You cannot sieve away all the flavor and options from a game, whittling away all the things that make Tabletop gaming unique, and expect the product to be called greater.

    Simply put WotC, with 4th edition, is not adding to the literature of tabletop role play in a way that is constructive. They have instead chosen to pass off an unfinished product as whole; a strategy that, although profitable now, will ultimately lead to a waning of tabletop player base.

    - Invictus is a waaay hostile guy... whose opinions I agree with. (I like the car analogy)

    - Triptych is a unwitting troll who keeps trying to end the argument with half baked closure tactics. (PS: If you start putting periods after posts you might as well just change your user name to "Triptych to Trolltown" because that's where your headed)

    - Kingtruffle is an overly verbose, vain, internet nerd who smells funny and can't spell.
  • Triptych
    Triptych
    Posts: 18
    .

    Awesome I'm a troll!

    I didn't know that trying to end an argument with "lets agree to disagree" was a half baked tactic kingtruffle.

    I thought it was trying to take a not so nice argument and end it on nicer terms because both parties (myself included) looked
    like they wouldn't budge on their position. But god forbid I try and do that because even saying everyone's opinion is valid is wrong!
    Real tabletop gaming nerds demand blood!

    But anyways this is my final post in this topic. I guess "trying" (keyword here as I know my first post wasn't too nice) to be nice doesn't account for anything here against such angry/hostile posters.
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    Actually you could have just stopped trolling and brought up reasons why 4th edition is a valid system. that would have sent the single you were ready to be listened to. but no go ahead and blame everyone but yourself, i suppose that's easier.

    People do budge on their opinions, see the "world is flat" example i made earlier. If you had actually brought your opinion to the table that would have helped the process. but you didn't, you came here to troll. You may not have known it at the time but then again most don't. Its a stigma that people carry where they think their entitled to their opinion and no one is allowed to argue it.

    trying to "end" an argument when not all parties are willing to end is in fact half baked, now you realize it! Oh Happy Days!

    My party ended on a nice term, i don't plan on calling you a troll when your not being a troll. if your going to be all sore about this afterwards then i cant help you.

    You are being childish by insisting that 4th ed players are not real gamers; no one here has stated that but you, so perhaps your projecting inadequacy issue or some such dribble but i will not have it.

    After reading your website i get the impression that you recently started 4th and D&D in general. if this is the case then have you tried any other systems?

    In the case that you only have experience with 4th then maybe it would broaden your horizons and lend credence to your argument of why 4th is superior if you went out and read up on some other systems. Do you know why 4th is good or are you just saying that "because"? i am beginning to suspect that the reason you are incapable of backing up your defense of 4th is because you don't know why but are unwilling to admit any criticism of it on principle.

    Either way you should back up your statements with some sort of justification.

    Oh and probably lose the attitude.

    so if your going to back up your viewpoint that we all have to "get off our high RP horses" then i am all ears. but if not then i suppose you didn't have anything important to say anyway and were just railing against the rising of the sun.


    "Good Day"
  • stumblewyk
    stumblewyk
    Posts: 21
    u_u

    I don't know why I'm contributing to this mess, other than to _try_ to defend 4e. I've played D&D since 2e, so I don't go all the way back like the true grognards, but I have some perspective on D&D's "lineage." I've only dabbled in other systems, as my gaming group has always favored fantasy gaming, and D&D has always suited our needs.

    I DM'd 2e until nearly the end of 3.x's life-cycle. I just didn't see a need to upgrade my game. My players and I were happy with 2e, and I can always tell my story regardless of rule set.

    Eventually, I added 2 new players. 2e was a distant memory for them, as their previous gaming group had made the leap to 3e (and subsequently 3.5) a long time before, and decided after a time to upgrade my game to 3.x. As much for their sake (does anyone remember how non-sensical THAC0 really was? We aim for the lower number to hit an enemy, but the higher number for everything else? Really?) as to be able to take advantage of the myriad of options that 3.x presented. That system had a billion character options - between all the classes we knew and loved, the ability to specialize with prestige classes, the simplified combat (BAB made about a billion times more sense than THAC0 ever did).

    And then 4e was announced. My group discussed making the upgrade...we initially decided we'd check out Keep on the Shadowfel, with it's quick-start rules, and see how we felt about the system from the preview before making a final decision. As my wife DM'd KotS, and we all got to learn the basics of 4e, all 5 of us came to appreciate the way the party felt like a unit - the _clearly_ defined roles made it obvious who was to do what (not that we didn't know that in previous editions, but 4e made it make sense). The fighters felt like they were doing a job, keeping the baddies off the squishy little wizard. The rogue was getting into a flank and hitting for big damage while the paladin drew the enemy's attention with divine power. The warlord directed his allies in battle, granting them tactical movement and bonuses on their attacks. It felt new, it felt exciting, and most of all, it felt _obvious_. This is how a tactical P&P RPG should work. And D&D had always been, in my experience, a tactical P&P RPG when it came to combat.

    So...I concluded my 3.x game a few sessions later. It was the end of my story, and the game came to it's conclusion. We dabbled more with the 4e rules as other people tried their hands at DM'ing the new system, and I've just recently started up a new game, in 4e...and I love it. I can make combat more interesting, more threatening, more tactical. I can use Skill Challenges to make the PCs try their hands at a different kind of challenge. And I can STILL make my story interesting and exciting for the PCs.

    And yeah...power creep still happens in 4e...but not the way it did in 3.x - things seem _better_ balanced. New source books come out, and my PCs want to scour them to find a new build, a new feat, whatever to make them more exciting in combat. And that's fine. I'm okay with the rules centering on combat. Because I don't need rules for RP. I don't need rules for my story. Throughout all the rule sets I've used, RP has always been divorced entirely from the combat rules. If my players earned the favor of a duke, they did that either by fighting at his side, or negotiating his aid and winning his favor. Whether it was through combat or through discussion, the results were the same, and I either had dice rolling, or had my players talking it out around the table.

    I guess I really could have summed this up much simpler: "The rules don't matter. If you can adjudicate it with dice, and you're okay with it, then do it that way. If you can adjudicate it with words, and you're okay with it, then do it _that_ way."
  • kingtruffle
    kingtruffle
    Posts: 3
    It is true that the mathimatical things that Wizards cleaned up from addition to addition did, for the most part, bring improvements to the system (removing the THAC0 systems subtractions for 3e for example) but that, as far as I understand, is not the nature of the disquiet.

    As I understand, and as many gamers today should agree, people take the official written material very seriously and certainly hold such material in far greater esteem then something some unsanctioned designer could/did create. It is a rare instance within gaming groups that they do not scoff at unnoficaial material (or for that matter offical material that didn't come from the first party). With that in mind; it is not difficult to understand why people, myself included, might be upset by 4e; It unapologetically leaves out much of the options that were prevailant in previous editions without natural recouse to recover them.

    Additionally:

    - I do not like thier focus on Minis. Tabletop gaming should require only, pen, paper, a instrument of chaos, and players.
    - I do not like thier forced uniformity. Though some people might like that everybody has their place it definitely does it's best to eliminate exceptional characters (whether Hercules or Rincewind). Something I find creates for intreaguing story creation.

    Also: Skill tests are a damn poor argument defending the dificiencies in 4th. Unless I am compleatly mistaken in how we use them, this "mechanic" has been, more or less, around in every bloody game that has ever existed. This is because it is only in the vaguest way a mechanic of the system and is more accurately a codified suggestion of how to adjudicate non-combat situations (in 4ths case using their stripped down skill list from 3rd). And one that is as old as tabletop gaming itself. Though it has a pretty new package it is neither new nor innovative.

    I guess my conclusion for now would be that though I (like many others) am not a fan of 4th it is not without a proper reason.

    PS: Merry Christmas
  • Runnetib
    Runnetib
    Posts: 5
    I started D&D with 3rd way back when. I actually started with a friend's homebrew system that none of us can remember or even begin to figure out now. Anyway...we moved to 3.5 after a bit, but whenever I was playing, we never finished an adventure, let alone a campaign. I never made it beyond level 2. Then things like school and military obligations got in the way, and I went about 7 years without playing at all.

    I returned from my second trip to the big sandbox, and a buddy of mine is running this 4e thing I'd read a bit about. I figured I'd try it, especially when I'd heard about the spells no longer being restricted to once a day unless prepped multiple times, etc. Unfortunately, the only class I had ever played or held an interest in wasn't in the original PHB, the Druid.

    Then my old DM kept saying about how he didn't like 4e, and I kept arguing against him, especially since he'd never even tried the game. So we got him to play in the KotS adventure that another friend was running. We had fun, but most of it was due to the RP generated by the group. However, a few things came up that we wanted to do, but weren't able to due to the lack of out-of-combat options available. Sure, there are rituals and such, but they really weren't the same. Neither were skill challenges.

    Despite our decent start, our rogue stopped showing up. He hated the combat aspect of the game and slept through it each time. Noticing as we all did that 4e was combat heavy, he stopped playing. It seemed a lot like WoW to all of us. Once the rogue left, we were done. We made it through one encounter and lost only our fighter,then died the next. The DM was going to make it a 'captured' situation, until the former fighter, who happened to be the DM of old 3.x days, decided that the game was lacking too much for him. At this point, he decided he was going to run 3.5 again. I was game.

    I was still playing in the other 4e campaign, and running one. I found myself adding a lot to what was already there, because I felt there wasn't enough RP. But then things changed, thanks to playing 3.5 again. I found that I really didn't mind the spell usage limit. I realized the 4e Magic Missile was really just a +1 light crossbow with force bolts. I could DO so much more with 3.5. That's when I realized that 4e was not the game for me, that is was lacking the options to become a truly unique character, instead of dough molded by a cookie cutter. And the DM used only the 3 core books, eliminating all the 'splat' books that served to ruin/break/power creep the game. It was a great experience. And I made level 4, and finished an adventure.

    The more I played 3.5, the less I wanted to play, or run, 4e. But I was determined to finish out the KotS adventure. I managed to do so right about the time we finished the 3.5 campaign. I'd told my players I would continue for them. I had also told them all the benefits of playing 3.5 instead of 4e. But how to convert? It didn't take long to figure something.

    I did what I didn't want to do, and ran one more session of 4e, in order to keep my promise. My main concern was finding a way to let their characters, or at least the spirit of them, transfer over. And it came to me. I made a continuation of where they'd left off, homebrewing the hell out of it because frankly, for the story I was trying to give, there just weren't rules for it. In the end, a wish caused the erasure of the existence of everything that had been (4e), and another took effect at the instant the other ended (ring of three wishes) to rebuild a new universe in place of the one that was wiped from existence (3.5). Now whenever I'm speaking about it, I refer to it as "That Which Does Not Exist", and scold my friends who don't do likewise, lol.

    But the story doesn't end there, no sir and/or madam. I was planning the story for my game. That's going to take a bit longer than I had hoped, and I got stuck on a deadline for a novel I'm having published, but that's neither here nor there. We were all prepped for 3.5, until I went to GenCon. That's where I learned about Pathfinder. And that's when my mind changed on what system I was going to run. Pathfinder has been dubbed 3.75. It took 3.5 and improved upon it. Part of that improvement seemed to be taking the few good things That Which Does Not Exist had going for it (i.e. rolling similar skills into one) and fixing the rules regarding combat maneuvers like Trip, Sunder, and Bull Rush.

    So, in conclusion, we don't play That Which Does Not Exist because, while we enjoy combat, we don't rely on it for fun, and much prefer having more options for character development over arsenal development. For those into heavy grinding and a P&P WoW experience, have at it. It's almost like light beer to us. But hey, that's your prerogative, and we won't hold it against you. We're all gamers at heart.
  • SabreDeC
    SabreDeC
    Posts: 3 edited December 2009
    Might as well jump in there.

    My friends and I have all been playing for several years now and honestly, when 4th came out we were all really excited about it. We played through almost an entire campaign in 4th before deciding it was not for us. Not only is the whole thing one big paperback video game, but the ROLES of characters are gone. Not just dumbed down, but absent completely. For example, I was playing a rogue and my friend a ranger. I tried to pick a lock for like 10 minutes and just couldn't manage it. (Bad rolls and you can't specialize your skills in 4th...just 5+Stat+1/2 level) The ranger walks over ans says "let me try" and nat 20's the bastard. Door flies open like a charm. The cleric is no longer the natural healer and diplomat any more than the druid. The ranger is no longer the tracker and survivalist and more than the fighter. The arcanists are no longer the cunning strategists but are now blasters...the rogue is no longer a damage dealer and city scape genius and more than the monk. The fighter and barbarian are no longer tanks and damage dealers any more than the paladin or cleric. All character-specific roles are completely switched around or meshed into each other. No party is dependant on what classes are played. You no longer "need a rogue", you can just build your ranger to accomplish anything the rogue could have. It kills me. And we were all for 4th and gave it a good honest shot.
    Post edited by SabreDeC on
  • onsilius
    onsilius
    Posts: 50
    I was surprised by the response this thread received. When I started it, I felt like I was the only one who wasn't onboard the 4e juggernaut. All the local game shops run only 4e, and with it being the latest and greatest, that's all the new published material out there. I just assumed everyone but me loved it. So my goal wasn't to tear 4e down, but to say, "Hey, this doesn't look or feel like the game I've loved, and I don't think I can ever switch to it. Here's why." The number of responses mirroring my own feelings and the feelings of my party that came after astounded me. It has reaffirmed my faith in the RP community that D&D spawned that although the latest RPG system to hold the D&D name bears more resemblance to WoW or Gauntlet than any of its previous incarnations, it will not have the last word on fantasy roleplay. Thanks for all the posts!
  • stumblewyk
    stumblewyk
    Posts: 21
    _"The cleric is no longer the natural healer and diplomat. The ranger is no longer the tracker and survivalist. The arcanists are no longer the cunning strategists but are now blasters...the rogue is no longer a damage dealer and city scape genius. The fighter and barbarian are no longer tanks and damage dealers any more than anyone else. All character roles are completely destroyed. It kills me."_

    I...just don't agree with this at all. 4e is ALL ABOUT character roles. I've played a 4e ranger. And he was every inch the tracker and survivalist. I built him that way, because that's the concept I wanted. The only arcane "blaster" is a sorcerer - and they're blasters mostly to differentiate them from the Wizard who is the controller, picking spells and abilities to tie up multiple foes and alter the battlefield. (And news flash, sorcerers were supposed to be blasted in 3.x too - hence the extra spell slots each day so they could really hammer a spell they liked while wizards had to plot and plan what spells they'd pick each day.) The fighter in ever 4e game I've ever played or DM'd has been the very definition of tank - tons of armor, high Non-AC defenses (with a weakness here and there). Barbarians roles HAVE changed - instead of being a melee beast that could soak up blows thanks to high CON and a d12 hit die, they're now melee beasts who can soak up a couple blows thanks to high CON and great mobility.

    The cleric is STILL the baddest healer on the block. Sure...a Warlord can inspire his allies, get them to pick themselves up off the mat once or twice a combat, and Bard can cheer his buddies on with a great story or song, but the Cleric is always your best healing choice - he's got more feats and powers available to him than any other Leader class.

    I can appreciate that 4e isn't the game for everyone - but it's not the pile of trash so many of you *want* it to be. It sounds like people are pissed off because it's simplified some things, and "homogenized" some others...but, and I know how terrible this must be for many of you - it makes it really easy to recruit new players and DMs. Since 4e was released, I've introduced _roleplaying_ to 4 new players, groomed one new DM, and encouraged a long-time player who'd never DM'd before to give it a try. What an awful, awful rule-set this has proven to be.
  • Runnetib
    Runnetib
    Posts: 5
    As for roles, I'll agree that they did have things set up for that: Striker, Controller, Defender, etc. Through numerous encounters and much play time, I'll have to disagree on a few of your points though. Our "Fighter" couldn't "Defend" himself, let alone the rest of the party, and he also couldn't fight all that well. As a Defender role, you'd be better off playing a Paladin. As for the Cleric, unless they've rewritten how it works, I remember them only really giving people the ability to use their *own* healing surges, not actually doing any healing. Ah, they add an additional 1d6 to your healing surge. They get a daily that heals 5 only in the burst radius (which would be half or more for some characters in 3.x, but hardly anything in 4e). Cure Light is a daily at lvl 2. The next thing that does any sort of healing isn't until lvl 5, which is a daily burst 1 that, while it can be sustained with a minor, only works if you start your turn there, AND are bloodied, but at that point it's a max of 6 points unless you've got some buffs on Cha, which I guess would actually mean some magic item because Eagle's Splendor doesn't really exist. You'd also have to forgo any of the other powers at that level. 6th level is nice. Out of the 4 utilities to choose from, 3 'heal'. Wait, only one really does, and it's daily. Another is just letting them use a healing surge, again, but this time adding your Cha mod, (encounter), and the other (daily) gives them back their second wind. That's as far as I'll go with that.

    Did it simplify things? Yes. Did I use it to awaken 6 new gamers? Absolutely. Did I at least give it a fair and full trial before dumping it or nay-saying it? A number of times. Hell, I even defended it against nay-sayers. Will I ever run or play in 4e again? No, but I won't tell someone I don't know not to play it either. People I do know, sure, because I know what type of game they're looking for. If they're looking for a game style more in tune with 4e, I'll even send them that way, and maybe even be nice enough to loan them the books I still have. I had fun with it, to be honest, until I found something that I liked better, and that I believe to be better, based on what I look for in a game. And if I'm playing or running, or for anyone who is, it's what I (or you) believe that really matters when it comes to choosing your system. I mean, as I said, I left it to return to 3.5, but then I left that when I found something better, Pathfinder. I know you all have your opinions, and you're entitled to them, just as I am. So remember, if it's not based on actual mechanical data/fact, that means it's probably an opinion, and therefore, subjective. Things can come closer to being objective for people who've actually given the system a full chance and then determined they didn't like it, it was broken, it didn't fit their play style, etc. I don't understand how an opinion on something can be valid when all 'knowledge' of said something is second hand, at best.
  • SabreDeC
    SabreDeC
    Posts: 3
    Alright alright maybe I should have explained my feelings better. By no means is 4th edition trash. It is still a good game and yes I did introduce 3 new people to D&D with it. It's just not MY game...and honestly those three who I taught have since graduated to 3.5 and enjoy it to a much fuller extent. This is not a fact..this is an opinion and I apologize for being so frosty about it. I'm just a little bitter because I WAS excited about 4th. Though it did share responsibility in re-sparking my interest in the older generations of D&D so I can't just shut down and say "it has no purpose". I'm sorry if I offended anyone here who enjoys 4th. I will attempt to remain adult in my disagreement. (^_^)
  • Invictus
    Invictus
    Posts: 54
    The angle of attracting new blood is flawed.

    Getting new players to try out role playing isn't something unique to fourth, its not something it can do on its own.

    You as the person who helped them get an interest did that.

    fourth does more damage as setting the precedent for new players that this hobby costs Money, an inordinate amount at that, which it does not. this turns people away.

    it also leads beginners to believe that 4ths absence of character options is the norm for gaming, which is also a turn off.
  • Runnetib
    Runnetib
    Posts: 5
    Sabre, I wasn't directing those comments at you, that was more of a general feel I got from the thread as a whole. And I was in the same boat when 4e came out, being all excited for the newest version, etc. If it wasn't for getting into another 3.5 game, I might never have gotten away from it. Not because I liked it that much, mind you, but I liked RP in general, and despite what it was lacking in that department, our group was heavily RP oriented to begin with...so much so that we often kept up RP for entire sessions and kept away from the 'mechanics' parts of it.

    Invictus, I don't think Drum said, or meant, that 4e was the only way to attract players, and that it couldn't be done with other systems. Just that it was the one they chose to use, and that it being broken down and simplified aided bringing in the new people. I'm not sure if you've heard of or watched The Guild web-series, but one of the characters husband's tries getting into gaming to spend more time with his wife, but that last game he played was Pong, and all the different combinations and possibilities threw him off, and gave him a very difficult time learning to play. I can understand how some, whether by accident or design, could end up using it as a stepping stone into more in-depth gaming in terms of character options and such. But at the same time, I can also understand how 4e is going to be enough, and maybe even just right, for others, especially newer gamers who would have less to learn, essentially, before they could get into it.

    Also, unless you don't use any props, any paper or pen or pencil or anything other than yourselves and your words, this hobby will cost money. Even if you do only use yourselves and words, it'll cost gas money to get to a meeting place, or money to pay for the internets to play that way, or, if all of you 'borrow' someone else's network, the computer, router, electricity will still cost you money, in some form. Am I being too literal? Possibly, but logically speaking, I'm not wrong. As I said before, we've played using homebrew systems, not just rule changes. I tried creating my own system once. It went well, until I got older and was able to see what should have been obvious mistakes. Sure, you'll pay less by using free systems, and yes, they can work just as well as any other. Personally, I'm willing to shell out the cash for what I believe is a good product, and sometimes even ones I don't, though hindsight is always after the fact.

    DrummingDM, sorry for the ambiguous pronouns, but since I don't know your gender, I'd rather not throw out a gender-specific pronoun and run the risk of offending you. Things have tended to get so heated on here already, and I prefer to be able to discuss or debate things in a non-flammatory, adult manner.
Sign In or Register to comment.

March 2024
Wrath of the Highborn

Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions