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

13»

Comments

  • SabreDeC
    SabreDeC
    Posts: 3
    Aw I'm sorry Runn. I didn't mean to get you on edge. Lol just ignore me in my feminine whiles. I just get passionate about stuff that's all. *Bows* Adult-ishery here I come. (^_^)
  • Runnetib
    Runnetib
    Posts: 5
    Aw shucks, ma'am, it's no trouble. I just didn't want people thinking I was insulting them when I wasn't, so I tried to clarify. Apologies to you (and anyone else) if you feel I stepped over the line into flaming and off subject. (^_^)
  • tungsten
    Posts: 1
    As someone who's played all editions over 25 years (and countless other game systems) I have to add that no edition has been flawless. Anyone who thinks there weren't glaring problems with AD&D, or Expert D&D, or 3.0 et cetera are being disingenuous. Each incarnation attempts to improve upon the last, clarify areas of confusion, and while I don't think 4e is the best ever, I am not so obtuse to recognize that there are a whole host of issues that they are attempting (with some success and some failures) to address.

    Overall, I feel as though it's simply the mechanics of combat that are changing from one system to the next and not so much the core essence that defines the "D&D" game/experience itself. I actually find the new combat system somewhat more tactical than 3.0/5 but there are too many interrupts for my taste. The new "roles" have maybe a bit less flavor and fluff than the ridiculous amount of classes/prestige classes from 3.0/5 but I find their skillsets and abilities to be different and cool. Perhaps too homogenized in some cases, and balanced for sure, but I don't see the lack of capacity for depth in a game.

    Overall, I find our current 4e campaign to be no different than any other I've been in before beyond the handling of combat, but that could just be due to the fact that our DM runs a great game. We rarely have more than 2 combat encounters per 6hr session, and spend most of the time RPing as we have in any other game or ruleset.

    And honestly, from reading all of Invictus' posts in this thread: while I can't disagree with some of your comments (I miss some of the mind control aspects too), it doesn't seem as though you've actually played 4e much beyond skimming the books. Our cleric heals all the time, I've never seen our Wizard use a magic missile, and we have as much fun in combat as we do outside it.
  • Knot
    Posts: 1
    4e owns.
  • jemmasmum
    Posts: 33
    4th ed has some good and bad points, like all games. I just know that I for one prefer previous editions
  • zoberon
    zoberon
    Posts: 4
    Hi. I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this was already mentioned, but my answer to anyone who was playing 3.5 and then, like me, totally unwilling to go to 4 is PATHFINDER. My god it's the best. It's what 4 should have been. It's the true next edition of 3.5 and I'm loving my campaign with it.

    I also started D&D in the 80s and played through all the systems, but after 4, D&D is dead to me. Pathfinder is where I'm sticking.
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483 edited April 2010
    OK, here's where the big problem is with this thread:
    Why should anyone but you care what system you like?

    I don't like 4E myself, you know what I do? I play 2E. The books are out there to find, so those are what I find and buy and play with.
    Someone likes 4E? Great! I hope they enjoy it. It's good to get more people into this hobby no matter what they like.

    I play Shadowrun 2E. Does that mean 2E is better than 4E? In my OPINION, yes, but that doesn't make it a fact, and so forth.

    Seriously, we're all nerds/geeks here, do we really need to draw a line between us over something as silly as a preferred system?

    To put it bluntly, stop being a grognard and respect the fact that not everyone has the same tastes, and just be happy the hobby continues to evolve rather than stagnate.


    I mean seriously, arguing over this is childish, no matter who started it. It doesn't help the RPGamer's image any.
    Post edited by JimTriche on
  • amerigoV
    amerigoV
    Posts: 9
    Sniff, sniff. Cripes! It almost looks like I accidentally stepped into something from EnWorld or Wizard's boards. I'm not sure how it got all the way over here!


    Its all fun a games people. Play what you like. I moved to Savage Worlds and am loving it. But I play in a 3.5 game (and have a great time, mind you) and would play in a 4e game with a good group. Hell, go look at the "systems" OP supports. Lots of people are playing a whole bunch of things the fits their taste.

    I'm not sure why the 3.x and 4e folks have to keep chucking spears at each other. For the 3.x people, there is enough material to last a lifetime. Why are you bothering everyone else with your decision? Go play! For the 4e folk, just don't worry about it. The 3.x folks are not going to change their minds. The system has been out long enough for people to decide if they like it or not. Just enjoy the ride until 4.5e or 5e comes out (then you can bitch :P)
  • sandman
    sandman
    Posts: 155
    bq. I mean seriously, arguing over this is childish, no matter who started it. It doesn
  • onsilius
    onsilius
    Posts: 50
    It's a discussion forum. If you're not here to do that, why are you chiming in? Posting to try to quell a discussion on a discussion forum offers nothing. Yes, we already know it's ok to have differing opinions. You're not posting a mind blowing revelation. Some people think 4e is the worst drek to hit the shelves (raises his hand). Some people (hack'n'slashers) think it's mana from heaven. This is a thread to discuss that. If you want to start your own thread about how great it is to agree with each other and promote the image of RPGaming as a peace-fest, there's nothing stopping you, ya dirty hijacker. ;)
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    Discussion is a long way from "Your system sucks".

    Discussion and debate are one thing, being ignorant to another person is completely different. It's also not fair to classify anything as hard to do or impossible in an RPG, since 90% of us will just change things to suit us anyway.
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850 edited March 2011
    In reviewing this thread, it seems to me that, with the exception of those who think that every RPG system is equally flawed, the contributors to this discussion tend to fall into three general camps: (a.) those who believe that, all things considered, 4e is worse than 3x (or prior eds); (b.) those who believe that, all things considered, 4e is as good or better than 3x or previous eds; and (c.) those who, regardless of their own system preferences, believe that there is no point to arguing about which system is best since all that such an argument amounts to is a difference in taste. Despite their differences, those falling into the first and second camp tend to be agreed in their disdain for the view of the third camp. Some have even characterized the views of the third camp as "Trolling" or "hijacking". I take it that what is expressed by these quasi-derogatory terms is the idea that this camp isn't really offering a legitimate alternative position to that of the first two camps, but is instead underhandedly attempting to change the subject of the debate. While I myself tend to fall into the first camp (though I certainly don't have a dog in this fight!), my point in writing here is simply to argue that the view expressed by the third camp ought at least to be given a fair hearing. I'm not convinced that those within this camp are simply attempting to "change the subject." To see this, consider how someone within the third camp might argue for their position:

    1. The point of any debate is to arrive at the truth of the matter under debate.
    2. Debates regarding the relative merits of 4e and 3x express differences in taste, rather than objective realities.
    3. Expressions of taste are neither true nor false.
    4. Therefore, debates regarding the merits of 4e and 3x are can never arrive at the truth of the matter under debate.
    5. Therefore, debates regarding the merits of 4e and 3x are pointless.

    The first premise here seems right. While the second and third premises are debatable, think about why someone might hold to this. To properly evaluate the merits of 4e relative to those of 3x, one would need to know what the purpose of D&D is in the first place, in order to determine which system better realizes that purpose. One popular way of defining the purpose of D&D is simply this, "To have fun!" Yet now we are faced with a problem. The conception of what makes for a fun D&D campaign may differ radically from person to person. For instance I might find intricately woven narratives to be fun and not much care for balance in battle, while you might be bored to tears by intricate narratives but find balanced battles to be really exciting. Now we might be able to come to some resolution as to which system better facilitates one set of features or another. Yet even if such a resolution is possible, this doesn't resolve the question of which system is better, since we still don't know which conception of fun is the right one. Moreover how are we to make such a determination without being completely arbitrary? Do my notions of fun better align themselves to some objective cosmic notion of fun than yours? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. It might be better to simply understand each persons concept of fun as expressive of their own tastes and preferences, in which case a debate such as the following:

    4e Hater: "4e sucks because of x, y, and z."
    4e Sympathizer: "4e is great because of x, y, and z."
    4e Hater: "Your wrong, 4e sucks because of x, y, and z."
    4e Sympathizer: "No, _your_ wrong, 4e is great because of x, y, and z."

    can be re-translated as follows:

    4e Hater: "4e is not fun because of x, y, and z."
    4e Sympathizer: "4e is fun because of x, y, and z."
    4e Hater: "Your wrong, 4e is not fun because of x, y, and z."
    4e Sympathizer: "No, _your_ wrong, 4e is fun because of x, y, and z."

    And since, as we've seen, evaluations of fun are merely expressions of personal tastes this debate further reduces to:

    4e Hater: "4e Boo!"
    4e Sympathizer: "4e Yea!"
    4e Hater: "4e Boo."
    4e Sympathizer: "4e Yea!"

    "So you see," our hypothetical third camper might continue, "there really is no truth to the matter of which system is better and therefore no point to the debate. All you are doing is rehearsing your own preferences over and over again _ad obnosium_, and as we all know, there simply is no arguing about taste."

    This argument certainly seems to have enough plausibility to render it a valid, and indeed formidable, third alternative within the debate. Given this, proponents of the first two camps would do well to treat it with more respect, and craft better-non dismissive-arguments to avoid its rather cynical conclusion.

    Cheers,
    -Arsheesh
    Post edited by arsheesh on
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    Well spoken, and a credit to geekdom.



    I sure as heck wasn't trying to hijack anything, If anything, I'd like to see more of a "Which edition is right for you" type of thread that takes all the pros and cons of each system, takes out all the opinionated crap and lets people compare and contrast in that manner.
  • Idabrius
    Idabrius
    Posts: 52
    See, philosophy training is relevant!
  • jemmasmum
    Posts: 33
    Tis indeed!
  • CapnHulk
    CapnHulk
    Posts: 10
    This happens every single time a new edition of _anything_ comes out. Actual quotes about 3E:

    bq. "3E is made for twelve year olds and gamers girlfriends that play once a month. This sucks far more that I tought it would. If your like 2E or 1E do yourself a favor and get into hackmaster. Wizards of the coast is a shitty ass company and has no buisness outside of there card thumper buisness. Fuck Wizards od the Coast and 3E can suck my left nut. All of you that buy it are contributig to the death of TSR and the greatest RGP of all time."

    bq. "3e means that there will be more new players by making the game more accessible. If on top of that it makes the game more accessible for our non RPGist spouses, all the better. RPG can now be good fun with the girlfriend or boyfriend."

    bq. "Look, I have tried 3rd ed, and it sucks. 2nd ed is the way to go. 3rd ed was made for 3 year olds"

    bq. "You're right, 3E was designed to appeal to a larger audience than previous editions. What's wrong with that? Nothing dude. Even though the rules are no longer as arcane as the rules I first learned to play with, I really don't feel that the rules have lost anything. I've played 1e. I've played 2e. I played 2e revised. I had a lot of fun playing in all of those systems. However, I've had TONS of fun using the new rules. There were so many odd additions to the rules lurking about in so many otherwise worthless supplements, it got old, and started losing a lot of the fun I associated with it. I firmly believe that anyone that gives the current rules an honst chance will enjoy them."

    bq. "If your DM's game sucks, it doesn't matter what edition he uses. Likewise with a good game. The game that I attend would be just as fun if it used 1st or 2nd Edition rules."

    bq. "We tend to think along the same lines. I do recommend 3e wholeheartedly. For us, I think the greatest benefit was the pace of the game. The "game" portion of it, at least with the 3 core books, works like clockwork. Combats moved right along, even complex ones. Characters had more options available to them, and were less at the mercy of the DM's whim (which tends to make these things personal). Challenges are easier to scale appropriately."

    bq. "Lets face it, most of the people who play 3rd ed. have never played the original 1st or even 2nd.
    The skills for 3rd are weak and vague, multiclassing isnt worth it unless your taking the ROGUE class just to get more skills. This is a real munchkin system for players who want to start off as gods (every group ive played in or tried to DM whines about starting at higher levels because they feel their abilities are too vague). In closing, most people who are avid 3rd editionists havent even read the rules properly."

    bq. "3rd edition is the death of D&D."

    Does any of this sound familiar? Play what you like, quit trying to tell people what they like to play is "wrong" and grow up.
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    Hackmaster IS fun though.
  • CapnHulk
    CapnHulk
    Posts: 10
    Well, just the word "Hackmaster" sounds pretty awesome.
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850 edited April 2010
    Hackmaster yea! ;)
    Post edited by arsheesh on
  • Idabrius
    Idabrius
    Posts: 52 edited April 2010
    "Laugh at me, that's nothing new
    It was always that way
    Change all the rules to the game
    From what they were in my day
    But I will still play
    I will still play"

    --Tripod, Tripod vs. the Dragon
    Post edited by Idabrius on
  • onsilius
    onsilius
    Posts: 50
    Nice, CapnHulk, except 3e does suck, and you made up all your "quotes".
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    He may have not had direct quotes, but I was there - the general gist of what he quoted there was pretty much exactly what you could find on a good portion of the newsgroups at the time. Not only that, but you fall into the "Clearly missed the point" camp here. 3E didn't suck, it was just different. There has to my knowledge only been one system that universally 'sucked' as per consensus of more than 90% of the gaming community, and that was F.A.T.A.L.



    Reality check, your opinion is worth exactly what you were paid for it.
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850 edited April 2010
    I'm still waiting for the stalwart haters and lovers of 4e is to come out of the woodwork and defend their case against our hypothetical third camper. The gauntlet has been cast down, are their none that would rise to the challenge of aesthetic nihilism? And let us not forget that ridicule and _ad hominem_ attacks are a poor substitute for argument.
    Post edited by arsheesh on
  • onsilius
    onsilius
    Posts: 50
    No, your opinion is the one that's no good. Oh sn@p!!! I was "there", too. It sucked back then, and it still does. Everybody's talking about it, and they all agree. They also said you were no good, Jim. I'm not trying to insult you at all. I'm just telling you what everyone told me.
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    They were just mad because all their mothers were notches on my bedposts by that time.
  • CapnHulk
    CapnHulk
    Posts: 10 edited April 2010
    Sadly, those were real quotes from a real "website.":http://www.gamegrene.com/node/10

    The point is that everyone hates everything at all times if that thing is perceived to be something that is replacing some other thing that they like and are familiar with. It's just geek egocentric defensiveness and it's been around for thousands of years.

    I guess what I'm saying is that we should all hate everything--- _together_.
    Post edited by CapnHulk on
  • jemmasmum
    Posts: 33
    @JimTriche
    Ahahahah OH shnap! love it
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483
    CapnHulk, we can all still agree on FATAL right?

    @jemmasmum : ^5
  • Taloff
    Taloff
    Posts: 14
    Alright.

    I'm going to keep this thread open for now, because I think there's still room for legitimate, rational discussion. Please don't prove me wrong.
  • Dra8er
    Dra8er
    Posts: 30
    All RPG's suck!!! You should only play my RPG game, SHEEP. In SHEEP you do what your GM tells you to & thats it! It's a lot of fun (for the GM)!
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