PDA

View Full Version : One year later



Valdar
06-05-2009, 06:07 PM
The 1st anniversary of 4e is tomorrow.

How many of us have been playing since it came out?

How have your impressions of the game changed since it was released, if at all?

Personally, I've been running a game since release, with an even mix of old friends and pickup players. We've been playing mostly weekly with April off; last Wednesday was our 33rd session, and the party just made Level 12.

DMing is even easier now- once I've got a plot in mind for a session, I can stat out the foes and skill challenges for the entire night in about 20 minutes using the Compendium, with no access to the rulebooks (this was about an hour without the Compendium).

Character generation is seeming a little more cookie-cutter than at release, and more classes available isn't helping really (it's just making the design paradigm for classes all that more apparent). It's good that the classes are so balanced, but I'm starting to get the itch for wanting to be able to play something a little more unique than a class that tosses around at-will 1[W], encounter 2[W] and daily 3[W], which is just about all of them.

It's good to have the missing classes back- Druid and Barbarian missing was weird, Bard missing was tragic. I was very glad to see Bard back, but the brand-new classes in PHB2 don't really seem necessary- I haven't quite wrapped my mind around how a Warden, Invoker, or Avenger would fit into a typical party, and Swordmage seems like an odd, gish-only-not-really class... Monk still being missing at this point is a little strange only from a traditional D&D standpoint, but as I've argued in another thread, I didn't really see what it was doing there in the first place, so I'm not really complaining that hard. And, having Monks be psionic is making me wonder what they're smoking down in Renton these days- now I'm never gonna get that image of Spock in a Gi out of my head...

Barring something dire coming up, I definitely see running this game for another year or so and getting the party through level 30. After that, I may run a new game a little less frequently, possibly experiment with some house rules, or maybe take some time off and run GURPS 4 or Champions 6 for a bit- who knows?

To quote Thoth-Amon,

"What share you?"

Baron_Samedi
06-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Its been one year since the release of 4e, and all i'm going to say is, i couldn't be happier with 3.x.:D

templeorder
06-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Maybe its time to revisit the 4e rules for me. I was so turned off initially and have not even looked at them since... now i'll hunt for a friend with a copy.

Farcaster
06-06-2009, 01:19 AM
Just a reminder to hopefully keep this thread from going the way of so many other 4e threads -- please keep this thread on topic to the questions at hand. Let's not go through another rehash of the many 3e vs 4e threads. If your a staunch 3e only fan, this thread isn't the place to rehash that.

Tamerath
06-06-2009, 01:41 AM
A year later, and I gotta say I'm sold. I really like what I've seen thus far and the only thing I really really miss about 3.5 were the templates for monsters...I know there are some in 4th but for my Ravenloft game I would like a more streamlined version on how to turn someone into a werewolf or vampire...(because that should be more than just a generic monster...its a monster that spreads it's curse). Anyway, back on track...I Love it...my party is just turning 11th level and doing pretty well...this next saturday will be their first round as paragon tiered pc's and I'm excited to see what they can do. I'll keep everyone posted via my blog or Gardens of Stone Social Group on here.

I agree that DMing is easier than ever, which is very very nice :)

Baron_Samedi
06-06-2009, 06:31 AM
Sorry Farcaster...had to make the jab....

I will say that the rules are indeed streamlined, and the stats available for the monster manual make dungeon running for the DM far easier than before...Its definitely a great edition for getting new players into the hobby....

yukonhorror
06-06-2009, 08:24 AM
grr, it did it to me twice. I posted while my internet was disconnected (randomly).

In REALLY short, I am impressed with the changes, and I am happy with where things have been and where they are going.

From a player's perspective, it is fun and a lot of hangups I had with older editions has been vastly improved. From a DM's perspective, things are easier. Not just time, but trying to set the difficulty and goal of a certain situation/encounter is much easier.

korhal23
06-06-2009, 09:17 AM
Yeah, I'm definitely impressed with 4E. It's very well cross-balanced too. I don't think anything that's come out in PHB2, or Martial or Arcane Power has been "over-powered" or "better" than stuff at launch... that is to say, I haven't noticed any feature creep, only more options.

Tamburlain
06-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Almost a year of play, and yet as a DM I believe I've only scratched the surface of the new skill challenges system (though I've taken to thinking of it more as challenge-modeling.) It's not there yet, but I think of it as modeling, because to me it's looking more and more like a universal toolkit for connecting crunch to narrative, and anyone who feels that 4e is inherently too combat-oriented, must not appreciate the system's potential for fleshing out all kinds of interactions through skill challenges. I've had great fun bringing activity that used to be merely part of the metagame rigmarole right into the heart of game itself. For example, my players now enjoy spending their hard-earned adventurers' coin by role-playing in the market, bartering, wheeling and dealing, pursuing goals within the game instead of just looking up prices of "stuff" in a rule book. You never know where adventure might turn up or go south, as the case may be.

Oldgamer
06-06-2009, 10:30 AM
I played in 2 games when it came out and am happy that's all I played, I'll stick with older versions. The rest of the players in those 2 games went on to enjoy 4e, it's just not my flavor.

Grimwell
06-06-2009, 01:10 PM
Going into the first year I was interested and willing to give 4E a fair shot with no bias. I loved 3E, make no mistake, it was a great edition and gave me a lot of DM fodder for making my games fun; but I was ready for something more streamlined.

Coming out of the first year, I can say that for my needs, 4E is just that. It's a tight set of rules that can run fast and efficiently for the style of play I prefer. I think it's the most DM oriented edition yet; everything is set up to make my life easier when I'm running a game, and making it easier without putting me into a situation where I respond with "No, you can't do that by the rules."

The rules enable me to say "Yes." every step of the way, and allow my players more freedom in terms of the things they can try.

To touch on something said above:


It's good to have the missing classes back- Druid and Barbarian missing was weird, Bard missing was tragic. I was very glad to see Bard back, but the brand-new classes in PHB2 don't really seem necessary- I haven't quite wrapped my mind around how a Warden, Invoker, or Avenger would fit into a typical party, and Swordmage seems like an odd, gish-only-not-really class...
I'm going to suggest a different angle for these new classes. Don't think of them in terms of party need, think of them in terms of roleplay opportunities. I love them not because they round out a party (the first PHB had well rounded parties), I love them because they create interesting character opportunities for my players to surprise me with; and interesting world details.

When I wanted to fit Avenger's into my current campaign setting (almost done and ready to play!) I found them to offer lots of awesome in terms of how they impacted my world story. I already had a large temple dedicated to Bahamut in the area, and decided that the Avengers would come from a smaller, but very popular temple of Bahamut that advocates a much more direct approach to the enemies of the Dragonborn.

Fitting that class in added depth to my back story, created conflict amongst the pc-friendly temples, and gives my players lots of roleplay options. I'm very happy for it and look forward to seeing if anyone picks up on this thread with a character.

Windstar
06-06-2009, 01:42 PM
1 year, ok, well I have only been playing it for a couple months and so far really enjoy it. I am skeptical of the revised Monk class but will be playtesting soon.

Windstar
:cool::cool:

Dimthar
06-06-2009, 06:56 PM
I feel more comfortable with the mechanics of combat, the dungeon crawl seems more vivid and cinematic. The Power Cards as "Quick Reference" Aids are great, specially the ones printed automatically from the Character generator.

The Skills sometime feel limited, but I most admit most actions could fall into one of the "broad" categories used in 4E and a good DM could always rule when the use of a skill requires training or not.

My biggest complaint perhaps is how similar are the Powers within the "Character Roles" groups (Leader, Striker, etc.). Being Healing Word (Cleric), Majestic Word (Bard) and Inspiring Word (Warlord) the most obvious and insulting.

This for starters as already mentioned make the New Classes feel unnecessary. On the other hand, with the current information available, creating your fairly balanced Own Class has become very easy.

Perhaps I am stuck with 3.X or even 2nd (Secondary Skills) but the Feats are now just Enhancements instead New "Abilities". Which add to the idea that WE ARE THE SAME but you are just a little better than me. Yes the 2Hand, 2Weapon fighting styles are there but they don't separate you from the herd (I miss the Mounted Combat Style, I like Heavy Cavalry), so they don't contribute at all to achieve a sense of uniqueness.

So this repetitiveness of content make the ownership of new books not very worthy.



I'm going to suggest a different angle for these new classes. Don't think of them in terms of party need, think of them in terms of roleplay opportunities. I love them not because they round out a party (the first PHB had well rounded parties), I love them because they create interesting character opportunities for my players to surprise me with; and interesting world details.


But in the light of those suggestions, you could have played a Holy Assassin using the Rogue Class, hence, where is the need for the Avenger?

I have other comments, but will post them later ...

.

Mead
06-06-2009, 07:07 PM
One year later... the books still smudge, so none grace my shelves. I try to keep up with what's going on, but that's becoming less of a priority as time goes by, especially with them giving the Game Table the business equivalent of the old Roman thumbs-up.

Valdar
06-06-2009, 10:52 PM
I really like what I've seen thus far and the only thing I really really miss about 3.5 were the templates for monsters...

True- I get the idea there is a system being used for monsters, so it would be good to see how powers translate into level and such, so you could add, say, Combat Challenge to a soldier who's supposed to be a Fighter without making him an Elite. Hopefully DMG2 will have more toolbox to it.


Yeah, I'm definitely impressed with 4E. It's very well cross-balanced too. I don't think anything that's come out in PHB2, or Martial or Arcane Power has been "over-powered" or "better" than stuff at launch... that is to say, I haven't noticed any feature creep, only more options.

The classes do seem fairly well balanced, but I am a little leery of the Swordmage right now- it seems that there are many more opportunities to mark an opponent than a Fighter or Paladin have (several powers that allow you to keep different opponents marked, and at range no less), and with the paragon path ability, (Sage of Fate's Bonds) the mark is a lot more punishing than violating the Paladin or Fighter mark is (2d8+Int damage, no to-hit roll). I think I need to really read up to find the weaknesses in the class, though-




I'm going to suggest a different angle for these new classes. Don't think of them in terms of party need, think of them in terms of roleplay opportunities.

Party need is pretty straightforward- they have their combat role and skills, so I'm not too worried about their ability to do their thing. They'd make fine NPCs as well. I'm more concerned about how a fanatic religious assassin, a protector of a specific chunk of forest, or a soldier in the war before the gods would work for a wide variety of adventure hooks- they seem a little too focused in their concept for that- maybe even to "deep" for a lot of what I'd have the party doing...

Anyway, thanks all for your input! Will be interesting to see what the game will look like after year 2-

korhal23
06-07-2009, 12:02 AM
The weakness in swordmages is they are atrocious at keeping a nearby enemy in check actually. Marking the target already next to you is virtually pointless. Whether you're assault, shielding or ensnarement, you want to be marking one target while you beat up another. When your mark makes his way to you, you mark someone else. When a fighter places his mark, he wants the mark to remain in place, and has several powers to make them stay put and not harass the fighter's allies. Marks which are adjacent to the swordmage however, suffer virtually no penalty of any kind.

Grimwell
06-07-2009, 10:48 AM
To continue the Avenger sidebar

They'd make fine NPCs as well. I'm more concerned about how a fanatic religious assassin, a protector of a specific chunk of forest, or a soldier in the war before the gods would work for a wide variety of adventure hooks- they seem a little too focused in their concept for that- maybe even to "deep" for a lot of what I'd have the party doing...

Hmmm, you make a good point in that the Avenger could risk becoming too specific to enjoy some types of adventure. I can see how treasure hunting and other fun tropes might not always interest the avenger character and could even be seen as a diversion from their actual duty.

I don't find myself too worried though, that's still a matter of roleplay and I'd try to solve such an issue as the GM by talking with the player behind the avenger about the upcoming adventure and working with him/her to find a valid motivation for the character to want to be involved. It could be an interesting challenge though, one I have not seen yet in my limited experience with 4E.

MortonStromgal
06-07-2009, 11:57 AM
First off let me start with that if you read the design goals and compare it to the product, mission accomplished. However I don't agree with some of those design goals and frankly its a deal breaker. For me one year later I am considering dropping D&D as a whole. My small group of friends and I, who were going to write some 4e material are all looking for another system to use for our small press stuff. Be it MRQ, Savage Worlds, or something else entirely.

Dark
06-07-2009, 12:15 PM
One year later my books sit on my shelves gathering dust, I've tried to keep a open mind but as hard as I tried my player's grew fed up with the changes and lost interest. I also tried to do a pbp game which ended early due to players lack of following my simple game rules. Seriously I've try to keep up with what's going on but the less I play/dm 4e the less I have reason to follow.

Farcaster
06-07-2009, 01:24 PM
For me one year later I am considering dropping D&D as a whole. My small group of friends and I, who were going to write some 4e material are all looking for another system to use for our small press stuff.

Have you considered the Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) coming out in August which picks up where 3.5 left off without vastly changing the system and feel of the game as happened with 4th edition?

One year later, that's what I am doing.

MortonStromgal
06-07-2009, 06:17 PM
Have you considered the Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) coming out in August which picks up where 3.5 left off without vastly changing the system and feel of the game as happened with 4th edition?

One year later, that's what I am doing.

I have looked at it (not sure about the other guys) but we wanted to give 4e a fair chance. This decision only came about in the last couple months. I also don't know what the licensing is like on pathfinder but its on the list of possibilities.

Farcaster
06-07-2009, 07:12 PM
I also don't know what the licensing is like on pathfinder but its on the list of possibilities.

Not to stray too far off topic, but as it turns out Paizo published the Compatibility License (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility) for Pathfinder recently. It is also covered under the OGL.

Otakar
06-07-2009, 09:42 PM
As I read this thread I can see where/why 4e has worked for me. I didn't play 3e because I thought it was another way for Wizards to make some $ and probably missed out on a neat experience. Since I've started 4E I have found it easy to DM and the fighting is a lot of fun. I'll stick with it.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Almost a year of play, and yet as a DM I believe I've only scratched the surface of the new skill challenges system (though I've taken to thinking of it more as challenge-modeling.) It's not there yet, but I think of it as modeling, because to me it's looking more and more like a universal toolkit for connecting crunch to narrative, and anyone who feels that 4e is inherently too combat-oriented, must not appreciate the system's potential for fleshing out all kinds of interactions through skill challenges. I've had great fun bringing activity that used to be merely part of the metagame rigmarole right into the heart of game itself. For example, my players now enjoy spending their hard-earned adventurers' coin by role-playing in the market, bartering, wheeling and dealing, pursuing goals within the game instead of just looking up prices of "stuff" in a rule book. You never know where adventure might turn up or go south, as the case may be.
I haven't really wrapped my head around the Skill-challenges so I really appreciate this post. I would love to see some more examples of this. I guess practice will make it better but any help out there would be appreciated.

Valdar
06-08-2009, 12:55 PM
Marking the target already next to you is virtually pointless.

I'll take a look again, but if they violate your mark, Sage of Fate's Bonds still gets to zap them, right? (Even an initial look at the power revealed one of its drawbacks, though- the zap is a "hit" effect, not an "effect" effect, so the violator doesn't get zapped if their attack misses.)



I haven't really wrapped my head around the Skill-challenges so I really appreciate this post. I would love to see some more examples of this. I guess practice will make it better but any help out there would be appreciated.

Skill Challenges were a great idea, but as it was such a new concept, there were a few bugs in the system as it first came out, specifically in the target numbers. Personally, I cheat and look at the PC's skill levels and base the challenges off of that, rather than fixed DCs per level, which can mean for an unwinnable challenge.

Anyway, DMG2 in September should have some expanded skill challenge rules, as well as having the advantage of a year of playtest to tune the system a bit.

Umiushi
06-12-2009, 07:51 PM
The 1st anniversary of 4e is tomorrow.

How many of us have been playing since it came out?

How have your impressions of the game changed since it was released, if at all?

...

To quote Thoth-Amon,

"What share you?"

I made a 180-degree turnaround in my opinion regarding 4th Edition. When it first came out, I had mixed feelings. The original character sheets looked like rehashed 3.5 with a couple of arbitrary extra rules, and I wasn't at all sure what I thought of at-will powers. However, I did see an opportunity to speed combat along, something that's been bugging me since 3rd Edition, at least.

On the weekend of its release, I drove from hobby shop to hobby shop, checking out all the demo games. I was very disappointed: even though many of the DMs were supposedly experienced, combat looked like it moved just as slowly, or perhaps even more slowly, than it did during 3.5. That's when I wrote the game off, or so I thought.

About six months later, some friends started buying the rulebooks, so I had an opportunity to look them over. A brief glance couldn't tell me much, but I did have to admit I liked the dynamic between hit points, Second Winds, Healing Surges, and resting. It reminded me of the mechanics of Saga Frontier, an admittedly unpopular game that I was personally very fond of, from several years ago.

My chance to revise my opinion arrived, somewhat sadly, when a local hobby shop went out of business. Coincidentally, on the same day I found a slip of binder paper on their bulletin board that directed me to some site called "Pen & Paper Games," which is why I'm here, telling this story. Anyway, thanks to their going-out-of-business discounts, I walked away with the 4th Edition core rules.

The first time I read through the rules, I had to grudingly admit that a number of points seemed fairly well thought-out. The rules system had a more pragmatic feel than prior incarnations, like the admonition to DMs to keep their dungeons well-lit. Still, it didn't seem all that: the Monster Manual was missing several entries that I considered staples, the Dungeon Master's Guide was (still is) too thin, and so on. Also, Mead's comment about the smudging is valid: it's something that annoys me every single day.

When I reread the rules, that was when I started to get a little excited. It reminded me of something. I finally put my finger on it: the sense of promise I felt when I first got hold of the ancient "Red Box" D&D Basic Set and "Blue Box" Expert Set, at the very beginning! Now I began to see the parallels: the one page equipment list, the streamlined character abilities, character generation that takes twenty minutes instead of two hours, and so on. True, this wasn't anything like the old AD&D and D&D, but now I could see the strong echo of that, at last, combined with something new.

Now, about five months later, I'm running two 4th edition campaigns: one offline and one online. The combat could still use speeding up, but at least it's not slower than before, and sometimes it is indeed faster. I'm wondering if I should bother going through the trouble of converting any of my 3.5 materials, or just proceed with a fresh start. Every previous time a new edition appeared, I always chose to salvage material from earlier versions. In fact, one of my last 3.5 adventures was a self-converted Keep on the Borderlands. Now, for the first time, I'm leaning towards simply going at it anew.

Mead
06-12-2009, 09:19 PM
I would just like to reiterate that I have nothing against the system itself, and if the books were well-constructed I would own them - did own them for about a week, in fact, before I took them back to B&N - even though my current opportunities for playing are low to none.

(Although at this point in my life I wouldn't be able to afford them anyway... I simply wouldn't have returned them last year.)

Dytrrnikl
06-15-2009, 09:24 AM
How many of us have been playing since it came out?
How have your impressions of the game changed since it was released, if at all?


One year later, and I haven't run anything 4E since the apoplectic fits erupted from my group after running'em through Keep on the Shadowfell. It wasn't the module that set'em off, it was the mechanics and style of game play of 4E. Basically the initial impression was, to put it as mildly as possible, unfavorable.

templeorder
06-15-2009, 09:30 AM
Ok, so now i've managed to sit down with a friend and go through 4e a little more. I have to say, they really did a good job for the direction they went... sadly, they lost me in doing so. Its just not my style. D20 based systems usually are not, so i am somewhat mechanic-biased. However, i feel they left little to the imagination and everything is so compartmentalized. Great for some, and it really drops the barrier to entry for new gamers... very smart there. In short, well done, just not for me. I am interested in the Pathfinder rules, i'll take a look at those when i can. I dabbled in 3.5, but the last full campaign of DnD i played in that lasted long was 3.0... sounds like it will stay that way for now.

DarQuing
06-17-2009, 08:30 PM
I haven't really had a chance to play, but so far I'm liking the new system. :)

kitsune1842
06-24-2009, 05:46 PM
Has it already been over a year?

I will say I am really enjoying 4th ed. For the first time I am playing a rogue, something I never liked in earlier edditions, and having all kinds of fun. Especially since he is a Kobold and the 'Shifty' power has been all kinds of fun.

There is no noticable power creep, something I am likeing, and with the ease of DMing from the new way of doing things has me thinking about doing more than just playing.

People have mentioned problems with books smudging, and things like that, but as someone that has a copy of every book for Polayer and DM 4th has come out with so far I have yet to see it. The books have all been sturdy, well printed, and some of the art is just beautiful.

I am playing with the playtest of the Monk, and can't wait for the PHB3 to see more of it and maybe get a chance to play one since it plays up the mobility of the Monk class which has always been one of my favorite features of the class. Given I tend to like the more asian themed fantasy form tiem to time I am also interested in some of the ideas mentioned when it comes to those after the developers gave up trying to do a Chi/Ki power source. The idea of them making a set of feats and Paragon paths designed to give the flavor of Samurai to fighters or other groups of characters like they did for gladiator style characters sounds like fun.

Speech
06-24-2009, 07:22 PM
A year later my books are gathering dust on my shelf. I gave it a go even going so far as GM'ing 2 sessions-I couldn't enjoy the new mechanics. I was oh so excited when I first heard about the new revision...following the releases and combing the WOTC website for tidbits of new info. The rules just didn't deliver the sort of game I wanted to play.

prinnycook
07-03-2009, 07:38 PM
A year later and I am happy. I have noticed a lot of old school gamers are getting back into D&D with 4th. I liked 1st, LOVED 2nd, hated 3rd(sorry), and I really like 4th. I like the strategy involed in 4th I think it brings something new to the game.

Thelrain
07-03-2009, 10:34 PM
One year later and I have yet to actually play. The classes and powers to me just reminded me of WOW and I lost interest after buying the PHB and reading 1/2 way through. I seriously think WoTC took WOW and tried to adapt the most successful mmorpg and incorporate some of that into pen and paper. When I want to play WoW I'll sit behind my pc. When I want to roleplay I'd rather 3.x or some other platform. 4e doesn't seem to be a roleplaying game anymore. It's more of a tabletop strategy game. And when I want to play one of those I play Warhammer40k.

WhiteTiger
07-08-2009, 10:10 AM
I still play mostly 3.X but when I feel a need to beat on stuff... I'll play 4e.

I'm currently looking at wanting to test the new Hybrid classes that was put out in the Dragon Magazine.

Grandore The Giant Killer
07-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Me and my DM loves 4e! The ways they upgraded the classes absolutely rock! Paladins, Rogues, and Warlocks are so good now with these spells! My DM's B-day is coming up on the 23rd so I went out and bought Player's Hand Book 4.0 2. Well first off I love the variety it's bringing to the table with the new races. Goliath, Deva, and Shifter. All unique races in there respective ways. I can't wait for Player Hand Book 4.0 3 to come out for the upgraded Monk class as well as the psionics! And the Wilden race is so cool and unique that I can't even begin to fathom what else is in that book.

Valdar
07-08-2009, 12:17 PM
Hadn't noticed that they posted the Wilder, but looks cool. Also looks like Psion (the Psi Controller) is newly posted.

Otakar
07-09-2009, 08:55 AM
It's nice to hear some good comments on 4E. The people I know personally who refuse to play it feel that 4E is Wizards way of making more money. Since I skipped 3E all together it don't suffer from that feeling. But I'll probably feel the same way when 5E comes around.

Valdar
07-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Yeah, WotC didn't want to make the same mistake as TSR, and keep running 3e into the ground. Better to call 3e finished and move on to something else.

Grandore The Giant Killer
07-09-2009, 07:48 PM
I just bought MM for my DM and he opened it up and looked through it. Some awesome monsters are in it! Has anyone looked up the guy on the cover? Orgus his name is. My DM looked at him and said "Holy crap if I use this guy I am going to have to give some of the NPCs some upgrades or something!" And this was before he even looked at the Rahkashas (Or however they are spelled), the Manticore, and The Collosus! And let's not forget about the newly upgraded Beholders this book has to offer!

Valdar
07-09-2009, 08:40 PM
They seem to be putting demon princes on all the MMs so far- MM2 has Demogorgon. They also put Dagon in there- nice tip of the hat to ol' HPL...

Casimir
07-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Ok, so now i've managed to sit down with a friend and go through 4e a little more. I have to say, they really did a good job for the direction they went... sadly, they lost me in doing so. Its just not my style. D20 based systems usually are not, so i am somewhat mechanic-biased. However, i feel they left little to the imagination and everything is so compartmentalized. Great for some, and it really drops the barrier to entry for new gamers... very smart there. In short, well done, just not for me. I am interested in the Pathfinder rules, i'll take a look at those when i can. I dabbled in 3.5, but the last full campaign of DnD i played in that lasted long was 3.0... sounds like it will stay that way for now.

To be frank, I have barely even looked at the rules for 4th Ed. I've kept up with the general consensus online and with people I know for the last year or so - but from what I heard about it my personal feelings were unfavorable. I've quoted Templeorder above because I think he sums it up about the same way I feel.

For me - well, I started playing D&D in 1978. I still, in fact, have my worn out original D&D rulebook in a PeeChee folder on my bookcase and sometimes take it out and look through it for kicks. When I first started playing D&D back then, it was magical. I was instantly hooked, and played as often as I could. Then AD&D came out, and the guys I played with and I thought we were in heaven. I have almost all of the original AD&D hardcover books. We read and re-read the rules, played hardcore, ran through several campaigns in those years. My best fantasy role-playing memories come from that period.

However - the older we got, the more things we found in the rules - especially combat - that began to grate on our nerves. So we slowly began to compile a list of "house rules" we played by, which evolved over a period of time. Most of us didn't realize at the time, but we were evolving into a group that preferred "Low Fantasy" and "Dark Fantasy".

When 2nd Ed. came out, we were all at first ecstatic. We hoped all the issues we had with AD&D would be fixed. And, in truth, a large part of some of the "house rules" we had were actually implemented in some form throughout the rules. But, it wasn't all that much different from AD&D - and the reasons we came to have issue with it for.

This led me to start looking in other directions for my fantasy gaming. A friend of mine and I began creating our own RPG system in an effort to get away from the direction D&D and TSR seemed to be heading - towards a more "light" and "high" fantasy situation. We lived in a relatively isolated area at the time and didn't have a lot of other options. Over a period of about 2 years we finalized what we had developed and starting a campaign using it to test it. It worked out very well for what we were looking for... then ironically I happened to be in San Diego one weekend and happened across an RPG system - the Deluxe Boxed Set - of RuneQuest. RQ was almost exactly what we'd been looking for - and our home grown system was extremely similar to it. I made some adaptions, changed a few things - incorporated a little more of a friendly magic system, and voila - we had our system. We played this for years, until I moved away. After I moved away I didn't play D&D (or any other RPG) for about 6 years or so - and was kind of out of the loop.

When 3.0 Ed came out, I had high hopes that the changes would get the system back to what we had all enjoyed in the beginning - and fix a lot of the issues. Unfortunately, for me at least, it did exactly the opposite.

Most of the things most people like about 3x are all the things I dislike about the system. Feats, the way skills are handled, etc. To me, it looked like WotC had taken their idea of the so called "Monty Haul" campaigns and constructed a rule system around it. I played as a character for a time, and even tried to DM for a while - and it just didn't work for me at all.

With 4th Ed., WotC has simply gone further down the road that I didn't wish to follow. It looks like a good system, and apparently plays very well and streamlined - and a lot of people like it. But it's not for me. The D&D road and my own Fantasy RPG road began to diverge about the time of 2nd Ed., and has continued to move further and further apart ever since. I admit that I have yet to even play a game of 4th Ed., but I really don't even want to.

HowwwwL
08-05-2009, 07:37 PM
Well, I was one of those player/DM's who has been playing since 1979. Been through every incarnation of D&D. When 3.0 came out I was excited to try it. As I played it, I disliked it more and more. Version 3.5 felt like a slap in the face by Wizards, and a money grab.

I stopped playing D&D about 2 years ago, started playing Call of Cthulhu, Hero System, and anything that wasn't D20 system...

Now I am staring in the face of 4.0. Being the completist that I am, I am giving it a go. I have a group of 6 people willing to give D&D 4.0 a chance. I bought the books, am going to do an Eberron campaign, and am hoping it is not as bad as players say it is.

If you search the net for every good review there are 10 bad ones.

I've read through the player's Handbook, DMG, Eberron Adventures Manual, Eberron Player's Manual, and a couple of adventures I plan to run them through. So far from what I've read, I haven't seen anything glaring in the rules that would support all the negative press so far.

I haven't run through any combats yet, but the only thing I can see as being a pain, is all the bookkeeping the players have to do. Between the conditions, modifiers, and knowing when you've used an encounter ability, daily, etc once you get more of them.

I've been out of the loop for a while, so this might sound dumb. Am I not seeing anything obviously wrong because I disliked 3rd edition? Are most of the haters 3rd edition lovers? Is that why there is so much controversy? I am trying to see what is seriously wrong with 4th edition after giving it a read.

Major positives of 4th edition that I've read so far over other D&D editions is:
1) The skills and group skill challenges.
2) Usefulness of mages at earlier levels.
3) Clerics are not heal-bots.
4) Combat seems to be refined more (no more 5-foot steps YAAAAAY!!!)
5) Seems to be something cool every level a player levels up.
6) Creating encounters seems to be much easier.

My favorite edition of D&D (of all time) was 2nd Edition with Skills and Powers Option. No other game system has ever compared to date. Though I really liked the skill based system of Cthulhu...

I am going to give this version a solid effort, and I hope it is what draws me back into the game again. If not I am going to go to Savage Worlds I think... D20 be damned.
:)

kirksmithicus
08-06-2009, 12:36 AM
It's nice to hear some good comments on 4E. The people I know personally who refuse to play it feel that 4E is Wizards way of making more money. Since I skipped 3E all together it don't suffer from that feeling. But I'll probably feel the same way when 5E comes around.

Same here, damned 5th edition! :rant:




I am going to give this version a solid effort, and I hope it is what draws me back into the game again. If not I am going to go to Savage Worlds I think... D20 be damned.
:)

That's all you can do.

Wulvaine
08-06-2009, 02:48 AM
I really don't understand all the rancor. Although I do understand loyalists who have grown attached to their system, added hundreds of house rules deeply rooted in the edition they play, and don't want to upgrade both because the new system isn't what they're looking for and because they would have to rebuild all their modifications.

I'm enjoying 4E so far. And I'm already adding and changing rules all over the place for a campaign I'm plotting.

And let's just be glad that Wizards isn't going down the Guitar Hero road. (i.e. 4E! It's new! It's great! Come back here same time next year for 5E! It'll be new! It'll be great! And then the same time the year after that for 6E! etc. etc.)

WhiteTiger
08-06-2009, 08:30 AM
Well, I was one of those player/DM's who has been playing since 1979. Been through every incarnation of D&D. When 3.0 came out I was excited to try it. As I played it, I disliked it more and more. Version 3.5 felt like a slap in the face by Wizards, and a money grab.

I stopped playing D&D about 2 years ago, started playing Call of Cthulhu, Hero System, and anything that wasn't D20 system...

Now I am staring in the face of 4.0. Being the completist that I am, I am giving it a go. I have a group of 6 people willing to give D&D 4.0 a chance. I bought the books, am going to do an Eberron campaign, and am hoping it is not as bad as players say it is.

If you search the net for every good review there are 10 bad ones.

I've read through the player's Handbook, DMG, Eberron Adventures Manual, Eberron Player's Manual, and a couple of adventures I plan to run them through. So far from what I've read, I haven't seen anything glaring in the rules that would support all the negative press so far.

I haven't run through any combats yet, but the only thing I can see as being a pain, is all the bookkeeping the players have to do. Between the conditions, modifiers, and knowing when you've used an encounter ability, daily, etc once you get more of them.

I've been out of the loop for a while, so this might sound dumb. Am I not seeing anything obviously wrong because I disliked 3rd edition? Are most of the haters 3rd edition lovers? Is that why there is so much controversy? I am trying to see what is seriously wrong with 4th edition after giving it a read.

Major positives of 4th edition that I've read so far over other D&D editions is:
1) The skills and group skill challenges.
2) Usefulness of mages at earlier levels.
3) Clerics are not heal-bots.
4) Combat seems to be refined more (no more 5-foot steps YAAAAAY!!!)
5) Seems to be something cool every level a player levels up.
6) Creating encounters seems to be much easier.

My favorite edition of D&D (of all time) was 2nd Edition with Skills and Powers Option. No other game system has ever compared to date. Though I really liked the skill based system of Cthulhu...

I am going to give this version a solid effort, and I hope it is what draws me back into the game again. If not I am going to go to Savage Worlds I think... D20 be damned.
:)


Yeah, I loved Skills & Powers. The sister book to it "Spells & Magic" was also an awesome book. It introduced one of the earlier "point buy" systems as well as a spell point system. I wonder why people hated spell point systems especially coming from the same people who love psionics and that's all psionics ever was which is a spell point system under a different name... :confused:

anyway, the new Pathfinder system is coming out and for me.. it gives a similar feeling to the way skills and powers changed 2nd edition... mostly
more options and alternative methods for dealing with 3.5 issues which for me is a good thing since I feel it will fix more of the problems than it will create. At least that's what I hope.

HowwwwL
08-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Heh heh. I remember very clearly when 3rd edition came out, we had a couple of people in our group that were extremely resistant, and complained and moaned for a solid 6 months when I started DMing it. Eventually they got used to the system, and now that is all they want to play.

The exact same players were complaining and moaning about me wanting to try to DM 4th edition. It is funny because, I've had to start a new group of players that were actually willing to play 4th edition. Some people in my old group refused outright, even without reading over even one page of my books.

The bad press and comments by other players online, was all they needed to stay away which is pretty sad. What harm is there in trying the game? Will your legs fall off???

This worked out pretty good in the end, however. My wife and I, another husband/wife, and an old friend of mine are in my new group, all are 30-50 years of age. All are experienced role players who have a combined 100 years pen and paper game role playing experience will be tackling this so-called non-roleplaying friendly 4th Edition game. Wish us luck.

Hopefully we are not jumping into the shallow end of the pool head first. ;)

WhiteTiger
08-06-2009, 11:50 AM
If you are are in a solid role-play group, HowwwwL and I suspect that you are then there is a good chance that you guys will like it. A solid roleplay group will always want to roleplay regardless of the system but can also appreciate a smooth system of combat.

I think where the problem lies is that there is a lot of knee-jerk reactions that If a new system comes out that makes it combat friendly then it must somehow be anti-roleplay. Personally , I think that comes from groups where the players and the GM got too frustrated with rules and were forced to roleplay rather than slug through combat.

Now here comes 4th edition and combat is easier.. so rather than see someone admit the truth that his/her gaming group just wanted to fight
all along... he/she will jump on the board and say that 4E is anti-roleplay.
when in fact your group was never really into hardcore roleplay to begin with and you are just venting.

" but hey that's just my opinion.. I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller

Amon Alden
08-06-2009, 12:57 PM
I just started playing 4E after about 20 years of not playing anything. I have no 3.X experience so I can't really compare it to that, and I've only played two sessions of 4E so far.

I think the roleplaying aspect is all up to the players and GM. If you're complaining about a lack of roleplaying there is an easy solution, ask your GM to include more opportunities, or try and create more opportunities yourself.

Prior to this I played box sets and 2E using some 1E campaign supplements. I have to say I enjoy the combat a lot more. Tactics make it more fun for me instead of saying "my guy attacks this guy." Player positioning and movement become important. I think the players have a lot more to think about, which gives them something to do while waiting for their turn.

I for one like it and I'm having fun. That's what it is all about anyway.

Oh yeah, and damn that 5E:mad:

Valdar
08-06-2009, 02:47 PM
The only player in my group that said 4e "didn't encourage roleplaying" was himself the worst roleplayer at the table. For many gamers, "roleplaying" is an excuse for antisocial behavior ("I'm not an ass, but my character is!"), but for him, I think it was that he was a hardcore metagamer/ min-maxer, and 4e's balanced character builds didn't give him anything to exploit. Since that's not exactly a complaint that would draw much sympathy with most players or DMs, he was forced to call what he was missing "roleplaying", it being a nebulous term that doesn't have any hard meaning that he had to back up with facts.

I think another complaint people have about 4e is that in previous editions, there were serious hurdles to playing that made the people who accomplished it an elite of sorts- if you had no trouble understanding THAC0, 3e's multiclassing, or AoOs, then that put you a rung above people who couldn't. You'll see the same sorts of things in video games- old-school gamers who think that the new games are too easy, and that's a betrayal of their efforts:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282

Maybe I wasn't enough of a "true gamer" in that I didn't consider putting up with clunky game design as a badge of honor-

Grimwell
08-06-2009, 11:56 PM
One thing that is very different concerning the release of 4th ed. is the mainstream nature of the Internet. Yes, we had the Internet when 3rd ed. came out; but it wasn't mainstream - it was still novel. Companies could still say "We have a website!" that was just a single page for their product, and it was cool.

These days the web is mainstream, and standard internet behavior includes (oddly) resistance to change in a much more dramatic tone. When everyone can sit in a pocket of people like them that literally numbers in the thousands, flexibility isn't as necessary.

Back before the mainstream web, if the DM said "We are now playing (insert edition here)!" you were.

HowwwwL
08-07-2009, 10:54 AM
Back before the mainstream web, if the DM said "We are now playing (insert edition here)!" you were.

You are soooooo right on this.

I don't understand the mentality nowadays. Way back in the early '80's we went out of our way to try new RPGs. There was an explosion of new RPG's that hit the scene, and TSR paved the way for that. Though D&D was our mainstay game, we tried different genres and rules systems from games like, Cthulhu, Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Villains and Vigilantes, Iron Crown, etc. Just to see if other companies could do better, and try out different genres. In Elementary school and high school, I GM'd Champions, and played in my cousin's D&D campaigns.

Now, someone makes a change, and people lose their minds. Maybe that is why certain game companies don't change their rules, just tweak them. If you look at Hero Games or Cthulhu, the games are pretty much the same as they started. Over the years, they just included some of their old supplements into the rulebook, and tweaked problem areas. But in the case of Hero Games, their main rulebook now looks like some lawyer wrote it. haha. It is too long and wordy, and doesn't attract new players because of the intimidating size. So they rely more on keeping their current client base.

I don't understand why people like D20 system to be honest. Of all the different game system's I've played over the years, it in my opinion was the most bloated, slow, inefficient and convoluted set of rules out there of any system. The classes were never balanced especially at higher levels, and they made simple things difficult, or made rules for things that shouldn't have them. Sometimes giving the DM more control is a good thing... You don't need a rule for everything.

So many house rules had to be created for 3rd edition just to make it playable, and get rid of the infighting about how to handle so many situations. My books had so many crib notes, it became hard to read. They added rules for things that never had rules before, nor did they need them!!! The DM had it under control!!! Between the errata, and crib notes, God only knows if we were playing the game right!!!

4th edition may end up being just as crappy as 3rd edition was (I am reserving judgement until I start my campaign), but 3rd edition was definitely crap. There really should be no argument on this in my opinion. Those who argue otherwise, need to bring themselves back to the year 3rd edition was released, read the press, and remember what they had to do to memorize free 5 foot steps, look at how many crib notes they had to make, etc, etc... gah the pain of it all... I wanted to dig out my eyes with a spoon.

Again, I still do not have a real opinion of 4th edition yet. I will be starting my 4th edition campaign in 3-4 weeks. If the rules for some strange reason are unplayable or "too simple" or end up being just as bloated and inefficient as 3rd edition in practice, I will be finding a more streamlined set of rules.

I've read posts on how people say 3rd edition was the best edition released. These people need to try out more RPGs. So many other games out there had and have much better rule systems. There is a reason people are playing fantasy genre RPGs using other rulesets. Seriously. Wizards of the Coast, nor TSR had the monopoly. As it is now, I play Hero System, Cthulhu, and am thinking about doing a Savage Worlds: Deadlands Reloaded campaign for my group.

Yes, you can play more than one game system!!! If you think you don't have time to play more than one, make time. Take a break between campaigns to try something new, alternate weeks, etc... Yes it is possible to do...

In any case, I hope the 4th edition rules do not end up as bad as 3rd edition. If they are more playable and more streamlined, I think they will work out fine until 5th edition comes out. Which I will try as well.
;)

prinnycook
08-07-2009, 03:17 PM
I don't understand the mentality nowadays. Way back in the early '80's we went out of our way to try new RPGs. There was an explosion of new RPG's that hit the scene, and TSR paved the way for that. Though D&D was our mainstay game, we tried different genres and rules systems from games like, Cthulhu, Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Villains and Vigilantes, Iron Crown, etc. Just to see if other companies could do better, and try out different genres. In Elementary school and high school, I GM'd Champions, and played in my cousin's D&D campaigns.
Exactly, back when I played a gamers skill was based on all the DIFFERENET systems you knew. I was always introducing players to new systems and they liked it(It took awhile to learn but all of my players loved the Shadowrun rule system). Most of the time when I tried to get others to try different system they would say my most hated quote of all time "I'll just wait for the D20 version to come out", I really hated when people said that:mad:.

HowwwwL
08-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Haha, now that I think about it you are right. It was almost like a badge of honor or bragging rights (in the world of geeks), that you knew or played multiple game systems. The best gamers and roleplayers always seemed to be the ones with the most game systems under their belts.

If you knew someone who played something you didn't you always begged to try it out.
:)

Spazzle
08-13-2009, 11:16 AM
I played previous editions of D&D - and I enjoyed them. I also remember the grumbling when AD&D become 3.0 - though I wasn't around as much when it became 3.5. Fortunately the folks I gamed with back then liked playing as many different systems as they could find, so we tried it and took what we liked from it. I stepped away from gaming for many years, but I picked up the 4e books on a whim last year and really liked what I read. I then tracked down some players (I moved from my old gaming groups, so I had to start fresh!) and I've been loving playing 4e and even DMing it. I'd never DMd before, so the ease at which they made DMing a game has been a welcome relief. I still have a lot to learn in terms of bringing the game to life, but we're all having fun and its been a good time.

Aside from the (wonderful) ease of the new Character Builder tool, I love character creation in general in 4e. At first I thought the roles might be a little limiting, but as I've looked at the powers and paragon paths (haven't played anythign Epic yet) I can see a world of opportunity in terms of character flavor that I didn't really feel was there as much with the older systems.

With the new game system, I'm thinking much more strategically when I build the character. Power selections, action types, feats - they all make for a great variety of builds - both in terms of flavor and in how they play in game.

I think the improvements have been great over the last year (especially the last 6 months) and I look forward to where they end up taking the system. Should be a fun ride.

Cheers ~

cigamnogard
08-18-2009, 05:21 PM
Prior to 3.0 & 3.5 I played a game called Earthdawn. I would play that before buying 4.0 books - why?
.
.
.
.
.
$

Ianos
08-19-2009, 05:09 AM
Earthdawn has propably the best system I have ever seen (or one of the best anyway), and that is without considering a great setting. The greatest disantvantage was the lack of ready to use material (lots of hooks but few ready to play adventures), at least that was about 6 - 7 years ago, and sadly I had to abandon it.

D&D has taken more than a few ideas from there with the new edition, deliberately or not I do not know (healing surge and action points are a few that come to mind) but I consider it a good thing.

cigamnogard
08-19-2009, 04:08 PM
Yeah, I am going to miss 4.0 and wait for 5.0

Otakar
08-20-2009, 09:08 AM
Yeah, I am going to miss 4.0 and wait for 5.0

Man, you crack me up! :biggrin: If 5E comes out before 2012 I think I'll go back to 1E and just stay there. I was pretty young when I was playing it but I think that with some of the techniques I've gleaned from 4E combat I could probably enjoy 1&2E just fine. Heck, when I move from California maybe I'll just go back to fishing as my main hobby and live vicariously through the forums and ask off-the-wall questions like Thoth-Amon does. :lol:

cigamnogard
08-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Mind if I write that down? ;)

cplmac
08-20-2009, 07:19 PM
5E, I hope that doesn't happen anytime soon. I just started doing some 3.0/3.5 (was given a copy of both the PHB & DMG for 3.0) a few months ago.

Ianos
08-21-2009, 06:33 AM
Then you have nothing to worry about. You still have 3 - 4 years before getting to 4e :)