Do DMs look forward to running 4th edition?


4th Edition

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I don't look forward to running 4e. It's way too much work: Whatever time I save because it's supposed to be "Super DM Friendly Unlike That Crap Third Edition Which Was Cobbled Together By A Bunch Of Idiots" will be more than eaten up by coming up with my own versions of things they kept out of 4e (like gnomes or druids), or to edit out their crappy flavour they seem intent on hard-wiring into the rules.


Dark Lurker of Psionics wrote:

I would have to say no, and for two reasons in particular;

Re-imagining and Resources.

On one hand, I have no desire to re-learn how to play and DM this game. And add to that with every change they make, all my knowledge and experience matter less, ....

I used to be the guy with all the rules knowledge. But now everyone is learniing the rules for third edition. All my knowledge and experience means less,.. 4th edition gives me the opportunity to rule the "rules" again. Mwaaahahaahaha!!!

I'm one of those change is good for changes sake. So I'm looking forward to Dming the new system. Especially if it is true about shorter prep time. Faster game prep, faster character gen, faster game play, equals more game play for me.

I will miss saving throws and screaming at players "Save or Die!!!" (goood times, good times), but the new defense system is far more intuitive and will be easier to teach. I don't know how many newbie spell casters went to grab a d20 after casting a spell like sleep or command. The paradigm of "role the d20 when you want to do something will ring more true."


I really have no problems with things like "less prep time" or "he who acts rolls the dice", but those things are overshadowed by bad changes like a little sandcastle spire is overshadowed by The Dark Tower.

And so far we only know that 4e has the claim of having shorter prep times. We don't know it is actually so. "Spells" for every class doesn't seem like shorter prep time to me.

Right now, the fighter is all about feats - but most of them will be weapon focus and its derivatives, power attack and its derivatives, combat expertise and its derivatives..... You buy those feats four at a time. If you create an NPC rogue, you just have to pick 8+int skills (if you half know what the rogue is all about, this is done in 8+int seconds).

In 4e, it looks as if you have to go through the fighter's spellbook to look what manoeuvres you want for him. You go through the rogue's spellbook to look for his "rogue spells". Will it be "Mystic Backstap?" or "Swiftstrike of A Thousand Cons"?


Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

This is me as well.

My campaign climax will feature, essentially, two (or more) armies crashing together in the middle of the PCs' hometown, with lots of combat with troops, several prominent NPCs and a big summoned apocalyptic monster. It will be a complete pain to do in 3E. If 4E really does make that easier, I'll be a happy camper indeed.


Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

But only if it lets you. It seems they want to hardwire their new fluff into the rules.

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:
Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

But only if it lets you. It seems they want to hardwire their new fluff into the rules.

They definitely seem to be making the crunch first, and trying to make the fluff fit that. The paladin smites and wizard implements show us that this doesn't work well. It generates some really absurd imagery. The cruch should serve the fluff, not the other way around.

Dark Archive

Whizbang Dustyboots wrote:
Lilith wrote:
I could give a whit less about the flavor changes - if I don't like it, I'll just change it back to the way I like it. I am curious if their promises of easier to prep & run will come true.

This is me as well.

My campaign climax will feature, essentially, two (or more) armies crashing together in the middle of the PCs' hometown, with lots of combat with troops, several prominent NPCs and a big summoned apocalyptic monster. It will be a complete pain to do in 3E. If 4E really does make that easier, I'll be a happy camper indeed.

Yeah, that could be a pain. Mechanically, you should focus on the threats the PC's are dealing with and handwave the rest based on their success or failure. Of course, in 4E your PC's can take on both armies, the NPC's, and the monster at 4th level, and be at full health when they are done. Just kidding, I couldn't resist. I think that NPC's will be a lot like monsters and just have a few abilities to fulfil their "role".


Now that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro have released a 'spoiler' (Races & Classes) of 4th edition- although they reserve the right to change anything in Races & Classes right up until the moment the first 4th edition books hit the shops- I thought that I'd post again on this thread to invite any DMs who have access to the new information to give their thoughts, based on the first major 'official' release of data.
From a DM perspective, what are the facts and figures now out there looking like to you? Do the thoughts of what your players are likely to do with this, if you run 4th edition, make your head spin? Does it look like making life simpler and easier to DM? Does it seem indicative of an official 'style of play' that closely meshes with and supports your own or do you see a lot of gaps ahead that you will have to bridge? (Though gaps are by no means automatically bad things, since I am aware that there are DMs who appreciate the opportunities for flexibility or innovation that something not officially covered by a gaming system can provide.)


My problem with it is that I don't look forward to running a system where people suddenly have an incredible lack of choices, and some of the choices are stupid.

If Dragonborn were Lizard Men, if they kept the original flavor of Tieflings rather than this Bael-Turath nonsense, if their marketing strategies didn't include

"If you like playing a cleric, you're a power gamer or a healer monkey"

and similar rude comments...

I might consider playing this game. But really, I don't want to be told how much I suck and how cool it is to switch to 4th edition when I'm 38 years old. I outgrew that train of thought long ago.

They changed the flavor and told people that if they liked things a certain way, it was not only bad, but that THEY were bad and that Wizards could make you better.

I pray that the new edition tanks. I really do.

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Do DMs look forward to running 4th edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition