I'm currently trying to set-up a 4e campaign with some of my co-workers. Last week, I was talking to one of them in the cafeteria and he told me that a former worker who in the past had disparaged 3e/d20 in favor of indie games (the only one whose name I remember is Dogs in the Vineyard) is now playing lots and lots of 4e.
Very cool.
Paul has done a great job of introducing me to new games and game styles with Have Games, Will Travel. I'm eager to see what he has to say about a game that I already know and like.
I think for any review of 4E, you have to define what D&D is to you. He does that in this review but I think his definition is not necessarily the same for of many people.
Tevis give 4E his thumbs up?!? But then Paul Tevis never said a negative thing about a single game.
He did say that 4E focuses on what D&D's main focus has generally been: combat.
He did say that 4E focuses on what D&D's main focus has generally been: combat.
Which I questioned in a separate thread.
|
i find it interesting that a lot of people who like 4e didn't much care for any of the earlier editions, whereas a lot of people who don't like 4e were big fans of earlier editions.
obviously, there are quite a few people who liked d&d all along who enjoy 4e, so don't think i'm saying it is a zero sum situation.
i don't have a point, just making an observation based on reading the various boards and reviews...
|
i find it interesting that a lot of people who like 4e didn't much care for any of the earlier editions, whereas a lot of people who don't like 4e were big fans of earlier editions.
obviously, there are quite a few people who liked d&d all along who enjoy 4e, so don't think i'm saying it is a zero sum situation.
i don't have a point, just making an observation based on reading the various boards and reviews...
noted that, too. also noticed that a lot of 4E supporters were long-time 3.x players who eventually grew to hate the system's idiosyncrasies.
I liked D&D all the way up from 2nd Edition, and I think 4th Edition is the most fun I have ever had playing D&D.
noted that, too. also noticed that a lot of 4E supporters were long-time 3.x players who eventually grew to hate the system's idiosyncrasies.
I'm a longtime 2nd ed, 3.X guy and for my money, the system has to "feel" right. I know that's hard to quanitfy, but it's just my personal opinion. Probably a lot has to do with just comfortability with the way the rules work.
|
|
noted that, too. also noticed that a lot of 4E supporters were long-time 3.x players who eventually grew to hate the system's idiosyncrasies.I'm a longtime 2nd ed, 3.X guy and for my money, the system has to "feel" right. I know that's hard to quanitfy, but it's just my personal opinion. Probably a lot has to do with just comfortability with the way the rules work.
i think backward compatability is the big issue for me, almost 30 year homebrew which was an easy "upgrade" through 3.x would be difficult to move to 4e without the nuclear option. 4e is a good system, just doesn't fit easily with where im at right now...
I completely understand the guys out there who are having to deal with 2 systems, playing some 4E and playing some 3.X. It must be tough to shift between them, a lot like learning to think in two different systems.
I think that's what really broke it for me. The style of 4th requires different thinking about tabletop RPGs and that didn't really do it for me.
i think backward compatability is the big issue for me, almost 30 year homebrew which was an easy "upgrade" through 3.x would be difficult to move to 4e without the nuclear option. 4e is a good system, just doesn't fit easily with where im at right now...noted that, too. also noticed that a lot of 4E supporters were long-time 3.x players who eventually grew to hate the system's idiosyncrasies.I'm a longtime 2nd ed, 3.X guy and for my money, the system has to "feel" right. I know that's hard to quanitfy, but it's just my personal opinion. Probably a lot has to do with just comfortability with the way the rules work.
I have to wonder about this. Some how I suspect that if you felt 4E was the cats pajama's upgrading would not seem to daunting. I have a 22 year old homebrew and upgrading it does not strike me as particularly difficult. More like an opportunity to do a little redesign here and trim a little there - jettison that idea that seemed so utterly cool when I was 14 but really seems lame now etc. Loose a few more Greyhawkisms that I probably should never have incorporated in the first place etc.
My feeling in this regard is if a system excites you then it all seems so exciting - if not it seems daunting.
My feeling in this regard is if a system excites you then it all seems so exciting - if not it seems daunting.
I agree with you Jeremy, but then again I have never run homebrew. This was exactly the way I felt about the shift from 2nd to 3.0. I was really excited about the changes for 3 and I jumped right in, even running 2nd edition adventures and extrapolating BAB on the fly by subtracting THAC0 from 20.
noted that, too. also noticed that a lot of 4E supporters were long-time 3.x players who eventually grew to hate the system's idiosyncrasies.
Ooh, pick me pick me.
I loved playing 3.x. I still don't mind it. But I hated running 3.x with a passion. If I'm going to do that much work to create what I need, I'll just dig out the Hero stuff and run that.
I think it's the shift in knowledge that's bothering people.
In 3.x system mastery come in during character design (class race feat prestige class skills), including design during play (spell selection vs monster). But, once you've created your design, that's how you handle the situations. The spiked chain trip monkey is, well, going to try to trip the monster. The spell caster is going to look over his list and see what he can do, hopefully he's made some intelligent guesses with his selection, or he can back out and rememorize spells that are more suited.
During Age of Worms, I played a Shifter druid/moonspeaker. I was going to buff the crap out of myself, turn into a dire tiger and rip things to little bitty pieces. I got a Ring of Counterspelling to block Greater Dispels. Occasionally I'd switch some of the extra spells around to have some flexibility to get to the point where I could rip things into little bitty pieces, or to help out my ability to rip things into little bitty pieces.
In 4e, system mastery comes in the tactics of the encounter. Character creation is simple (at first level). Anyone can do it. Pick a few things and you're done. There are no hidden traps, no "Friends don't let Friends pick Toughness", no suboptimal choices. What you then do with your powers in combat depends on what's going on in the combat. It depends on what your companions do. It depends on what the monsters do. Success depends on the tactics you use in each and every encounter, not how efficient your character build is.
That's a big shift since D&D has been about the character build for a long time. Which is why it doesn't feel like D&D to a lot of people, I suppose. But, to me, it brings me back to the old AD&D days, pre Unearthed Arcana, where you pulled out some dice, threw down a sheet of graph paper and said, "where do you want to go now". It doesn't matter so much what you can do as how you use what you've got.
i find it interesting that a lot of people who like 4e didn't much care for any of the earlier editions, whereas a lot of people who don't like 4e were big fans of earlier editions.
I'm just glad 4E is working out for some people. Us old gamers will move to Pathfinder or stick with 3.5 or provide other companies with customers for a long time to come. Just like Warhammer is the gateway into other minis games, so is D&D the gateway to other RPGs. The game advances and leaves their old customer base behind. Those old customers move to new companies that fill the niche they want and new customers try Warhammer. Just the way of things and the way these industries work.
|
|
My feeling in this regard is if a system excites you then it all seems so exciting - if not it seems daunting.
the biggest issues for me are the scrapping of the magic system (believe it or not, i actually LIKE the vancian system, and my homebrew is a low magic world, ala "the dying earth") and the focus on position oriented tactics (i don't have a lot of minis, and my combats are a bit more abstract, almost AD&D-ish).
i like playing a character in 4e at the flgs (i lay in a game thgere that runs 1x a month), its a fun game, but i'm not "excited" about it, per se (it is a game, not a raise at work or anything ;) ). as far as running it in my homebrew, like i said, it doesn't fit what i'm doing.