Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like I mentioned before. I'm thankful for all the input. Though I won't be giving up my 3.5 anytime soon, I now see that 4th ED deserves it's own respect and is good in it's own way.

MagickalMemories wrote:It's easy to have a problem with a game you haven't played if you understand enough about how games work and take some time to study it.
Eric

That sounds reasonable but I've seen it fail to many times to believe it anymore. I've known people who pretty much would say that and then eventually would be playing the game (in general, not just talking about 4th) and say they were wrong. Or they would actually give real reasons and not that they scanned the book and it didn't have instant appeal, which is basically what it comes down to. I wasn't a big fan of 4th when it launched either but I am having fun with it now. I'm also pretty sure that, as you stated yourself, an hour does not count as 'taking some time to study it'.

I don't know, Aht.
I think that, provided you're experienced enough to *see* how something will work just by reading the rules, if you sit down and actually devote an hour to looking at the dynamics of game-play and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, abilities, etc., you can get a pretty good idea of how it'll play out.

Now, I admit you're 100% right about people writing off a game, then later admitting they were wrong. It happens. I'm more prone to believe those people were initially looking at it with a jaundiced eye, though. Like, maybe, they didn't WANT to like it.

Also, TBH about 4e... If my group decided they wanted to shrug off 2e for 4e.... Well, first, I think I'd cry a little. LOL (I went out myself and specifically recruited the whole group for the sole purpose of playing 2e)
When the tears dried, however, I'd play 4e with them... and I'm certain I'd have a blast. That isn't about the game, though. It's about the group.
Saying I don't like the system doesn't equate with nerdrage over it. I don't *hate* it. It just isn't for me. KWIM?
I'd enjoy gaming with my group but, in the end, it would be enjoying THEM and not the system.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I don't know, Aht.
I think that, provided you're experienced enough to *see* how something will work just by reading the rules, if you sit down and actually devote an hour to looking at the dynamics of game-play and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, abilities, etc., you can get a pretty good idea of how it'll play out.

Oh I'm not saying you can't get a sense of it, just that sometimes theory and practice don't always match up. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I can appreciate wanting to stick wth what you already know and like, it is just to often that instead of stating that fact it devolves into the other system being evil and everything that is wrong.

it is just to often that instead of stating that fact it devolves into the other system being evil and everything that is wrong

...And where would the internet be without THAT?
LOL


Seriously, though, you do make a good point.

Eric

And of course, people like what they like!

There's a famous quote by Churchill (I think!) about people, for the most part, being 'naturally' liberal/open to change when young and conservative when old...

So, when I was very young, back in the early 80's, I discovered 1E AD&D and loved it!

3rd edition killed it for me, and I'm still playing (or at least trying to play!) 1E AD&D today!

Alph,
Move to the St. Louis area, and I can probably fit you into a 2e campaign group.

LOL

Eric

My girlfriend in college was from St. Louis - I loved visiting that city!

But, I am a Massachusetts boy at heart!

Also:

"The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." However, the attribution is false. There is no record of Churchill ever speaking these words, and it is highly unlikely that he would have because Churchill himself did precisely the opposite. He entered politics as a Conservative and was a Conservative at age 25. He switched to the Liberal Party at age 29 and was a Liberal at age 35. (He returned to the Conservatives at age 49.) Also, his beloved wife, Clementine, was a life-long Liberal, and Churchill would hardly have delivered such an indirect insult to her."

So, whatever - the quote still makes some sense.

Maybe.

4E was just an atrocity in my mind, i've only been playing it from 3rd edition. But yeah, like many others here, i've just turned to pathfinder.

RatherFatRat wrote:4E was just an atrocity in my mind, i've only been playing it from 3rd edition. But yeah, like many others here, i've just turned to pathfinder.

I keep hearing similar statements.
I'd love more information, so I started a thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288330.page


Eric

It pretty much killed it for me. I really want to like 4E. I saved up to preorder the boxed set off amazon. I loved the artwork and new rules and stuff, but after playing it and having the whole power system, I was really disappointed and totally agree that it's like WoW. With the power system and combat it feels WAY too much like a video game. I started with 3.5 as well and am still sticking with it like I have for the past four years.

oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

I think the biggest turn off for most people about 4th isn't the mechanics, which to me work a lot better than 3.5 (seriously, how can you say the system doesn't encourage roleplaying? I just don't get it! The DMG is full of good advice for roleplaying, it's not in the player's handbook but it wasn't in the handbook for 3.5 either!).
It's the new art, and the fluff text for some of the monsters and powers. The base world for D'n'D has been changed a bit in look and feel, and that's something people don't like. Or at least, that's the only argument I find raitonal.
I think it's fair enough- I'm not a fan of the ludicrous power names and descriptions, myself. And while some of the new art is good (some of the landscapes are really cool I think) a lot of the stuff for the classes is over the top and does seem silly to me. That stuff bleeds into the entire perception of the game system, which is actually divorced from it. If I was running 4th ( as I plan to) I'd use my own descriptions, probably re-write power names and descriptions to be less OTT and so on. A bit of work, but considering how much easier the game is to run, I don't mind.

Da Boss wrote:I think the biggest turn off for most people about 4th isn't the mechanics, which to me work a lot better than 3.5 (seriously, how can you say the system doesn't encourage roleplaying? I just don't get it! The DMG is full of good advice for roleplaying, it's not in the player's handbook but it wasn't in the handbook for 3.5 either!).
It's the new art, and the fluff text for some of the monsters and powers. The base world for D'n'D has been changed a bit in look and feel, and that's something people don't like. Or at least, that's the only argument I find raitonal.

It is a bit 'sparkly' compared to previous editions. The stock flavor text for a lot of powers seems to suggest that most fights look like a cross between a rave and an explosion in a fireworks factory as everyone who doesn't have martial powers has effects go off with light shows.

OTOH, I don't know if it's explicitly stated anywhere in the actual rule books (I don't have the 4.0 DMG, and haven't deeply read the 4.0 PHB) but 'reskinning' seems very popular and well-supported by the community now. If, for example, you've got the PHB books 1-3 it's pretty likely that a lot of fantasy/sci-fi races can be represented reasonably well by a race write-up with a bit different description, maybe a power swap.

It's much the same for weapons, powers, etc. The base weapon table is a bit sparse, but people who really want to know what kind of long sword a character carries can elaborate, and it's considered a long sword for mechanical reasons. Powers can be rethemed: at the least, an evil Paladin's radiant effects are likely to be, well, more 'evil' looking or one from a pseudo-Chinese culture could be described as having translucent dragon-spirits attacking the enemy instead of ribbons of radiant light.

4e certainly isn't 'perfect' but it is, I have to admit, fun.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

Fl@nked wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

You could have stated this in your opening.
I am still trying to figure out why there is all of the "Hate" of the 4e System.
I have been playing since 1981.
I have tried probably 50 diferent Systems and 4th is not the best, its not the worst.
Just as you are feeling "Attacked" by your belief we are for ours.
I do not condone the attutude that he obove poster put out thier a lot of us who play 4th [and Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3.0 and 2nd] feel that way when we are told the OUR edition is bad. We can get a little shourt after be call "Tratiors" to the game. I am not saying you said that, but a lot in the comunity have.
It is getting to the point where it is getting to be more acceptable to Call myself a Furry that say that I play D&D 4th Edition
We just all need remember to respect the others persons beliefs.

Just Remember [Yes I know I have posted some of thies before.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Amen! Brudda!

When 4E came out, my group was excited. I ran it and loved it. They were less enthusiastic. Pretty soon, they were all totally against it. Frustrated, I started digging through some old stuff. I was desperate for something besides 3/3.5 stuff, which was getting totally played out as far a I was concerned. I delved into a pile of 2E stuff with enthusiasm, thinking this might be what gets us back on track. But . . . no. Some things are better left to nostalgia.

The truth is that 4E is the most playable D&D yet released. People who say it's not D&D are expressing frustration with change and that's okay. Change can be disorienting and it is inevitably disappointing--namely, because the hype people create in their own minds rarely if ever pans out in reality. The way you really, really wanted 4E to be isn't the way it is. It's disappointing, I know. Personally, I was hoping for better production values. Le sigh.

But it's still a better, more fun, faster, and more cooperative game than 3.5--all that AND it is a lot easier on the DM to run.

4th definitely revitalized the two groups I play in, which have been playing pretty continuously for about nine years. I’ve stepped back up to the plate to DM again, which I only did once in 3rd, and that campaign only ran for a few months.

I just love that some of my players are complaning that Fireball is a Daily, "but its always been a Daily" I keep telling them.
I also have that is upset that magic missile now neets a to hit roll, and I keep teling him "But now it is no longer a Daily"

Of course they have been paluted by a Mana Point System and a 1" Binder of House Rules

Now every time they compain about something I find myself Saying "You complained about this in last edition and thier fix is almost the same as yours." I am actualy starting to get a sadistic glee from doing this.

BTW: I am still looking for a home for and old 1st-2nd Edition Player

Anpu42 wrote:I just love that some of my players are complaning that Fireball is a Daily, "but its always been a Daily" I keep telling them.
I also have that is upset that magic missile now neets a to hit roll, and I keep teling him "But now it is no longer a Daily"

Of course they have been paluted by a Mana Point System and a 1" Binder of House Rules

Now every time they compain about something I find myself Saying "You complained about this in last edition and thier fix is almost the same as yours." I am actualy starting to get a sadistic glee from doing this.

BTW: I am still looking for a home for and old 1st-2nd Edition Player

Funny, I'm still looking for a 1E AD&D gaming group!

I don't think I can ship him that far away

This link here:

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othereditions&action=display&thread=3279

has some interesting things to say about 4E...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Don't play DnD myself atm. I am still playing VtM and ignoring White Wolf's apocalypse...

Nice, sounds about the same for me, although ours is Werewolf the Apocalypse. Mind you, I am playing a bit of Dark Heresy as well.


As to 4th I have the three main books for research purposes, but I haven't played D&D since 3rd, I disliked the feats system and other changes that much that we dropped the ruleset for good. I had already created my own fantasy system after getting bored with AD&D and have pretty much used that for the last fourteen years whenever we play fantasy related games.

(We where only using AD&D near the end for Dark Sun anyways, so 3rd was a test, but we prefered the system I had created.)

Fl@nked wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

v

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

I never accused you of anything. I never quoted ANYONE in my post so please don't assume as such. Also IIRC this is my first post involving 4th edition so how could I be getting offended over edition changes repeatedly?

don't remember who said it but for those that posted about still playing oWoD, to each his own. I've been disenchanted with oWoD by having an ST that sucked so much with oWoD that he couldn't put his own story together and had to run the metaplot at all times, plus, the majority of our players were just plain bad at roleplaying (I don't play with them anymore). If you are having fun with it, good for you. I personally prefer nWoD. and White Wolf isn't going anywhere, trust me.

Also, wanted to add: I've read soooooooo many of these damn threads over the last year and a half that I'm just tired of them.

Alpharius wrote:This link here:

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othereditions&action=display&thread=3279

has some interesting things to say about 4E...

Good discussion! Though I utterly disagree with one poster and his Triumph analogy.

I have a question [This is from another sight I am on]

Do you think D&D 4e is one of the worst games to teach Roleplaying with, their are a few over there that think it is?

It depends on your concept of roleplaying, I guess.

For me it's a reason to get the guys (which incldues one woman at the moment) around a table, have some food and beverages, and add a bit of structure to what would otherwise just be goofing around. The actual game is, to me, a hybrid of a story everyone contributes to (as much or as little as they choose), a tactical challenge, and a little bit of watching numbers get bigger.

To me, 4th edition is great for this. So was 3.0, 2nd, Savage Worlds, and a lot of other systems. I don't think my group would get into White Wolf's systems if we tried, but I'd kind of like to try some short campaigns of Seventh Sea, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader, or similar if the opportunity presented and I had the time.

This is very similar to the philosophical disputes over 'tournament mentality' vs. 'casual gamers' in the other Dakka forums. Not everyone plays the game the same, or for the same reasons.

I don't think starting on 4th edition will 'damage' someone... It just gets then accustomed to a specific style.

Note that even in the realm of 4th edition, I've heard of campaigns that cover a wide spectrum of 'sandbox' to 'railroad.' Sandbox games being those, like the Grand Theft Auto console games, are basically an open world for the players to explore: they can do an adventure, or spend a session trading, or something else. They can set their own goals. The other end, railroading, is when the players always know exactly where they need to go next. Think a lot of the Final Fantasy console games. Many (such as myself) enjoy this style as it can be much more cinematic and exciting. There's a sense of a clock ticking, the GM generally has something prepared, and the adventures are less generic 'dungeon crawls' and more associated with the characters. Some GMs really go to far with this, but good ones, even if it's a very plot-driven campaign, will realize that if the players are trying to break things it may be because they need a break. My group is generally somewhere in the middle, but a bit towards the 'railroad' side without going too far... A good GM can push that limit a bit, and we have a very good one.

Anpu42 wrote:Do you think D&D 4e is one of the worst games to teach Roleplaying with, their are a few over there that think it is?

I think the exact opposite. I've been going through games like CthulhuTech and Eclipse Phase lately with an eye to getting friends interested and one thought keeps recurring: "No one who hasn't played D&D would know where to begin on this stuff!" If anything, 3.5 was much more accessible than AD&D thanks to its emphasis on rules that made it clear what PCs can/can't do (rather than relying so heavily on the DM) and its being based on a physically interactive level, i.e., mat and minis. Fourth Edition does both of these things even better than 3.5, IMO. I think the toughest thing for people new to RPGs is getting the hang of RPing. Having a strong ruleset allows them to begin immersion into the game's world as they struggle to figure out their character's "voice"--or, hell, even what a "voice" is and why it's important to the experience. I think RuneBound or Descent or even the upcoming D&D board games may be even a better starting point.

...or Munchkin