*Walks in with a few gallons of gasoline for this here bonfire.*
So, have any of you 4e haters actually PLAYED any 4th? I started in the days of 3.5e, then moved to pathfinder, and was just as adamant against 4 when I heard about it as you guys are now. Then I actually played the damn game, and hey, I prefer it now. It's a hell of a lot more fun to play than 3.5 or pathfinder ever were. I've yet to meet a 4e detractor who has actually played 4e extensively. It's a good game, though it has major issues in the encounter building department. Fun as a player, nightmare for a GM.
As far as 5e goes, as long as they streamline encounter building, I'll try it out at least.
Hi, Ryo. I'm street.mage. And I'm a D&D 4E Detractor. I'm actually a D&D detractor. Wow, those statements make it sound like I'm at an AA type meeting for old D&D players. Anyway, I started playing D&D 15 years ago (hey, this isn't getting better) in 2nd E. I hated it the first time, but was hooked after that initial Keep of the Borderlands module (Ugh). I followed 2E to 3E, built up a large pewter miniature army, many of which are not painted still to this day (like most gamers, right?), followed that to 3.5, and had EVERY BOOK out there. Sold them all on the onset of 4E (might still have a few though out in the garage), and was really looking forward to it. Bought that first "folder" adventure with the "quick start rules" and such as the teaser, then bought the collector's 3 pack set with the 3 core books, preordered it, and if I recollect, picked it up a day before "release." I moved shortly thereafter, started a game that June 2008, and ran a long campaign. I know I had every plastic dragon, every beholder miniature, and almost every thing "useful," including almost the entire Harbinger first set of plastic crack. I had well over 1000 miniatures. I bought two huge storage cabinets at Lowe's to house them all (granted, the gargantuan dragon and colossal red took up like a shelf) and bought the monthly "Dungeon and Dragon" magazines with character builder, monster builder, etc. I think I still have it downloaded on my CPU.
When I first started the campaign, it was fresh. Everything was balanced and orderly. The plastic miniatures along side the painted pewter (I have an art degree, I'm pretty good or so I've been told) looked great. The story line was superb, characters were fleshed out well, powers were being flung all over the combat grid, etc.
Then I played SR 4E. What the frag is this D&D nonsense?? One of my players was a 1st edition SR guy from way back, and had ran a 3E game several years prior; but there I played a decker that wasn't good at much of anything in combat - had a pistol and rolled like 5 dice to shoot it. I felt as useful as Princess Leia's little toy gun in combat. I was good at looking up stuff in the Matrix, but that was about it. In the 4E game, I played a troll bounty hunter/infiltrator/long range specialist and had the time of my life. I was instantly hooked on the background, the world, the flavor. D&D was fun, but it was like I was eating frozen pizza for my entire life and enjoying it, then got a gourmet pizza and the frozen variety just wasn't up to snuff anymore. I started seeing how 4E D&D was so...bland. I actually missed the complexity of the 3.5 conglomeration, and desired something a little more challenging of a character, of a campaign, of a game that was more than just a crazy realm of
combat.
What's wrong with 4E?
Nothing. In a vacuum, nothing. It's a different game than SR or 2.0E D&D, 3.0D&D, 3.5D&D, WOD, and Pathfinder. In comparison? It's
too balanced. Someone else mentioned that basically the powers were the same from class to class to class, just different flavor....that's very true. A fighter deals W + str with sliding strike (making up a name, don't really recall this crap, but could look it up if necessary) and a mage casts Magic Missile 2d4 + Cha (That one, I remember). Weapons were typically 1d8, avg 4.5 dmg + 3/4 Str, total of 7.5 with a slide a square. MM rolled 2d4, avg 2.5, or 5 for both dice + Cha, again 3/4 was the typical bonus, sometimes 5 if you were playing the powergamed race and class together (elf wizard, in example), that's 8.5 dmg. So fighter deals 7.5 avg damage with a forced movement of a square, mage deals 8.5 avg damage. That's a difference of one damage. Sure, you could set up powers and do teamwork and ladedadeda make a tactical combat scenario for 3 hours, but that's just stats on a page. There isn't any flavor. It's all generic, and it looses it's appeal after a few slings of the "at will" spells or sword stuff. Skill challenges were a nightmare, and that's a big reason on why the dude that had his name on the DMG got canned. They just didn't make sense. Skills are a backseat to combat. Fluff is practically non-existent. All magic items are
combat oriented. There just didn't seem to be enough cool magical items or specialty items. 4th edition to me is a tactical open ended board game with a myriad of options for character powers. Fleshed out characters didn't seem rewarded enough to be creative - they sit in the mold of combat with the lawful stupid paladin that the 15 yr old boy is playing. To me, the role-playing was completely different than in WoD, SR, and other storytelling games. Because the books had nothing but the rules as it's focus, the fluff was from Dragon magazine (and even still, half of it's crap was cruchy numbers and new powers that barely looked different than the last - ooohhh, the fighter can take an at will instead and shield bump him for 1d6 +str plus push two squares! That's exciting!) and people's imagination, which left the individual game and story up to the players and DMs. The rules didn't support creative gameplay, rather, they seemed to work around it.
Now those are my opinions. The game system is only part of the equation on having a good time or fun. Part of it is time to play long enough. Much of it is who is running the game, and who is playing in it. I'm sure Keith Baker would be an awesome DM, but for a bunch of boring guys that aren't inventive or have character thoughts on why
the character would take such an action, his skills would be a poor match for these guys. It'd be like putting a rocket scientist as a 5th grade math teacher. Could he do it? Probably. But wouldn't his skills be put better, like i dunno, using science on rockets? The players you are with also make an impact. Bill, the guy that farts a lot and never showers is going to make a sad gaming experience regardless of who is running it, what system it is, if it's a cool story, so on and so forth. I personally believe that EVERY game can be fun, every game people can have more fun playing than others; it's just what appeals to that group, their maturity, their wants and desires from the game, etc. What matters is if every one is having a good time, because if they aren't, what's the point? A system however, it's applications, appeal, easiness to learn and apply - all makes a game experience "more fun" however. This is why I think SR is a better game; it's appeal and applications and fun way to create characters make 4E D&D look like skipping rocks. If skipping rocks is your cup of tea, great. Have a blast. But I came to role-play, not roll-play. It's fun to do both, but not one exclusively.
I do play Magic BTW, and enjoy it. I also sold 80-90% of my miniatures, and all of my 4E books. I'll give 5E a look, probably pick up the core books and even play it. But SR is king, and this new game system had better knock my socks off for me to set SR aside for more than a couple of months. I'm GMing a new SR game now, and it is daunting - but it's so much fun and exciting. Except for fighting monsters in 2E when I was 18, I haven't felt this way ever.