D&D 4th Ed Good or Bad?

[Darklord]

My group is aged 30-40+ and we all enjoy 4th edition, we enjoyed the previous editions to. Only one of the group would prefer to play a previous edition. (2nd ed)

Daniel.

[Kthanid]

My group is aged 30-40+ and we all enjoy 4th edition, we enjoyed the previous editions to. Only one of the group would prefer to play a previous edition. (2nd ed)

Daniel.

Same age age range here and everyone playing in my group (7 people) all played 2nd edition throughout our entire lives prior to this. There are definitely aspects of 2e we miss (and what those aspects are differ from person to person in certain ways), but by and large we're all really enjoying 4e as well. Again, I'll credit the experience of our DM and his ability to infuse the aspects of the game that are important to his players.

To the somewhat snide comment made earlier of me "denying" something about this, rather than get into a flame war, I'll merely state this: I haven't "denied" anything, nor have I stated unequivocally that 4e is some sort of a godsend or that it doesn't deviate from the prior games' roots. Decisions were made that drove 4e in the direction it went. Some of the things that came out of that were nice, some were not.

No one (especially not me) is telling you that you have to love 4e or that you should feel any way about it at all. I am aware that some people don't care for 4e, and I'm also aware that a nonzero number of players who are playing D&D right now with 4e would have never played the game on an older system and I think it's great to see the community of gamers growing.

[Kostas]

I'm just saying 3ed was better than 2ed and 3.5ed was better than 3ed.
But 4ed isn't better, it's just different.
It's like board games. There's Settler's of Catan, there's Seafarer's of Catan and then there's Robo Rally. (bad analogy cause I like Robo Rally most >.<)

Some people talk about 4ed like it's the second coming, like it brought balance to the force. Well balance was there as long as the DM knew how to handle magic and magic items properly and put the party in situations that didn't make the casters shine all the time. It's not just combat, there's politics too and even RP (yes!).
4ed isn't balance made manifest, it's uniformity, it's like Orwellian almost ;p
But it does appeal to the WoW crowd so... good move money-wise.
I wonder how 5ed will be...

PS: Not directed to Kthanid (neither was my previous post mate, your posts were pretty wise)

[Kthanid]

Well balance was there as long as the DM knew how to handle magic and magic items properly and put the party in situations that didn't make the casters shine all the time.

I certainly don't disagree. I don't work for them, so I can't say with certainty, but 4e gave me the impression that a lot of these decisions were made precisely for the reason you just outlined: Those older systems relied heavily on a good DM to maximize enjoyment. The same is still true in 4e, of course, but the difference in 4e is that it seems like they took a lot of time actually providing the tools to help build a better DM whereas back in AD&D 2e the DM really needed to learn how to be a "good" DM on their own.

Again, what I'm saying here is not an across-the-board defense for 4e nor am I trying to sing accolades for it, I'm merely pointing out that I think one thing they accomplished was providing the right tools to make newer DM's better equipped to learn their role, and to provide the right framework to remove a lot of the burdens that DM's faced on older systems.

I have no idea what to expect from 5e, but I will say this: I'm a little soured by the need to change systems after what feels like a relatively short period of time, and I honestly can't expect my group will do so too rapidly. We rarely play and have invested enough money in this edition (and enough time into our current long running campaign) that I doubt we'll just throw those books in the corner to jump ship for the new edition anytime in the foreseeable future. I hope 5e is an improvement over a lot of the areas in 4e that need improvement and I'd like to see continuations in the areas that 4e actually did do well with.

[Kostas]

I don't think that 4e gave the right tools for a good DM, it's just made the game harder to screw up with a bad DM (uniformity and all that).

[seebs]

And they can taunt the real way, with RP, not just using a lame skill. That's why the game has a living DM.

One of the reasons I play RPGs is to play characters whose abilities are different from my own. If all you have is RP, a slick and manipulative player can have a huge advantage over a sort of shy player, and that undermines the point of the game.

4th ed might be a good game on its own, but it's not deserving of the name D&D imo.
You didn't see such an outcry when 3ed came out did you? So obviously there's something wrong with 4th ed, stop denying it.

Wow, the argumentum ad populum is so persuasive!

Here's the thing: I would certainly agree that it's a larger change. But I don't think that is proof of "wrong". I see outcry about all sorts of changes. I have seen people complain epically about the existence of cell phones, smart phones, web browsers, you name it. I don't think that means those things are wrong; I think it means that people often dislike change.

MHO, 4E is the best game that has yet come out of the D&D product line, but it is not all that close structurally to previous editions. It's a major shift in direction; I just happen to find that it's a shift in direction and design that produces a game I enjoy more.

[seebs]

I don't think that 4e gave the right tools for a good DM, it's just made the game harder to screw up with a bad DM (uniformity and all that).

This is an interesting way of looking at it, and it's certainly true that a lot of what it provides is more aimed at providing a workable baseline. That said, I have been running games which people appeared to enjoy playing in for probably 25 years now, and I find this system to be the most conducive to running a game that people enjoy and get involved in.

[seebs]

Well balance was there as long as the DM knew how to handle magic and magic items properly and put the party in situations that didn't make the casters shine all the time.

I certainly don't disagree. I don't work for them, so I can't say with certainty, but 4e gave me the impression that a lot of these decisions were made precisely for the reason you just outlined: Those older systems relied heavily on a good DM to maximize enjoyment. The same is still true in 4e, of course, but the difference in 4e is that it seems like they took a lot of time actually providing the tools to help build a better DM whereas back in AD&D 2e the DM really needed to learn how to be a "good" DM on their own.

Again, what I'm saying here is not an across-the-board defense for 4e nor am I trying to sing accolades for it, I'm merely pointing out that I think one thing they accomplished was providing the right tools to make newer DM's better equipped to learn their role, and to provide the right framework to remove a lot of the burdens that DM's faced on older systems.

Exactly! I know a number of people who never tried to run games before because it was too intimidating, or who tried and failed, who have finally been able to pick up the screen and run some pretty cool games.

I have no idea what to expect from 5e, but I will say this: I'm a little soured by the need to change systems after what feels like a relatively short period of time, and I honestly can't expect my group will do so too rapidly. We rarely play and have invested enough money in this edition (and enough time into our current long running campaign) that I doubt we'll just throw those books in the corner to jump ship for the new edition anytime in the foreseeable future. I hope 5e is an improvement over a lot of the areas in 4e that need improvement and I'd like to see continuations in the areas that 4e actually did do well with.

Yeah. Me, I'll almost certainly get it, may or may not play it a whole lot. I get a lot of game systems just to read about them.

[Kostas]

I don't think that 4e gave the right tools for a good DM, it's just made the game harder to screw up with a bad DM (uniformity and all that).

This is an interesting way of looking at it, and it's certainly true that a lot of what it provides is more aimed at providing a workable baseline. That said, I have been running games which people appeared to enjoy playing in for probably 25 years now, and I find this system to be the most conducive to running a game that people enjoy and get involved in.

You know how as DM, even in 3.5e, you have to know every freakin spell (At least Core) cause some smartass playa is gonna try and use the most crazy combo of spells to screw over your detailed campaign world. So you have to be prepared to counter it somehow, either with houserules or being prepared. It's hard, but it's also interesting. You don't want to go all restrictive on your players and force them in dungeons where you can control them, but you also want to limit their soapbox open world abilities to as much as you are willing your campaign world to be affected. It takes a lot of effort and skill from a DM to do all that.

4e is a lot tamer if that's the proper word for it.


PS: On your point about shy people playing the game, well that's just it. You have to play a role, come out of your shell. This is the growing aspect of RPGs. Sure a shy, small person may not be able to intimidate anyone in his real life, but he could play a Barbarian and roll checks to intimidate enemies, or RP a rogue that leads a guild, who uses a thinly veiled threat on the City's ruler, just RPing it, because he has the power to back up that threat. So it comes down to power, real or imagined, overt or covert, it doesn't matter if the real person is shy or not in real life. I'm a shy person and in gaming I can really let loose and immerse myself.

[Cadmus]

I'm an AD&D First Edition guy. That's my favorite version of the game.

If I had to put my preferences on a scale it'd be:

1e > OD&D > Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert > BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia > 3.0 > 3.5 > 4E > 2e.

From "this is actually D&D" to "whatever" to "F*** no, that is craptastic".

D&D 4th edition to me is a completely different game from the one I know and love. It shouldn't have been called "D&D" in the first place.