Why I Will Probably Stop Playing 4E
Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 08:40PM About a month ago I launched the first of four experimental, one-shot, 4E game sessions.
Session 1: The Cathedral of the Raven Queen – 6th Level
Session 2: The Azer’s Magnificent Forge – 15th Level
Session 3: The Seaborne Mausoleum – 21st Level
Session 4: The Favour of the Raven Queen – 30th Level
I wanted to know how 4E handled heroic-, paragon-, and epic-tier campaigning. With me behind the screen I have so far perpetrated a 6th level TPK, followed by a 15th-level critter-drubbing that petered out in the 10th hour of gameplay. I’ve learned a few things about 4E during these sessions (and the few other one-shots I’ve been able to run), but something one of my players said last session really stuck with me.
Early in the session, before any bickering and when everyone was still fresh, among some really enjoyable battles and roleplaying, he said this:
“After we’re done with these four sessions, I vote we don’t play 4E.”
What a Novel Concept. For me.
I’m admittedly naïve (particularly among a community of diverse and strong-willed gamers, all doing their own thing), but it was eye-opening that we could just not play 4E. We can, and I might.
I won’t balk at playing in another’s 4E game (although I might try to convince them to run Pathfinder or D20 Modern or some other game system instead). I intend to continue designing for 4E—dungeons and critters and related stuff that I can provide to my readers via U20. After all, designing for 4E is generally pretty fun, and I doubt I'll lack an audience.
I don’t hate 4E. I’ve had some good times with it. I see the value, but my returns are diminishing. I’ve grown convinced that 4E is not providing me with the game I want to play in or run, and over the next week or two I intend to explore my main problems with the system and discuss them with you. Maybe you feel the same way? Maybe you know of a solution to my problems? Maybe you can suggest a different game system that will better match my interests?
I guess we'll find out.
Reader Comments (15)
I really feel like tuning in to help you out, but I also feel like "ugh more 4e bitching, I don't want to look." I've heard everyone and their grandma's take on it by now, so while my more empathic side thinks I may be able to help you with some things, that would mean actually reading another 4e critique series. I grow so weary of it.
@RPG Ike: Yeah, that is pretty much how it played out, with my group (except we waited until afterwards to decide). Any game you pick to create for will have audience (even Rifts!). I don't prefer 4e, but I still love checking out what everyone is coming up with for it.
@Wyatt: I know how you feel, I get tired of seeing the whole "I'm tired of reading what you have to say" bits too. You think people wouldn't even travel to the post and waste the time saying so [flamebait]. Really though, this IS the internet...
That's too bad. My current 4e campaign is one of the most fun games I've ever run. I'm not sure if I can offer solutions when I don't know what your problems are. If you think it's too combat heavy, well, we've had at least one entirely combat-free session, look to be seeing another this weekend, and had another session where the only combat functioned mostly as comic relief. If it's skill challenges, well, whatever; take 'em or leave 'em. If it's difficulty balancing encounters (as seems to be alluded to in your post), my question is, "Huh?"
I don't want to get into a huge argument or debate here so I'll just post my groups experience. We are made up of a mix of a couple guys who played since 1E, and the rest who started either early or middle 2E. We all are very technical and advanced career sorts so we do not tend to have much problem with complicated rules or concepts. When 4E came out we had been playing the same 3.0/3.5 campaign that we started in 2000. We experimented by playing about 8 sessions of 4E or so. Most of us went into the experiment actually pro-4E and enthusiastic about it. The end result was that only 1 player preferred 4E and we all voted to stick with 3.5. The one player who preferred 4E tends to like higher-powered, more super-heroic style games so I suspect the higher-powered PC's really appealed to him. At this point we are playing Pathfinder Beta and planning to convert to Pathfinder Final in August when it is released. To be honest we are all really excited about PF and like everything we have seen so far in the Beta and have enjoyed participating in the open playtest. Ok, that's all, just my personal experience, take it for whatever its worth.
I play in two regular gaming groups. When 4e came out both groups switched over. One group loved it, the other group hated it. The DM from the group that didn't like it decides to make his own RPG system (largely based on 3.5e D&D). He's been running his new system for a couple of months now and it's working out ok. Meanwhile my other group is full steam ahead for 4e.
It really seems to be a love it/hate it argument with 4e. I haven't found many people taking the middle ground.
As for high-level play, my group that is still playing 4e will be trying out some of the high level dungeon delves in the coming weeks. Perhaps after we've played really tough characters our opinion of 4e's greatness may change (but I doubt it). I'll keep you posted.
Hey Wyatt, no worries. My following posts will be specific to parts of 4E that I'm just not lovin', so I'm certain that even while you're obviously tired of the discussion as a whole, there will probably be sections that you'll want to weigh in on.
Thanks for stopping by, Mad Brew. I hear ya. We will play the next couple of sessions as I'm interested in seeing how the game changes at higher levels. Our 6th-level and 15th-level sessions have played pretty much exactly the same, which is a little surprising, and maybe just a bit disappointing. Ups and downs. We'll see.
Heya Swordgleam, I'm glad to hear you're liking the system. My experiences have been mixed, but at their core it's still been D&D, so fun has been had. I'm not sure how I alluded to difficulty balancing encounters, but I promise that is not the straw breaking this camel's back. the opposite has been true.
@ John. Thanks for the mini-history; it's actually kind of encouraging to hear that there are more 3.5/PF players out there. Many of the guys I know have switched to 4e, or are burnt out on 3.5 and looking for a switch.
Hey Ameron. Not to be defiant, but I am bucking your trend and placing myself squarely in the middle of love and hate. Obviously I'd prefer more love for my game system, and that's why I'm considering moving forward/backward/sideways/whatever.
Thanks, all. Apologies for not fleshing out the post with my issues with 4E. I jsut wanted a preview post to guage reactions, and I didn't want the post to become a major article.
So you've decided to maybe stop playing 4e because one of you player's said "I don't want to"? And he said this before the game even started?
Well, if you don't like it, go ahead and stop playing. I just see this becoming another tiresome 3 vs 4 rant that accomplishes nothing.
Find something you like, play it, and blog positively. Maybe you'll inspire more to follow!! :D
Hey Tom, a few things.
1. I might stop playing 4E games based on my own experiences. The comment from my player, who has played much more 4E than I have, was a bit of a catalyst. I believed my players liked 4E more than what else was available. His comment showed me that is not the case for everyone.
2. I don't plan to talk about 3E (or any other system) in the posts that will follow. I'm not trying to set up 4E to fail. There are some very good things about 4E. I intend to explore the bad.
3. You're right. I should blog more positively. I will endeavour to do so more.
For now I want to guage the reaction of my readers and weigh their answers to my concerns with the system. I also intend to explore this with my players. I put a lot of effort into D&D, and I want to get the very best bang (fun) for my buck (dollars, effort, and time). I'm not convinced 4E will provide that, but I could be wrong.
I appreciate your POV (alongside those of Wyatt Salazar, and undoubtedly many others). I understand that constant bickering and negativity can be exhausting. I'm hoping these posts will avoid all of that. I'm hoping for a frank discussion of the system and the faults I perceive with it.
Personal reasons aside, if you want to keep designing monsters for 4e, it seems like a bad idea to stop playing it. As a game designer, I have a very hard time taking content that isn't playtested, and taking it from someone who isn't working with the game in question on a regular basis. Especially a complex ruleset like D&D there's always emergent properties and hidden aspects that only come out after playing for a while.
*nods @ Dave* Good points.
Thanks to the critter-formula system, I think 4E offers a bit more leeway with monster design in terms of balance with or without testing, but If I wasn't actively running a 4E game I would need to make special cases to test critters, encounters, traps, and how it all meshes together.
My adult gaming group doesn't want to go near 4E, despite my attempts to convince them to at least give it a try. The kids I GM for love it.
What's an alternative? For fantasy, I reall like Burning Wheel and so far my adult players do too - it's very different from D&D's approach though, with a tighter focus on characters and their issues, as well as shaping the game around what the players and their characters want.
@Wyatt - I'm with you dude.
To all: yeah, what Wyatt said.
I agree entirely. I have just decided to drop 4E and return to 3.5 and the majority of my gaming group support the change. There is a lot about 4E that is great and it was fun to play for a while, but it is not the D&D that I want to play. The novelty is gone and 4E, to me, is cold and mechanical.
I'm still in the process of playtesting 4E, but so far everyone in my gaming group isn't liking it. We'll play a few more gaming sessions more but I think it's a done deal. I like some of the concepts in 4E, however I would have to houserule far too much and I just don't have the time/energy to do it.
I think part of the reason you have disagreements on 4E is because of the type of characters people like to play. Players that like to have wizards with dozens of spells in their repetoire will be very disappointed with the new version. I think players who like to play fighters, rogues, and rangers will be fairly pleased with the changes.
Part of the reason why players who like spellcasters don't like the system (and this is the case with my group of 5 players) is that casters feel very nerfed in 4E. Even worse, they are herded into picking a very limited amount of spells that are both unimaginative and in many cases, weak. The players in my group who play wizards and clerics don't really like this and I can't blame them.
Also, many (spell) traditions have been thrown out the window (in many ways the conversion from 2E to 3E was much smaller, spells stayed the same level from 2E to 3E). For example, you get the Fly spell at level 16 now. Level 16! Very rarely do my campaigns get into the level 15+ range. It might as well not be there.
It's too bad, there are some great concepts in 4E, I just don't think they executed everything that well. And I don't think it stands up to higher level play either, at least not so far in my playtesting. Despite the 4E fanbois, when people are saying "reduce the enemy HP by 50%" you know that something is borked with the system.
Welcome to U20! :)
It occured to me, too, that changing something as drastically and as fundamental as the hit point totals is an indication that things may not be ideal, but I'm certain the other argument is that we've house-ruled every edition and game system since the dawn of time—why should 4E be any different?
With that said, I agree. The kinds of house rules I would incorporate in the past are modifications to complex combat rules or case-by-case changes to specific spells. Changing the HP (even though it's a simple change that makes a good difference in the games of many) seems *too* fundamental, if that makes any sense.
I'd really like to know how many people are playing, and loving, 4E, and how many people are just waiting for Pathfinder to hit the stores. I'm in both camps, to be honest, and there are many in the blogosphere that support 4E, but at least as many who are playing older systems.
Oh, and I hear what you're saying about spellcasters, as I'm certainly the sort of player who misses my vancian spell lists.
Thanks for stopping by!