Attitude Towards 4e

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

I've read it. It induced this feeling:

This one:

And this one:

With that said if you don't like it you aren't being forced to tolerate it. Doing something you don't enjoy and aren't forced to do simply breeds resentment, and I assume you don't want to end up resenting these people?

Those smilies sum up my reaction as well.

I started out very pro-4e when the announcement was made.  And what I find striking is how quickly I've run out of steam with it - I've been playing with 3.5 builds for years and never got bored, but I stopped playing with 4e after about a week. I might come back to it, but right now I have no desire to look at it, it just hasn't sparked my imagination at all.

I need a shrug of indifference smiley to close with.

[Sunic_Flames]

[GawainBS]

I've read it. It induced this feeling:

This one:

And this one:

With that said if you don't like it you aren't being forced to tolerate it. Doing something you don't enjoy and aren't forced to do simply breeds resentment, and I assume you don't want to end up resenting these people?

I feel the same way. When I first heard it, coupled with the fact that they said it would be more like SW:SE, I was very enthousiastic. But then I got my eyes on one of those previews, and then the PHB... It can be fun, I guess, if you aren't aware of 3.5...

Those smilies sum up my reaction as well.

I started out very pro-4e when the announcement was made.  And what I find striking is how quickly I've run out of steam with it - I've been playing with 3.5 builds for years and never got bored, but I stopped playing with 4e after about a week. I might come back to it, but right now I have no desire to look at it, it just hasn't sparked my imagination at all.

I need a shrug of indifference smiley to close with.

I feel the same way... I was all enthousiastic when I first heard about 4E being more like SW:SE, but then came that preview... And the PHB confirmed it.

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

Perfect!

Fu for Yu Sir!

[Alastar]

Well, i decided to focus more on the story than battle, so i have to tolerate that phucked up system like twice per session, and then i mostly make up my monsters because of the lack of tools to create them, so it's not mind boggingly bad.

But yeah, if i dislike it too much, i'll just retract.

Or maybe break the game, cause i'm pretty sure it's still possible.

[brislove]

Ultimately I don't like being told that something I like is terrible by people who won't even bother to read it.

I've read it and think it is terrible. Happy?

yup, I'm happy that you gave it a chance, you read it. It's not the RPG you want to play, you should play the RPG you want to play.

Everyone has something that is important to them in a game. I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system. This is what I want from D&D. There are plenty of good RPGs that all do different things, and do them well. Balance is a huge point of issue for me, I like to be able to optimize my characters fully and not make the game unfun for other players. I fricken blast half the time in 3.5 because otherwise people feel like they are just going through the motions (which they are, cause I had already won the fight).

3.5 is an RPG that does something different and does it well. 3.5 is a complex-simulationist tactical combat RPG. 3.5 and 4e are very similar in concept, but there is one significant difference, 3.5 sacrifices balance for simulation and options. you can do anything you want in 3.5 ANYTHING. 3.5 is still well balanced compared to many other systems, but the balance breaks down at higher levels.

[Josh]

I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system.

How is the game cinematic?

[GawainBS]

I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system.

How is the game cinematic?

Because you have to play a movie during a session to keep it at least a bit intresting?

[Straw_Man]

I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system.

How is the game cinematic?

Because you have to play a movie during a session to keep it at least a bit intresting?

LOL. Nicely done. Hopefully not true, but for the chuckle a G-Fu for you!

[GawainBS]

I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system.

How is the game cinematic?

Because you have to play a movie during a session to keep it at least a bit intresting?

Wow, my first G-Fu! Thanks!

LOL. Nicely done. Hopefully not true, but for the chuckle a G-Fu for you!

[brislove]

I think 4e is an excellent cinematic Action Adventure game, with a well balanced tactical combat system.

How is the game cinematic?

The same way 3.5 is. You get to be creative and BE heroic, do things that are impossible, save the world, and get the girl . Honestly the only real difference I feel while playing 4e vs 3.5 is that 4e is more balanced, and 3.5 has more simulation. Balance is more important to me, so 4e is a good system for me.

My only real complaints with 3.5 are 7-9th level spells, and polymorph. from a player perspective. from a DM perspective the rules were not designed for multiple enemy encounters, but PCs crush solo enemy encounters via too many actions OR the monsters single action is overbearing against a party member, and it evens things out by taking away player actions, which isn't fun for players as they don't get to do anything.

I guess perhaps the rules themselves aren't cinematic, but 4e does provide HEROES with a lot of little extras that set them apart from your commoner. something a level 1 fighter in 3.5 didn't really have (+1 to hit, w/e).

[GawainBS]

I wonder if everybody would keep vaunting 4E's "balance" in a year's time...

[Caelic]

Meh.  Action points do not a cinematic game make.  Adventure, now, that's a cinematic game.

[Josh]

[Meg]

Josh, seriously, do you OWN any other books besides SW and SotC?  And no saying "Burning Wheel"   

I think D&D (any version) can be cinematic but the mechanics also promote it to be extremely un-cinematic too.  There is so much about rolling and adding in bonuses to overcome another number, the descriptors and actual in-game action can be completely lost without a GM which insists on maintaining that. 

4e is essentially a very well laid out, well organized system just for dungeon crawl's.  And I don't say that with any sort of negative connotation.  For what it is, I think it exceeds expectations and is a ton of fun.  So you'll have a ton of action and adventure, but it won't necessarily be cinematic for the folks sitting at the table.

For an example of a game which I believe could be cinematic, check out Shock.  I only played once, but it's all about building multiple conflicts as a group and description and detail is heavily rewarded. 

And yes, though I think Josh polishes the above games knobs far too much, Spirit of the Century does that even more.  It's like playing a pulp movie.  You can almost hear the zeppelins "whizzing" by. 

[Caelic]

Just so.  I'd classify a "cinematic" game as one that actively encourages and rewards cinematic play.  D&D, generally, doesn't...in fact, I'd say most editions go in the opposite direction.  (Mechanically, it makes much more sense in 3.5 to rest up, then ambush one encounter, then rest up again--not very cinematic.  In 4e, it's all about tactical maneuvering...which, while interesting, isn't really cinematic, either.)

[Josh]

Josh, seriously, do you OWN any other books besides SW and SotC?  And no saying "Burning Wheel"

Yeah, they just are not very good.

I will start polishing the knobs of other good games as soon as they get discovered/made.

Like Dread.  Hat game is 20lbs of awesome in a 5lb sack.  It is over a year old but I just discovered it. 

Btw, it is cinematic as well, just in a particular way.

Just so.  I'd classify a "cinematic" game as one that actively encourages and rewards cinematic play. 

Well said.

[Straw_Man]

  Would it be frowned upon if I said D&D from any edition discourages heroism? As the Stormind Fallacy puts so eloquently, dead characters don't roleplay.

  A D&D character properly optimised is a soldier. The right tools & tactics are paramount. You are rewarded by beating your challenges without casualties or loss by doing so. YOu don't care about fair or good story, you rush in like a SWAT team and go to win.

  In my humble opinion this is a contradiction of heroic fantasy. It's the characters against odds that would dwarf them, and yet, they fight on.

  My campaigns have ridiculous challenges, a CR 12 monster against a ECL 3 party. It was the best fight of my players gaming carreers they say, they had to win with planning, luck and hope alone. Admittedly I mod the hell out of the rules for my campaigns, but I think thats a flaw in the system that doesn't address heroic, cinematic odds.

  Thoughts?

[GawainBS]

Do such challenges not further encourage optimizing and tactical analyzing, hence, according to some, lowering the "heroic", "cinematic" feel? For me, I have no problem imagining my optimized character doing cinematic stuff. It's all in your own head, I think.

[Caelic]

Do such challenges not further encourage optimizing and tactical analyzing, hence, according to some, lowering the "heroic", "cinematic" feel? For me, I have no problem imagining my optimized character doing cinematic stuff. It's all in your own head, I think.

I can imagine the captain of a starship doing cinematic, heroic stuff in a game of Star Fleet Battles.  I can imagine a soldier doing cinematic, heroic things in a game of Terrible Swift Sword.  That doesn't make SFB or TSS a particularly cinematic game, though.  Cinematic is like comedy--you can do it with any system, but some systems are designed to support it and others aren't.