I wasn't excited about 4E but thought I would give it a chance to see if it would grow on me. So I have been playing in a 4E game for about 3 sessions now. We just got our first level last week.
I would like to know how long is a reasonable length of time before making a decision about whether I will continue playing in this campaign. The people in my group wanted to try out the system but I don't want to force them to stop. I would rather just stop playing myself so asking them to change is not an option.
I realise this will vary from person to person, but I am interested in what you guys think.
-Shinydice
My group gave 4e 4 10+ hour game nights. We didn't much care for it off the bat, and as we got into the swing of it, we didn't like it much at all. Has some great stuff, good ideas, a lot easier. But wasn't for us.
I am working under the assumption that you are not currently enjoying 4E.
Ask yourself, is there anything that _may_ change with future play that would keep you playing the current edition?
If the answer is no, there's probably no reason to keep playing as it stands. Personally, I would imagine that the social interaction with friends would make it somewhat worth it, but everyones personal situations and scenarios at a game table differ by miles.
- From Level 1 to Level 2. This is enough time to let you get a general feel for how combat flows and see how the various classes interact with each other. It also covers an organic experience, to include how you feel roleplaying is impacted, and to see how skills and skill challenges work.
- Three encounters at each Tier of play (Heroic, Paragon, Epic). This is definitely more of a "test" environment. If you use this option, I recommend a combat encounter at the first level of the tier (1, 11, 21), a combat encounter at mid- to high-levels per tier (8-10, 18-20, 28-30), and one skill challenge. This way gives you a chance to see how combat options expand from level to level and from tier to tier.
- Give it a fixed number of sessions. I'm not a big fan of this option, as there's not much you can control as a player over the course of a given session. However, I think a group focused on truly playtesting 4E would probably be able to determine their (hopefully objective) opinion in 3 sessions or less.
Whatever option you choose, I strongly recommend you do all you can to leave preconceptions about 4E at the door. This is not 3E with the rough bits polished off. It's a completely different game, with totally new core assumptions. Once you get down to your comparisons, compare 4E to 3.5 "Core Only". Comparing a fresh no-expansion-material-having version of D&D with a product that's had years of supplemental material isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you've played with the group before in other versions / other games and had fun but aren't having fun right now then I'd say you given 4E a fair shot (you've gained a level you've played the game for awhile) it doesn't work for you go find another group that's playing whatever version or game you like.
Stinks either way as your group is going to still be playing 4E but if it's not fun for you it's just a time killer really.
I have played with this group since I started playing D&D in May last year. I really like all the people in the group and feel completely comfortable with them. Our group recently shrunk with one person moving cities and the other two have lives that are too busy to fir D&D into (or at least, they cannot play at times other want to play at, so we now have 3 players and a DM.
We also recently have started a new campaign witha new DM, but I don't think that is the problem. I am enjoying my character and the campaign we are in and everything goes well until it comes to encounters. I just find that the powers aren't based in reality enough for me. I know this sounds a bit weird since D&D doesn't have much to do with reality at all. I will paste an example from the email I sent my DM in the spoiler below if anyone wants to read it.
Show
This is what most of my problem is. I can see how this game is more balanced and I can that some of the powers are interesting ideas but they are just so far from reality these days that they are not intuitive. Take for example Positioning Strike. I can see why it is useful and cool but the mechanics! That it uses dexterity I can understand, but the save is Will. This kind or makes more sense if you were using Charisma because you are intimidating. And with Artful dodger then it implies that cha is used since you can move the person up to the cha mod. So I can kind of understand that one is intimidating enough to scare the other person away. But why would someone who is then 10ft away be forced another 5 ft away. Once they are out of danger surely that would be good enough! So I guess then that the rogue is so frightening (cha) that they can't help it but want to get out of there. That being the case why would the creature move sideways rather than straight back from the rogue? Maybe then, it is the dex and maybe the rogue is poking in regions of space to make sure the creature moves back in the right direction, but then why does the rogue not have to keep up with the target? Quite clearly if someone is swinging a short sword around in the way to get you to move to a particular place then the effect of that would not work when they can't even reach you right? Ok so maybe it is a combination of dex and cha so the dex angles the enemy in the right direction and the cha makes the enemy keep on moving back. But why oh why does the target take damage? The fact that it is against Will means that you don't actually have to have to hit but just be intimidated the prowess of the rogue. Yet if the rogue manages to intimidate then why does the person take HP damage when maybe the weapon didn't even hit the creatures AC? Is it because the attack it magical? Or is it because the target has to move so quickly out of the way that it pulls a muscle or maybe it's armor digs in uncomfortably? Also, if the rogue has such an intimidating presence then why is this not taken into account every single other time he attacks?
I have so many questions regarding how this power works and yet half of the powers are just as obscure as this one. The way all these powers work are just arbitrary and therefore difficult to remember.
I also don't like the fact that if you have two encounter powers which are both strength vs ? then why can you not have the strength to do 1 twice rather than once each. It makes no sense from the game prospective to have it this way. I can understand why this might be the case if they were technically magical powers but I don't think that fighters powers should be magical because that is the realm of mages.
However, it sounds a little like you want a justifiable length of time before you can quit. "See, I tried it. I played it for x games before giving up. It really is stupid."
If you're not enjoying it just don't play it. You shouldn't have to justify how much you tried it to anyone. I think it only gets better if you let go of 3.5 ideas and take 4e for it's own thing- which I don't think translates to a number of sessions, so if you've done that IMHO you've met the requirments for trying. But like I said, MHO shouldn't mean anything to you.
However, it sounds a little like you want a justifiable length of time before you can quit. "See, I tried it. I played it for x games before giving up. It really is stupid."
It's not so much that. It's more that I am wondering how long it took to grow on other people. Does first level mostly suck anyway? I know that they tried to make the sweet spot larger so maybe I should take a look at what my character will be like then.
As you played more did you find it got better or remained the same. I guess the question really is "is 1st level less fun in general compared with the other levels?" because if that is the case then I will hang in there for a couple of levels but if 1st level is a good representation of the whole game then I guess I know what my decision is.
In some of the pre-release material for 4E they had stated that HP would represent more then just the amount of injuries you could sustain before you went down by way of using it to also represent morale and the like; thus Positioning Strike could do damage in the way of showing that you're so superior to the enemy they're disheartened at their own inadequacy.
Or if you go off the flavor text it's simply you shoving them around the battlefield in a manner that harms them (it never says you do it with your hands) meaning that Dex is what you use to to keep equilibrium while Cha is what you use to keep up the facade.
As for why you can't just use one encounter power twice as opposed to two encounter powers once; the PHB describes encounter powers for martial powers as, "exploits you've practiced, but can only pull off once in a while" and arcane/divine powers as, "spells/prayers of such power that they take time to re-form in your mind after you unleash their magic energy"
Hope this helps some for alleviating the concerns with powers and the like not being based in reality.
Most of the problem I have is that I can't remember which of my powers are daily powers, which are encounter powers etc. so it doesn't feel like combat is flowing well. I know people say that 4E is easier to play but I find it more arcane than 3.5.
Anyway, I realise that it is up to me when I decide but I want to make sure I have given it a good run. Maybe powers will start to make more sense when I get more so maybe a should wait till second or third level. I guess I would feel bad leaving as well because one of the other players thinks that the DM wouldn't be willing to run the game if he only had two players left so it feels like I am ruining their fun if I quit.
As for the memory problem, I suggest writing the down on note cards if you haven't already tried that. However, on the guilt of leaving, talk to the DM. He's the only one who knows how he would feel if you left, not the other players. But do NOT play because you feel that you have no choice and don't let the other players con you into being unhappy.
If you want to give it a chance, maybe try playing a different character class before you give it up. Or look at it as less important than hanging with your group of friends... also have you talked to them about it? Are they gung-ho for 4e or are there maybe other concerns in your group, other people not enjoying it, not wanting to say anything?
Failing that, I bow out, and hook up with them when it rotates back to something i like.
Or, I run my own group.
to me, 3 sessions is sufficient.
Good luck.
Most of the problem I have is that I can't remember which of my powers are daily powers, which are encounter powers etc. so it doesn't feel like combat is flowing well. I know people say that 4E is easier to play but I find it more arcane than 3.5.
Anyway, I realise that it is up to me when I decide but I want to make sure I have given it a good run. Maybe powers will start to make more sense when I get more so maybe a should wait till second or third level. I guess I would feel bad leaving as well because one of the other players thinks that the DM wouldn't be willing to run the game if he only had two players left so it feels like I am ruining their fun if I quit.
I second the use of printed out power cards. When my group started everyone was "We're old hands at D&D and will just write down some quick points per power" which inevitably led to the power not being used right as there is a lot of specific wording in each power. So I made them either write their powers out or use cards. There are many fan made versions out there (and some WOTC ones coming out....sometime(. Most of my group has switched to these and they've found it much more easy to manage. When they use a one use power they either mark it on the card or flip it over etc.
As for the issue with powers and odd feeling I'd say talk with the DM and change things. If you feel Cha should be the base for an attack and it makes sense for you and the group go for it as it your game.
The problem with the powers and giving them flavour is hypothetically there is a situation you could see the power happening plausibly and other situations that it can't. Such as your example of someone being 10 ft away and being pushed a further 5 ft away. Since the rogue could hypothetically move 30 ft on his turn maybe he lunges forward in such a way that it seems like he's going to charge. As for the damaging from a far aspect I don't have my book in front of me so I can't really comment on that.
I guess it really depends how much realism you want to bring in to any version of D&D. Why do the monsters spread themselves out into convienent rooms and not drink those magic potions or wield that magic sword when the party arrives but instead keep them as treasure? After the first time the party decides to rest why doesn't the boss of the dungeon grab his heavy hitters find the group and kill 'em with sheer numbers? (most of the time they are sitting in a dungeon room in the guy's house after all and even half a dungeon's denziens are more then a match for the group if encountered at once) It goes on and on but in my opinion in end things are done because they add some fun to the game.
I think realism and "why" take a back seat to fun. If it isn't fun talk to your DM about making it fun for you and the gang.
What is fun for you and the players?
If somethingis fun, keep going. If it's not fun, figure out why and remedy it. It could be due to you wanting to use older or another game system instead. It could be that you like it, but a few things no one likes, so you write up your own house rules, etc (this describes us), or that you are bored of it totally and want to switch to online play D&D instead (or another game)...
Nothing else really matters, and no one's opinions matter except your own and you/your friends fun factor is the key.
An example as someone mentioned: "I think realism and "why" take a back seat to fun."
FOr my group for example, they want the sense of realism in that, the world still has rules of physics, etc. THe difference in fantasy, magic also exists which can break those, for people who can use it. THey have no problems with this, and we have house rules to modify all classes, as my players like them. VEry much is used from 4E, but there are some stuff from 2e, and 3e thrown in, and some stuff from other game systems such as Rifts, Vampire, Warhammer, etc.
In the end..it is our game, since no one on this forum, for example is playing in it, so what do we care?
Sanjay
Just teasing.. well almost
Spells being memorized and cast once per day per memorization slot, or 3/2 attacks (back when you got one attack one round and two on another) aren't "intuitive". They were part of the rules system, and explained after-the-fact by the writers and players of the game. However, some of those things have been around for decades, so they are "accepted wisdom". See if you can't find a way to 'cut a new edition some slack'.
Also, D&D has never been a particularly realistic game in many ways, and has always been kind of difficult to break down into realistic components. If wizards need rest and time to memorize spells, can I cast this spell, rest just a bit, and rememorize it? Is it "intuitive" that I can, or can't do this?
I'm not a 4e ardent defender. Like all game systems, some people will like it, and others will not. There is no one perfect game system. Maybe it isn't for you. However, I would urge you to "search your feelings" (to quote Star Wars) and try to examine if you are not enjoying the game because it's not for you, or if it is just because you are expecting it to be 3.5.
On the other hand, if you like 3.5, and want it to be 3.5, there's nothing wrong with liking 3.5 and playing it.
In a long-winded way of getting around to it, do you feel that your current exposure to the game has:
1)been enough to overcome the "new game" factor?
2)been long enough for you to discover "cool new things" in 4e
3)been consistent enough so that you are sure it's the game and not the encounters.
4e isn't for everyone, but from what I can tell it PLAYS better than it reads. If you tried 3 sessions and no one has said anything either way, I would take the next session to ask around.