After 2 years of 4th edition we lost 4 players.

469 posts / 0 new
Last post
Last night we were wrapping up our 3rd edition game for the night and while we were discussing the 4th edition game we had four players in our group decide they were quitting the 4th edition game and sticking with our 3rd edition game.

All four players have played 4th every step of the way but they just could not get into it. One person said that playing the game just seems like a chore, another player says that he likes the 3rd edition rules better and would just like to devote his time to that edition, one player says he feels extremely limited with regards to the players and he is sick of the endless errata that makes the game unstable, and the last one likes the complexity of 3rd edition better.

We are all veteran gamers of 25+ years and before you start saying well it's our DM's fault for not doing this or doing that. Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault. These four guys are heavy gamers and die hard D&D fans and it saddens me that in this edition Wizards failed to produce a game that these long time veterans of D&D would walk away from.

Personally I like 3rd edition better and I'm glad we still have a game going. I will continue to play 4th edition because we have a few people (2 out of 8) who really do enjoy it so I don't want to ruin their fun by not having enough people to play.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?

P.S We are down to a Leader (Tac Warlord), Defender (Swordmage Aegis of Assault), and a Controller (Staff Wizard). I am currently playing the Wizard because I believe we need some kind of striker in the party and while I don't want to give up my Wizard we will be in trouble without some kind of good damage output. This is one of the gripes I have about the game. If I were playing a Wizard, Cleric or Druid I could modify my spells to make me a decent melee fighter. What type of striker do you recommend I go with?
Actually In all my groups I have experienced the exact opposite.

Once a few of us started playing 4th, all of the groups are now playing 4th.

People tranfered over for the following reasons:

- Combat is more tactical and interesting
- It is an easier to learn system
- WoTC's commitment to errata and balance makes for a more enjoyable game
- Characters are more diverse feeling

Personally I like 4th better and am glad I no longer have to play 3rd at all.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 3rd edition for 4th or quit gaming period because of 3rd edition?
Actually In all my groups I have experienced the exact opposite.

Once a few of us started playing 4th, all of the groups are now playing 4th.

People tranfered over for the following reasons:

- Combat is more tactical and interesting
- It is an easier to learn system
- WoTC's commitment to errata and balance makes for a more enjoyable game
- Characters are more diverse feeling

Personally I like 4th better and am glad I no longer have to play 3rd at all.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 3rd edition for 4th or quit gaming period because of 3rd edition?



No we never had anyone quit 3rd edition. We did have to kick someone out of the group because they were always cheating.
Same old story: Some people enjoy one way, others enjoy another. This can be applied to video games, how you cook your steak, beers, shoes, and many other things, including editions of D&D.

Personally, I'd like to play almost ANY edition of D&D if I could either adjust my work schedule to fit my old group, or find a new group. I'd very much prefer 4e, but D&D is D&D.
BLAME would be the wrong word to use, yes, but its the responsibility of a consumer to decide what products are appropriate for them given their needs and desires. It is not the fault of WotC that 4e doesn't appeal to a subset of the 3.x players out there. I'm sure they designed the game with the hope that everyone would switch over, but I'm equally confident they knew better and their main goal was to make a good solid game that would introduce more modern RPG concepts to D&D and expand its appeal.

Just like when 3e replaced 2e there were plenty of people that just kept on playing 2e and didn't like 3e. I personally never cared for 3e that much for instance and really didn't play D&D during the 3e era, yet I am pretty happy with 4e. I've not had any problems getting people to play it either, despite the fact that there are still plenty of people running around putting it down even though they haven't ever cracked a 4e book.

You tried it, you obviously played a good bit of it, and a bunch of you don't like it. At least the people that say they'd rather play 3.x have an informed opinion to go on. Its too bad this kind of thing split the group but I'd just say you should all have fun playing whatever you like to play.

Good gaming.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I've lost 4 people, but 1 joined the military, 1 couldn't get along with 1 guy, 1 was friend of the guy who couldn't get along with that other guy, and 1 had a job and stuff to do.

That said, over the course of my 4th edition campaign, party size has increased from 4 people, to 10, and now down to 8. I could actually have a party of 16, if I hadn't been telling people the party was full. (We're almost at epic tier, hard to bring new players in at that point, both mechanicly and plot-wise)

Of this, there was only 1 person who didn't like 4th edition, however, he stuck around because he liked my campaign.

Then again, we were usually melee heavy in 3rd edition, and still are in 4th. And melee was horribly limited and boring in 3rd.
My group almost burned their 3e stuff after 4e for about a week.  I stopped them from throwing their books away by buying most of them from them.

I prefer 4e, but 3e still has its charm for me.  Still, I'm glad you are still able to game, whatever edition you play.

Good luck.
Last night we were wrapping up our 3rd edition game for the night and while we were discussing the 4th edition game we had four players in our group decide they were quitting the 4th edition game and sticking with our 3rd edition game.

All four players have played 4th every step of the way but they just could not get into it. One person said that playing the game just seems like a chore, another player says that he likes the 3rd edition rules better and would just like to devote his time to that edition, one player says he feels extremely limited with regards to the players and he is sick of the endless errata that makes the game unstable, and the last one likes the complexity of 3rd edition better.

We are all veteran gamers of 25+ years and before you start saying well it's our DM's fault for not doing this or doing that. Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault. These four guys are heavy gamers and die hard D&D fans and it saddens me that in this edition Wizards failed to produce a game that these long time veterans of D&D would walk away from.

Personally I like 3rd edition better and I'm glad we still have a game going. I will continue to play 4th edition because we have a few people (2 out of 8) who really do enjoy it so I don't want to ruin their fun by not having enough people to play.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?

P.S We are down to a Leader (Tac Warlord), Defender (Swordmage Aegis of Assault), and a Controller (Staff Wizard). I am currently playing the Wizard because I believe we need some kind of striker in the party and while I don't want to give up my Wizard we will be in trouble without some kind of good damage output. This is one of the gripes I have about the game. If I were playing a Wizard, Cleric or Druid I could modify my spells to make me a decent melee fighter. What type of striker do you recommend I go with?



to me it sounds like these players were not going to like 4th don't matter what.  I wish there was a name for that type of player. 

The player who will try a new system, but no matter how good or bad it is they will find reason to hate it and can't find anything good about it

I read threads like this.  I look to see if the players in question could find anything good about the new system, but still prefer the old system.  If they do find somethings they like and others things they don't about the new edintion, I believe they gave it a honest try but prefer the older edidtion

When I read that the players find nothing good about the new system I know they didn't try it.  There were going to hate it, and find flaws that are not there.

I think your player are those players.  They were going to hate 4th no matter what.  I had a few players like that.

"Ok I am going to attack the goblin"

"With what power"

" I am just going to attack him"

" We know but you have powers to hit him with'

" But I just want to swing my sword at him"

"soooo a basic melee attack?"

" Yes I will do that"

"why your powers are just like a melee attack, but with additional benfits"

"God 4th is so dumb."

I really wish I was making this up but this is a converstation with a guy who was going to hate 4th don't matter what
My group almost burned their 3e stuff after 4e for about a week.  I stopped them from throwing their books away by buying most of them from them.

I prefer 4e, but 3e still has its charm for me.  Still, I'm glad you are still able to game, whatever edition you play.

Good luck.



Did you sell the 3rd books on ebay.  3.5 stuff goes for a pretty penny now.

I think I got  50 dollers for my players handbook 3.5
I keep that stuff for my own use still.  I don't have any 3.x games, but I may later.
My group had a lot of people quit playing D&D when 4th rolled around.  Of course most of them 'quit' D&D only in the most vague of senses because they never really played D&D.  Of the ones that actually, quit most of them joined because they liked 3rd ED rules, and prefer complex simulationist systems that have a great deal of system mastery.  Whatever floats their boat.

As for the rest of the group?  There's a lot of talk about going back to older EDs for a campaign, but no ones willing to run it.  Which is sad because I never really got to take my duskblade/artificer with an item familiar out for a spin....
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
We lost four but have gained four new ones two of which are old players from 2e who never played 3e one is a guy with more experience with white wolf than dnd and loves the current rule set.  Of those that left 1 was a power gaming munchkin that everyone was glad to see the back of.  Two were fairly unreliable when it came to showing up on time and 1 was a hard core simulationist.  So net the game remains the same.
For myself:
Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition...


No.
or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?


No, and that's absurd.




For the less "classy" bit, with explanations...

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition...


No.

The players I've had in the past who don't play 4th never started playing it.  They either stuck with other systems, or simply continued not playing RPGs for the time being.  The players I've introduced to 4th who aren't playing it either find time to RPG-game at all, or have found groups poisoned by one or more players who (without ever trying 4th) have browbeat the rest of the group into never trying 4th.

or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?


No, and that's absurd.

It's absurd to think that any one game would be responsible for someone's choice to "quit gaming period".  Some people may use it as an excuse, or even as the last straw, but really it's as ridiculous as someone saying "This pudding is so terrible, I'm never going to eat again!" 

(And if you meant "quit role playing period", then swap in: "This pudding is so terrible, I'm never going to eat [pudding] again!")

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)

In terms of what striker to play in your group:

I am kind of fond of the ranger either 2 weapon or bow. twin strike plus hunter's quarry is pretty nice. i also think the rougue would be pretty effective in your group. That being said if you wanted to stick with the magic theme the Warlock might be fun for you.



In terms of what striker to play in your group:

I am kind of fond of the ranger either 2 weapon or bow. twin strike plus hunter's quarry is pretty nice. i also think the rougue would be pretty effective in your group. That being said if you wanted to stick with the magic theme the Warlock might be fun for you.



I think you just won the thread.

The closest we had was our resident power-gamer who was very upset about Paladins. He did nothing but complain about everything in 4E until Divine Power came out. Since then, he sings the praises of 4E.

Like with any product by any company, your mileage may vary. Just like with the switch from 2E to 3E, some people just didn't like the change and decided to keep playing their preferred edition. It isn't exactly a revelation that this happens. And, not trying to be mean-spirited here, but the fact that you or someone in your group doesn't enjoy 4E isn't special in any way.

Everyone in my rotating group of 7 players/DMs started playing with either OD&D, 1E or 2E, and all of us have played every edition along the way to 4th. Every one of us also love 4E and wouldn't switch back to an older edition for anything. And no other D&D player out there has anything over us in the form of D&D 'street cred' that makes their opinions on 4E any more valid than ours.

These four guys are heavy gamers and die hard D&D fans and it saddens me that in this edition Wizards failed to produce a game that these long time veterans of D&D would walk away from.



Like I said, your mileage may vary. My group of veteran gamers, like many more out there, love 4E. Wizards didn't fail your group any more than asparagus failed to be something I enjoy eating. I don't fault your group for not enjoying 4E, but it is pretentious to imply that their opinions are likely shared by most other veteran D&D players. Happy gaming with whatever edition you enjoy!
I am Gazra. This is my DDI account. Gazra is my forum account. Sometimes I get lazy and post with this account.

In terms of what striker to play in your group:

I am kind of fond of the ranger either 2 weapon or bow. twin strike plus hunter's quarry is pretty nice. i also think the rougue would be pretty effective in your group. That being said if you wanted to stick with the magic theme the Warlock might be fun for you.



I think you just won the thread.



sorceror would also be fun. 
I've lost 4 players since I started running 4th edition.  Of course, all 4 of those players moved at least 100 miles away (one moved about 3000 miles away), which is why I lost the players.

-SYB
I've lost 4 players since I started running 4th edition.  Of course, all 4 of those players moved at least 100 miles away (one moved about 3000 miles away), which is why I lost the players.

-SYB


So, really it wasn't 4E that drove them away, they were moving away from you.


As far as 'unstable due to errata' goes, I enjoy the more constant updates and fixes with 4e. Granted there have been some mistakes, coughexpertisecough, but I'm really hoping that 5e has an even better method of delivering errata and rules updates than the monthly compendium.
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.
TWF Ranger, Toughness+Melee is more safe for you.

Though you could try a 2h Fighter or Paladin.

A smity weapon paladin could be of great benefit, though you may wish to keep Lay on Hands and try MC'c into Leaders to gain extra healing.

Alternatively if you have Primal Power and the PHB2, a Lifeblood warden would work.

For your PrC i'd reccomend the Symbarch of Aglarond, or MCing into Rogue and focusing on hiding and the Master Infiltrator.

For the later, focus on Wide area AOE damage and hope you crit or kill something that's higher level than you. That will give you the option to run away if things go sour (your friend will be screwed though).
Opra: "For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing."

Yeah, Iv a couple of friends who prefer 3e. I keep asking them to try explain in words what it is 3e has, that 4e lacks. But all their explanations just dont seem to make sense to me.

LOL! All I hear is something to this effect ...

"I dont need no dentist! I got two tooth to chew - and thats good enough for me!"

I know Im being unfair, but I honestly dont get it.



Anyway, one of the main gripes is the *consistency* of 4e. The wildness and imbalance of 3e doesnt have the same element of surprise in 4e. Nor does rules mastery have the same reward. Nevertheless, this unpredictability of the level of adversity is a job for the DM to do, not the job for sloppy mechanics to do.

It was a 3e-DM who used the rule to mix up the levels of encounter challenges. Some encounters should be very low level, extremely easy, and players should enjoy flexing their powers. Some encounters should be sweat-dripping uncertainties. And some encounters should be a much higher level than appropriate - and these are the encounters players must recognize to run away from. About 1 in 8 encounters should be near impossible. This DMing rule made 3e more interesting. But for 4e, the rule is much more important because the rules themselves are so balanced. On the other hand, the well-balanced rules give the DM tools to precisely calibrate the level of the encounter that the DM intends - and that makes the game experience better.
Last night we were wrapping up our 3rd edition game for the night and while we were discussing the 4th edition game we had four players in our group decide they were quitting the 4th edition game and sticking with our 3rd edition game.

All four players have played 4th every step of the way but they just could not get into it. One person said that playing the game just seems like a chore, another player says that he likes the 3rd edition rules better and would just like to devote his time to that edition, one player says he feels extremely limited with regards to the players and he is sick of the endless errata that makes the game unstable, and the last one likes the complexity of 3rd edition better.

We are all veteran gamers of 25+ years and before you start saying well it's our DM's fault for not doing this or doing that. Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault. These four guys are heavy gamers and die hard D&D fans and it saddens me that in this edition Wizards failed to produce a game that these long time veterans of D&D would walk away from.

Personally I like 3rd edition better and I'm glad we still have a game going. I will continue to play 4th edition because we have a few people (2 out of 8) who really do enjoy it so I don't want to ruin their fun by not having enough people to play.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?

P.S We are down to a Leader (Tac Warlord), Defender (Swordmage Aegis of Assault), and a Controller (Staff Wizard). I am currently playing the Wizard because I believe we need some kind of striker in the party and while I don't want to give up my Wizard we will be in trouble without some kind of good damage output. This is one of the gripes I have about the game. If I were playing a Wizard, Cleric or Druid I could modify my spells to make me a decent melee fighter. What type of striker do you recommend I go with?



to me it sounds like these players were not going to like 4th don't matter what.  I wish there was a name for that type of player. 

The player who will try a new system, but no matter how good or bad it is they will find reason to hate it and can't find anything good about it

I read threads like this.  I look to see if the players in question could find anything good about the new system, but still prefer the old system.  If they do find somethings they like and others things they don't about the new edintion, I believe they gave it a honest try but prefer the older edidtion

When I read that the players find nothing good about the new system I know they didn't try it.  There were going to hate it, and find flaws that are not there.

I think your player are those players.  They were going to hate 4th no matter what.  I had a few players like that.

"Ok I am going to attack the goblin"

"With what power"

" I am just going to attack him"

" We know but you have powers to hit him with'

" But I just want to swing my sword at him"

"soooo a basic melee attack?"

" Yes I will do that"

"why your powers are just like a melee attack, but with additional benfits"

"God 4th is so dumb."

I really wish I was making this up but this is a converstation with a guy who was going to hate 4th don't matter what

The only thing that gets me as to player's concerning 4e is that those that never read/played 4e
always seems to gripe or "CRY" that this or that dont work,and they have no real clue what they are talking about.It's a shame,after all, 4e is a sweet game well made.So i guess when looking for new player's,one must ask......dice or tissues!!
I say dice!!
Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition...

No we gained a player who stopped playing because of 3.x 
I also need to mention the current 4e DM. He has what I can only describe as a 'multivalent' approach to rules errata.

His philosophy is, just be because the errata exists doesnt mean we need to implement it right away. He is very comfortable with letting each player choose for their own character what new rule or erratum they want to implement. Even if different players choose conflicting rules.

For example, my character uses the inherent-enhancement bonus option, but none of the other characters do. Other players have been given a choice whether or not they want to implement a new erratum that would impact their character.

So far, wev seen no detrimental consequences to this laissez-faire approach. Everything seems balanced so far. Indeed that is a testimony to the overall stability and balance of the 4e game.

By tying specific to rules to specific characters, it helps contain any unintended consequences. The quirks even grant a kind of unique flavor to each character. Players regulate their own rules variants.

This approach also makes adapting to rules errata a comfortable transition. 
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.



Stability is very important when it comes to any game that has rules. If my car is in the shop more than it's on the road then I can't enjoy it. Besides, if I have a car that it only two years old and it has to go to the shop as much as it does then I would think about buying another car because it should have been done to start with.

No there is no perfect balance when it comes to games and I understand this but Wizards honestly needs to stop trying to achieve the impossible.
I also need to mention the current 4e DM. He has what I can only describe as a 'multivalent' approach to rules errata.

His philosophy is, just be because the errata exists doesnt mean we need to implement it right away. He is very comfortable with letting each player choose for their own character what new rule or erratum they want to implement. Even if different players choose conflicting rules.

For example, my character uses the inherent-enhancement bonus option, but none of the other characters do. Other players have been given a choice whether or not they want to implement a new erratum that would impact their character.

So far, wev seen no detrimental consequences to this laissez-faire approach. Everything seems balanced so far. Indeed that is a testimony to the overall stability and balance of the 4e game.

By tying specific to rules to specific characters, it helps contain any unintended consequences. The quirks even grant a kind of unique flavor to each character. Players regulate their own rules variants.

This approach also makes adapting to rules errata a comfortable transition. 



We tried this before and we had nothing but problems. Someone would do something using the errata and if the DM wasn't then we would have to stop the game in order for the DM to look over it if a problem came up.

Being a consumer of a product means that you are never at fault.


A long history of axe murderers, gun-wielding assassins, vindictive poisoners and countless other consumers beg to differ with you.
Philosophically, D&D is game that is in touch with the way society and humanity is evolving.

During the 70s and 80s, D&D concretized the feeling that individuals can and do make their own worlds. They dont have to obey historical tradition. If they dont like an ideology (even religion), they can just make up a new one that they do like. This ... awareness ... scandalized and terrified many in the previous generation for who tradition was sacrosanct.

Now in the 21st century, especially in America, I dont  think change itself scares anyone. Not to the same degree anyway.

However, what might be scaring people is the *rate* of change.

The 21st century is a time of *accelerating* technological and social changes. It may be the older generation doesnt really have the skills to cope with this kind of change, whereas the younger generation is internalizing the necessary skills and aptitudes to adapt to this rate of change.

As far as D&D goes. I wonder if there is a generational gap between players who can handle changing rules (ie errata) and players who cant who yearn for their rules to remain carved in stone and ... not exactly immutable but sluggish.
Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?



I only lost one player, my brother. But since our group is so small (3 guys, including me) 1 player dropping is harsh. However, my friend loved 4e so much he started his own group and I'm in that. He DM's groups of 3-5 on average, so 4e brought it more players there. Although, this group is now switching over to nWoD soon and my DM is considering making that permanent.

My brother also attends to a D&D club at his school. When 4e came out, a teacher donated the core rulebooks. It was such a nice gesture, they immediately stopped their 3.5 game and tried fresh with 4e. After a few months playing, they went back to 3.5, already bored and disappointed with 4e. Sadly, that group of 6 broke off not long after that and they've been going strong for years. From what my brother said, all of them, including him, are all disenchanted with anything D&D.
-I got ran over my a squirrel the other day. -I'm going to steal my own idea. -My fruits of labor are not fruits... *sniff* they're vegetables. *sobs*
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.



Stability is very important when it comes to any game that has rules. If my car is in the shop more than it's on the road then I can't enjoy it. Besides, if I have a car that it only two years old and it has to go to the shop as much as it does then I would think about buying another car because it should have been done to start with.

No there is no perfect balance when it comes to games and I understand this but Wizards honestly needs to stop trying to achieve the impossible.



Hmmm - your metaphor does not seem appropriate here.  You can't drive your car while it's in the shop, but you can happily keep playing 4E while the folks at WotC are compiling feedback from thousands of players and making occasional mid-course adjustments to the game.  And while you might simply have no choice about putting your car in the shop (i.e. it won't run at all without that engine repair), no one says you ever have to adopt the game errata.  I know people who play it as printed in the rulebooks, and they have a grand time.

A saying I've heard about film seems appropriate here -- "Art is never finished, only abandoned."  I consider the errata an ongoing attempt on the part of the folks at WotC to avoid abandoning their art.

Roger Alix-Gaudreau
Prodigal DM, returned to the fold
I've only seen 3 people lost to 4th edition.

1 is a DM friend who is more butterfly than anything else. More money than common sense and too easily prone to buy into something, spend a bunch of cash, and then get bored quick and look for something else. I don't think he dislikes 4th actually, he just has no dedication

2 others are Player friends, and frankly they are just Star Wars weenies

Those of my friends that don't play 4th, are rabidly anti 4th and prefer 3.5 and unlikely to ever change.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.
No, I do not know anyone who has dropped D&D because of 4e. On the other hand, I returned to D&D because of 4e. When 3e first came out I was VERY excited about it. I thought it was going to be amazing. A few campaigns into the edition and I realized I hated it with a passion. By the time 3.5 rolled around I didn't even bother purchasing the updated core rulebooks. As far as I am concerned, 3e's only saving grace was d20 Modern, and later Star Wars Saga (which I personally consider to be the d20 Modern system 2.0). Monte Cook's World of Darkness is pretty cool as well. In terms of a heroic fantasy game, though, 4e is better in every possible way. Just my opinion, of course.
For the life of me, I fail to understand how constantly tweaking and balancing the game based on feedback in order to make the game fun for everyone is a bad thing.



Stability is very important when it comes to any game that has rules. If my car is in the shop more than it's on the road then I can't enjoy it. Besides, if I have a car that it only two years old and it has to go to the shop as much as it does then I would think about buying another car because it should have been done to start with.

No there is no perfect balance when it comes to games and I understand this but Wizards honestly needs to stop trying to achieve the impossible.



I guess by your definition the Constitution should never change either. It wasn't perfect when it came out.  It's always changing

Your comparsion is not a good comparsion.  Even cars change.  Every year a new model with go faster stripes comes out.

DnD is stable but shouldn't stand still.  This is why we have new editions that come out.  This is why we get new books to add on to the game.

As others have said and I said all the time to people who complain about erratas "You don't have to use them."  The game runs with or without them.  The erratas fix problems.  Most of the problem I see are when new books come out and interact with old books
As others have said and I said all the time to people who complain about erratas "You don't have to use them."  The game runs with or without them.  The erratas fix problems.  Most of the problem I see are when new books come out and interact with old books



Does errata really have anything to do with a 3e vs 4e discussion anyway? 3e had acres of errata by the time it was cancelled. I can't say whether it had more or less errata that 4e after 2 years, but considering 3e had the .0 and .5 versions to get it right, it had a pretty extensive reliance on errata.

Have any of you had any player's quit playing 4th edition or quit gaming period because of 4th edition?




Nope. Had my wife skip a substantial portion of 3rd, and I stopped DMing it for a while. Too much needless complexity.

Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

As others have said and I said all the time to people who complain about erratas "You don't have to use them."  The game runs with or without them.  The erratas fix problems.  Most of the problem I see are when new books come out and interact with old books



Does errata really have anything to do with a 3e vs 4e discussion anyway? 3e had acres of errata by the time it was cancelled. I can't say whether it had more or less errata that 4e after 2 years, but considering 3e had the .0 and .5 versions to get it right, it had a pretty extensive reliance on errata.



Yep, acres of errata that didn't fix the actually problems of game balance, like clerics, druids, and wizards ...
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
We have lost 2 people (father and son) since 4th edition has come out.  But that was more because of them killing of Living Greyhawk than a new edition.

We dont play much 4th edition anymore now though because of Living Forgotten Realms and its draw backs and flaws as we see them.

We love the Encounters stuff though and we do have 1 member that runs a home campaign for some of his other friends.

But the majority of us love 4th edition and wouldnt turn back to 3.x if we had to.  We would play much more 4th if they were able to turn around LFR.
Slayer:

I've seen people refuse to make the switch-over to new editions each time a new edition comes out.  I can understand older RPers ditching 4th edition in favor of 3rd edition.  

There's a lot that I can't "legally" do in 4th edition that I could do in 3rd.
4th edition fights seem more anime than tradition sword and sorcery to me. 

Still, I prefer 4th edition, even though it feels like a mmorpg to me. 
As others have said and I said all the time to people who complain about erratas "You don't have to use them."  The game runs with or without them.  The erratas fix problems.  Most of the problem I see are when new books come out and interact with old books



Does errata really have anything to do with a 3e vs 4e discussion anyway? 3e had acres of errata by the time it was cancelled. I can't say whether it had more or less errata that 4e after 2 years, but considering 3e had the .0 and .5 versions to get it right, it had a pretty extensive reliance on errata.



Actualy 4th ed probably has more errata than then 3.0 and 3.5 had in it's entire run.  We probably would have seen a 4.5 but I don't think WotC thought they could get away with it after a year and a half. 

As far has people who I know that has given up 4th ed and went back to 3.5 or just other system...probbly around 12 to 15.  People seem to get tired of it rather quickly.