What do you rate 4e out of 10. I give it a 6.

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok, been playing 4e for about 3 yrs now, DMing and playing, levels 1 - 18.

And I've decided to score 4e 6/10. Basically I find it a pretty fun game, but it has lots of problems and overall is not as fun as older editions. The main problem areas imo:

1. Combat takes way too long. Huge issue.
2. The striker damage mechanic is a mistake. Almost every player wants to do good damage.
3. Too much abstraction/boardgame feel. This plus long combats = detracts from RPing.  
4. No real sense of PC advancement. A 5th level cleric plays almost the same as a 18th level one, and same for monsters.

What do others think? We've had ages to get used to 4e now. What do you rate it out of 10?
Around a 7.5. I had some of my best games of D&D with 2nd ed and 3rd ed so they would probably clock in at 8.5ish.  Its fun but its missing something and feels a bit forced here and there. 3.5 at its best was around a 9 but at the low point about a 2 or 3. We play it because I'm the DM and its alot easier than 3.5/Pathfinder and older editions of D&D haven't aged very well.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I'll give it an 8.  If the digital support was better, I'd give it at least a 9.  I would like to see more adventures released, or items like Dungeon Delve, which I use for brainstorming rather than actual game play.

4E is the best rendition of D&D to date, imho.

Celebrate our differences.

I would give it a 5.  It does have it's fun moments, but those don't last very long.  I find that one of the biggest issue with 4th edition, in my opinion, is that it gets boring very fast. 
I'll give it an 8 or so. It's good, it's better then what came before it, but it could be even better.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
without much to base it against, i'd rate it as fun.

I much prefer d20 to the percental systems i have played and i prefer 4e to either 2e or 3e from what i have played. 

Though, I have had fun with pretty much all the games I have played except for WH40K 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

I give it an 8 for D&D. It's my favorite edition thus far, but I'm still not a huge fan of class/level systems. 8 for D&D, 6 or 7 as an RPG in general (much higher than I place any other edition, though).
To provide my rating, I must have criteria.

Current fun with 4e relative to the fun I would have playing a previous edition now: a 10.
Current fun with 4e relative to the fun I had playing any previous edition then: a 10.

These two criteria demonstrate that I am having as much fun playing D&D now as I have ever had, and that I like 4e now better than I like any previous edition now.

Rating D&D 4e against other games I have played in the past year:
D&D 4e: 10
GURPS (any): 5
Paranoia (any): 9
Shadowrun 1e: 9
Shadowrun 3e: 4
TSR Marvel Super Heroes: 10
Champions (any): 7
Mutants & Masterminds: 8
Villains & Vigilantes: 6
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I would give it a 5.  It does have it's fun moments, but those don't last very long.  I find that one of the biggest issue with 4th edition, in my opinion, is that it gets boring very fast. 



You summed up my thoughts exactly. I agree, 4e is a 5, and for the same reason.
-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*
i generally dislike X/Y ratings.

it usually feels like a cop-out instead of giving things a proper review, nor do we know the metrics used to determine the numbers.

so i give 4th ed a rating of cake for being pretty damn sweet.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
i generally dislike X/Y ratings.

it usually feels like a cop-out instead of giving things a proper review, nor do we know the metrics used to determine the numbers.

so i give 4th ed a rating of cake for being pretty damn sweet.



I believe you meant to say pie.




I think it's the best D&D version I ever played. I'll give it an 8.5 because there's still room for improvements, especially in class balance (some classes are undersupported, others are oversupported. Multiattacking and charging should be nerfed a bit somehow).
Eclipse Phase: 10 (this rating, however, is based only on a read through. Truth is, once I play the game this rating is likely to be adjusted.)
WFRPG 3e: 9
Shadowrun 4e: 8 (would be a 9, but the presence of magic in a cyberpunk game, and its imbalanced rules system, costs the game a point).
D&D 4e: 7
D&D 3e: 4
D&D 2e: 6
Star Wars Saga: 7
d20 Modern: 6
Savage Worlds: 6
D&D 4E i'd give a solid 8.5.

It's so awesome there's even 4E Greeting Cards   


[sblock]  
 I'm Yours



 I'm Yours
[s/block]

[sblock] 
 Thinking of You



  Thinking of You
[s/block]


[sblock] 
 We're Better Together



 We're Better Together
[s/block]  

[sblock] 
 I'm in Love with You



 I'm in Love with You
[s/block]  

[sblock] 
 I love you



 I love you
[s/block] 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Most of these ratings are arbritary and subjective , including my own, but I would have rated 4E at 7.5 at the time Dark Sun was released and the offline character builder was still available. I even noticed some staunch 3.5 supports finally giving it a try. That dropped to a 6, with the web based tools and Essentials, because the direction was going counter to what I expected. Since the future is uncertain, and I have no clue where they are headed based on all the legend and lore articles, the ultimate rating would be 5.

On a side note,  if they are taking a serious look at releasing PDF content in the future, then they should seriously consider on offline tool, even if it comes at a premium price.

8. Even though some of the recent releases have severely damaged my faith in the current design team, the system as a whole is still pretty darn solid. No previous edition of D&D gets more than a 4 from me. I really wasn't a fan of any of them.

PS: Samrin, I had to adblock that image because it broke the thread for me. Please be considerate when posting ridonculously huge images and hide them with sblock tags.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

I think 8 feels appropriate. Conceptually it has the potential to be a 10, but it is hard to see how they'd accomplish that without effectively a version roll to hammer out the issues with slow combat and refocus things a bit. Really it is a sweet game, but it is like that long fly ball that just kept hanging, but it never did quite make it over the top of the Green Monster.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I'd clock it in as a good, solid 7, bearing in mind that I've never seen a perfect 10 in an RPG.

Good points are that it has D&Disms, which are worth several points all on their lonesome.  The bare, stripped-down mechanics are smooth and easy.  The skill system is easy to implement and not a burden.  Lots of options in building a character without indulging in too terribly much minutia.  Separating quickly cast spells from Rituals is a great idea.

Bad points include an over-reliance on tactical combat dragging it into an hour-long process with lots of moving +1 parts and too many concerns about being in square A or square B.  Completely trajic is the game's fear of things that last longer than a couple rounds being useful more than once a day and everything having a range of on the grid instead of some stuff being able to reach a football field in distance.
I'd have to give 4e a score of 8.5 baby hippos out of an undisclosed possible number of baby hippos.
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
I'd give it an 8 as well. There is certainly room for improvement, but it is functional and solid enough without houseruling it.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I think 8 feels appropriate. Conceptually it has the potential to be a 10, but it is hard to see how they'd accomplish that without effectively a version roll to hammer out the issues with slow combat and refocus things a bit. Really it is a sweet game, but it is like that long fly ball that just kept hanging, but it never did quite make it over the top of the Green Monster.



+1. Summarizes my thoughts as well, and I really like the fly ball example.
You can hear the "whoosh" when it starts, you know it's going to go far just with the sound it made, then you see it fly high and far, tension and excitement builds up, adrenaline flows, but then it falls just a bit short or bounces on the Green Monster. It was a really good swing, got the "whoosh", but missing just a bit of "whoomf".

So my rating is whoosh out of whoomf (8).
-Realize You are your own source of all Creation, of your own master plan.

Shadowrun 4e: 8 (would be a 9, but the presence of magic in a cyberpunk game, and its imbalanced rules system, costs the game a point).



Huh? This statement seems nonsensical. The core conceit of the whole Shadowrun concept is that it is Cyberpunk mixed with Fantasy. Docking Shadowrun a point for this is ridiculous. It's like docking D&D for having Elves and Orcs.

If you want "pure Cyberpunk," there's Cyberpunk. I'm not sure how good the current  (most recent) Cyberpunk rules set is, but I remember having great fun with Cyberpunk 2.0.

5 for the DM side
8 for the Player side
Here's my long-winded take on the question at hand


  • PHB 1&2, DMG 1&2, MM 1&2 = solid 8.5 (deductions come from slow combat and poor/vanilla monster design that I didn't realize until it was improved)

  • The addition of the PHB 3 & MM 3 = 7 and 9 respectively

  • Campaign Setting Materials = FR 7, Eberron 7.5, Dark Sun 8.5

  • Other Supplements such as Open Grave, Draconomicons, etc = 7.5

  • 4e Adventures, supplements, and accessories = 6 (with the exception of Dungeon Tiles 9)



Since the classes and rules carry most of the weight of the system, up to August '10 I'd give 4E a solid 8


  • August '10 to present: the Essentials / 4.5E / "No it isn't its all just 4E" / Design-Moving-Forward Era

  • Red Box = 5 (nice little DMs book with rules and monsters, tokens, maps, dice.  loses points for no real character creation rules and most importantly does not transition well to either the PHB 1 or Heroes of the Fallen Lands)

  • Heroes of FL/FK = 6.5 (tough call here because its largely subjective) for me it comes down to just re-imagining what we already had rather than adding something new that stands on its own.

  • DMs Kit = 7.5 loved the concept of the literal tool-box for DM's.  The tokens were good, liked the included adventure and maps, but the book was a pale shadow of the original DMG.

  • Rules Cyclopedia = 8.5 great book for the price but mine is already showing serious wear.

  • Monster Vault = 9 Great Product!

  • Dungeon, City, Wilderness Master Tiles = 8

  • Heroes of Shadow = 6? (subjective I guess, but I just didn't "get" this book)

  • Shadowfell: Gloomwrought = 8.5 another solid box set (too bad the box itself was crap)

  • Monster Vault: Nentir Vale = 7.5 good release but the size/price ratio was disappointing



Taken on itself as a separate release I'd give the Essentials era a 6.5 with honorable mention to the DM related materials.
Overall, I'd say that 4th Edition is at about a 7.5 and beginning to feel the strain of too many poorly edited non-thoroughly play-tested early-releases and too few "re-imagined" recent releases.
 However, I still really enjoy the game and it is by far my favorite version of D&D, aside from my nostalgic memories of Moldvay/Cook B/X.

If I were able to pick and choose my version of 4e D&D for a desert island game, then I'd have to say I'd use:

Rules Cyclopedia
PHB 1&2
DMG 1 (with some errata)
Monster Vault and Monster Manual 3
Dungeon Tiles Master Set

I'd give this game a solid 9 (always room to improve I suppose)


I'd give it an 8. There are some things that annoy me that could be improved

- Too many status effects that slow combat down.
- All powers need to be a 'good choice'. Players always pick the ones that do the most damage or are the most useful. Some powers are just useless and that's a real shame, and could have been fixed with a little tweaking.
- Extended rests are just a needless mechanic. Needs a different system of managing the most powerful abilities. Something similar to action points perhaps.
- Monsters pre-MM3 are are mostly boring.

If these were fixed then I would rate it close to 10.

(IMO role play is as the players at the table make it, not really the game mechanics so I don't think 4e has any more or less relating to that than any other edition.)

I'd give it an 8.5, but consider that to be out of 9 because no game system warrants a 10 because no game system is perfect.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

I'm going to go with an 8 at the moment.  It is the best version of D&D I have played (though I concede that Basic was probably more fun to the 9 year old me...but its not as good for the adult me). 

I understand the complaints about the long combats but feel that we must consider the various trade offs when considering this.  Shorter combats with much less interesting things going on in the encounters (which is a big part of what makes them shorter) are not a trade off I am willing to make - if I really want short combats to enhance the role playing time spent then I believe we have to move away from a table top game and toward something where the players describe their actions to a DM.  That gets us our fast combat resolution and is great for a game focused away from combat.  Once the DM is getting out miniatures and spending 7 minutes setting up a wet erase map - then describing what all the features are I believe we might as well go whole hog and make it so the combats involve interesting terrain effects, embedded skill challenges and lots of mobility and exciting moments where monsters and players jump in with interrupts.  I think 4E does a really good job here of giving us that while still making each individual players turn pretty short which keeps the action moving.

I love the class balance element, I'm really pleased that the game is constantly improving and am generally happy with the constant upgrades to the system.  I believe this is the best edition yet for combat light adventuring and especially for mixing in combat heavy and combat light adventures into an overall campaign. 

However this is also where I feel 4E has lost some points.  Fantastic combat light potential has been almost completely ignored.  The system is fantastic for it or for mixing such elements in but outside of the odd skill challenge we don't see enough of this sort of thing.  In fact adventure material overall has not been up to snuff.  Where are the great romances or political intrigues or fantasy murder mysteries etc.?   I'm hopeful that WotC will make more use of free lancers pitching excellent ideas along these lines in the future. 

WotC has also garnered some points for its great online tool but could definitely pick up some more if that tool became a whole tool set.  It has a really partially finished feel.  The CB needs the ability for us to support our home games...especially considering how light 4E is on campaign material.  Being forced to use default gods in my home brew is especially egregious.  The Monster Builder is not finished...its been in beta seemingly since the stone ages.  Very annoying.  Finally where the heck are the rest of my adventure tools?  I'd really like something along the lines of an adventure builder and, come to think of it a campaign builder (or maybe a campaign organizer is a better term) would be good as well. 

I think the Campaign Organizer might also provide them an opportunity to tighten up on subscriptions as well - You can have two friends and yourself for each account registered to your campaign! (which is actually less then what we can currently do but seems reasonably fair and provides good incentive to keep a diverse library of tools available for D&D groups).  


All in all I'll give it an 8 with the understanding that with a focus on quality material, especially in adventures and a more robust tool set this rating could rise.

Yeah... 5ish...  Combat feels like a drag, the powers don't seem like they have any life or vibracy to them...  It's just missing 'something'... I dunno.

For comparison to other games I've played.  We'll start with the D&D

4th ed:  5
3rd ed:  6 (back in 2000 this would have been a solid 10, but the problems with high level campaigns, balance issues and the like drove it down)
2nd ed with skills and powers:  4 (When people complain about balance issues in TSR era D&D... yeah...)
Rules Cyclopedia:  7 (Same problem as BECMI, but gets an extra point for War Machine)
BECMI:  6 (Nice system, but everything beyond the Companion rules was unnessessary)
2nd Ed:  7 (A solid system, I like the initiative system, combat is smooth, THAC0 is a useful additon.)
B/X: 9 (Wonderful, simple game system that you can get years of play out of. It's also pretty much totally compatable with...)
AD&D: 8 (Hampered a bit by its formatting and lack of clarity the AD&D books had soul though.  Generally when I play D&D, it's a wierd combination of AD&D, B/X and Rules Cyclopedia.)

Other systems:
Labaryth Lord: 8 (Probably the best retroclone out there)
OSRIC: 7 (I'd never play it, but the adventures people publish for it make it worth while.)
Castles and Crusades: 8 (middle ground between a retroclone and a D20 system.)
Paladium Fantasy: 6 (A nice alternative to 2nd ed back in the 90's.)
RIFTS: 4 (Major balance issues kept this from being any fun)
Shadowrun 1st and 2nd ed: 5 (rough around the edges, but had a fantastic atmosphere)
Shadowrun 3rd ed: 5 (rules were more streight forward but lost the 80's vibe that made earlier shadowrun fun)
Shadowrun 4th ed: 9 (My go to game system when not playing D&D, brillent setting, smooth rules, lots of crunchyness.  Can be very unbalanced until you find a nuyen:Karma ratio that works for your group.  It's a system that is pretty easy to 'break' as well so an experienced GM is a must.)
Dark Heresy: 6 (Would be a fun game if I could find an entire group that knew the setting well.  Without, that though it's pretty mediocre.)
Rogue Trader: 7 (See above, though I like the managment aspect of it.)
Warhammer FRP 2nd ed: 7 (A solid system, works well for gritty stuff, expect to die a lot)
Warhammer FRP 3rd ed: 6 (The system is interesting just because it is so innovative...)
I give 4e a big 9.5.


What I love about this game is the modular design. If you don't like something ( a la, Essentials or psionics, both of which my group shudders at..) it is not worked in to such a degree that you cannot remove it with no real noticable effect. Or just use the parts of it that you DO like... example; in my current monthly game, the group does not care for the Essentials design, so by mutual consent, we don't use it. However, when Heroes of Shadow came out, the our usual 'Casual Player/Observer' became really excited about playing a Vampire. So, we brought in just the feats and features of the Vampire, let her play it, and there is no untoward damage to our up til now 'core' game.

I have played nearly every version of D&D, from the original red box til today's version, and it is by far the most balanced system I have played with the D&D tag. There are things that could be done, but honestly, I feel that in most cases combat speed can be handled on the DM side of the screen, and the 'artificial feel' of roleplaying that people can bring up is often times the use of Skill Challenges (ie, non-combat, combat dice rolling) instead of actually doing the RP.

The ease of reaching a competent level of system mastery is MUCH more noticable than in 3e, especially in the later stages of it. There are still trap choices out there, but usually they are pretty evident, and what constitutes a 'trap' in 4e is usually just the less optimal choice, not a useless one.

I don't care for the 'direction going forward', in that the Essentials designs for characters is not what I and my group find to be enjoyable, but again, we just don't use those options. We DO like the Essentials revisions to some things, like the Feats (Axe Mastery > Weapon Expertise: Axe, for example) so we just removed the old feats, and replaced them with the cooler ones. No harm, no foul.

The only real knock I have against anything D&D related is that the MANAGEMENT can often overshadow the product with drastic changes to the system with very little in the way of visibility. The apparent 'don't talk to the masses, they are just wallets' mentality that sometimes overtakes WotC makes me unhappy, highlighted by events such as the shift to a web CB over the old offline version with little to no warning. I know all the reasons they did it, but it would have been nice for them to tell us BEFORE hand that it was coming, or to give full disclosure directly after, instead of the blank wall of silence that met the community.

So, game is great, imo. YMMV

So many PCs, so little time...
I've had more fun playing with the 4e rules than I have with any other system. Basically, even if a game has **** rules, I can have some fun just because I'm with friends and can try to play around the system. When it comes to actually using the rules, 4e wins easily.

So...numerical value. There's too much fiddly-ness with a 10-point scale, so I'll go with a 5-pointer.
1 = Trash, just ignore it; 2 = Underwhelming, but some will like it; 3 = Good, does what you expect it to without disappointing or achieving greatness; 4 = Great, all fans of the genre should probably like this; 5 = Phenomenal, even non-fans should take note.

That said, 4e is a Good (3/5) RPG, but a Phenomenal (5/5) tactical tabletop RPG. Not perfect, has format shortcomings, official supplemental tools are problematic, blahblahblah, don't care. When the books & dice hit the table, the system provides, and that's what the ratings are based off of.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
I would give 4e a 7 out of 10.

Generally good in most areas, excellent in some (tactical combat) but severely lacking in others.

Not the best edition but still a worthy addition.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
This is tough. Grading on a curve, I'd have to give 4E a 10 because I haven't really seen anything better. That being said, giving it a 10 doesn't feel right, so screw the curve and 4E gets a 9.
...whatever
I give pre-Essentials 4e 9 out of 10 and post-Essentials 4e 5 out of 10. Pre-E 4e was excellent game for combat-heavy RPG campaigns, the only major complaint being that individual combats lasted too long. Post-E 4e is still a combat game but with the interesting tactical choices watered down by poor class design. I wouldn't use 4e for combat-lite game, though.
Well, in comparison to any other D&D game I've ever played, I'd give 4e a solid 10.

I started with 3.x, and quickly--especially after DMing it--grew to hate the fact that it really felt all about the system mastery.  Too many trap options, too many ways that even a poorly built magic user could negate something or someone if they chose to, too little for those who didn't have magic to do.  4e cleared up a lot of these issues, and the power system actually did a lot to enhance the roleplaying of our group, particularly in combat.  I also like the fact that if I want to build a BBEG based on the PC rules, I can make a Fighter as effective as a magic-user, and not feel like they'll be underpowered.

I also don't have any change in that opinion since the release of Essentials.  Heck, I have some people in my group that I wish would get the Essentials books, because they'd have an easier time playing those classes.  They often forget/disregard large parts of the mechanics of their current classes, and would benefit from a more defined and confined class.  I think at its heart, this was a bright idea that might have been badly executed.

In comparison to other RPGs I've played, I rate 4e as a still solid 8.5, if only because I don't rate any of the games I've actually played as a perfect 10.  That said, it did unseat Shadowrun 4e as my favorite RPG, and the one I considered the strongest of my preferred games.

Honestly, if it weren't for 4e, I would've given up on D&D entirely.  I'd actually abandoned D&D 3.5 around 2005, and was spending far more time playing Legend of the Five Rings and Shadowrun, and was starting to dabble in WoD.  However, when news of 4e started to come out, I knew that it was going to be the thing that got me back in.  And from the first time my group started it, I was hooked back on D&D.

Shadowrun 4e: 8 (would be a 9, but the presence of magic in a cyberpunk game, and its imbalanced rules system, costs the game a point).



Huh? This statement seems nonsensical. The core conceit of the whole Shadowrun concept is that it is Cyberpunk mixed with Fantasy. Docking Shadowrun a point for this is ridiculous. It's like docking D&D for having Elves and Orcs.

If you want "pure Cyberpunk," there's Cyberpunk. I'm not sure how good the current  (most recent) Cyberpunk rules set is, but I remember having great fun with Cyberpunk 2.0.




The neat thing about asking people for their subjective value judgements is that they will provide them. It is not nonsensical that I dislike magic in my cyberpunk. I realize that this is a conceit of shadowrun. It is a conceit that makes me like the game a little less (though I still really like the game after having played it). As such, I give it a slightly lower rating. The fact that its spellcasters are horribly overpowered doesn't help make my opinion on the presence of that conciet any more positive. As such, I rate Shadowrun at an 8 out of 10. I haven't played "Cyberpunk," so I have no opinion. However, overall, I really like the mechanics of Shadowrun 4e. Unless Cyberpunk's mechanics are at least as good, I would probably run a cyberpunk game by simply taking Shadowrun and outlawing any magic using abilities (at which point I would rate the end result of the game I was playing at a 9).

I liked rating the system in comparison to other systems I have played recently. This assumes no sweeping changes to the rules.



  1. 4e - 4

  2. 3.5 - 7

  3. Pathfinder - 8 (Note I don't think this level of improvement justifies buying new books, and if you include sweeping changes to the rules common 3.5 changes put it far above)

  4. 2nd - 5

  5. Savage World - 3

  6. Paranoia - 9

  7. Shadowrun 4e - 9

  8. Rifts - 5

  9. Gammaworld - 6

  10. Dragon Age Pen and Paper - 6

  11. Saga Edition Star Wars - 6

  12. Rogue Trader - 2. 


I won't write an essay on why they get their scores. PM if you care.


I'd also note that I usualy play with sweeping changes to the rules, that up their scores by 2-3 points on average. Sometimes giving perfect 10s, sometimes beinging something over that 5 limit. I wouldn't offer to run a game with a score of 5 or less, but I would play in one.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Lets get into the ranking systems, here are mine ranking the systems I've played enough to leave a mark:

4E--9
3.5E--6.5 while I was playing it, 4 now
2E--8
BECMI--7
SW Saga--7
WW Vampire--8.5
WW Mage--7.5
d20 Modern--5
Amber diceless--5
Rolemaster--6.5
Exalted--10 to read, 5.5 to run/play
Champions--6
Seven Seas--6.5
L5R--Setting 9 system 4.5
...whatever
Suppose I could do the same.  Using casualoblivion's 'games i've played enough to leave a mark' system.

HERO System/champions: 9
D&D 4: 8.5
D&D 3: 5
D&D2: 5.5
SW Saga: 6
Deadlands (classic): 6 (non-random character generation would add a point or two)
d20 Modern: 6
L5R: System 4 setting 2 overall 3
White Wolf: 1
Cyberpunk 2020: 4
Gamma World: 5
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Pre Essentials- I give it a 10.
Post Essentials- I give it a 4.
Pre Essentials- I give it a 10. Post Essentials- I give it a 4.



And since you don't have to play with any of the options Essentials gave you, that's the same thing as just saying 10.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yeah, not really understanding the different ratings based on the inclusion of content you don't have to touch. Guess folks were really attached to the hard limit on Item Daily uses? Tongue out
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.