I feel you OP. I can recall some AD&D sessions where not a single book was opened and the character sheets were only glanced at once or twice.
I've been playing 4E for a year, and every session, the book is open and in somebodies hands.
But, this is actually the type of game my group has been looking for since AD&D, because it actually feels... or rather, plays more like an actual game.
Does that make sense to anyone else? AD&D was so complicated, we usually just fudged most of the rules and messed around telling epic tales about our heroes. With 4E we're actually playing a game with easily understandable and applicable rules (for the most part), and we've been able to include other friends that were interested in D&D but could never really grasp what we were doing with AD&D.
In the end, I'm with many of the other posters who wish you the best of fun and hope that maybe you'll come back to 4E someday.
I feel you OP. I can recall some AD&D sessions where not a single book was opened and the character sheets were only glanced at once or twice.
I've been playing 4E for a year, and every session, the book is open and in somebodies hands.
But, this is actually the type of game my group has been looking for since AD&D, because it actually feels... or rather, plays more like an actual game.
Does that make sense to anyone else? AD&D was so complicated, we usually just fudged most of the rules and messed around telling epic tales about our heroes. With 4E we're actually playing a game with easily understandable and applicable rules (for the most part), and we've been able to include other friends that were interested in D&D but could never really grasp what we were doing with AD&D.
In the end, I'm with many of the other posters who wish you the best of fun and hope that maybe you'll come back to 4E someday.
I suspect there is not a single game of actual bone stock 2e out there that has gone on since the game was new. Most of my 2e Dming did indeed consist of make it up as you go along. My 2e and book 2e are probably widely different things.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
Combat from 1E/2E and 4E are drastically different...but after level 5 or so, the outcomes was still the same: the PCs win. I really have no problem with that. As DM, it's my job to make it fun for the players, and killing them off time after time isn't it. It's a collaberative story about the PCs and their exploits...not how many times I could kill them in one session. If I wanted that, I would go back to BECMI and the Certain Death Dungeons of days gone by.
The real difference in 1E/2E and 4E combat is simple...the time it took to achieve the same outcome. Again, I might differ from the opinion that 2E's combat was terrible, but that's a matter of pure opinion, and little more. With 2E, combat was fast, furious, and at times unpredictable. With 4E, you have to keep a running tally of buffs/debuffs/AoEs/APs/Status Effects/etc. that made an already long combat even longer. Giving the PCs and monsters more starting HPS did nothing to help, either. It simply made it longer, again. Making the PCs harder to kill didn't really add anything for me except more to keep track of. I wasn't out to kill them off to begin with. What I did enjoy was making them FEEL like I could kill them off at a moment's notice. With 4E, they have twice as many HPs, death saves, buffs, etc., so the feeling of almost certain death isn's really there. With 2E, they would win. With 4E, they KNOW they're going to win...it was just a matter of how much Hell they could raise before they did.
Heh, most of the time my Pcs are wondering if they are going to croak. I'm not afraid of slugging it out with them in game terms. (funny how access to Raise Dead will do that)
This is, true at Paragon and Heroic for them so far. Every once in a while I throw a few soft encounters at them, particularly if it's been a while since we've played. I'm out to tell a story, and let them tell theirs at the same time. Buffs and the like are not that hard for us to keep track of. (I do have to wonder though how your group existed at all during the agony of 3e with it's buffs.... *shudder*)
We just put down pennies, d100s (hehe you know that useless die in 4e? yeah that one) to keep track if we have several down. I've got the exact opposite experience with you with 2e and 4e it seems. (3e it was no doubt at all, they would win... especially since the CR system was borked, and I never figured out the proper encounter balance in 3rd so I just said Screw it and used theirs)
Spare dice, especially since all of us survived 3e with it's 1000000 billion dice needed for one spell or whatever are especially handy for buffs and debuffs.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
**Disclaimer** If you enjoy 4e's style of gameplay, more power to you. It's the goal of the game for everyone to have fun, so if 4e's style is what you like, game on!The following is my opinion on 4e and nothing more.
The real difference in 1E/2E and 4E combat is simple...the time it took to achieve the same outcome.
I'm surprised it's taken some people as long as it has to realize this. "Monsters" in 4e are just walking bags of hit points to justify your encounter and daily attacks. When you have disassociated attacks that deal gobs of damage, you need resilient monsters with piles of HP for combats to feel satisfying; else they might as well all be minions. While I could easily kill or be killed by a kobold in 1 hit in previous editions (at first level), I now have to take two or three whacks at the bugger to take him down. His being a threat to the PC is minute at best. Like you say, I can play 2e or Castles and Crusades and probably finish 3 battles by the time it takes 4e to finish a large battle w/the assumed number of five players. Add into that the absurd healing surge mechanic, marks, ongoing effects, etc. and you have the recipe for long, boring battles. Terrain and such can only do so much. I find it telling that the designers even offer ways to speed up combat.
Again, I might differ from the opinion that 2E's combat was terrible, but that's a matter of pure opinion, and little more. With 2E, combat was fast, furious, and at times unpredictable.
Heresy! Having unpreditability in D&D! We wouldn't want something bad to happen to our character; that would "not be fun". Our 4e programmers have told us that anything bad that might befall our characters should be done away with or watered down so much as to be a minor inconvenience.
Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head as to the main difference between 4e and prior editions. In 2e and prior, you could have narrative combats as opposed to tactical combats. One didn't have to worry about grids, distances, combat advantage, marking, etc. Combats were fast, quick, and achieved the same results. Then you actually had spells and effects you could use in creative ways. There were actually options that didn't do damage! Shocking I know. In all ways except tacticallity (is that even a word??), 2e and prior combat systems are superior to 4e's in just about every way. They encourage thinking outside the powers list and are much more engaging when you have to rely on the DM's descriptions and your imagination to take the place of a grid. Story takes center stage and doesn't rely on 30-45 minute battles to fill in the gaps of a weak story or adventure.
With 4E, you have to keep a running tally of buffs/debuffs/AoEs/APs/Status Effects/etc. that made an already long combat even longer. Giving the PCs and monsters more starting HPS did nothing to help, either. It simply made it longer, again. Making the PCs harder to kill didn't really add anything for me except more to keep track of. I wasn't out to kill them off to begin with. What I did enjoy was making them FEEL like I could kill them off at a moment's notice. With 4E, they have twice as many HPs, death saves, buffs, etc., so the feeling of almost certain death isn's really there. With 2E, they would win. With 4E, they KNOW they're going to win...it was just a matter of how much Hell they could raise before they did.
Again, it's apparently "not fun" to not win, so why should there be any penalties to that chance? Traps are rediculously watered down to inconvenience more than a threat, save or die spells were somehow "bad" because they could instantly kill your character (but I never see people mention that one could be brought back, so at most they were an inconvenience unless the DM had it in for you); nevermind the fact that they were going up against a liche and didn't take precautions, etc. I could go on, but the point has been made. 4e's massive increase to HP, multiple death saves, healing surges, etc. all make death a remote chance at best. I find it funny that people decry the imaginative use of old spells as "I Win Buttons" but say nothing of the multiple "I Win" buttons that 4e has littering it (surges, multiple death saves, second winds, dailies that do ludicrous amounts of damage, etc). I could not have said it better than you when you stated in 2e players could win, but in 4e they KNOW they're going to win.
I've DM'ed 4e since it came out for about six months of weekly game sessions and have been a player for about a month afterwards. Currently our group is taking a break to pursue other things but are hopefully going to get back to playing soon. It didn't take me long to realize that 4e's focus is more on combat that RP. When 95% of all the players "powers" are combat-related and deal damage of some type (with rare exception), then it's pretty obvious what they're aiming for. Look at any 4e adventure and you see encounter after mindless encounter with no real story or plot. Sure, the DM could devise that on his own, but after paying for an adventure why should one have to?
When we do play it most likely will not be 4e. I'm almost in the same boat as Hocus in that I'm seriously considering dumping my 4e collection but have not because of the amount of money I have in it. 2e or Castles & Crusades will be the system of choice we'll probably be much happier for it. Again though, 4e is a fine system, it's just not suited to our style of play.
What I feared would happen finally did...it became boring. It became more about the maps and minis than the role-playing. I'd spend countless hours making maps and writing deep adventures just to have the players zip through with little regard for RP. Whenever a thought-provoking storyline would be introduced, the players grew bored. They were simply waiting for the next map to be put on the table and for initiative to be rolled. They hated Skill Challenges. When I would gently force RP on them, they'd lose interest. I don't know how many times I had to hear, "When do start fighting?", only to get into a fight and have to hear, "My God, will this fight ever end?". As a DM since the mid '80s, I didn't like what I was seeing. So, I did something drastic...I went back to 1E/2E.
Then it sounds like its not the game fault, but your players fault there is no role-playing. 4th edition is the only edition that lets you level without combat. A little food for thought
My question is did your players have fun. If they did then you had a succesful game of D&D.
Problem being is what you wanted and your players wanted was two differnt things. AD&D wasn't about role-playing and we use a grid map and minis when we played. If I remeber correctly I think it was suggestion that you use a grid map and minis somewhere in one of the books.
AD&D acutally stopped me from playing the game becuase it was to many rules and over complitacted, but that may be just me
What I feared would happen finally did...it became boring. It became more about the maps and minis than the role-playing. I'd spend countless hours making maps and writing deep adventures just to have the players zip through with little regard for RP. Whenever a thought-provoking storyline would be introduced, the players grew bored. They were simply waiting for the next map to be put on the table and for initiative to be rolled. They hated Skill Challenges. When I would gently force RP on them, they'd lose interest. I don't know how many times I had to hear, "When do start fighting?", only to get into a fight and have to hear, "My God, will this fight ever end?". As a DM since the mid '80s, I didn't like what I was seeing. So, I did something drastic...I went back to 1E/2E.
Then it sounds like its not the game fault, but your players fault there is no role-playing. 4th edition is the only edition that lets you level without combat. A little food for thought
Umm....incorrect sir. Ever since 1e and possibly even in original D&D (don't have my stuff handy at the moment) one could level quite easily without ever rolling a die for combat. XP was to be rewarded for everything from good roleplaying of your character and sticking to his concept to finding treasure (which doesn't always involve combat), etc. It's amusing when some think that 4e had this big revelation that one could gain XP outside of combat.
I would assume you're referring to 4e's "Skill Challenge" system when you say 4e is the only edition that lets you level without combat. If so, what you seem to miss is that the only thing the Skill Challenge system achieves is replacing the act of roleplaying out those encounters and relying on the DM's adjudication and judgement with mechanical die rolls that let you see if you succeed or fail instantly.
My question is did your players have fun. If they did then you had a succesful game of D&D.
Indeed, one can not stress this point enough.
Problem being is what you wanted and your players wanted was two differnt things. AD&D wasn't about role-playing and we use a grid map and minis when we played. If I remeber correctly I think it was suggestion that you use a grid map and minis somewhere in one of the books.
You seem to have missed the point where he said that most of his players switched back to AD&D also and they are having as much, if not more, fun than they were under 4e. Previous versions' reliance on a grid and minis were conveniences, not necessities. They were not a mandatory item as they are with 4e's reliance on tactical combat. Combat in prior editions could be narrative in fashion, relying on nothing but imagination. I can not see doing the same under 4e with it's amount of push, slide, pull effects and reliance on combat advantage, opportunity attacks, etc.
AD&D acutally stopped me from playing the game becuase it was to many rules and over complitacted, but that may be just me
Too many rules? Most of those rules were optional (depending on which version of AD&D we're talking about) and combat was really no different then than it is now, with the exception of 4e. Granted they weren't as simpe for a new player to graps as they are now, but they were by no means complicated or hard; in my opinion.
I think some of it has to do with the time needed for character creation. In 1E/2E, you could have a PC built from scratch in 15 minutes, with a fully realized background (including traits, disadvantages, etc. if you used the Player's Options books) in another 15 minutes. In 4E, it takes time...a lot of time. I am/was a DDI subscriber, so the CB made it easy as pie to whip out PC after PC in minutes. For those without the online initiative, it takes a long time. You have the PHB, the PHBII, the various Powers books, and the magazines all to draw your powers from. Then you have the PHB, Adventurer's Vault, AVII, and magazines to pick your items from. I've seen PC creation take an entire game session. As a matter of fact, I started devoting the first entire game session to nothing but PC creation with my 5 different groups. It was nothing to see a player take 3 hours to make his/her PC from scratch, including a background.
It is an investment in time and resources. An investment not too many folks would be pleased with if the DM kept killing off the PCs. With 1E/2E, the fast PC creation made it easier for Killer DMs to pull the plug on PCs. There wasn't as much personal investment until the PCs reached at least level 5 or so. The 4E mindset is to "let the PCs win", so they won't have to go through another entire game session making another PC. In 1E/2E, the mindset was "if they die, they die". Second Edition actually started the trend of having a personal vested interest in PCs with their various Complete-series books and books upon books of nothing but race/class fluff.
Still, though, even if your players wanted to utilize the Complete-series books, there was minimal crunch in them. There were a few Kits to choose from, and the rest was fluff for backgrounds and storytelling. It would only take a few more minutes to pick a Kit to add to your PC, so the time investment was still minimal.
With 4E, the various supplement books are 90% crunch. The various Powers books are a prime example. If I want to make a simple Fighter, it really isn't that simple anymore. They've put a lot of focus on players having vested interests in their PCs...but to that point, they've made them so difficult to kill that a vested interest isn't really that neccessary. Chances are stacked that the PCs will always win...unless you have a Killer DM...nothing can save the PCs from that particular monster. Of course, this suits many players just fine. They can rest easy knowing that there is a much better chance of them surviving than in any previous edition. They have to actually do intentionally stupid things to get themselves killed, and even the most basic player can avoid that.
It all boils down to playstyle. I like a free-form, easy-going game with emphasis on story and RP. I don't like being tied to maps and minis. I like having my players spread out over the den, with a couple on the couch, a couple in recliners, one on the floor, and myself in my comfy-chair, all of us talking, having fun, and occassionally rolling some dice. I never liked having to have everyone huddled around a table so they could all see the map and be able to move thier minis when called upon to do so. We did that enough when played Axis and Allies. We didn't want to have to do it to play D&D. So...as it goes...it's about what's fun. For the time being, 1E and 2E have called me back, so I've put 4E aside. Perhaps in the future we'll migrate back to it to get out tactical combat fix, but for now we're content telling stories.
I think you have that backwards. Why would a player put any emotional effort into a character 'if he dies, he dies'? Disposable characters do not encourage roleplay; there's no point to developing a background and personality for a character that's likely to die, especially with how easily previous editions doled out meaningless death (aka 'save or die').
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
