I actually like a lot things about 4th edition D&D especially compared to 3.5. As I mentioned previously, I am a math and systems guy. I can appreciate the structure and math behind the game's systems.
Three things I do not like are:
- It ruins the narrative of combat for me by taking it out of the DM's and characters' hands and putting it in the rulebook;
- It requires minis - which is a deal breaker for me.
- It encourages a sense of entitlement in the players. The rulebooks say that the DM should get a list from each player of what magic items they want. You have got to be kidding me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It encourages a sense of entitlement in the players. The rulebooks say that the DM should get a list from each player of what magic items they want.
ReplyDeleteBingo. It's late and I'm not thinking clearly, so I can't put my finger on what it is that bothers me so much about 4E.
I'm not a math guy (even though I work in the IT field) so there's no attraction there. Maybe it's an amalgamation of things that bug me. Things like skill challenges, movement in "squares", the fact that everyone feels like a magic user now with their powers.
I don't know. It tires me out trying to think of what it is that I don't like about 4E. I wanted to like it actually. Most of my buddies do...
It fits a niche. But it's not the niche that I'm interested in.
It started with 2nd edition AD&D, in my opinion. The idea that there was a sense of player entitlement, and that story and role-playing were the be-all-end-all of gaming.
ReplyDeleteEntitlement, in any form, is more aggrivating and anger-generating than anything else I can think of.