RPGCentric » Blog Archive » 4E D&D: We’re just not having fun

4E D&D: We’re just not having fun

Over the last few sessions, I had noticed a trend at the table. At certain times, it would get really quiet. And not just normal quiet, as in people concentrating, but as in “I’m really bored” quiet. I’ve been requesting feedback for the last few sessions and it finally came to a head last night: My players just weren’t having fun. And, to be honest, neither was I.

The last two sessions really opened my eyes to what was wrong. In the session before last, we had a blast. At the end of the night, people were laughing and were genuinely happy to play. In that session, which lasted around five hours, we had a total of two combat’s, with one occurring while the PCs were searching through a house filled with traps that I made up completely as they went along. The PCs loved the house and the combat was actually fun.

In the last session, the session could, literally could split into two parts; part one and part two. Part one was all roleplaying and everyone really enjoyed it. Part two was all combat and that’s where things really got bad. That really clarified it for me. We weren’t having fun in 4E because of combat.

Combats are really long.
Monsters either stick around for at least three or four rounds or they go down in one hit. And there are a lot of monsters in every combat.
Powers are neat but they don’t allow for much creativity, especially for spellcasters.

Every time we went into combat, I could, literally, hear the silence enveloping the table. And the problem is that 4E is really geared towards combat. So we’ve decided to take a break from 4E for a while and try something else. Right now, we’re looking at Pathfinder. It looks interesting and has a lot of story elements to it, which we enjoy.

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in: 4E, RPG

34 Responses to “4E D&D: We’re just not having fun”

jonathan November 18th, 2008 at 9:49 AM

One of the things I’ve done to all the mob monsters (non-boss / leaders in each fight) is cut their hit points in half and set the standard encounter level to one above the party’s. It may sound drastic, but the game still plays very “dangerously” and everyone still has a solid chance of getting killed. Combat gets cut in half. I’m also considering ditching the battlemat and trying to see if you can play 4E (which has many good qualities) using abstract combat that was the “norm” for me back in AD&D days – it would obviously require some tweaking, but this also might make things more fun. For roleplaying centric players like myself — the miniatures aspect of 3E and 4E are wearisome at at times – i prefer for the combat to play out in my head _more_ than on a chess board.

jonathan´s last blog post..OPEN CALL for Volunteers!

Dave T. Game November 18th, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Good luck to your group finding a game you enjoy. Like Jonathan above, we’ve started shaving HP off of monsters and find that helps a lot to make combat last the appropriate amount of time.

However, I will say that if my group wanted to play a game that cuts back on combat, Pathfinder (and any ed. of D&D) wouldn’t be on my list.

Dave T. Game´s last blog post..YouTube Tuesday: Beam Me Up Edition

reveal November 18th, 2008 at 10:25 AM

@Jonathan and Dave – Thanks for the comments! At the moment, we’re not sure what we want to do. Looking at Pathfinder, there seems to be less combat than 4E. We’re getting together this weekend and we’ll figure something out.

Questing GM November 18th, 2008 at 10:45 AM

My only word of caution for Pathfinder is that combat might be longer than 4E, so I’m not sure so sure if that’s the right choice of killing the combat time.

I may be wrong because I haven’t playtested it myself but from the looks of the rules, there might more added bookeeping than 3.x and we all know how draggy that is.

Questing GM´s last blog post..Word of Wizards – Excerpts: Types of Planes

reveal November 18th, 2008 at 11:13 AM

@Questing GM – Thanks for the info.

Donny_the_DM November 18th, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Having playtested the alphas, and putting in about 100 hours on the beta, I can honestly say that you may want to consider ditching d20 in it’s entirety for a little while. Pathfinder has some pretty hefty issues still being worked out, and even in all it’s “backwards compatible” glory was a lot like 4e – Lots of small fundamental changes.

Aside from that, of course, is that the more time went on, the less inclined I was to repurchase all of the 3.5 core books – since a lot of things betwixt the covers had changed or were no longer relevant. The fluff is great, but the mechanics are still just as broken as they were before, just more expensive…depends on how you like to game. Just my opinion.

Is it 4E burn-out? Or is it just D&D burn-out. Sometimes one will cleverly disguise itself as the other : )

Hope you find a decent game to play!

Donny_the_DM´s last blog post..Critters Fixed…and a few more besides.

reveal November 18th, 2008 at 11:56 AM

@Donny_the_DM: Great info, thanks! One system I have played in the past and wanted to get my group involved in was Earthdawn. Maybe we’ll go with that. Or maybe we’ll go with HEX. Dunno.

Wyatt November 18th, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Having clocked in at like 200 hours and a couple of instances at Pathfinder with my Tank/DPS build, I’m sad it still isn’t as effective as the AoE/Godmonkey my friend made, which is pretty much the guild’s “click here, win game, get loot” button, and who wasn’t properly nerfed last update and even got a few bonuses here and there from it. Damn you Cashio Publishing!

Wyatt´s last blog post..Fleurian Pact Warlock

Professor Pope November 18th, 2008 at 1:12 PM

I’ve been running Pathfinder for a few months and like it a lot. I don’t see any more bookkeeping than 3.5. It’s similar enough so all my books and adventures still work, but the differences are fun and refreshing.

Professor Pope´s last blog post..Not Quite Epic Fail, but Fail Nonetheless

Zachary November 18th, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Perhaps it wouldn’t be a terrible choice to try something a little more abstracted and loose for a while. I like Pathfinder, but I don’t know if there’d be a huge decline in combat times. I’m having luck with Castles & Crusades, which is a little bit more flowing and “rules in the background”, that can sort of take the focus off mechanics if you’re a bit tired of that. Savage Worlds is also generally pretty fast-paced

A bit off the beaten path, I’ve also had luck with Precis Intermedia’s Iron Gauntlets for a fantasy RPG. Its nicely modular and still fairly light.

But, hey, you guys will know what you want. Keep us posted!

Zachary´s last blog post..Zack’s Guide To Being Smart With RPG PDFs

MJ Harnish November 18th, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Based on your description of your group’s tastes, you might want to try out a game like “Spirit of the Century.” FATE really lends itself to fast paced, story-centered action and once the group gets their head wrapped around Aspects, the system really starts to fire on all cylinders. I’m currently using the system to run a Firefly-esque sci-fi game and my players really like how their characters are defined and how the mechanics interact with the actual story.

Swordgleam November 18th, 2008 at 3:02 PM

I know that everyone has their own opinion of 4e, and many of those opinions are poor. But I am a little confused that you don’t like it because there’s too much combat. In my opinion, that’s not a system issue, that’s a campaign issue. You can run an entire session of nothing but roleplaying in 4e just as easily as in any other game.

Zachary November 18th, 2008 at 3:08 PM

I guess I read it differently: that he still wanted combat to be a feature in the game, not disappear entirely, but that the group didn’t seem too happy with 4e combat as it stood…

@MJ: FATE can do a lot of cool things. It isn’t for everyone, but might be well worth the look.

Zachary´s last blog post..Zack’s Guide To Being Smart With RPG PDFs

greywulf November 18th, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I’ll second (third?) the reduction of hit points for monsters, by anywhere from half to 3/4 of the total. Personally, I’ve reached the level where I just decide the critters is dead when it’s dramatically appropriate for him to be dead. That keeps things flowing and is much more fun all round.

greywulf´s last blog post..Bugbear du Jour: Noorda of the Blackened Wastes

reveal November 18th, 2008 at 3:16 PM

@Swordgleam – To me, 4E is really geared towards combat. You’re right, any system can be used if all you want to do is roleplay. But when a system is written in such a way that almost all of your options helped you in one aspect of the game only (combat), that’s a design flaw. Combat’s in 4E are long and can become very tedious. They are much more tactical in nature than they used to be and, honestly, it plays more like a video game than an RPG (in combat).

Reed November 20th, 2008 at 10:57 AM

We did a 4e game on release that ended around a month ago. By the end of the game we more or less skipped combat because we all hated it so much. Since then we’ve switched it up and have been trying out the ORE systems, mostly Wild Talents. I picked up Reign recently to look at running a high fantasy game. The ORE system is very nice so far. It take a little getting used to but once that is done it’s very slick.

d7 November 24th, 2008 at 1:09 AM

We had a similar experience with 4e. I worked everyone’s enthusiasm up and launched the game to much enjoyment. However, it eventually lost its shine and started to be a drag. It was the combat for us, too.

I switched to 1st edition AD&D to get back to my roots and it’s fun. I do miss a sane skill system, though I enjoy how it expect the player to think about and interact with their character’s environment rather than just say, “Do I Spot anything?” Combat is still a pain, though for different reasons. It’s hard to challenge the players without accidentally killing them.

For fast yet crunchy combat that puts a lot of choice in the players’ hands I’m currently demoing Savage World for my group. I think it’s going to satisfy what I want from a system, and I’m currently working up material to use it as the engine for a non-D&D Forgotten Realms campaign.

(The anti-spam captcha for this comment was “D6″. Apropos.)

d7´s last blog post..Savage Worlds actual play

georg November 26th, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Funny, my group seems to be the complete opposite. They live for the combat, and love the 4e ruleset specifically because of the tactical minutia. I even let them strategize a little bit ala wargaming, because I play the hell out of the monsters, and don’t scale down published adventures even though they only have 4 PCs.

Definitely in the minority, I suppose.

Anthony December 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Try some game COMPLETELY different — different genre and different feel. When I get to the point your group has with D&D, I go to Palladium’s System’s Failure. It’s an obscure rpg using Palladiums somewhat clunky engine, but it’s corny as heck and a lot of fun.

reveal December 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 PM

@Anthony – We’re trying a Hollow Earth Expedition one-shot this weekend.

Josh W January 24th, 2009 at 7:11 PM

I don’t know how much of a game designer you are, but why not just turn it into a skill challenge?
You have, in the powers list, a huge supply of potential character actions, with level range appropriateness, so if you want to do something, check it’s level, and if it’s appropriate compared to other stuff, you can do it.

But how do you do magic vs tactical tricks vs attacks? You just hit different defences as the dcs, and then get to grant bonuses to the people doing the hitting.

There’s probably much more you can do that is interesting, but that’s a very rough outline.

reveal January 24th, 2009 at 8:58 PM

@Josh W. – Thanks for the suggestion but I don’t like the skill challenge system either. I guess I just can’t be satisfied!

binaryturing February 1st, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Glad, well relieved, to hear other people are having so many problems.

I’m DMng a group through the Shackled City Adventure Path (6 players, 3.5).

We all like fun feats, and we don’t see how to preserve them while removing the battlemat.

For a number of reasons, we have chosen not to switch to 4E. For this discussion, the main reason is it doesn’t solve any of the combat issues (too slow).

Last Christmas a couple of us bought a starter back from Troll Lord Games. And we were bitterly disappointed. Despite the crowing on the Troll Lords Site, the materials turned out to be shoddy.

Good to hear about other options for combat systems.

Has anyone ‘experimented’ with 3.5 battlemat rules (maybe changing/removing feats tied to tactical movement)?

This issue isn’t going to end our game, and it might just be a function of our group being older…but combat takes up so much of our time.

I believe ‘fluff’ is the game and ‘crunch’ is not as important, hope you know what I mean

d7 February 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Hi binaryturing.

Monte Cook apparently intended 3.0 to be runnable without miniatures if a group wanted. His advice on how to adapt D&D to gridless play is here: http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly21.html

I haven’t tried it myself, but it’s the sort of thing that I would need to do if I ever returned to 3e.

d7´s last blog post..Burning Wheel initial impressions

binaryturing February 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 PM

thanks d7,
I checked out the article.
I’m going to follow the advice there.
Perhaps a first step will be to play on a battlemat without squares (we have heaps of mini’s thanks to a former dm who collected everything for age of worms and my brief ‘addiction’ to buying lead minis on ebay).
There are going to be some huuuge squawks when figuring out who is where when the are of effect spells come down!
I appreciate the time you took to read my rambling comment and to respond.

reveal February 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 PM

@binaryturning – Sorry for not getting back to you before. I forgot about the Monte Cook article, but I hope it works for you. Have you guys thought about a different system? Maybe World of Darkness or Hollow Earth Expedition? Both are geared more towards fluff than crunch and the combat system in both is such that it runs quickly and smoothly.

binaryturing February 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 PM

@reveal – i’ll take a look at World of Darkness and Hollow Earth Expedition.

We’re a bunch of older gamers who have either been away from gaming for a long time or are completely new to D&D.

Not really keen or able to spend many hours figuring out complicated rules.

The biggest surprise for me so far came after looking over my newly purchased ‘Castles and Crusaders’ materiel: it WAS simpler, and it looked like it was going to be a lot less fun.

We all enjoy 3.5, maybe I’ll have a chat with the group and see if they want me to ‘wing it’ a bit more with the rules. I already allow lots of leeway, (for example straight lines when charging, running)
Thanks

Mean Eyed Cat February 20th, 2009 at 12:15 AM

My group is currently in a 4e campaign and we’ve also started to run into long combats more than a few times. Lately, however, I started to make a few changes to liven things up.

First off, I’m starting to have monsters & NPCs run away a lot more. Usually when they become bloodied. Also, I’m putting more obstacles into the encounter; poor lighting/darkness, deep snow, stairs, etc. One of the last encounters we ran, I had a log over a slimy creek. Lots of Acrobatics checks and falls into the water while fighting.

And in between combats I usually try to put in non-combat encounters; traps, puzzles, role-playing encounters. I think we’ve finally mastered skill challenges. It took awhile, but these make for very interesting encounters and I highly recommend them. In fact I’ve had combats turn into skill challenges and vice versa.

In the past, when we played 3.5 edition, we would take breaks and try different games/systems to break up the monotony (because combats in 3rd edition also dragged on). That’s always good. However, with 4th edition, my group wants to soldier on — despite the sometimes lengthy combats. I think this is because I decided to award twice the xp. They get really excited when they advance a level and get cool new powers and feats

Mean Eyed Cat February 20th, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention is that I also started to encourage the “Page 42 Rule.” For those that aren’t familiar with this, its the additional rules on page 42 of the DMG or “Actions the Rules Don’t Cover.” During one of our last encounters, one of my player’s decided that instead of killing the Hippogriff he was fighting, he wanted to break it instead. In the end, he was able to get a new Hippogriff mount and it made the encounter more enjoyable.

ElMaughan July 1st, 2009 at 12:48 PM

When I was young (late 70s and early 80s) – we loved playing D&D. As our group matured we started looking at other systems and I came accross a game system called Rolemaster by ICE. WOW – this system was awesome in the number of character classes, spells, balance, realism, and fun. I know that Rolemaster has been nicknamed “Chartmaster” but this is easy to control based on how much crunch one wants to add, and the system is very adaptable in this reguard. Add detail where you want it – fudge it where you do not.

ICE has a good web site (ironcrown.com) with a good active forum. Again – love the system – far more than any version of D&D (especially 4). I like a game where roleplaying is more emphasised with a good touch of realism.

Covertfun July 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 PM

I can heartily recommend the use of a stop watch/chess clock.
If I’m DM, everyone has 5 seconds (on their turn) to declare their actions or they lose their place in the initiative order. (we allow time to roll/resolve, but the deciding must be done _fast_).

This rule was born because combat where you allow players to um and ah and consult runs like TREACLE.

Once it was introduced, it brought back a delicious edge of panic and the chance of making serious errors – especially if the characters are ambushed, it was great.

When I’m a player, a stop watch would be gauche, and I just try to set a good example.

Anyway, that’s my recommendation: a bit of pressure during the combat not only rushes it to conclusion, but also makes it more dramatic and fun.

Capt_Poco August 14th, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Something which hasn’t been mentioned yet is rolling for monster hitpoints. Every other edition has rolling for hitpoints, why not 4e? Simply grab a number of dice whose sides add up to the monster’s HP, or thereabouts. So a 45 HP monster could have, say, 2d20 plus 1d6 hitpoints. On average, it halves hitpoints, but you don’t get that nagging “oh I’m fudging the rules” feeling afterwards.

Monsters retreating when bloodied is a good idea, especially with intelligent monsters. However, it is also useful to remind players that the Intimidate skill can be used to scare off bloodied monsters. Encourage players to take advantage of this, and you’ve shortened your combat without changing any rules.

In my mind, stopwatches make the game a little *too* tense. I roleplay to relax, not to be put in the hotseat. That said, I’m sure some players will enjoy the added tension a stopwatch can bring.

Capt_Poco August 14th, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Sorry, double post!
The OP mentioned that powers don’t allow for much creativity, especially with Wizards. Actually, I hold the opposite view.

Take for example, Burning Hands. On the surface, not much creativity there. Fan of flame, bat guano and sulpher, yadda yadda. It’s quite possibly the most overused Wizard spell out there, ever since first edition. But! In 4e, mechanics are completely separate from story and flavor. This allows you to reflavor things without affecting game balance. After all, Burning Hands is just a Int vs Ref; Close blast 5; 2d6+ INT mod encounter power. The blast can be anything. Cone of cold, poison nova, gust of wind, corpse explosion, etc etc. In my games, the title and flavor text of powers are just guidelines, there to get the creative juices flowing. After all, a PC reading his powers from the PH is like a DM reading his encounters from the module: Boring!

Joe Rogers January 26th, 2010 at 11:04 AM

I agree with the HP thinng.. I tend to ’round’ up damage… if a monster is on 75 hitpoints and takes 18 points of damage rather than put its life at 57 I’ll put it at a nice 55… I think a good GM can sense when it is going to turn into ‘i hit i miss i hit i miss’ which is a bad thing