[4E] Not for serious campaigns?

[Isomenes]

My group has been merrily gaming along in our 4E campaign, and after some reflection, I realize that we've had exactly one combat, and that more an initiative-ordered sequence involving less than half our party, after 3 sessions. Needless to say, we've thrown down some mighty neat characters, and the plot's already thickening well. (I can tell the DM is about to turn up the heat a bit, maybe add some salt.)

The question is this: I've seen the charge that 4E isn't for "serious" campaigns, that it's not as suitable for them as 3.5. Rather than just say "you're wrong," my intent is to understand where the claim is founded. Because so far, we're pretty involved in what we've got going on, and the ruleset is supporting all the random things that we try. So, why is 4E unsuitable for "serious" campaigns? More specifically, what is a serious campaign, and how does 4E's ruleset fail to foster such?

[Covered In Bees]

My 4E campaign is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[FoE]

{Scrubbed}

[thegurullamen]

OP, I haven't heard that particular sentiment on the boards, though there is enough Wowification/simplification/dumbed-down/for kids talk going back and forth between adamant 4e protesters/lovers that I might understand how you could see that. In all reality, I don't see why 4e can't be as good as 3.5 for a "serious campaign". probably just an outgrowth of the "4e doesn't support roleplaying" opinion a lot of anti-4e posters have.

Also:

My 4E campaign is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

You gonna link that?

[ZekeArgo]

My group has been merrily gaming along in our 4E campaign, and after some reflection, I realize that we've had exactly one combat, and that more an initiative-ordered sequence involving less than half our party, after 3 sessions. Needless to say, we've thrown down some mighty neat characters, and the plot's already thickening well. (I can tell the DM is about to turn up the heat a bit, maybe add some salt.)

The question is this: I've seen the charge that 4E isn't for "serious" campaigns, that it's not as suitable for them as 3.5. Rather than just say "you're wrong," my intent is to understand where the claim is founded. Because so far, we're pretty involved in what we've got going on, and the ruleset is supporting all the random things that we try. So, why is 4E unsuitable for "serious" campaigns? More specifically, what is a serious campaign, and how does 4E's ruleset fail to foster such?

You sort of answer the question yourself with your opening paragraph: you've been playing a game with merely one simple combat after 3 sessions, with what you describe as interesting and varied roleplaying. Unless you have specific arguments that can be refuted as to why 4E can't be used in "serious" campaigns, what do others have to say other than "yes, it can"?

[Dhavaer]

[RebelRogue]

Basically, a campaign is as serious as the DM and the players make it. The system used has little influence on that matter.

[Isomenes]

You sort of answer the question yourself with your opening paragraph: you've been playing a game with merely one simple combat after 3 sessions, with what you describe as interesting and varied roleplaying. Unless you have specific arguments that can be refuted as to why 4E can't be used in "serious" campaigns, what do others have to say other than "yes, it can"?

That's the question. The reason I posted it was that I have seen sentiments explicitly stating this, on these very boards, even. I'll be buggered if I can remember the specific threads, but I remember feeling that responding to that sentiment in those threads was a little...off-topic. I'll try to search for the ones that got my curiosity a-ticking and post them to the OP.

Just curious as to what makes people tick.

[Inhuman Bot]

O.Odamn you, Capt. Charcter limit!

[Kyeudo]

You win this thread.

[Dhavaer]

You win this thread.

Why thankyou.

[Lupy]

Wish I could see the picture...

Anyway, the 4th edition campaign I have been running is serious as a campaign run by me can be. We crack too many Oots jokes to kep a serious atmosphere.

[Prophaniti]

<CENSORED---CODE 18/995/OMEGA>

Some men will be showing up shortly to escort you to a holding cell. Do not be alarmed. Cooperation is in your best interests.

(Oh, and yeah, you won the thread, definitely.)

[Alchemistmerlin]

You win this thread.

Threads are won by posting 2 year old image macros? Wow, if only I had known sooner.



As for the OP: The system has a very minor influence on the tone of the campaign. Despite not personally liking 4e, I see no reason it can't be used to run a "serious" campaign.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Threads are won by posting 2 year old image macros? Wow, if only I had known sooner.

These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.

OP: The reasoning is, I guess, that since 4E is Actually D&DWoWE, it can only be used to play running mobs, and nothing else.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But there you go.

[Crow]

I don't about 4e not being good for "serious" campaigns, but it doesn't seem like the best choice for a campaign where the players are supposed to start off "low-powered". Level 1 4e characters just have too much awesome about them for a campaign like that to work.

Also, I've found myself a bit frustrated with the 4e monster manual. I'll be running my 4th "serious" session next week, and I've already had to use the monster creation rules twice.

[chiasaur11]

These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.

I think the term you're looking for for the Encyclopedia Dramatica is "Brains melting in agony as they are forced to encounter a Lovecraftian embodiment of evil"

[greenknight]

I think the main reason some people feel 4e isn't for serious campaigns is because of all the disassociated mechanics in the rules. Pretty much every ruleset includes some disassociated mechanics, but 4e seems to take it further than most. That said, 4e is fine if you aren't trying to explain or understand how the mechanics actually work (or if your campaign doesn't actually use the mechanics much).

[Gavin Sage]

Despite rather loathing 4e I see no reason one can't run a "serious" campaign unless the definition of "serious" in this context relies on thing the 4e system isn't built to accomplish. Certainly one can run a serious hack'n'slash campaign based around a classic four man party. Or any campaign built around combat as the means to an end. Outside of combat, well I dare say it can be done and still be serious... just sounds like a lot more making it up as one goes along.

[Covered In Bees]

I dare say it can be done and still be serious... just sounds like a lot more making it up as one goes along.

The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

I beg to differ! 3e gave us the ability to have Cooking Challenges and epic Profession (Sailor) Naval battles!

[turkishproverb]

That's the question. The reason I posted it was that I have seen sentiments explicitly stating this, on these very boards, even. I'll be buggered if I can remember the specific threads, but I remember feeling that responding to that sentiment in those threads was a little...off-topic. I'll try to search for the ones that got my curiosity a-ticking and post them to the OP.

Just curious as to what makes people tick.

I think your thinking of all the people who said they'd use it as a miniature combat game and not a RPG because they thought it was better suited to that.

[ghost_warlock]

The only reasons I can really think of are dissassociated mechanics (e.g., marking and such) and the short duration of most effects (e.g., an attack that 'shatters bone and armor,' but only inflicts a penalty to AC for a single round as if the 'shattered' armor spontaneously heals itself). That sort of thing leave me with a feeling of impermanence but that's mostly a matter of taste.

[Covered In Bees]

The only reasons I can really think of are dissassociated mechanics (e.g., marking and such) and the short duration of most effects (e.g., an attack that 'shatters bone and armor,' but only inflicts a penalty to AC for a single round as if the 'shattered' armor spontaneously heals itself). That sort of thing leave me with a feeling of impermanence but that's mostly a matter of taste.

Marking isn't really disassociated, it represents something.

[DMfromTheAbyss]

I'm in a 4rth ed game.

It's rather serious.

I've been able to do more roleplay since my game went to 4rth ed. My character is much more balanced with the party so everyone can contribute in combat... and frankly with the monster level system I've found the fights much tougher and more enjoyable, becouse the GM doesn't have to wrestle the system to make the combats good and tough and still let us survive.

So yeah with a good enough GM (and players willing to go along with the concept) you can have any game be serious... but 4th ed is easier than 3.x becouse frankly there's less stuff to slog through so you can concentrate on actually playing/running the game. (aka it has simpler game mechanics, not lawyer esq rules for every possible eventuality)

Though I'm not sure if the GM exists that can run a serious game of Toon. Besm is sorta difficult too, unless you restrict the heck out of character options... when the cyborg magic girl riding a flying surfboard comes into your game it's a little hard to take seriously.

[Covered In Bees]

I'm in a 4rth ed game.

It's rather serious.

Probably easier for the DM to do roleplaying without alot of rather silly rping skills to get in the way... you know so people can roleplay without having to dice out everything. Just describe... end of game mechanic.

Uh... 4E still has pretty much the same social skills.

[Jack Mann]

Although, granted, skill challenges are more interesting than 3rd edition diplomacy checks. Still, I like to combine them with actual roleplaying.

[NPCMook]

These guys' minds will really blow when they discover Encyclopedia Dramatica.

OP: The reasoning is, I guess, that since 4E is Actually D&DWoWE, it can only be used to play running mobs, and nothing else.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But there you go.

DnD =/= WoW

This is DnD the WoW edition

[Gavin Sage]

The skill challenge mechanic has done more for non-combat stuff in my game than 3E's "wait to see which caster has a spell to solve every problem" ever has.

C'mon, guys. 4E has quest XP, skill challenge XP... it rewards and thus encourages noncombat things more than any edition before it has.

I actually kinda like the skills in 4e personally. Given though they seemed all told one of the least altered areas to me. I'd long thought having level as a basis a good thing for skills, to prevent such embarassments as the level 20 character failing a simple comparatively simple jump check. Skills were more comprehensive in 3e though, you can expand them easy enough in 4e but that gets back to making stuff up as one goes along.

Oh and while the mage always having a spell is a problem, is the mage now never having a spell the solution to that?

And XP is and has always been in my experience a total DM crapshoot to begin with. I think we've all played a game where the DM has just chucked out arbtrary amounts of XP, including for completing quests or the like.

[Mushroom Ninja]

In my opinion, pretty much any system can be used to run a serious campaign.