PTR_K

There were other differences too: Elves were kind of different. Magic item creation worked a lot different. Treasure was obligatorily passed out in power level appropriate Schrodinger's loot drops, where it would wave function collapse into whatever thing appropriate for exact class combination present.

In some ways 4E was REALLY balanced in combat if you played it the right way, but it almost became hard to lose and combat didn’t offer as many twists, close calls, or surprises.

Converting from previous editions would not just involve a little tweaking, but major changes. The material just was not easily compatible. It was like they were trying to appeal to a completely different audience (some said MMO players, though tactical wargames also might be a close fit).

Some folks really liked 4E, but there was a lot of complaint, and some folks started the OSR and sought out retroclones or just kept playing their previous editions. Pathfinder came about as basically an edition 3.75 for folks who didn’t want 4E.

So with 5E they learned some lessons form all the dissenters. They kept a couple bits from 4E, but tried to switch a lot of things closer to the way they worked in 3E, and took some inspiration from earlier editions as well. The 5E game again became a bit more compatible with earlier work, so it was easier to discuss in a similar manner.

There’s also the fact that 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, 5E and a bunch of retroclones all use the Open Gaming Licence which originally came out with 3E. This made sharing parts of these works or combining them much easier to do without perceived risk of lawsuit. But 4E had a more restrictive license that made some folks less eager to try and work with it.

But stepping away from my own gripes as a DM and player, to get back to many of the more general complaints about 4E:

All the other earlier editions had certain things in common: Spells tended to work a certain way. Power increased in a certain way. Weapons and attacks worked a certain way.

Sure, there were differences. Some of the other editions were simpler than others, focused on different things, or had a different “power curve”. But looked at over all, you could kind of see trends, how elements of one edition had inspired similar elements of another. And, you could kind of convert them with a little twiddling if you held them at a distance and squinted.

But 4E was different.

Folks who though the 3/3.5E power curve was a little much would find the 4E power curve EXTREME. Even those who didn’t mind the 3E power curve might find that 4E had gone too far.

Characters in 4E had massive piles of hit points to wittle down, and those points kept coming back. So combats tended to be on the long side, and also more plentiful.

Weapon damage in 4E was nominally similar to previous editions, but a large number of combat specializations in 4E revolved around somehow changing or tweaking how that damage was applied, multiplying it, giving it conditions, etc.

In fact most of a character’s talents in general seemed to be about combat in a very tactical way. And, sure, previous editions did have tactical combat, but it had never been quite so innately integrated as with 4E.

Nearly a decade back, I ran a 4E game for maybe 6 months or more at the insistence of a local group, and participated as a player afterward for a few more months.

Going into the experience, my main gripe was heavier reliance on "dissociated mechanics", and that the powers and tools available were generally even more exclusively geared toward combat than previous editions.

But a more tactical, less roleplaying-related, game has some slight appeal to me. So, setting all my issues aside, I tried to enjoy it as a more combat intensive game. Unfortunately, even in combat alone, 4th Ed. just had too many bits that stuck in my craw:

• Geared to win - Most combats it never felt like the characters were in much danger of dying. There was only one I can remember that was really a "close thing".

• Slog Combats - Despite not straining the characters much, a standard combat would usually take the majority of the evening, even against relatively weak opponents. This might partly have been an issue of people not having all their powers perfectly memorized and planned, but in some cases it was just a hassle of hit/miss whittling down a massive pile of opponent hit points every time. In general we would get into one combat per session, and it would take up most of the session.

• Level Wiff Factor - If average combats didn't seem much challenge, then combats against high level opponents were an exercise in missing and missing again. Unlike previous editions, 4th Edition, armor class escalates right along with everything else. So enemies of different levels are extremely difficult to hit.

• Equipment Wiff Factor - A couple of us realized late in the game that, unlike previous editions, expected PC equipment bonuses are heavily factored into the challenge rating of monsters. To the extent that the GM is literally required to keep providing you with equipment appropriate to your level. If you don't have the equipment power level mandated by your character level, you will miss a heck of a lot more.

Oh boy. Buckle in, this is going to be a long one. This question crops up periodically on a number of other social media sites, and below is my answer to previous inquiries:

I think for some people, 4th Edition was exactly the sort of game they were interested in. But conceptually it was a departure from the aspects of 2nd edition, and even 3rd edition, which I'd come to enjoy.

Folks have said it was too "videogamey" and certainly it did seem to use some team-videogame concepts, though I wouldn't say that was exactly what rubbed me the wrong way.

Mutants & Masterminds is a neat system, and flexible enough that you can use it to do a lot of different things.

But if someone is asking for a game that is "simpler than 5E", then Mutants & Masterminds would not be my first suggestion. Depending on what you're trying to do, character creation could get pretty detailed.

I can think of three options, none are perfect, but each could be tinkered with to get what you want:

In the Light of a Ghost Star – This is much further in the future than you intend. But it has incredibly simple rules which are easy to customize. Also I made a psionics supplement for it here. I had pretty good success running it.

Mutants & Machine-guns - A loose, fairly tongue-in-cheek system. Free.

Mutant Future - Basically a cleaned up clone of early edition Gamma World. Less light than other games mentioned.

Huh. Tried posting this response before, but Jerbo apparently ate my post.

I frickin love GURPS Ice Age supplement. But never have run it for two reasons:

1. After years of consideration I've come to the conclusion that I just don't particularly like GURPS as a system.
2. I can never think of stone age scenarios that feel compelling in my mind. Not sure what quality would quite seem satisfying.

But still have some fascination with a dawn of humanity type setting.