PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong about 4e...



Pages : 1 [2]

tesral
07-13-2008, 11:30 AM
No Half-Orc Barbarians

Gotta have Half Orc Barbarians.

Vulture
07-13-2008, 11:49 AM
Gotta have Half Orc Barbarians.

Exactly, who else is going to beserk then die in in the first round of combat?

Engar
07-13-2008, 01:47 PM
Gotta have Half Orc Barbarians.


Exactly, who else is going to beserk then die in in the first round of combat?

DUH! Bring back the cavalier! He was far more efficient at charging in untethered. Of course they involve more whining as opposed to grunting, but that is just a matter of taste.

tesral
07-13-2008, 02:21 PM
DUH! Bring back the cavalier! He was far more efficient at charging in untethered. Of course they involve more whining as opposed to grunting, but that is just a matter of taste.

Gee we get the cavalier whining and the Half Orc grunting and the bard can start rapping in there any time.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-13-2008, 02:23 PM
Gotta have Half Orc Barbarians.
That goes without saying. To me, a half-orc is the epitome of a Barbarian class. It just makes sense.

Thoth-Amon

Valdar
07-13-2008, 03:07 PM
Freeform roleplaying and one-roll skill checks are not gone from 4e. I'd say I use them just as much as before.

A skill challenge encounter takes the place of a combat encounter- it doesn't take the case of freeform roleplaying.

In my experience, the skill challenges are fun, but a good one is too elaborate to design to have more than one of them every couple of sessions for a weekly game. The rest of the time you're doing normal skill checks or freeform roleplaying.

Tomcat1066
07-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Freeform roleplaying and one-roll skill checks are not gone from 4e. I'd say I use them just as much as before.

A skill challenge encounter takes the place of a combat encounter- it doesn't take the case of freeform roleplaying.

They're not? Sure...I can agree with that, since the DM can run his game any way he wants. However, I see very little in the DMG, for example, that helps with freeform role playing. Every mention I can recall deals with skills in the context of some form of encounter, mostly skill challenges.

Is freeform role play gone? No, but the DMG also doesn't guide anyone toward it either. While it won't be gone, it is far from being championed by 4th Edition either. It's up to each of us to decide what that means for us.


In my experience, the skill challenges are fun, but a good one is too elaborate to design to have more than one of them every couple of sessions for a weekly game. The rest of the time you're doing normal skill checks or freeform roleplaying.

The seriously, why bother designing them? Seriously?

I'm not being a smart ass or anything, but why design them? Shouldn't that be at least spontaneous? After all, you don't know if they players are going to talk to Lord Pompous to get supplies before clearing out the nearby caverns or not necessarily.

Again, IMHO which some folks don't share obviously, it was an answer to a problem that didn't exist in a lot of groups (though obviously not in all groups). If it fixes a problem for your group, great for you. However, I still think it's stupid and don't like any part of it.

To each their own.

Valdar
07-13-2008, 05:21 PM
Is freeform role play gone? No, but the DMG also doesn't guide anyone toward it either.


If the DMG had rules for it, it woudn't be free-form, obviously.



The seriously, why bother designing them? Seriously?


From my own personal experience, they're fun. Players don't actually enjoy a rousing game of "guess what the DM is thinking" as much as you might think.

Combats are encounters in which the strengths of each character are pitted against new challenges within established rules to create situational tactics, which have a chance of working based on how good the tactics are and how good the strengths of each character apply to a particular situation. 4e skill challenges are an attempt at having that happen out of combat- whether it be a social challenge, an intellectual one like research, or a real physical danger like a complex trap.

Personally, I found the rules lacking in this area before- the rogue disarming a trap with a SINGLE die roll, with no input from the rogue's character about what strategy was being used, is dull, and involves about as much strategy as buying the right lottery ticket. Imagine a challenge that involves the whole party, in which teamwork and creative solutions (and yes, roleplaying) work together to resolve a multiple-step encounter (that is not combat):

The confident, charismatic Paladin can talk the shoes off a horse, but that's not going to get him anywhere with the Goblin chief unless the nerdy, introverted Wizard gives him a few pointers about the social mores of goblins, and he'd better have some muscular Fighter backup to make the chief think twice about having his clan attack the party out of hand.

Contrived teamwork, rewarding character interaction? Sure. Just like in combat.

ithil
07-13-2008, 07:34 PM
They're not? Sure...I can agree with that, since the DM can run his game any way he wants. However, I see very little in the DMG, for example, that helps with freeform role playing. Every mention I can recall deals with skills in the context of some form of encounter, mostly skill challenges.

Is freeform role play gone? No, but the DMG also doesn't guide anyone toward it either. While it won't be gone, it is far from being championed by 4th Edition either.

I don't see anything in 3.5 either, other than more information on NPC attitudes (compared to 4e's "the DC is set by the DM"). On skill use in general, 3.5 had a great section on p32 of the DMG about degrees of success/failure, and I only see hints of that (for specific skills) in 4e. Gotta wait for DMG II, I guess. :D

Edit: 3.5 has more examples of specific DCs, like the big table on p31. I'm not sure how much more, since the two books are organized very differently.


If the DMG had rules for it, it woudn't be free-form, obviously.

You've said it yourself: 4e's DMG has plenty of excellent guidance that doesn't take the form of rules. But not in this case.

Tomcat1066
07-13-2008, 07:58 PM
If the DMG had rules for it, it woudn't be free-form, obviously.

No, it wouldn't. However, everything listed anywhere is about the skill challenge, giving the newer player/DM the impression that it's how stuff is supposed to work, hence my problem with it. You don't share that opinion, that's fine.


From my own personal experience, they're fun. Players don't actually enjoy a rousing game of "guess what the DM is thinking" as much as you might think.

First, I don't appreciate the tone. No one ever said jack about "guess what the DM is thinking", nor do I have a clue where that even came from. I asked a serious question hoping for a mature answer. Why design a skill challenge anyways when there's no guarantee the PCs will even go that route?


Combats are encounters in which the strengths of each character are pitted against new challenges within established rules to create situational tactics, which have a chance of working based on how good the tactics are and how good the strengths of each character apply to a particular situation. 4e skill challenges are an attempt at having that happen out of combat- whether it be a social challenge, an intellectual one like research, or a real physical danger like a complex trap.

A situation that my experience has led me to feel isn't exactly necessary with some groups. If your group needs or benefits from something like this, then so be it. It doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong, because no one is right or wrong. It's all opinion.


Personally, I found the rules lacking in this area before- the rogue disarming a trap with a SINGLE die roll, with no input from the rogue's character about what strategy was being used, is dull, and involves about as much strategy as buying the right lottery ticket.

And the rogue character understands how the traps work and how best to disarm it. The player doesn't. Seriously, there are only a handful of people in the gaming community who could actually disarm a trap of some type, but the skills are there so the character could do that which the player was unaware of. Is it perfect? No, but skill challenges don't help that. In fact, it can actually hurt the suspension of disbelief for other players.


Imagine a challenge that involves the whole party, in which teamwork and creative solutions (and yes, roleplaying) work together to resolve a multiple-step encounter (that is not combat):

The confident, charismatic Paladin can talk the shoes off a horse, but that's not going to get him anywhere with the Goblin chief unless the nerdy, introverted Wizard gives him a few pointers about the social mores of goblins, and he'd better have some muscular Fighter backup to make the chief think twice about having his clan attack the party out of hand.

Contrived teamwork, rewarding character interaction? Sure. Just like in combat.

And again I repeat, this happened all the time in 3.5 as well. The Paladin would consult the goblin experts because he knew he didn't know squat about goblins.

The new set-up is good for your group? Fan-freaking-tastic. My group gets physically ill at the thought of converting to 4th Edition. I see how it can benefit some groups, and I'm willing to acknowledge that.

Sorry, but I don't care how much you argue about it, I think it's a ridiculous system and you won't convince me otherwise. If it works for your group, great. It's wholly unnecessary from my perspective, and personally I'm thankful for that.

ithil
07-13-2008, 08:42 PM
And the rogue character understands how the traps work and how best to disarm it. The player doesn't. Seriously, there are only a handful of people in the gaming community who could actually disarm a trap of some type, but the skills are there so the character could do that which the player was unaware of.

There's a good thread on the WotC forums on this topic:

Long story short: binary outcomes based on luck aren't fun, and booby traps are ultimately binary and based on luck. Find it or don't. Disarm it or don't. The find and disarm outcomes aren't particularly exciting. The don't find and disarm outcomes just slap the party in the face and disappear.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16245831&postcount=12

Engar
07-13-2008, 09:58 PM
[/quote]
Why design a skill challenge anyways when there's no guarantee the PCs will even go that route?

Oh heck. I guess I will tear at the scabs of our last encounter and step back to the front line.

I sarcastically mentioned something about 4e being a segway into simply offering characters 3 dialogue options (or 4 if they have sufficient ranks in diplomacy). In this way 4e as a system either supports a level of railroading since planning out multiple tiers of challenges involving every member of the party in order to accomplish a goal is a ridiculous expection of me as the DM or simply places too much importance on mechanics. I prefer sharing in an engrossing story.


Is it perfect? No, but skill challenges don't help that. In fact, it can actually hurt the suspension of disbelief for other players.

Especially if the DM is expected to constantly nanny system them into participating no matter how unrealistic for either the player and/or the character.[/quote]


Combats are encounters in which the strengths of each character are pitted against new challenges within established rules to create situational tactics, which have a chance of working based on how good the tactics are and how good the strengths of each character apply to a particular situation.

Strategy usurps roleplay. Fine for some, I came for the roleplay not the chess. I do not fault you for liking a form of chess, I will simply excuse myself from your game. The constant yawning is like foreshadowing.


4e skill challenges are an attempt at having that happen out of combat- whether it be a social challenge, an intellectual one like research, or a real physical danger like a complex trap.

***YAWN*** Are we done moving pieces? Can my character talk to the guy now, tinker with the trap, whatever you were saying before I zoned you out.


Personally, I found the rules lacking in this area before- the rogue disarming a trap with a SINGLE die roll, with no input from the rogue's character about what strategy was being used, is dull, and involves about as much strategy as buying the right lottery ticket.

Or choosing to play a rogue, choosing skills to detect and disarm the trap. Leading while the party trails behind with the dumb fighter periodically yelling down the hall, "See anything yet?", never realizing how close you are to sneaking back and stabbing him yourself. A terrible awareness that if a creature or creatures spot you first your wiry, scarcely armored hide could be meat before the loudmouth interjects.

I do not define roleplay the same way. To me it requires words, descriptions and interactions. WoW has tons of strategy when it comes to defeating bosses in large groups. This group must be here doing this at such and such time, then run here to do this when this happens, etc. I have never seen myself as roleplaying in WoW.


Imagine a challenge that involves the whole party, in which teamwork and creative solutions (and yes, roleplaying) work together to resolve a multiple-step encounter (that is not combat):

The confident, charismatic Paladin can talk the shoes off a horse, but that's not going to get him anywhere with the Goblin chief unless the nerdy, introverted Wizard gives him a few pointers about the social mores of goblins, and he'd better have some muscular Fighter backup to make the chief think twice about having his clan attack the party out of hand.

I can see a multi-tiered trap or something being fun once in awhile as an activity for the party. Do it everytime and ***yawn***, I toss a rasberry at the wizard, moon the fighter and stab my dagger into the heart of the traps mechanism. What happens? Why can't I do that? So you spent a bunch of time on this, so what? Fine, I sit down and wait for the lousy strategizing since I obviously am not allowed to play my character. ***yawn***, what time is it? I should be going soon.

What does the system have to do with the paladin talking to the wizard and recruiting the fighter to look intimidating? From some previous posts I suspect a very bad experience with a DM allowing diplomacy to very unrealistically control all aspects of the game or something. Some bonehead permitted to talk his way out of situations that should have led to a dagger in the eye for opening his mouth perhaps? Diplomacy only works when the opposition actually cares to talk. I see no added value from 4e to my game in the example provided.

What if a player wants their character to excel at something? Now everyone has to have their slice? Everyone has to share all the time like kindergarten? Nanny system gets mad if you are too good at something or do not want to participate all the time? The group must supercede the individual in all situations? Maybe this is just the glass half empty interpretation. I hope so since I am just starting a 4e game. If not, I will just have to do my best with it.

Vulture
07-14-2008, 02:03 AM
That goes without saying. To me, a half-orc is the epitome of a Barbarian class. It just makes sense.

Thoth-Amon

thats why i played a half orc barbarian

Engar
07-14-2008, 02:18 AM
I opted just to start my posting here and save admin the effort...

Sounds like a great skill to be trained in as a rogue. Also sounds like a great secret treasure finder as stated. My impression of 4e is that magic items are expected to be generic and come with printed instructions so, aside from finding hidden ones, I see no reason not to just read the label (unless you like the funky glow).

Originally by ronpyat elsewhere...

Detect Magic
A need to detect magic has come up twice in our 4e D&D games. We came close to getting it right the first time, but after careful reading we corrected some assumptions and discovered come key points to remember about how it works. It's broken into 4 basic utilities, but the one that will most concern a party is the one that allows a character to sense the presence of magic.


Detect magic is not a spell but an sense gained through training in the arcana skill.
Sensing magic has a range of 5 squares plus character level in every direction, and magic can be sensed even through walls (ignore all barriers).
It's not an automatic sense magic. It takes 1 minute to perform.
If you don't sense magic in one minute, you can't retry until you've had an extended rest.
It does let you pinpoint magic items if they're in your line of sight, otherwise you only get the general direction of where the magic is emanating (but not its distance).
It is important to understand that Detect Magic is a trained arcana skill, because by 2nd level most everyone will have a little arcana knowledge. Even though you can make arcana rolls untrained, you can't sense magic with the untrained arcana skill.

I'm leaving a lot of details out, but those are the points that we didn't get exactly right the first time. At least, I hope we're doing it right this time.

Tomcat1066
07-14-2008, 05:34 AM
There's a good thread on the WotC forums on this topic:

Long story short: binary outcomes based on luck aren't fun, and booby traps are ultimately binary and based on luck. Find it or don't. Disarm it or don't. The find and disarm outcomes aren't particularly exciting. The don't find and disarm outcomes just slap the party in the face and disappear.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16245831&postcount=12

Maybe not, but trying to make up BS as to how you're going to disarm the trap doesn't necessarily either, especially since the player had no earthly idea how to do it in reality either. Giving a player bonuses if they come up with something plausible or letting them roll to see how the trap works, and give the player the chance to figure it out from there, that's a whole different ball game though than just "you find a trap that will trigger poison arrows. How do you disarm it?"

Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect in 3.5 by any stretch, but and frankly in any role playing game it's all going to come down to an arbitrary roll of the dice, no matter what flavor of game you play. In many regards, it's no different in 4th Edition than 3x, it's just the expectation that someone tell the DM how to do something that won't work in reality, and possibly kill the suspension of disbelief for the other players that bugs me.

And I couldn't check out the WOTC forum because it's currently down. Yet again. It seems like they're always down. Go figure.

Maelstrom
07-14-2008, 07:47 AM
Especially if the DM is expected to constantly nanny system them into participating no matter how unrealistic for either the player and/or the character.


Yes, the game specifically states that all players are forced to play by the rules, or they lose experience points, are denied your selection of magic items, and cannot have any chips for the next 10 minutes.

Sarcasm aside, I think the point was missed somewhere.

The skill challenge is a new form of encounter, no more, no less. A DM can choose to use it or not. Ignore them or use them properly.

I have not encountered a player that didn't enjoy the experience yet when DMed properly, and not one of them felt that they were forced to make a roll to join in... the choice is still in the DM's and player's hands.

Any form of railroading would be by those that do not understand what this game is about, as well as what the mechanics lead to if used right: Creativity encouraged and allowed. This is what seperates WoW from pen and paper.



Strategy usurps roleplay.

Do you roleplay in combat? Do you speak of how your character is moving and acting as you "move the pieces" around? Or do you save roleplaying for between the encounters? If yes to the first question, you will have no problem roleplaying during skill challenges. Rolling dice does not preclude roleplaying, it just gives it direction and reliance on the choices you've made for your character design.



Or choosing to play a rogue, choosing skills to detect and disarm the trap. Leading while the party trails behind with the dumb fighter periodically yelling down the hall, "See anything yet?", never realizing how close you are to sneaking back and stabbing him yourself. A terrible awareness that if a creature or creatures spot you first your wiry, scarcely armored hide could be meat before the loudmouth interjects.


This is a standard scene in D&D up to now. A party which moves without caution gets hit by traps. A party which moves with caution has everyone that likes action bored, but enhances the experience for the thief and characters that enjoy the anticipation and danger.

That is the way D&D has been done for as long as I can remember, and it has a lot of nastalgia for those times when the DM started rolling dice behind the DM screen and chuckling, then tells you to keep moving forward.

If the above way appeals to you, and you don't see any drawbacks in how it is played, I can tell you now that you won't like 4e's style unless you decide to really open your mind and look at it objectively. 4e encourages (not forces) a different style, where more people are involved. Just because its always been done that way doesn't mean you might not find enjoyment in another style.

I'd describe the new style's positive traits, but now I'm no longer in my home by posting in this thread, and I respect the differences of opinion people have.


What if a player wants their character to excel at something? Now everyone has to have their slice?

It is possible to truly excell at something without everyone else being useless in a skill challenge encounter. In that case they'd be finding ways to help you when your turn comes around, or just deferring their turns if they can't think of anything useful to do.



Maybe this is just the glass half empty interpretation. I hope so since I am just starting a 4e game. If not, I will just have to do my best with it.

Make sure to report your experiences. With the interpretation of 4e as a nanny system though, I doubt you'll like it.

Maelstrom
07-14-2008, 07:55 AM
Why design a skill challenge anyways when there's no guarantee the PCs will even go that route?


Why design a combat encounter when there's no guaruntee they will fight that combat? Same principle. As a DM, you can find a way to still include the encounter without railroading the players if you can improvise well enough. Or if that doesn't work, save it for another session. Skill challenges don't take much more work than creating a combat encounter.



Sorry, but I don't care how much you argue about it, I think it's a ridiculous system and you won't convince me otherwise.

Just answering your questions :) If you prefer your questions to be rhetorical or would prefer to rant about it unchallenged, just let us know.

Alright, now here they come *attempts to hide in a flame retardant suit*

Guards! What is this 4e supporter doing in our thread?!? Bring out the flamethrower! :eek:

Tomcat1066
07-14-2008, 08:51 AM
Why design a combat encounter when there's no guaruntee they will fight that combat? Same principle. As a DM, you can find a way to still include the encounter without railroading the players if you can improvise well enough. Or if that doesn't work, save it for another session. Skill challenges don't take much more work than creating a combat encounter.

Valdar indicated they were difficult to design, so my question was simply why bother when they may not even go for it. Combat, in contrast, seems much easier to design based on Valdar's statement that skill challenges are to difficult to design to do more that one every couple sessions. Since most groups I know of engage in combat at least once a session, if not more, it seems that it's more difficult and hence why bother designing them?

Now, if they happen spontaneously, whole different ball game. Based on my limited reading, is there any reason they can't? Say the party decides spontaneously to speak to Lord Pompous, who doesn't like them, because they need his help and he needs their's? It wasn't designed, but it seems like it's awfully close to the skill challenge example in the DMG. This, to me, is why I wonder why design them. In fact, it could be very rewarding since a long-time hostile Lord could become a life-long friend of the party's afterwards, and the DM just had to wing it.

Perhaps this clears up my earlier question and the reasons for it. In all honesty, while I dislike the concept of skill challenges for stated reasons, the question had nothing to do with that. Hope I'm clearer now.




Just answering your questions :) If you prefer your questions to be rhetorical or would prefer to rant about it unchallenged, just let us know.

Nah, discussion is fine. It's when some folks seem to take on an evangelical stance that 4th Edition is the One True Way (TM). Granted, the internet makes it really easy to misunderstand tone, so I could clearly be misunderstanding some folks tone. If so, I apologize.


Alright, now here they come *attempts to hide in a flame retardant suit*

Guards! What is this 4e supporter doing in our thread?!? Bring out the flamethrower! :eek:

What? They just want to invite you to a BBQ :D

ryan973
07-14-2008, 09:25 AM
LOL i just mad eit to my game store yesterday. Now i have talked to the owner of the store about fourth edition many times before. We have alwase been preatty cool for a few reasones. One i am a very good customer and have been known to come in buy a bunch of stuff and then order a bunch more. I kinda collect game systems. I love playing all the diffrent ones to see wich i will like. Second my group and i are very close so we all try to excluisivly spend our cash at the one store and if one of us has a birthday then thats 100 or 15 bucks in the stores pocket.

Well anyway i went there yesterday becouse i really wanted campaine cartographer. I really need a good map program for all my games but right now mostly for our next Naruto Game. ( not as lame as you may think)

So anyway i noticed that all his wizards books were gone for 3.5. there was still 3rd party stuff but everything else was gone.

So i asked him what happened becouse of course there is still liek one book i dont have for forgotten realms. He said it all sold and that he was not going to stock them becouse he wanted to saport 4th edition. Now here is the thing this guy is a hard core DnD player so i was taken aback becouse two weeks ago he had said that he would not give up 3.5 but would still have a side game of fourth.

So we talked and he started professing the glorys of 4th. He said many of the same things i hear on wizards blogs and even soem arguments from podcast and such and a few of his own. But not once did he look at me in the eyes and it sounded so reherst and such that when finished i looked at him and said. " Come on! Your kidding right, I know you have to saport the stuff but you cant seriously say you think its the best game ever. You r a hackmaster nut." I then checked his wall and informed him that there was not one table reserved for the next week for a 4th game on the bourds. but there were five for 3.5

personally i wannt to give 4th another shot. but i kinda want to wait for more spells and character options befoe i do. With so many great games systems out there i dont want to waste my tiem on a brand name when i could just be playing soemthing else thats fun.

Engar
07-14-2008, 09:45 AM
[/quote]
Yes, the game specifically states that all players are forced to play by the rules, or they lose experience points, are denied your selection of magic items, and cannot have any chips for the next 10 minutes.

LOL, okay, but there is only so far the "it can be whatever you want it to be" argument can fly. Of course I admit that applies equally to the "it has to be only what it is" argument I seem to unfairly prefer.


The skill challenge is a new form of encounter, no more, no less. A DM can choose to use it or not. Ignore them or use them properly.

Any system can be made enjoyable, not all systems lend themselves to it.


I have not encountered a player that didn't enjoy the experience yet when DMed properly, and not one of them felt that they were forced to make a roll to join in... the choice is still in the DM's and player's hands.

I hope this proves true for us.


Do you roleplay in combat? Do you speak of how your character is moving and acting as you "move the pieces" around? Or do you save roleplaying for between the encounters? If yes to the first question, you will have no problem roleplaying during skill challenges. Rolling dice does not preclude roleplaying, it just gives it direction and reliance on the choices you've made for your character design.

Sorry, but I call BS. Yes you can have some roleplay in combat, but it is pale shadow and poor substitute.


This is a standard scene in D&D up to now. A party which moves without caution gets hit by traps. A party which moves with caution has everyone that likes action bored, but enhances the experience for the thief and characters that enjoy the anticipation and danger.

I could argue that, but I just called BS myself. How does 4e keep that experience for the rogues and danger dodgers alive?


If the above way appeals to you, and you don't see any drawbacks in how it is played, I can tell you now that you won't like 4e's style unless you decide to really open your mind and look at it objectively. 4e encourages (not forces) a different style, where more people are involved. Just because its always been done that way doesn't mean you might not find enjoyment in another style.

I concede your point.


I'd describe the new style's positive traits, but now I'm no longer in my home by posting in this thread, and I respect the differences of opinion people have.

Yes, well things have changed on that front. I doubt you would be welcome to grab posts from here and address them elsewhere while limiting my "4e enthusiasm" to this thread seems strongly recommended.


Make sure to report your experiences. With the interpretation of 4e as a nanny system though, I doubt you'll like it.

I think it encourages it. Resonable point about setting expectations though.

quaidbrown
07-14-2008, 11:26 AM
I felt like I was playing a hybrid of WoW and Magic. I only did the little premade demo, so perhaps there is more to it. I just don't trust Wizards, I guess.

Webhead
07-14-2008, 03:17 PM
That goes without saying. To me, a half-orc is the epitome of a Barbarian class. It just makes sense.

Thoth-Amon

I know I'm late to the party but I thought I'd pitch in. My favorite D&D character ever was a gnome barbarian in a 3.X game.

I thought he was leagues cooler than any half-orc barbarian that I've ever witnessed...but I may be a bit biased. ;)

He had many advantages over his half-orc peers.

Tomcat1066
07-14-2008, 04:24 PM
A gnome barbarian? That would be seriously fun to play! I wish I'd have thought of that one ;)

Webhead
07-14-2008, 04:35 PM
A gnome barbarian? That would be seriously fun to play! I wish I'd have thought of that one ;)

Not just any barbarian...a member of the Well-Respected Order of the Badger, a group of specially-trained gnome warriors. Think the philosophy behind Chinese animal-kung fu styles but applied to a badger. :shocked: He ended up becoming a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard and I took the Spellsword prestige class to boot. His familiar was a (what else) badger who kicked butt. Man, that character was fun to play!

Engar
07-14-2008, 04:35 PM
megapost thread here

Tomcat1066
07-14-2008, 06:12 PM
Not just any barbarian...a member of the Well-Respected Order of the Badger, a group of specially-trained gnome warriors. Think the philosophy behind Chinese animal-kung fu styles but applied to a badger. :shocked: He ended up becoming a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard and I took the Spellsword prestige class to boot. His familiar was a (what else) badger who kicked butt. Man, that character was fun to play!

I'm going to have to try that one at some point. Barbarians are fun, and gnomes are fun, and the image of a berserker gnome is just to awesome NOT to play :D

Webhead
07-14-2008, 06:21 PM
I'm going to have to try that one at some point. Barbarians are fun, and gnomes are fun, and the image of a berserker gnome is just to awesome NOT to play :D

Yep. Between the gnome barbarian and the psychotic (no...litterally...his behavior was blatantly psychotic) halfling psi-warrior, our party had the "angry midget" angle covered. Between that and our Cleric's rabid aversion to doorways and window sills, our party was a riot! We even had the obligatory "one party member turns into a baby chicken" scene (it was the Cleric, incidentally).

agoraderek
07-14-2008, 07:12 PM
Yep. Between the gnome barbarian and the psychotic (no...litterally...his behavior was blatantly psychotic) halfling psi-warrior, our party had the "angry midget" angle covered. Between that and our Cleric's rabid aversion to doorways and window sills, our party was a riot! We even had the obligatory "one party member turns into a baby chicken" scene (it was the Cleric, incidentally).

"angry midgets" rock. wait, that's ANOTHER thing wrong with 4e, no gnome barbarians!!! or badgers!!! ARRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

[edit] oh, yeah, and i second this as being wrong with 4e as well:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6903

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-14-2008, 08:15 PM
Not just any barbarian...a member of the Well-Respected Order of the Badger, a group of specially-trained gnome warriors. Think the philosophy behind Chinese animal-kung fu styles but applied to a badger. :shocked: He ended up becoming a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard and I took the Spellsword prestige class to boot. His familiar was a (what else) badger who kicked butt. Man, that character was fun to play!
Definitely a cool concept. I'll have to play it one day soon.

Thoth-Amon

Oedipussy Rex
07-15-2008, 03:56 AM
He ended up becoming a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard and I took the Spellsword prestige class to boot.

Barbarian/Wizard? Man, I'm glad I never played 3rd edition.

ryan973
07-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Its all in how you play. There are build that can be useless but then someone steps up and plays them amazingly. and there are builds that are so broken you could cry., but the guy playing them does nto have a clue so he is bleeding out in 9 out of ten combats.

Webhead
07-15-2008, 01:19 PM
Barbarian/Wizard? Man, I'm glad I never played 3rd edition.

Well, it requires a little more information than that, but it all goes back to how I visualize my characters since I first started RPGs.

Cev (the gnome) wasn't a "Barbarian" in the traditional sense. He was part of a group of specially-trained gnome warriors who studied the badger and implemented its behaviors in their fighting style. So, in a "traditional" sense, he was really more of a "Fighter" than a "Barbarian" in the formality of his training, his discipline and such. However, because the badger's fighting techniques are equivalent to a Barbarian's Rage ability, I decided to take the Barbarian class to simulate his fighting style. It wasn't a "frothing, berserker rage" typified by most Barbarians...instead, it was a more controlled and focused application of drawing upon inner fire to fuel a "defensive mode", like a badger defending its nest.

So, in the end, it was just me using the Barbarian class to help me translate the concept of my character into the rules.

In 3e, gnomes were naturally gifted in wizardry (and I really wanted a badger familiar) so it was easy to justify why he would become a spellsword-type warrior. It worked perfectly.

Webhead
07-15-2008, 01:26 PM
"angry midgets" rock. wait, that's ANOTHER thing wrong with 4e, no gnome barbarians!!! or badgers!!! ARRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

[edit] oh, yeah, and i second this as being wrong with 4e as well:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6903

I've given thought to translating that character into 4e if I ever play it. At least gnomes are found at the back of the MM. Granted, it wouldn't be exactly the same, but the basic concept of the character could be done up well enough with Fighter as a primary class and some Wizard multi-class feats. Of course, I would lose Milo (the familiar) unless I could talk my DM into letting me have an animal companion, which is sad, but the character could still be a lot of fun to play again. The most important thing about the character was the "flavor" anyway (hence why I could play 3e, even disliking the rules in a general sense, but still have a blast).

Engar
07-15-2008, 04:52 PM
I am a part time 4e critic on PnP. In the near future I will be transisitioning into running a new game. In the past I have played DnD, Starwars and a few other systems. My plan is to run a game mirroring DnD, but with the 4e system.

My primary objective is to create an exceptional game overcoming 4e limitations. I will encourage roleplay beyond system tendencies and promote creative thinking in opposition to 4e paradigms. My secondary objective is to accomplish this without sacrificing my general loathing and distrust of 4e.

My inquiry regards how to overcome the 4e system and run a quality game while remaining true to the mechanics provided. It is obvious as a miniatures system, 4e will have numerous faults and detractors to roleplay so a creative compensation becomes needed.

For example, I propose overcoming the foolish mechanic of initiative for social interaction by recording permanent initiatives for each character. To avoid forfeiting too much of the simplicity and speed involved in DnD interactions, I recommend writing the initiatives on the players foreheads in permanent marker. This makes it easy for all to see who is next.

Anyone else have a suggestion?

Talmek
07-15-2008, 05:19 PM
Yes. Tattoo their BaB and modifiers onto their palms...so when they roll the dice you will have instant access to their total attack. :D

Wait...I did that in 3.5e...sorry.

Webhead
07-15-2008, 06:17 PM
As a bit of spur-of-the-moment update, I just created a 1st level version Cev (the gnome barbarian) using 4e during a break at work in about 20 minutes. I'm already geeking out! :dance:

agoraderek
07-15-2008, 07:14 PM
As a bit of spur-of-the-moment update, I just created a 1st level version Cev (the gnome barbarian) using 4e during a break at work in about 20 minutes. I'm already geeking out! :dance:

how well did Cev translate? i'm just curious what he gained in the new system and what you had to sacrifice (besides the badger, that is...)

(this next part is unrelated, webby, you can ignore it if you like ;) )

the more familiar i get with 4e (my friend is trying to get me to play in his campaign, so i borrow his books; however, i don't have the time, really, so im just kinda taking advantage so i can read the books), the more i like the flexibility of 3.x when it comes to character conceptualization. it seems that, other than the roles (defender, striker, controller), all the characters DO the same things, they just have different names for them. its all the same basic mechanic with different flavor text. yawn.

4e is the most politically correct edition of d&d, by far. everyone is equal, period. now, i understand where this appeals to a lot of players, and it does serve the great god "balance" well, but i still find it boring. there isnt anything a character can be really, REALLY good at that another character of a different class can't reasonably emulate with the right "feat". now, you don't NEED a rogue, or a cleric, or..., you just need the "role". yawn.

the combat system is nice, i'll grant that, and the way monsters are presented makes prep time negligable, and the dm's guide is very spiffy for people new to the game (arguably the best in the series for neophyte dms, i'll admit that), but, overall, it just doesn't do it for me.

Aidan
07-15-2008, 07:26 PM
My secondary objective is to accomplish this without sacrificing my general loathing and distrust of 4e.


Yeah, just the kind of DM I'd like for my game, someone with an open mind who loves what he's doing.

Engar
07-15-2008, 07:28 PM
Are more DM's taking issue with 4e than players? It seems that way.

agoraderek
07-15-2008, 07:42 PM
Are more DM's taking issue with 4e than players? It seems that way.

i think dm's have more vested in the game, especially if they have an almost 30 year old homebrew campaign that translated with little effort through three and a half editions that now is a steaming pile of cow dumplings without a major overhaul using 4e...

tesral
07-15-2008, 08:00 PM
i think dm's have more vested in the game, especially if they have an almost 30 year old homebrew campaign that translated with little effort through three and a half editions that now is a steaming pile of cow dumplings without a major overhaul using 4e...

32 years, as of this year. The simpler solutioin is to leave Forry as the steaming pile.

agoraderek
07-15-2008, 08:06 PM
32 years, as of this year. The simpler solutioin is to leave Forry as the steaming pile.

yeah, there is that ;)

Engar
07-15-2008, 10:41 PM
I do not like 4e the game.
I do not like it, it is lame.
I do not like all that it lacks.
I do not like it like Gygax.
I do not like it in my house.
I do not like it with my spouse.
I do not like it here or there.
I do not like it anywhere.
I do not like 4e I say.
I do not like it as roleplay.

:humble::humble::humble:

Farcaster
07-15-2008, 11:55 PM
I do not like 4e the game.
I do not like it, it is lame...

Okay, I have to give you points where they're due -- that was kinda funny :lol:

ryan973
07-16-2008, 08:46 AM
Are more DM's taking issue with 4e than players? It seems that way.


Thats a good qeastion. Personally i have found and this is not alwase the case and i am sure that it most definetly not in alot of the people on this bourd but in my cicle of gamers.

Mostly the 20 or 30 i have talked too or played with and my army buddie who i used to game with all the time. In fact thats when i really started gameing. In my exp in the infantry you were eather an alcoholic a gamer or realigious.

Any way out of all of the guys i know the ones that like fourth ed are the ones who just did not seem to like D&D, or had a really hard time learnign the rules. It in my opinion was marketed for those types.

There are three exeptions to that. One is a great GM who just loves minis he has a ton of em, the other is a player who thinks its just great. The third owns the game store were i talk to everyone and he is pushing the product hard.

tesral
07-16-2008, 08:54 AM
People I have found that like Forry: The one RPGA type I know. But he pushes anything the RPGA pushes. You think they were paying him or something.

A segment of people on this board.

People I have found that don't like Forry: Everyone else I meet face to face. A segment of people on this board. My west coast division.

It is not simply a few grumpy die hards. It is a lot of grumpy die hards with consdierable investment of time and money in the system as it was, not the system as they changed it.

I think Lizards has seriously forked themsleves here. The Grognards are not switching, and we have been the loyal supporters for years.

InfoStorm
07-16-2008, 09:58 AM
Well, I haven't chimed in in a while, so It's time for me to bash 4e again.

As you might have noticed in the bloggs, I got my hand in on a little 4e character creation. I figured, "I may not like the system, but I'll try and support the community anyway."

Well, characters creation us easy, simple, and should take a room full of players, novice and advanced about 15 minutes to make their characters. Just use the template for advancement and you can have the first 10 levels pre-written in another 5 minutes. That's the good part.

The bad part. ALL of the characters are completely cookie cutter, with very few options at the current time for individuality. Have 5 people make fighters and you will have 5 nearly identical characters. All will have 3-5 identical powers with little variation. The same goes for all of the classes that I can tell. Yes, there is some variation, but it's a puddle compared to the lake that 3.5 core was, or the ocean 3.5 stands now. It's been a while, but 2e had more character variation and options than 4e. Multi-classing has been all but stripped from the game, existing only as an exchange of 3 powers, and what is there can eliminate the role-playing roles of some classes. (as stated previously anyone can be a thieving export w/ 1 feat)

The powers in my opinion have way too little variation, and progression at upper levels is limited to very few paragon paths, at least until Complete Paragon or whatever comes out.

Epic paths, I didn't read them too far, but memories of Basic D&D and paths to immortality came to mind. I probably should have as plenty of characters will be making 30th level quite quickly in the new version. (I read somewhere that 303 encounters is all it takes, as per the rules)

Summary, I find 4e core character generation shallow and limited compared to 3.x core, and even 2e core and focused more on hack-n-slash with little role playing behind it.

Webhead
07-16-2008, 11:48 AM
how well did Cev translate? i'm just curious what he gained in the new system and what you had to sacrifice (besides the badger, that is...)

Comparing Cev as created at 1st level in 3e versus Cev at 1st level in 4e (this being the first 4e character I've ever rolled up):

Obviously, without a Barbarian class, I took Cev into Fighter instead. This isn't as big a deal as it might sound though, since as I mentioned above, he was really more of a "Fighter with a special combat style" than a "Barbarian with a captial B".

Since Cev didn't go into Wizard in 3e until 3rd level, he didn't have his familiar at the start of the game, so there was no difference with 4e in this regard.

Gnome "racial powers" changed from 3e to 4e, thus he lost his cantrips and ability to speak with burrowing mammals (badgers :(), but he gained the rather nice "Fade Away" ability which I see as being a great boon to him against dangerous combatants. I was kinda liking that power.

Rolling up the character felt rather reminscint of 3e in that I went through all the same steps. Assign Ability Scores, record Saves, calculate Hit Points, pick skills, choose a feat, buy starting gear. The only difference was instead of just jotting down my starting class abilities per 3e, I picked a handful of class abilities from a list. This had a nice feel to it as I actually had to spend a minute thinking about which powers seemed to best fit the character. The trade-off is was that he lost is "Barbarian Rage", but he gained a number of abilities that seem to make him more threatening in combat. I like the idea of Cev starring down a monster with burning intensity and locking it down with [Combat Challenge]. The coolest part though, had to be choosing [Villain's Menace] as his daily power. Basically, Cev picks his target (probably the baddest, nastiest enemy on the field :D] and gains a bonus to attack and damage rolls against that target for the rest of the scene. I thought this emulated his "focused badger fury" surprisingly nicely in my mind.

To this end, Cev feels like a more potent and slightly more versatile character (in combat) than his 3e incarnation. He came out looking slightly different rules-wise both in some positive and some negative respects. The primary drawbacks that were felt was the loss of some of his less-practical-but-more-fun "color" abilities like Speak with Burrowing Mammals and Prestidigitation.

He ended up with Athletics, Endurance and Intimidate as his starting skills which, if I recall correctly, is pretty much what he started with in 3e. Thanks to his Intelligence and racial bonus, he actually has a decent Arcana skill which keeps it easy to visualize him as a Fighter/Wizard hybrid (I had put cross-class skill points into Arcana for him in 3e).

My ending impressions post-character creation was thus: The character was quick and easy to create, taking about 20 minutes are requiring very little "page referencing" aside from picking a feat, class powers and equipment. The character feels more "battle-ready" on the page in that he can actually take a few good hits and keep going and he actually has some nice, varied attack options. I didn't really care for how heavy the prerequisites seemed to be on feats now, but that's something I'll have to wrestle with a bit more.

I'd like to play the character to see if he's still the same old Cev. At this point, he looks a little different but not unrecognizable and perhaps even a little bit spiffed up. Obviously, the biggest future obstacle that I see is the loss of Milo, but taking him into multiclass Wizard seems very doable and actually potentially quite cool.

My verdict on 4e after making this character: Cautiously optimistic. The character seems like he would be as much fun as ever, but then he was primarly fun because of the concept and not necessarily the rules governing it (I wasn't wild about 3e as you may recall). So, I don't think this exercise has shown me any more value to 4e, but it hasn't scared me away either.

*Warning*- May cause thread drift :)

ithil
07-16-2008, 03:25 PM
Gnome "racial powers" changed from 3e to 4e, thus he lost his cantrips and ability to speak with burrowing mammals (badgers :()

That's a shame. Would Cev's DM allow them in exchange for a feat?

Webhead
07-16-2008, 03:51 PM
That's a shame. Would Cev's DM allow them in exchange for a feat?

The DM I orginally played Cev under probably would, but he now lives several hours away and I've not gamed with him in about 5 years. If I ever end up playing a 4e game under a new DM though, I'll probably have to ask on basic principle. We shall see.

As an aside, Cev's full name was: Cev Elind Bimtuck Pelgrin

...and Cev is pronounced with a hard "C", like Kev...;)

tesral
07-16-2008, 05:12 PM
To this end, Cev feels like a more potent and slightly more versatile character (in combat) than his 3e incarnation. He came out looking slightly different rules-wise both in some positive and some negative respects. The primary drawbacks that were felt was the loss of some of his less-practical-but-more-fun "color" abilities like Speak with Burrowing Mammals and Prestidigitation.

So all you really lost were the color and role-play aspects of the character. no big deal. Why does anyone need that?

Webhead
07-16-2008, 06:15 PM
So all you really lost were the color and role-play aspects of the cahracter...

Not really. Admittedly, a few of the little quirky rules he had, rarely used as they were, were lost (:(), but the character felt mostly like the same old Cev...just with different combat options. There was nothing on his 3e character sheet (other than his cantrips and mammal-speak) that made his statblock any more "colorful" or "role play-friendly" than his 4e character sheet. All that stuff is still in my head.

See my thread "My First 4e Character" after I've had a chance to plug his 3e character sheet in tonight to see a side-by-side comparison of what a 3e character looks like versus a 4e character. That's the crux of my experiment there. I'm hoping to learn something.

Genzodus Thoth
07-20-2008, 12:44 AM
After having read a lot of different arguments, I think that I've come up with a simple analogy. It's a matter of choice: do you like Morrowind (believe it or not, there's actually an unofficial multiplayer mod) or WoW better? Morrowind is more realistic and you can get more in depth with it. On the other hand, WoW is more friendly, and there are a lot more people to play with.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-20-2008, 01:06 AM
(I read somewhere that 303 encounters is all it takes, as per the rules)
I miss the days when it took years to get to any kind of respectible level. Things just move way to fast. 30th level in 303 encounters; where's the fun in that?

Thoth-Amon

tesral
07-20-2008, 07:34 AM
Instant messaging, instant breakfast, instant godhood. No one can savor any more.

Icthius
07-20-2008, 10:03 PM
The bad part. ALL of the characters are completely cookie cutter, with very few options at the current time for individuality. Have 5 people make fighters and you will have 5 nearly identical characters. All will have 3-5 identical powers with little variation.

You just said "they're all cookie cutter and the powers are limited" without acknowledging that 3.x fighters didn't even GET powers, and that, apart from die rolling for stats or health, there's just as much diversity for the non-spell casting classes as there was in 3.5 (feats, skills, etc.). I can't take complaints in this thread seriously because they're all so ridiculously stilted like this one; it's obvious just from reading your post that you're looking for something to complain about, you don't have actual criticisms. That's why all of your statements are nebulous, general, lacking examples and generic.

agoraderek
07-20-2008, 10:34 PM
I can't take complaints in this thread seriously because they're all so ridiculously stilted like this one; it's obvious just from reading your post that you're looking for something to complain about, you don't have actual criticisms. That's why all of your statements are nebulous, general, lacking examples and generic.

and this is where the debate breaks down on BOTH sides. dude had an OPINION. get over it.

and 3x guys, the 4e guys like the game. get over it.

and, for the record, there have been some VERY salient points made about 4e in this thread and others, that have been VERY specific, very well reasoned, and presented in a non-confrontational way (and, yes, a bunch of sour grapes as well, but thats life on the internet).

unfortunately, not many 4e fans can TAKE ANY criticism of the system without getting defensive and/or dismissive.

and quite a few 3x (or earlier) edition fans dont want to allow some like 4e.

and, for the record, there ARE more options in 3x core for fighters than there are in 4e. 4e is a somewhat stripped down, simplified, BALANCED system, and some flexibility had to be sacrificed for ease of learning, quickness of character creation, streamlining of combat and skill challenge resolutions and balance. that is one of the DRAWS OF THE GAME for newer players and old school cats who were put off by the complexity of 3x and just wanted a vehicle for a fun saturday night game they didnt have to spend a lot of time getting ready for.

Engar
07-20-2008, 11:07 PM
...it's obvious just from reading your post that you're looking for something to complain about...

Uh, you came into a thread called "what's wrong with 4e" and attacked arguments for being anti-4e.

Howdy pot! I'm kettle!

:lol:


...you don't have actual criticisms. That's why all of your statements are nebulous, general, lacking examples and generic.

Hey, you forgot creative! I rewrote a poem just for 4e. That sucker is pretty good too (If I do say so myself!).

agoraderek
07-20-2008, 11:24 PM
Hey, you forgot creative! I rewrote a poem just for 4e. That sucker is pretty good too (If I do say so myself!).

it WAS a nice poem, i must admit ;)

Tomcat1066
07-21-2008, 05:28 AM
[SNIP]there's just as much diversity for the non-spell casting classes as there was in 3.5 (feats, skills, etc.).

Sorry, but I feel the need to disagree. The feats have been stripped down big-time. Sure, a few of the feats from 3.5 have become powers in 4e, but the amount of feats open to all character classes and races are greatly reduced, as have the number of skills available. With the elimination of cross class skills, this further limits customization (yes, I know you can get cross class skills by burning a feat, but feats are to rare to actually make this useful for customization).

Now, is this indicative of 4th Edition being bad? Not really. It is indicative of it being a system I have no interest in playing. I like having my options available. Sure, fighters don't get powers in 3.5, but as a guy who's played a butt-load of fighters, I never minded. I had enough going on in a fight that I never seemed to mind. Others? Not so much as I've learned.

4th Edition isn't a perfect system, no system is. But the fanboys who defend 4th Edition against any criticism have to understand that all of this is opinion anyways. Accept it and move on. And to my 3.5 brethren, it's also opinion on our side as well. Accept it and move on ;)

Webhead
07-21-2008, 04:16 PM
...so...anyone wanna play a D&D campaign using the Wushu rules? I'll run...:D

agoraderek
07-21-2008, 07:09 PM
...so...anyone wanna play a D&D campaign using the Wushu rules? I'll run...:D

when you moving to houston again?

Webhead
07-22-2008, 02:31 PM
when you moving to houston again?

Probably not in the forseeable future, sadly. Just bought a house and just started a new job.

...But you could always move up here! :D

agoraderek
07-22-2008, 10:51 PM
Probably not in the forseeable future, sadly. Just bought a house and just started a new job.

...But you could always move up here! :D

alas, my great dallas experiment ended in january '96 when i admitted defeat and realized my ex was staying "ex".

the other barrier is my gf has a friend that lives in BED somewhere that, while the gf loves her friend, she is quite content to have her 250 miles away (the friend has enough drama in her life to be the TNT poster kid...)

[edit] oh, and 4e smells like three day old diapers...

hmmm. make that 4 day old diapers

(sorry, had to throw an "on topic" line in there ;) )

ronpyatt
07-23-2008, 12:39 AM
...so...anyone wanna play a D&D campaign using the Wushu rules? I'll run...:DThat sounds like my pint of ale!

Igbutton
07-23-2008, 02:44 AM
Webhead might have bitten off more than he can chew with that comment. With all the DFW gamers around he could have a mob pounding at his door.

tesral
07-23-2008, 07:29 AM
D&D isn't the only way to do Heroic Fantasy. It's my favorite way however.

Webhead
07-23-2008, 12:25 PM
Webhead might have bitten off more than he can chew with that comment. With all the DFW gamers around he could have a mob pounding at his door.

Hey, if they're folks interested in playing Wushu...bring it, I say! :cool:

MortonStromgal
07-23-2008, 12:40 PM
After having read a lot of different arguments, I think that I've come up with a simple analogy. It's a matter of choice: do you like Morrowind (believe it or not, there's actually an unofficial multiplayer mod) or WoW better? Morrowind is more realistic and you can get more in depth with it. On the other hand, WoW is more friendly, and there are a lot more people to play with.

I see that more as a RQ vs D&D example ;)


there isnt anything a character can be really, REALLY good at that another character of a different class can't reasonably emulate with the right "feat". now, you don't NEED a rogue, or a cleric, or...,

That argument makes me want to try 4e more. I like the idea of being able to do anything, maybe not as good as someone else but I should at leased be able to be reasonably good at something with enough training. Don't put my character in a box!

ryan973
07-24-2008, 01:39 PM
I see that more as a RQ vs D&D example ;)



That argument makes me want to try 4e more. I like the idea of being able to do anything, maybe not as good as someone else but I should at leased be able to be reasonably good at something with enough training. Don't put my character in a box!



I think that what he is tryign to point out is that all the characters in fourth are in a box. its a brown box with the corners slightly crushed and some very nice pictures ( slightly smudged) on the side.

Webhead
07-24-2008, 02:02 PM
I think that what he is tryign to point out is that all the characters in fourth are in a box. its a brown box with the corners slightly crushed and some very nice pictures ( slightly smudged) on the side.

The arguement seems to me like it could be swung both ways based on perspective. In one sense, there are "fewer" skills and characters seem to get a smaller spread of skills to start. The result could feel like a character is being more restricted in their library of skills.

On the other hand, the skills are more broad and you gain a small bonus to all skills (even the ones you're not trained in) which helps all characters get more use out of them and not feel like anything they haven't assigned max ranks to is worthless.

It's perspective. Either system has advantages and disadvantages based on what you want it to emulate. "Skill points" allow more customizability with some additional complexity but also encourages that only "skilled" users attempt most actions. "Skill training" is less tweakable, but allows characters to have at least a modest chance to use most skills effectively, even if it is not part of the character's specialty.

A mid-level Cleric in 3e with no ranks in Move Silently trying to sneak...forget about it.

A mid-level Cleric in 4e with no training in Stealth trying to sneak...the odds may not be in his favor, but there's a chance it will work.

Engar
07-24-2008, 03:34 PM
I happen to like restrictions and definitions. I like a hard line between the system and the story. I like rules and tangibles of good and evil. If I want to play in a world of gray where taking a stand on values is defined as intollerant, accountability is deemed insensitive and ideals are met with a scoff, I have life for that.

In the real world I have to put up with the assinine railings of those screaming intolerance and seeking to censor my voice when after carefully and actively listening to their argument I offer a refute. Forbid they might gain an iota of diversity or understanding lest they lose their fascist zeal. They exist on all sides of every argument and live to destroy all hope or resolution. I care little for thier ongoing victimization and self pity, it does them no good and threatens to swallow all around them. In the real world I have to listen and smile as the mental illness spreads its tendrals, in DnD I get to fireball the tendrals and slaughter the rotten monster outright to the cheers of all the townsfolk.

MortonStromgal
07-24-2008, 03:47 PM
So here is the constant problem I have had in 3.X


Say I want to play a fighter who knows magic missile or a cleric who wants to be able to disarm magical traps (why was trapfinding not a generic feat?).

In 3.X I had to give up a level to perform these feats and from what I'm hearing about 4e I just have to give up a feat. To me this is an improvement. I'm not after being the best spellcaster or trap opener. I just want a shot and 4e lets me do that with less pain.

tesral
07-24-2008, 06:16 PM
I happen to like restrictions and definitions. I like a hard line between the system and the story. I like rules and tangibles of good and evil. If I want to play in a world of gray where taking a stand on values is defined as intollerant, accountability is deemed insensitive and ideals are met with a scoff, I have life for that. .

That is more the game master and not the game system. To assume that a game you have never played in is exactly like real life is making a pretty big jump of the cliffs of conclusion. When the system makes no such claims it is rather wrongfully hanging a bag on it. One might even say intolerant.





In 3.X I had to give up a level to perform these feats and from what I'm hearing about 4e I just have to give up a feat. To me this is an improvement. I'm not after being the best spellcaster or trap opener. I just want a shot and 4e lets me do that with less pain.

And you are assuming that 3.x would not let you do this. I would be very surprised if there does not exist among the three gazillion feats that exist in 3.x and all its splat books a feat that allows exactly what you are asking for.

Speaking for myself, I have no problem allowing such a feat. Large flexible system, it is rather difficult to say "you can't do that" in 3.x. Because if you look long enough thorough the morass of materials you will generally find a way to do it. And if you have a DM like me, I don't bother looking through the morass, I simply invent one.

Valdar
07-24-2008, 06:39 PM
This got me thinking about how similar two characters of the same class really are in 4e.

In my current game, everyone's a different class except for two Paladins.

They certainly have abilities in common- Divine Challenge and Lay on Hands are class features, and all Paladins will have that. Some of their selected powers are the same as well.

Beyond that, they are quite different. One wears scale, one wears plate, and each has good reasons for their choice (AC vs. skill penalties at the lower levels, feat choices at the higher levels). One has a racial breath weapon and more healing ability from the Cleric multiclass feat. The other has a racial ability to turn invisible against a single attacker, which is a rather nasty trick when you combine it with Divine Challenge, forcing the opponent to attack a foe he can't see.

Personalities are also completely different. One is the brash, headstrong, not-too-bright champion of Bahamut in all his lawful-goodness, and the other is a stoic proponent of the Raven Queen, who knows that death is the only moral constant in the world.

Anyway, that being said, if you think that Fighters don't have enough options to distinguish them from one another in 4e, WotC apparently agrees with you, and will be rectifying this problem in a couple of months, for a mere thirty bucks :D :

Martial Power (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217897200)

Grandore The Giant Killer
07-24-2008, 07:02 PM
I just got the book and I can tell you what one of my main gripes is. The fact they changed Dice format around. I mean like let's say you're attacking. Instead of it being your number or lower it hits it is now your number or higher. That like completely cuts the likliness of anything hitting in half and as both a player and DM I find that as completely annoying. I mean let's say you have a number that's like 18 and you have to hit that number or higher. Unless you're lucky you'll next to never hit that number.

Engar
07-24-2008, 07:12 PM
That is more the game master and not the game system. To assume that a game you have never played in is exactly like real life is making a pretty big jump of the cliffs of conclusion. When the system makes no such claims it is rather wrongfully hanging a bag on it. One might even say intolerant.

Nothing exact was meant by it nor any GM's game the target. In fact it was more a brief venting than anything else. 4e does embody my criticism more than any DnD system and earns some of my scorn for it. This goes to numerous arguments based on various opinions and while convincing a few of the merits through ardent debate might have value, I prefer a nap for now.

darelf
07-25-2008, 09:02 AM
Since I can't help it, I'm new, and this probably won't be read because it's at the bottom of the heap:

I am playing in and enjoying a 4e game currently.

It is not a role-playing game. It is a wargame with what the computer gaming community calls "role-playing elements". This is not new, nor is it particularly interesting. 4e is a very well done version of this genre. It is actually a fun game.

The biggest issue, in my opinion is calling it a role-playing game. Might as well call Monopoly a role-playing game. Yes, you can role-play in Monopoly, but no one is trying to trick you into thinking that it's a role-playing game.

Another analogy:

D&D is a Ferrari. Fragile, horrible gas mileage, complicated and should not really be driven by new drivers. Being a passenger is fun as hell.

4e is the Honda Fit. Well built, great gas mileage, everything is functional and makes sense. Things fit and balance well.

Sure, they are both cars, but if you equate the two then you have missed the entire point. The response of "But we painted it RED!" just further goes to show that you don't get it.


Now. Since I stayed out of the non-complaining threads, and have never posted anything in them, much less anything negative about 4e, I expect the same courtesy.

tesral
07-25-2008, 10:00 AM
Now. Since I stayed out of the non-complaining threads, and have never posted anything in them, much less anything negative about 4e, I expect the same courtesy.

Yours is the most original viewpoint I have seen on Forry. Reinforces my own views from simply having read the system. Build your PC from a multiple choice list and fight monsters. That is what it is about.

D&D is not simple. It cannot be simple and do a good job with role-playing. Thank Ghodd it isn't a simulationist system or we would have twice the rules.

Have I mentioned I like Ferraris?

Webhead
07-25-2008, 10:34 AM
Yours is the most original viewpoint I have seen on Forry. Reinforces my own views from simply having read the system. Build your PC from a multiple choice list and fight monsters. That is what it is about.

Rules-wise, I see D&D as a chain of constant retooling to achieve this end, culminating in 3.5. Each edition seemed to become more specific and give a bigger "multiple choice list" to players to help them choose how they are going to fight monsters. The game is called Dungeons & Dragons afterall, not Minstrels & Merchants. The focus of the rules tended to revolve around breaking-and-entering and slaying that which stands between the PCs and their treasure, even if in later editions they can "talk-down" or otherwise bypass the monsters as a rules option instead of stabbing them repeatedly.

This, of course, led to its logical conclusion with 3.5 where players were buried beneath a veritable avalanche of options so that they could choose how they fight. 4e seems to me an attempt to blast away this avalance with dynamite...unfortunately, blasting an avalanche may only tend to cause more avalanches. 4e is probably ultimately doomed to repeat much of what plagued 3e, just with a different coat of paint. Then again, maybe I'm just feeling a bit cynical right now...


D&D is not simple. It cannot be simple and do a good job with role-playing. Thank Ghodd it isn't a simulationist system or we would have twice the rules.

I actually tend to feel (perhaps erroneously) that the simpler the game system, the better the flow and intensity of role playing as the players have less of a rules "crutch" to lean on when they're not feeling creative (aka when they're being lazy). That's all just part perspective, part wishful thinking and part frustration at snapping people out of the "gamist" entrapment that 3e fell into. But then, I suppose that's why it's a role playing game. Part "role play", part "game" and the players decide which they value more or if they favor a balance of the two.

My brain hurts and I have no clue if there was any kind of "point" that I was attempting to make with my comments above. Forgive my free-association posting.


Have I mentioned I like Ferraris?

Side note (non-metaphorical :)): I always regarded Ferraris as "Ooh, pretty...but atrociously impractical". Nice to look at, but you would never catch me owning one even if I had the money. Some things serve no other purpose than for boasting rights...and I find that concept generally distasteful.

MortonStromgal
07-25-2008, 10:42 AM
Personally I would have said D&D (any edition) is a Ford. Different editions are different year/model Fords but still Fords. I don't agree that 4e is any less an RPG than any other edition of D&D (if that is what you were implying) but different strokes.

darelf
07-25-2008, 12:22 PM
Personally I would have said D&D (any edition) is a Ford. Different editions are different year/model Fords but still Fords. I don't agree that 4e is any less an RPG than any other edition of D&D (if that is what you were implying) but different strokes.

Indeed different strokes.

I will emphasize again that I am currently enjoying playing in a 4e game.

However, I wasn't implying that it isn't a role-playing game. I was saying that it isn't a role-playing game. It is a game, certainly. Can you role-play while playing this game? Certainly. I also enjoy playing the role of a soldier when I'm playing Call of Duty 4. But they don't claim that it is a role-playing game, thus insulting me.

EDIT:
The above is meant to be a little more lighthearted than it comes out in print.

gdmcbride
07-25-2008, 12:40 PM
D&D 4th edition is most definitely a roleplaying game. You make up a character. You play that role.

My first session of my new 4th edition campaign involved no combat what so ever. It was purely diplomacy and roleplaying. The system supported that fine. In fact, skill challenges provided a nice framework for running tangled diplomatic negotiations.

I had a large miniatures setup ready to go but we never used it. Next session!

Gary

fmitchell
07-25-2008, 12:50 PM
However, I wasn't implying that it isn't a role-playing game. I was saying that it isn't a role-playing game. It is a game, certainly. Can you role-play while playing this game? Certainly. I also enjoy playing the role of a soldier when I'm playing Call of Duty 4. But they don't claim that it is a role-playing game, thus insulting me.

EDIT:
The above is meant to be a little more lighthearted than it comes out in print.

I can almost see this. We ran the first session of a 4e campaign, and except for a couple of skill challenges and miscellaneous skill rolls, we hardly touched the mechanics at all. Actually, the DM gave our diplomat die roll bonuses for roleplaying so well, and occasionally gave him automatic successes, so theoretically we could have avoided dice altogether.

Then again, we haven't assaulted the orc mines yet. (A mine full of orcs, not a mine where they dig up orcs for trade.) Next session, we'll probably get into the At-Will Attack, move one square, healing surge mischegoss. Maybe between "encounters" we can do some roleplaying again. That was fun.

Webhead
07-25-2008, 01:30 PM
I can almost see this. We ran the first session of a 4e campaign, and except for a couple of skill challenges and miscellaneous skill rolls, we hardly touched the mechanics at all. Actually, the DM gave our diplomat die roll bonuses for roleplaying so well, and occasionally gave him automatic successes, so theoretically we could have avoided dice altogether.

Aye, plug the rules in where they seem to be wanted and ad hoc the rest. I like the "you role played so well I'm giving you a bonus" style of play. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm so fond of Wushu...

ryan973
07-25-2008, 01:36 PM
I have to agree with him. 4th is by no means in my opinion a role playing game. It just does not seem to be made for that.

In fact its almost as if the whole system was desighned so it would be compatible with a turn based computer program that woudl allow people to play it as an mmorpg. I wonde rif they have any plans for anything like that.

Oh well, all i can say is i am glad i have a great group of players and freands who like to play a real role playign game, and i am sad that for some people out there, there first experiance in D&D is going to be the board game that is fourth.

Now if you will excuse me i am going to create a thread called "whats great about fourth" then go on there after people start postign and tell them all how terrible it is. Oh wait thats not allowed is it?

MortonStromgal
07-25-2008, 01:49 PM
I was saying that it isn't a role-playing game.

lighthearted conversation accepted :cool:

Do you consider any edition of D&D a role-playing game? That is really my question. I feel that all editions are about the same in that regard. Not that you can't have a super awesome role-playing experience in any edition, just that compared to todays RPGs its lacking in the RP department.

Webhead
07-25-2008, 02:00 PM
I have to agree with him. 4th is by no means in my opinion a role playing game. It just does not seem to be made for that.

In fact its almost as if the whole system was desighned so it would be compatible with a turn based computer program that woudl allow people to play it as an mmorpg. I wonde rif they have any plans for anything like that.

Oh well, all i can say is i am glad i have a great group of players and freands who like to play a real role playign game, and i am sad that for some people out there, there first experiance in D&D is going to be the board game that is fourth.

Now if you will excuse me i am going to create a thread called "whats great about fourth" then go on there after people start postign and tell them all how terrible it is. Oh wait thats not allowed is it?

I ended up feeling the same way about 3.X in the end. Felt like it wasn't the same game I enjoyed from my earlier years, felt sorry for the folks whose definition of D&D would be anchored in the 3.X "rules-fest" and felt relieved that at least I have a good group of players who love to role play.

3.X isn't my D&D any more than 4e is. At this point, I'm ready to seek greener pastures for my own GMing purposes...but I'll play any edition if it's what my group wants to play. I don't worry about it too much. I'll focus on the role play if I don't like the rules. Gotta get your kicks somehow. It's kind of like gamer survival-instinct. The game must go on... :)

darelf
07-25-2008, 02:13 PM
lighthearted conversation accepted :cool:

Do you consider any edition of D&D a role-playing game? That is really my question. I feel that all editions are about the same in that regard. Not that you can't have a super awesome role-playing experience in any edition, just that compared to todays RPGs its lacking in the RP department.

In all honesty, I really enjoyed Red Box/Blue Box.

But yeah, compared to modern RPGs... meh. I think the mechanics could be lighter, or less intrusive. Of course, I find the Imagine RPG to be pretty sweet, and that makes absolutely no sense from all my other preferences. (Since I'm a big Unisystem fan)

Farcaster
07-25-2008, 02:24 PM
I have to agree with him. 4th is by no means in my opinion a role playing game. It just does not seem to be made for that.

I'm not sure what that opinion is exactly based on, but I'd have to differ with you on this. I think this has more to do with how the DM runs creates his game and the players he has.


Now if you will excuse me i am going to create a thread called "whats great about fourth" then go on there after people start postign and tell them all how terrible it is. Oh wait thats not allowed is it?

What isn't allowed is going on threads that have nothing to do with 4th edition impressions and hijacking them with anti-4e rants. I'm sorry, but if I start a topic about, say, house rules for 4e, I don't need to hear for the umpteenth time how soandso hates 4e and thinks WotC is the devil. However, if the thread topic is about your impressions or thoughts on 4th edition, then have at it. This is about keeping threads on topic, not censorship.

fmitchell
07-25-2008, 02:42 PM
But yeah, compared to modern RPGs... meh. I think the mechanics could be lighter, or less intrusive. Of course, I find the Imagine RPG to be pretty sweet, and that makes absolutely no sense from all my other preferences. (Since I'm a big Unisystem fan)

I'm a huge FATE fan, and a lesser fan of BRP and PDQ, so I know what you're saying.

Really, every version of D&D I know of has had this problem to some extent. Pre-3.x D&D defined classes in terms of combat ability, spells, and in the case of Thieves the ability to do thief-y sorts of things (find traps, pickpocket, lurk, etc.). 3.x tried to introduce advances in skill-based systems, but ended up with something cumbersome and still divorced from "combat rules". 4e simplified the skill system to a shadow of what it was, which is good if you're running rules-lite but bad if you're doing anything but "adventuring" ... plus the introduction of Powers as the prime way of making your character cool (again, solely in combat or "adventuring").

The brilliance of a skill system is that you can easily adapt it to other genres. In the D&D campaign I mentioned above, we're all commoners who have suddenly been elevated to the ruling family of a *really* screwed up duchy; not only do we have to hunt monsters, we have to repair roads, restart the economy, manage the treasury, handle a backlog of legal complaints, find men-at-arms or knights to keep our borders secure, restore public confidence, *and* negotiate the shark-infested waters of feudal politics (especially our neighboring Duke who clearly wants to annex our lands). Diplomacy sort of plays into that, and my character relies on Intimidate too much, but how do History, Nature, Dungeoneering, Arcana, and the rest even apply? Roleplaying everything out is neat, but in BRP you can abstract out a lot of stuff with new skills like Accounting, Engineering (Public Works), Law, and Etiquette (Nobility) ... although the last might be from GURPS.

Plus, in a skill system, the "combat" rules are merely a special case of the skill rules; how special depends on the system. BRP, Unisystem, GURPS, Traveller, and most of the rest have special techniques for health and damage, plus more complicated bonuses/penalties for combat conditions, but otherwise regard hitting someone just another skill. FATE has "stunts" for combat, but also for noncombat abilities like Investigation, Piloting, and Academics. HeroQuest explicitly uses the exact same mechanics for a climactic swordfight, an ascent up a treacherous mountain, and the courting of a fair maiden.

So, from my view, "what's wrong with 4e" isn't too far from "what's wrong with any D&D version"

darelf
07-25-2008, 03:09 PM
I'm a huge FATE fan, and a lesser fan of BRP and PDQ, so I know what you're saying.

Greatest game session of all time happened with FATE.

We had nothing to do. No one had ever played FATE ( or any FUDGE-based game ) before. So, I explained it in 30 seconds, and then we went around the group asking what kind of character they wanted, no limitations.

We ended up with a 40's era gangster/hit man, a SWAT officer, a green arrow type archer, and a computer hacker. They worked for a cyberpunk yakuza type organization against a drug running jamaican gang. They ended up fighting bio-engineered zombies on a small space station.

It is a classic in the annals of our game group.

MortonStromgal
07-25-2008, 04:12 PM
In all honesty, I really enjoyed Red Box/Blue Box.

But yeah, compared to modern RPGs... meh. I think the mechanics could be lighter, or less intrusive. Of course, I find the Imagine RPG to be pretty sweet, and that makes absolutely no sense from all my other preferences. (Since I'm a big Unisystem fan)

D&D seams like it is about 10 years behind the RPG curve when it comes to rules and I'm not counting indie game X,Y,Z as part of the curve either just the other big boys. 4e When compared to what was on the market in 98' holds its own I think. 98 (from what I remember) was a lot of ok we've done all these wild ideas about diceless and larping now lets get back to the table top and make these games more balanced. 98 was the era of Vampire Revised and Shadowrun 3rd IIRC. D&D at its basics is table top war gaming. At leased thats my humble opinion. So on that logic in 2015 D&D might start adding some of the cool elements from Unisystem and others ;)

ryan973
07-25-2008, 04:26 PM
Sorry Farcaster, not so much a shot at moderators as soem posters who flame at those with a negative opinion on fourth.

I was actually starting to get over the hole thing. I was hoepful that tiem would validate my claim and show that fourth really was a lesser game. I was happy top sit back and wait, that is until i read more stuff coming out of Fourgotten Realms.
That went a long way to making me fetch a broom and yell

SHINNANIGANNS!
:violin:

Engar
07-25-2008, 04:47 PM
4e simplified the skill system to a shadow of what it was, which is good if you're running rules-lite but bad if you're doing anything but "adventuring" ... plus the introduction of Powers as the prime way of making your character cool (again, solely in combat or "adventuring").

That struck home. I think a big part of my problem with 4e and even 3.x is that the focus of interest on a character became what that character can do in a fight rather than what role they sought in their world.

In 2e kits and non-proficiencies had very little to do with combat advantage. I really enjoyed playing and running a game where the characters were as complete and meaningful with or without a sword or a spell.


So, from my view, "what's wrong with 4e" isn't too far from "what's wrong with any D&D version"

I would have liked if 4e moved to be more skill based.

tesral
07-26-2008, 02:21 AM
I'm a big fan of skills. I extetended the skills system even. More skills to do more things. And more skill points to do them with. My main complaint is that 3.x gives you too few skill points.

agoraderek
07-26-2008, 02:27 AM
I'm a big fan of skills. I extetended the skills system even. More skills to do more things. And more skill points to do them with. My main complaint is that 3.x gives you too few skill points.

i got rid of cross class skill penalties and gave half again points to each class. seemed to help a bit, plus it allowed players to be less apprehensive about taking craft or profession skills...

tesral
07-26-2008, 02:31 AM
i got rid of cross class skill penalties and gave half again points to each class. seemed to help a bit, plus it allowed players to be less apprehensive about taking craft or profession skills...

Likewise, but I game all classes the same skill points. I want people to explore the skills. You can still only have level +3. You have 5 +int bonus skills per level and no cross class.

agoraderek
07-26-2008, 02:34 AM
Likewise, but I game all classes the same skill points. I want people to explore the skills. You can still only have level +3. You have 5 +int bonus skills per level and no cross class.

i'd love to be a fighter in that system, not so much a rogue, to be honest. unless you've consolidated some of the "thiefly arts", that is.

tesral
07-26-2008, 02:35 AM
i'd love to be a fighter in that system, not so much a rogue, to be honest. unless you've consolidated some of the "thiefly arts", that is.

Have the thiefly arts are returned to class features and have a seperate point alocation.

I do the skills chapter next.

agoraderek
07-26-2008, 02:38 AM
Have the thiefly arts are returned to class features and have a seperate point alocation.

I do the skills chapter next.

in that case, i can get behind that. will you be posting which features were folded back into the rogue class?

my interest mostly lies in rogues being my favorite class to play...

tesral
07-26-2008, 02:39 AM
in that case, i can get behind that. will you be posting which features were folded back into the rogue class?

When I get around to classes.

agoraderek
07-26-2008, 02:39 AM
When I get around to classes.

excellent. :biggrin:

tesral
07-26-2008, 02:42 AM
excellent. :biggrin:

Back to pounding Forry's lameness.

agoraderek
07-26-2008, 02:46 AM
Back to pounding Forry's lameness.

yeah, too much talking about good games!

..and ANOTHER thing i don't like about 4e is all that crazy FRCS weirdness. its like a blueprint for the "nuke your campaign, we don't need any 'pre-08' shenannigans in a 4e game..."

Engar
07-26-2008, 01:38 PM
I grew up reading books, running around outside with friends playing guns or cowboys and indians or robots or tubing down the creek or any number of things that did not involve video games or even television. We still had 13 channels and a rotary dial on our TV, my brother had pong and I had atari and when I was about twelve I got a nintendo.

My nephew about a decade younger than me had a much different childhood. He played video games from the time he could walk, he might have still had a 13 channel dial, but the cable box gave him an extra fifty channels. It was not yet a hard shift and he still read and played outside.

Now consider kids a decade younger than him...

fmitchell
07-26-2008, 02:14 PM
I grew up reading books, running around outside with friends playing guns or cowboys and indians or robots or tubing down the creek or any number of things that did not involve video games or even television. We still had 13 channels and a rotary dial on our TV, my brother had pong and I had atari and when I was about twelve I got a nintendo.

My nephew about a decade younger than me had a much different childhood. He played video games from the time he could walk, he might have still had a 13 channel dial, but the cable box gave him an extra fifty channels. It was not yet a hard shift and he still read and played outside.

Now consider kids a decade younger than him...

While I had a more isolated childhood -- lots of books, a little too much TV, and only sporadic contact with other kids -- I can sympathize. When I was growing up the Commodore and TRS-80 were the height of home computing, but I never owned a computer until my second year of college when my father finally sprang for an Apple //e. The few video games I played as a teenager required quarters, and ended quickly because of my pathetic reflexes.

Now, I work with 20-somethings and a few 30-somethings who grew up with video game consoles, always have the latest DVD/Blu-Ray/Playstation/Home Theater setup, and seem to spend most of their free time playing WoW or web surfing. (Granted, I also succumb to the siren song of the Web most nights.) A good friend *has* books in his apartment, but complains he never has time to read them. (Again, a complaint I often make.)

So yes, I can see that WotC did their market research: a bunch of potential new players who only know Tolkien from the movies (if that), never read any fantasy literature but media tie-ins, play video games to relax, and presumably might be stunned that you can adventure in a fantasy realm WITHOUT A COMPUTER (OMG LOL), just by using your IMAGINATION (WTF)!

Kurt Vonnegut once lamented that my generation had "prosthetic imaginations": movies and TV beam images directly into our eyes without us ever having to think. I wonder what he thought of the current crop, who can never encounter even fantasies that have some connection to reality.

Ah, well, enough of lamenting the young whippersnappers who can no longer memorize epics, wouldn't know which end of a spatha was which, and never tilled His Grace's fields in their lazy lives.

Grandore The Giant Killer
07-27-2008, 10:35 AM
To be honest I got into playing D&D because of the fact that card games are too dang expensive and full of crap these days. I was a Yugioh player and believe me when I say that was the biggest waste of money ever! You never could run whatever you wanted, And basically everyone ran the same crap. No creativity involved, just a bunch of poopie pants degenerate bandwagon jumpers. And individual cards? Some of them were as expensive as 50 dollars a piece. And then there is the fact that the Gaming company will turn around and ban cards so that is more money down the drain. It's just an endless cycle of money being thrown away. D&D Is a game of creativity and everyone in the group has a unique playing style. Like you might have the cautious careful player, the no fear risk taker, and the player out to screw all the other players over in the same group. Sure there might be some luck involved with dice but it's not like card games where anyone can defeat anyone simply because they draw a crappy hand.

So then came a close friend of mine who introduced me to D&D and I was addicted since day 1. D&D is basically the reason I gave up card games. I mean all you need is paper, pencils/pens, a set of dice, and some munchies and drinks for the gang. And then you can get really creative like one of my DMs. You know those colorful marbles you put down at the bottom of fish tanks? Well on special occasions he'll hide those throughout his whole entire house and set us players out to go look for them because they are gems. Like the small clear are Ople, Large clear are Diamond, Green are Emeralds, Black are Onyx, white are Bone, Orange are Ambers, Red are Ruby, Dark Blue are Sapphires... And then in the same section you purchase them you see the square ice cube looking ones. Well he uses those as shards you can install into your weapons. But if anyone tries this you'll have to hide them good. And then to really make things interesting he puts tape around it and colors the thing with a marker. And then you can set up "booby Traps" for your players during the gem hunt. Like if you throw in a differnet Gem and say it's a cursed gem or shard then that can affect the player's character in the game.

tesral
07-27-2008, 10:54 AM
Well on special occasions he'll hide those throughout his whole entire house and set us players out to go look for them because they are gems.

Interesting, but a bit in the enegrtic side for us old folks.

Engar
07-27-2008, 03:13 PM
Well on special occasions he'll hide those throughout his whole entire house and set us players out to go look for them because they are gems.

You guys would love a well run LARP (if that is not an oxymoron).

Webhead
07-28-2008, 10:44 AM
You guys would love a well run LARP (if that is not an oxymoron).

It's not necessarily an oxymoron...a friend of mine ran a very good LARP several years ago. The problem is that the "good" LARPs are usually very short-lived, collapsing under the combined weight of the egos of many self-righteous players. ;)

MortonStromgal
08-01-2008, 06:40 PM
Whats wrong with 4e now? let me tell you my big let down.

The loss of Necromancer Games Tome of Horrors...
I bought into 4e because Necromancer said their would be a tome of horrors for it. Without it I have 0 interesting in running 4e or buying any new books. I'll still play but no PHB 2 for me.


sorry I'm ranting today, stupid WOTC!!!!

Engar
08-01-2008, 07:38 PM
I have no plans to buy another PHB either way. The very idea that they will call several additional books "core" is bs and I am calling it.

agoraderek
08-01-2008, 10:07 PM
I have no plans to buy another PHB either way. The very idea that they will call several additional books "core" is bs and I am calling it.

but, but, but...they'll introduce druids! and gnomes fully fleshed out! (wait, all of my previous edition player's handbooks do that without a second book...)

tesral
08-01-2008, 10:20 PM
but, but, but...they'll introduce druids! and gnomes fully fleshed out! (wait, all of my previous edition player's handbooks do that without a second book...)

What is the song from Cabernet? "Money money money money. Money makes the world go round!, the world go round, the wourld go round."

You unamerican you. Open your wallet and buy! Uncle Goldner needs a third Lexus.

Yea, comming across all cynical right now. I'll get over it. Long day.

agoraderek
08-01-2008, 10:26 PM
but i AM buying...from PAIZO!!!

how very american of me, voting with my wallet ;)

and, dude, never worry about being cynical with me, i use the ambrose bierce definition :D

tesral
08-01-2008, 10:38 PM
I will be too. Even if I never adopt the Paizo system as written.

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision." -- The Devil's Dictionary.

Yes, nothing gets you hated faster than the unforgivable crime of pointing out the facts.

agoraderek
08-01-2008, 10:42 PM
i just got the first module and "chronicles" installment of the pathfinder subscriptions i ordered. good stuff, on par with the quality i expect from them.

the devil's dictionary was so far ahead of its time, good stuff...

Webhead
08-02-2008, 01:03 AM
but, but, but...they'll introduce druids! and gnomes fully fleshed out! (wait, all of my previous edition player's handbooks do that without a second book...)

Older editions are somewhat guilty too. Maybe not on the same immediate level as 4e (shame on WotC), but still. New books to push new races, new classes, new prestige classes, new spells, new equipment, new feats (oh God, the feats...:rolleyes:)...that's the very driving force behind the "new" D&D (3e and later). At least with 2nd edition, most of the books were made up of "fluff" material and not extra rules. Bad WotC...*swats with newspaper*

tesral
08-02-2008, 02:00 AM
At least one could say with 3e "Core, ask about anything else." Not you not only have to say "core" but "which core" as many books are getting labeled "Core"

And feats? You need a feat to remember the feats.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-02-2008, 02:46 AM
Whats wrong with 4e now? let me tell you my big let down.

The loss of Necromancer Games Tome of Horrors...
I bought into 4e because Necromancer said their would be a tome of horrors for it. Without it I have 0 interesting in running 4e or buying any new books. I'll still play but no PHB 2 for me.


sorry I'm ranting today, stupid WOTC!!!!
What's this? When did this change? I was looking forward to another edition of Tomb of Horrors. This news sucks! I love Tomb of Horrors.

Thoth-Amon

Webhead
08-02-2008, 12:06 PM
At least one could say with 3e "Core, ask about anything else." Not you not only have to say "core" but "which core" as many books are getting labeled "Core"

And feats? You need a feat to remember the feats.

True. I prefer it when the entirety of the "core" of a game is contained in one book. If it's not in that book, it's "optional" and may or may not exists at the GM's whim.

fmitchell
08-02-2008, 02:30 PM
True. I prefer it when the entirety of the "core" of a game is contained in one book. If it's not in that book, it's "optional" and may or may not exists at the GM's whim.

With the exception of D&D and nWOD, I can't think of an RPG that can't fit entirely into one "core" book. Quite a number fit their crunch into half a book or less, leaving the rest for atmosphere, scenario ideas, GM tips, and other "fluff".

Heck, even GURPS Fourth Edition with its sprawling advantage, disadvantage, and skill lists, plus combat rules for almost every situation and taste, fits into, well, two books. Its supplements may add a little crunch, but the genre-specific books are mostly fluff. Granted, Powers does add extra ads/disads/modifiers, Martial Arts adds even more plus extra combat rules, Thaumatology will introduce new magic systems, and the *-Tech books are catalogs of equipment with point costs for cyber-/bio-enhancements ... but arguably even those are applications/elaborations of the core, not entirely new "classes" and "feats".

tesral
08-02-2008, 03:04 PM
With the exception of D&D and nWOD, I can't think of an RPG that can't fit entirely into one "core" book. Quite a number fit their crunch into half a book or less, leaving the rest for atmosphere, scenario ideas, GM tips, and other "fluff".


Hero took a BIG BOOK, but it fits.

darelf
08-02-2008, 08:47 PM
On the fit-in-one-book theme...

IMVHMO, the actual rules should fit in a fairly small book. Take Unisystem. The actual Unisystem rules, even if you take all of the skills, magic, etc. would fit in a pretty thin book. Or any ORE game (my favorite being Nemesis), can basically fit in a few pages. It's the fluff that makes the game interesting.

I want to pay for fluff, not for rules. I can always substitute rules. I never minded paying for lots of Monster Manuals with D&D. That's more fluff to use in my game. Or "kits" from 2e. I love all the books for Exalted, because they are all new fluff based on the existing rules. (Ok, technically, Exalted broke its 2nd edition up into separate rule books... but if you are just playing Solars, you only need the main book )

I don't mind a book of spells, or lists of equipment, or new ways to use skills. All of these things are great. I'm paying for actual content. The hard stuff. Rules are easy. And they shouldn't change over the course of several books.

This is something that bugs me even about Unisystem. I'd love to have Beyond Human to gather all the rules together in one place, but I'm beginning to think that is vapor ware at this point.

agoraderek
08-03-2008, 01:25 AM
What's this? When did this change? I was looking forward to another edition of Tomb of Horrors. This news sucks! I love Tomb of Horrors.

Thoth-Amon


Tome of Horrors (1e monster compendum rewritten for 3.x rules), not Tomb of Horrors (1e dungeon of tpk deliciousness)...

Webhead
08-03-2008, 09:27 PM
...I'd love to have Beyond Human to gather all the rules together in one place, but I'm beginning to think that is vapor ware at this point.

I agree and am very sad at my perception of the book's progress. I have been waiting for Eden Studios to announce some kind of update on the status of Beyond Human for years. If this trend is at all akin to other projects that I've pursued with the same zeal, Beyond Human will never see the light of day...which is really, really unfortunate. I would buy that book in a heartbeat if they ever actually released it.

I've been waiting for an awesome-looking Star Wars fan film to be released for 7 years now. All we have to show for it is production shots, 3 trailers and an interview...all being at least 4 years old. :Cry:

tesral
08-03-2008, 09:33 PM
Beyond Human will never see the light of day...which is really, really unfortunate. I would buy that book in a heartbeat if they ever actually released it.

I've been waiting for an awesome-looking Star Wars fan film to be released for 7 years now. All we have to show for it is production shots, 3 trailers and an interview...all being at least 4 years old. :Cry:

The joys of vaporwares. Doing stuff on no budget and all that jazz.

It's an industry that takes money.

InfoStorm
08-08-2008, 09:55 AM
I saw a portion of one of their expansions, the Arcane blade, as posted by another forum member, and they already have classes severely out of balance in the expansions. Example:


* Blueflame Blade (standard; at-will; Arcane, Fire, Melee )
+8 vs. AC; 1d8+5 fire damage ( 3 dmg to all enemies adjacent to target)
* Lightning Lure (standard; at-will; Arcane, Lightning, Ranged)
+5 vs. Fort; Ranged 3; 1d6+5 lightning damage and I pull the target next to me.

Blueflame blade: an At-will power, Immediately makes the fighter's Cleave at-will power seem useless. Cleave does damage to a single adjacent target, and Blueflame Blade can do damage to 7 or more adjacent targets. IMBALANCE.

Lightnine Lure: an At will power, Can move the target up to 2 squares. Fighter require an encounter level ability to move targets (as well as most other core classes if I remember correctly). IMBALANCE.

Ok, I admit that I haven't seen more, but if at-will powers are this out of balance, either I hope it will be changed before final release or it makes me glad I'm sticking to 3e. I thought balance was the primary goal of 4e.

Farcaster
08-08-2008, 10:41 AM
Blueflame blade: an At-will power, Immediately makes the fighter's Cleave at-will power seem useless.

I believe the abilities you are referencing are from the Swordmage. The swordmage is a mix of a fighter (defender) and mage (controller). It makes sense that some of his abilities are going to be along the lines of a controller -- and thus able to better deal with mass amounts of minions. The fact is that the swordmage is neither as good of a fighter (doesn't do as much damage to a single target, only wears leather) or as good of a mage (doesn't have much in the way of range to control masses). So, based only one what little I've seen of this class, there's no way I could judge it to be imbalanced at this point.

Valdar
08-08-2008, 01:11 PM
Blueflame blade: an At-will power, Immediately makes the fighter's Cleave at-will power seem useless. Cleave does damage to a single adjacent target, and Blueflame Blade can do damage to 7 or more adjacent targets. IMBALANCE.

Cleave doesn't require a to-hit roll. And as Farcaster mentioned, the Swordmage is supposed to be a hybrid controller, and the Fighter is more of a hybrid striker (heck, fighters typically out-damage Warlocks). So comparing the Swordmage's area damage to the Fighter's is like comparing the Cleric's healing ability to the Fighter's Second Wind... Lastly, if a Swordmage had "seven or more adjacent targets", as you claim, that swordmage would be a bloody pulp on said adjacent targets' next turn. In my experience with 4e so far, controller types rarely get more than two, and never get more than three, targets in their area effect, because of the general chaos of combat.



Fighter require an encounter level ability to move targets


Tide of Iron is a Fighter at-will power that moves targets.

Engar
08-08-2008, 05:21 PM
Lame names for each power aside... I have all expectations that 4e I will absolutely beyond a doubt be a race to the outlandish. Books will each be more potent than the last. That is also the WoW model. Obsolete the old to maniacally force purchase of the new. Video games on paper. Woot! pwnd!

Maelstrom
08-09-2008, 04:47 AM
The fact is that the swordmage is neither as good of a fighter (doesn't do as much damage to a single target, only wears leather) or as good of a mage (doesn't have much in the way of range to control masses).

I'm a bit worried about this class. We've got a player using it, and it definitely toys with unbalance. Compared to a fighter, they do have better AC (with a decent dex or int), better marking abilities (they can teleport next to any marked dude when they make an attack to get the opportunity attack? Eesh. And the marking ability isn't ranged and lasts until the next mark...), and all the controller-related abilties that don't seem to come at the loss of its Defender abilities. Hopefully the class gets nerfed a bit before starting a new arms race.

Inquisitor Tremayne
08-09-2008, 05:27 AM
Lame names for each power aside... I have all expectations that 4e I will absolutely beyond a doubt be a race to the outlandish. Books will each be more potent than the last. That is also the WoW model. Obsolete the old to maniacally force purchase of the new. Video games on paper. Woot! pwnd!

And 3.5 didn't do this with the many Complete This and That books among other things? If your speculation comes true then all WotC has done is followed their same marketing model, which I would expect them to do anyway.

Engar
08-09-2008, 01:40 PM
And 3.5 didn't do this with the many Complete This and That books among other things? If your speculation comes true then all WotC has done is followed their same marketing model, which I would expect them to do anyway.

Agreed, although to give them some credit third parties did much worse to 3.x than WotC. Either way, I do not have to like it.

Inquisitor Tremayne
08-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Agreed, although to give them some credit third parties did much worse to 3.x than WotC. Either way, I do not have to like it.

Right. I just wanted to point out that a lot of this dislike of 4e seems misplaced. In the sense that with the release of 4e, 3.5 has now become something of the holy grail of D&D and there are those that defend it tooth and nail. Most of all the complaints I have heard about 4e can be applied to 3.5.

Hence why my sig now says that I am tired of 4e conversations, it is simply rehashing old arguments or talking in circles.

Some people like some games others like other games. Lets move on and focus on the games we like instead of berating each other over why we like edition x versus edition y.

tesral
08-09-2008, 03:30 PM
A lot of my dislike of Forry comes down to "Oh ghodd, here we go again."

-- The Perfect System for D&D, again.
-- Absolutely Balanced, again
-- The glut of books, not yet but give them time.
-- The slowly escalating power, already again.

It's 3.x all over. Ten years down the road it will be five. It will be the Perfect System, religiously balanced, etc, ad nauseum. Provided that Lizards doesn't finally kill the Goose. T$R came damn close.

It is rather like the Coyote at the end of his ride in the indestructible steel ball, he opens it just long enough to see it was happening, again. I, and my wallet, want off the the ride.

Add the incompatibility issues and it's a killer.

Engar
08-09-2008, 03:57 PM
Hence why my sig now says that I am tired of 4e conversations, it is simply rehashing old arguments or talking in circles.

LOL, I think you forgot what thread this is...

Inquisitor Tremayne
08-09-2008, 03:59 PM
LOL, I think you forgot what thread this is...

Indeed. My apologies.

Engar
08-10-2008, 01:29 PM
4e is turn based strategy. DnD is roleplay. Many love them both, but make a distinction. WotC is not so discerning and mislabels the former as the latter.

ronpyatt
08-10-2008, 05:31 PM
4e is turn based strategy. DnD is roleplay. Many love them both, but make a distinction. WotC is not so discerning and mislabels the former as the latter.
That is exactly how I felt about 3.x, as I preferred a real roleplaying game, which I felt prev-4 was not. It was a hack-n-slash numbers-crunching munchkin-growing marvel. I had to look beyond the system to find the roleplaying aspect in the previous D&D games. We (my gaming group) roleplay 4e and love the story we create. We Roll-played 3.x far to much by comparison. So, I'm not seeing the mislabels.
Perhaps it is all in how we approach the game. I'll ask my gaming group.

agoraderek
08-10-2008, 08:08 PM
That is exactly how I felt about 3.x, as I preferred a real roleplaying game, which I felt prev-4 was not. It was a hack-n-slash numbers-crunching munchkin-growing marvel. I had to look beyond the system to find the roleplaying aspect in the previous D&D games. We (my gaming group) roleplay 4e and love the story we create. We Roll-played 3.x far to much by comparison. So, I'm not seeing the mislabels.
Perhaps it is all in how we approach the game. I'll ask my gaming group.

like someone said in another thread a while back, you can roleplay the game "sorry" if you wanted to. game mechanics don't encourage OR discourage roleplaying. every edition of d&d has been a combat game with roleplaying overlain. (so, to counter your argument, if your group is doing more "roleplaying" than "rollplaying" in 4e than 3x, i'd think that maybe your group has just gotten a bit older and has changed focus a bit from what they want in a game, as neither edition has a whits difference in "roleplayability"...)

i don't get the "4e isn't a roleplaying game" arguments, either. i prefer older editions to 4e specifically for the mechanical reasons people who prefer 4e don't like them, vancian magic being the first example...

but, yeah, the "it isn't a roleplaying game" argument is kinda silly...

darelf
08-11-2008, 09:07 AM
There's no doubt I'm silly. I plead no contest to that charge.

But mechanics do encourage role-playing. (or discourage it) Yes, you can role-play in any game. That's sort of the point. Meaning, just because a game can have role-playing forced onto by the players doesn't make it a role-playing game.

Yes, D&D has always been light on the RP encouragement, but earlier editions were certainly better at this than latter ones.

Games, IM extremely HO, that have rules that encourage role-playing would be FATE, AFMBE, GURPS, Exalted, and JadeClaw. (That's not an exhaustive list) These games ( and really, the game-systems ) have rules that specifically encourage role-playing with game mechanical benefits. Bonuses for good descriptions, or character flaws/traits, etc. Things that add to the role-playing aspect of the game.

Whether you think a game *ought* to have these explicitly in the rules is a matter of opinion, I suppose. But when you lack even basic RP rules in a game, it ceases ( again IMHO ) to be a role-playing game in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

Note: It can still be a fun game to play! Lot's of people (including myself) are extremely enthusiastic about games such as *Clix and 40k. No one pretends that these are role-playing games, but they have a lot of the elements of RPGs, and are a hell of a lot of fun.

Engar
08-11-2008, 06:08 PM
That is exactly how I felt about 3.x

Me too. I learned to accept it, but my favorite remains 2e.


game mechanics don't encourage OR discourage roleplaying...

Some systems have drastically different foci.


There's no doubt I'm silly.

Me too. I do not know all the listed systems, but... What he said.

Engar
08-23-2008, 01:11 PM
:rant::amen::becky::target::painkiller::eyebrows:: evil::boom::ballchain::tape:

4e definitely focuses on combat and character power above all else (perhaps even to the exclusion of all else). All classes have archtype roles (actually defined as "striker", "defender", "controller", etc., but they are otherwise very similar in structure (all start with the same "cutout" then add from column A and B to differentiate).

4e does require characters to cooperate, but I see the motivation as mostly expedience and not any true comraderie (which would require roleplay). Many compare 4e to MMOs and I see the cold merits to the argument. Players are encouraged to work together to get ahead, not to develop a meaningful background or interesting motivation for pursuing a goal. The system breaks all aspects of the game into "encounters", small segments which run like a miniature combat involving positioning and die rolls even for diplomacy or dealing with traps. Of course the most likely "encounter" is combat and the inclusion of diplomacy or traps is just to mix it up a little or posibly offer weak justification for redefining roleplay as miniature combat.

The books do espouse roleplaying, kind of like a politician who promises change but when asked for a plan to implement it simply restates the rhetoric (that is not a specific dig, they all do this to varying degree). Short of very simplified skill lists (with description how to use these red-headed step children in an "encounter") 4e has almost no mechanics for non-combat scenarios. Supporters tend to argue with me that roleplaying is separate from the system and can be strongly supported in any game. I always encourage them to write a history for their iron token in monopoly and discuss the motivations for passing go.

4e is skin deep and unimaginative.

Webhead
08-23-2008, 01:48 PM
Seriously, Igbutton and I have been talking about Wushu. We should play it! With a vengeance!

drewshi
08-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Well, I finally got a chance to read the DMs guide and the Player's Handbook. Here's the thing. In many respects, the writing and the rules remind me of the Basic/Expert editions of the game. There is that part of me that wonders if they are, and I don't mean to insult (really, I don't) those who like the game, dumbing things down. I am saying this never having read the second or third edition rules. The first thing that stood out to me was the listing of gods for the characters in the Player's Handbook. Why did they narrow down the choices of dieties to something that looks, at a quick glance, as generic versions of the classic gods? This kind of simplification irks me.

In reading it though, I can understand why they did it. I've been listening to some gaming podcasts recently and the hosts of one podcast whose name escapes me now (Animal something) commented how these rules make up for the problems with 3e, simplifying them. They also commented on how the rules feel more like a video game. There was that part of me that wondered if the writers had been playing Final Fantasy or something as they were writing the game up.

I may just use this version when my seven year old is ready to move up. I'll show him editions one and four and see what catches his fancy. As for me and my friends, we're old farts and the smell of our ancient texts cover up the scent of those farts nicely. :lol:

Ben Rostoker
08-23-2008, 03:58 PM
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/dungons-dragons-4th.php

I know I've posted this link a million times before but I love SomwthingAwful and this review never gets old. 4E is to DnD what HeroQuest is to DnD, and I already own HeroQuest.


I always encourage them to write a history for their iron token in monopoly and discuss the motivations for passing go.That actually sounds kinda fun... just in a silly stupid way. :)

PS: Can I quote you with that for my sig? lol It's even funnier taken out of context.

Engar
08-23-2008, 04:16 PM
...dumbing things down.

Yes.


They also commented on how the rules feel more like a video game... "snip" ...wondered if the writers had been playing...

World of Warcraft mostly.


As for me and my friends, we're old farts and the smell of our ancient texts cover up the scent of those farts nicely. :lol:

Um...*cough*...*choke*...*eyes watering*...no...no they don't.


PS: Can I quote you with that for my sig?

Have at it!

Webhead: I do not know Wushu. I am mostly up for anything, but all this 4e is making me itch for some DnD.

Ben Rostoker
08-23-2008, 05:30 PM
Thanks! :)

Webhead
08-24-2008, 01:19 AM
...I always encourage them to write a history for their iron token in monopoly and discuss the motivations for passing go...

On an interesting (yet barely related) side-note, I'm remembering an occasion when my brother and I, out of sheer boredom most likely, attempted to "spice up" Monopoly by adding a bunch of additional elements to it. It's all pretty hazy, but I do recall rolling dice every few turns to find out if the the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man would come stomping through the neighborhood and destroy hotels in his way... :D


Webhead: I do not know Wushu. I am mostly up for anything, but all this 4e is making me itch for some DnD.

Me too a little, but really primarily in the "2e Dark Sun" sense. 3e is pretty much a buzzkill for me right now, and I think I'd rather just save myself a headache and not mention 4e...

Oh, and Wushu is greatness. Can learn the game in about 2 minutes. We may have to convince the others to kick it around some time.

Ben Rostoker
08-24-2008, 08:07 PM
Oh, and Wushu is greatness. Can learn the game in about 2 minutes. We may have to convince the others to kick it around some time.

If you run it online and want to teach it to me I'll play.

Webhead
08-24-2008, 11:41 PM
If you run it online and want to teach it to me I'll play.

Seriously? Sweet! Let's talk further! :)

Ben Rostoker
08-24-2008, 11:43 PM
Seriously? Sweet! Let's talk further! :)

Of course seriously. How can you expand your gaming horizons if you don't learn and try new games. :)

Webhead
08-24-2008, 11:50 PM
Of course seriously. How can you expand your gaming horizons if you don't learn and try new games. :)

Great! When I'm a little more coherent, I'll pursue options to start up a PbP. In the meantime, check out the following link to view the core rules for Wushu:

www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html)

Also, what kind of genre interests you? Do you have a preference, or would you prefer I pick something for you to sample?

Ben Rostoker
08-24-2008, 11:55 PM
Webhead[/left];44239]Great! When I'm a little more coherent, I'll pursue options to start up a
PbP
. In the meantime, check out the following link to view the core rules for
Wushu
:

www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html)

Also, what kind of genre interests you? Do you have a preference, or would you prefer I pick something for you to sample?

I like Sci-fi and I like Fantasy; but I'll try any setting at least once. I'll go read that link.

Later Edit: I read it. I generally dislike movies with random violence for no reason and complete disregard for realism or reason; HOWEVER, the game sounds like great fun with the right people and a good role playing exercise. I look forwards to playing with you. :)

Webhead
08-25-2008, 12:04 AM
I like Sci-fi and I like Fantasy; but I'll try any setting at least once. I'll go read that link.

Cool. I think I will go for a Star Wars campaign. Possibly Tales of the Jedi era. Feel free to PM me with any questions, thoughts or suggestions.

Ben Rostoker
08-25-2008, 12:11 AM
Cool. I think I will go for a Star Wars campaign. Possibly Tales of the Jedi era. Feel free to PM me with any questions, thoughts or suggestions.

I edited my post above. Sure I Star Wars is far from my favorite but ti should be fine. :) Let me know when/how we'll play.

Webhead
08-25-2008, 09:54 AM
I edited my post above. Sure I Star Wars is far from my favorite but ti should be fine. :) Let me know when/how we'll play.

Read your edits. While Wushu takes its impetus and thus examples from the "random violence" types of media that you mention, to me, the system's value extends beyond that simple stereotype and can be applied to virtually anything, even non-physical confrontation. The beauty of the system is how broadly the rules are painted and thus how flexible and interpretive they are. Hopefully I will be able to represent the merits of the system beyond simple "stabby and shooty".

As for Star Wars, that was just my baseline suggestion. If that's not so much your cup of tea there are other things that can be done. Let me know if there's a genre or idea that springs to your mind as exciting. That's what Wushu is supposed to be about...excitement.

Ooh, just remembered that I was putting together ideas for a Wushu game based on the series Avatar: The Last Airbender. I could definately run with that.

Ben Rostoker
08-25-2008, 10:00 AM
And thats one of the reasons why I look forwards to playing it. Star Wars is again fine with me. :)

I'm really a fan of anime either (yeah I'm hard to please I guess lol) and have never seen more then basic artwork for Avatar; but again I wouldn't mind playing a game based on it. With Avatar though you might need to let me know some basic facts as to prevent me from having no idea what the characters and technologies are like.

Webhead
08-25-2008, 10:07 AM
And thats one of the reasons why I look forwards to playing it. Star Wars is again fine with me. :)

I'm really a fan of anime either (yeah I'm hard to please I guess lol) and have never seen more then basic artwork for Avatar; but again I wouldn't mind playing a game based on it. With Avatar though you might need to let me know some basic facts as to prevent me from having no idea what the characters and technologies are like.

Sure. I'm not a fan of anime either (I've probably only ever seen a half dozen of them). While Avatar is a little bit anime-inspired, it's not really anime (and it's actually an American production). If we go that direction, I will of course bring you up to speed on what you might need to know. Avatar is one of those fantasy worlds that is interesting enough that it deserves to be explored as an RPG. Almost like a twisted sort of Oriental Adventures campaign.

Farcaster
08-25-2008, 10:26 AM
:focus:

Please take personal conversations to PM. This thread is for discussing impressions of 4th edition.

Webhead
08-25-2008, 10:40 AM
:focus:

Please take personal conversations to PM. This thread is for discussing impressions of 4th edition.

I thought this was making my impressions on 4e pretty clear...;) Just kidding. "I just get excitable as to choice...like to keep my options open."

Okay, okay...back to trashing 4e...

Inquisitor Tremayne
08-25-2008, 10:50 AM
About bashing 4e, I think we "forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful..."



:D

ronpyatt
08-25-2008, 11:36 AM
One of the things that takes 4e even further away from the previous editions is the descriptive actions and creative bonuses that are encouraged. They brought 4e closer to Wushu (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7405) in this respect. The 4e rules explain how to do it, but the emphasis is not something many D&D players are used to, or can even come to like. It gives the more imaginative player an advantage when the DM uses this new aspect of the game.

Webhead
08-25-2008, 12:41 PM
One of the things that takes 4e even further away from the previous editions is the descriptive actions and creative bonuses that are encouraged. They brought 4e closer to Wushu (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7405) in this respect. The 4e rules explain how to do it, but the emphasis is not something many D&D players are used to, or can even come to like. It gives the more imaginative player an advantage when the DM uses this new aspect of the game.

Just curious (because I would like to research it further), where are these "descriptive advantages" mentioned in the 4e books? If that's the case, I could count that as a strike in favor of giving 4e further consideration.

Engar
08-25-2008, 09:15 PM
I am very curious about that too. I know several editions of DnD mention "situational modifiers". I do not recall if it is mentioned in 4e.

ronpyatt
08-25-2008, 10:19 PM
Rewarding clever ideas, DMG page 75.

Related references to creative players:
Acrobatic stunt, PHB page 180.
Skills in combat, PHB page 295.
Setting improvised damage, DMG page 42.
Saying Yes, DMG pages 28-29.

I thought there were other references, but I can't recall where they're located.

Ok. Back to bashing...

It's not as rewarding as Wushu, but it's closer.

Engar
08-27-2008, 07:40 AM
Ok. Back to bashing...

We can always degrade into actual discussion if absolutely necessary.

Engar
09-01-2008, 06:49 PM
The bronze is thin and easily wears to reveal the foul material below. 'Tis true what they say about sculpting in filth.

Zeneak
09-01-2008, 07:14 PM
4e alignments:
LG
G
Unalligned
E
CE

Sorry to bring this back up but.... WHAT?! they took out LE?! i loved my methodical killers that were lawful evil... a rigid code of conduct.. And murder, despair bringing goodness that i love so much.. that makes me sad.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-01-2008, 08:34 PM
Sorry to bring this back up but.... WHAT?! they took out LE?! i loved my methodical killers that were lawful evil... a rigid code of conduct.. And murder, despair bringing goodness that i love so much.. that makes me sad.

Depending on your DM, alignment never mattered except vs. spells or other affects. I never played in a 3.5 game where alignment was forced, or a major part of the game.

So far from what I can tell alignment has taken a backseat in 4e, a place that it has always occupied.

Want a Lawful Evil villain, then as a DM play that villain as such. The PCs are never going to see the villains stats and only need to know his alignment so they know if Holy Smite will work against him.

ronpyatt
09-01-2008, 11:22 PM
Want a Lawful Evil villain, then as a DM play that villain as such. The PCs are never going to see the villains stats and only need to know his alignment so they know if Holy Smite will work against him.
Correct. However, Holy Smite powers work against any enemy regardless of alignment.

Still, playing any alignment is possible. If it's part of your character's personality / outlook to be Lawful Evil, then play lawful evil. You're character sheet will show Evil for the mechanics. But really, the mechanics don't care too much about alignment, as aligned characters are just the extremes. Background and personality plays a bigger role in the game than alignment.

Engar
09-02-2008, 12:33 AM
I always liked alignment. 3.5 took it too far with numerous alignment based spells that started focusing on both axis. Tone it back a little and it was an excellent system. I still feel the players who hate alignment may have played with an antogonistic GM. I never viewed DM/GM'g as me vs. the players, but there are plenty who do not share that philosophy.

4e is vanilla, one size fits all, low sodium with a uniform dress code. It settles.

4e fits well with some movements in modern PC society. Put it on the shelf next to prozac, ritalin, cubicles, bottled water and modern interpretations of tolerance. Like the church in the dark ages (you know, that 700+ years of proud conformity and stifling of ideas which led to such indifference few bothered to even record what little did happen as they waited to die), it seeks to make no waves and regulate all temperatures to lukewarm. Ideas are dangerous. Extremes are deadly. Conformity is best. Pretend a little. Be creative a little. Be different a little. Whoa! Stop! I said a LITTLE! Choose different classes, just have the same structure. Choose different powers, just make them all do about the same things a little different way.

Hum don't sing. Walk don't run. Grin don't laugh. Frown don't cry. No one gets hurt if no one swings too high. Bah humbug. The moment I decided I am never running or playing 4e again I felt like I imagine Scrooge feeling when he found it was still Christmas. I may still have to finish the errand of running and playing, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. If only my experience with 4e had lasted only one night.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-02-2008, 01:26 AM
Wow. I never knew someone could dislike a game system so much. That's pretty amazing.

tesral
09-02-2008, 01:30 AM
Wow. I never knew someone could dislike a game system so much. That's pretty amazing.

I have a similar level of loathing for Harnmaster.

Engar
09-02-2008, 07:29 AM
Wow. I never knew someone could dislike a game system so much. That's pretty amazing.

:humble::humble::humble:

darelf
09-02-2008, 08:30 AM
Yeah. See, when you care about some thing, even something stupid like a game, you tend to have strong passions about that thing. Those people who have strong passions about some thing that they share in common generally form communities of like minded individuals and spend lots of time in that community. You'll see such passions rise up in silly things like NASCAR, scrap booking, motocross, and even quilting.

Yes, these people are serious. They are deadly serious and passionately involved in something. And I feel a twinge of sadness to think that someone out there might not have that "something". Even if it's something that I think is stupid.

ronpyatt
09-02-2008, 09:41 AM
Hum don't sing. Walk don't run. Grin don't laugh. Frown don't cry. No one gets hurt if no one swings too high. Bah humbug. The moment I decided I am never running or playing 4e again I felt like I imagine Scrooge feeling when he found it was still Christmas. I may still have to finish the errand of running and playing, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. If only my experience with 4e had lasted only one night.
I looked for those things in the rules, and I am so glad I'm not playing your 4th Edition. I'd hate it too. In fact, your words have moved me to hate your edition of 4e. I wish you'd never played it. It makes me cherish the 4e that I have even more.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-02-2008, 09:43 AM
I have a similar level of loathing for Harnmaster.


:humble::humble::humble:



Yeah. See, when you care about some thing, even something stupid like a game, you tend to have strong passions about that thing. Those people who have strong passions about some thing that they share in common generally form communities of like minded individuals and spend lots of time in that community. You'll see such passions rise up in silly things like NASCAR, scrap booking, motocross, and even quilting.

Yes, these people are serious. They are deadly serious and passionately involved in something. And I feel a twinge of sadness to think that someone out there might not have that "something". Even if it's something that I think is stupid.


I'm speechless.

tesral
09-02-2008, 11:38 AM
I'm speechless.

If given the option of playing Harmmaster of getting a root canal, I'd opt for the root canal, I can at least be unconscious for the root canal. I would go into details, but this isn't about Harmmaster.

Compared to which 4th edition gets a meh. Ain't spending my money. I am more than slightly put off that Lizards has basically told us long time fans to go away. The more I learn the more I am finding out that this sea change was not driven by any need within the game, but by the Corporate need to get rid of the OGL and move away from anything connected to it. One sees the heavy hand of Hasbro moving there.

Sure, bringing in people that didn't like D&D is good. Driving away those that did like D&D, have been long time fans and players of D&D, bad and worse.

It is demonstrated that Forry lacks the flexibility of 3e. The new mechanic is ruthlessly enforced throughout with the efficiency of a computer and/or gate. The ones making the comparisons to computer games are the MMO players. That is telling. It has been reduced to a miniature game with role-playing aspects that plays like an MMO And that is a reduction.

To those that favor that kind of play, meh. I prefer the variety and richness that comes with the greater complexity of rules. Yes, complex rules are complex that take some brain power to get around, but they allow for more creativity. It is easier to fit a character concept into the rules when the rules themselves are flexible and easy to manipulate.

Yes, that also means that Rules Lawyers and Munchkins can manipulate the rules. Choose whom you play with. Every advantage has a matching disadvantage. If you remove the disadvantage, as has Forry, you also remove the advantage the greater flexibility.

D&D Fourth Edition is not better, it is not a development and improvement on the game we are familar with. It is different, different enough to call it a totally new game with no real connections to the old game. Frankly if I saw it on the shelf with a different label by a different company I don't think Lizards would have a case. It is that different.

In conclusion, what is wrong with Fourth edition? It's not D&D, but labeled as D&D.

Farcaster
09-02-2008, 11:56 AM
I am more than slightly put off that Lizards has basically told us long time fans to go away...Sure, bringing in people that didn't like D&D is good. Driving away those that did like D&D, have been long time fans and players of D&D, bad and worse.

I've been playing D&D for going on twenty years now, and I don't have any feeling that I am being pushed away from the game. Nor was it WotC's goal to do away with anyone's business. Is the game flavored to appeal to a younger demographic? Perhaps. But, if change is what you define as telling the long time fans to go away, then 3rd edition did the same thing. There are drastic differences between 2nd and 3rd. Is it your feeling that Wizards shouldn't have put out 3rd edition either?



It is demonstrated that Forry lacks the flexibility of 3e.
It is? Where?

Zeneak
09-02-2008, 12:02 PM
D&D Fourth Edition is not better, it is not a development and improvement on the game we are familar with. It is different, different enough to call it a totally new game with no real connections to the old game. Frankly if I saw it on the shelf with a different label by a different company I don't think Lizards would have a case. It is that different.

In conclusion, what is wrong with Fourth edition? It's not D&D, but labeled as D&D.

I am in total agreement, though personally i saw that coming. the difference between 1-2 then 2-3 were rather large but they were the same game in essence so i am told, and 3.5 is only a variation of 3. i sorta expect every solid numerical jump would be a new game that associates with dungeons and dragons, this just has just been the largest.. if it was forward or backward is up to everyone's opinion. though i don't like the kick in the ass that says get the new system or we don't like you anymore feel to the harsh change.

Akk Akk
09-02-2008, 03:02 PM
4e fits well with some movements in modern PC society. Put it on the shelf next to prozac, ritalin, cubicles, bottled water and modern interpretations of tolerance. Like the church in the dark ages (you know, that 700+ years of proud conformity and stifling of ideas which led to such indifference few bothered to even record what little did happen as they waited to die), it seeks to make no waves and regulate all temperatures to lukewarm. Ideas are dangerous. Extremes are deadly. Conformity is best. Pretend a little. Be creative a little. Be different a little. Whoa! Stop! I said a LITTLE! Choose different classes, just have the same structure. Choose different powers, just make them all do about the same things a little different way.


I love this paragraph - especially the first 2 sentences.

Webhead
09-02-2008, 04:00 PM
...I prefer the variety and richness that comes with the greater complexity of rules. Yes, complex rules are complex that take some brain power to get around, but they allow for more creativity. It is easier to fit a character concept into the rules when the rules themselves are flexible and easy to manipulate.

I'm no fan or defender of 4e at this point, so my comments should not be construed as such, but the longer I play RPGs, the more I find that I'm on the other side of the fence on the "complexity" issue, mostly from the perspective of a GM (which I am most often). I tend to find preference more and more in the freedom that comes with lesser rules complexity. Yes, rules can inspire creativity in some ways, but it can also restrict and stifle it in others. Most times it does both simultaneously, both shaping ideas and budgeting them at once. I agree that, regardless, the rules should be flexible and easy to manipulate, but they don't have to be complex and detailed to be so.


Yes, that also means that Rules Lawyers and Munchkins can manipulate the rules. Choose whom you play with. Every advantage has a matching disadvantage...

I don't have rules lawyers and min/maxers in my group, but my players are the general sort who "play smartly", aka, they understand that rules choices will give them certain advantages and they intend to make use of those advantages that they've paid for through character choice. And you really can't fault them for it. That's what rules are for, right? If a character has a rule that gives "advantage X", then they will want "advantage X" to come into play at some point and will want to use it any chance they get. To be in a situation to use it and not do so is foolish and wasteful (so the arguement goes). Why expend the resource (feat, skill, talent, power, etc.) if you get no value from it? Nobody likes to feel like they choices they made are useless.

As a result, if I, as the GM, want to keep things fun, challenging and tense, I too have to play the "advantage game" and plan my advantages against the PC accordingly. If I ignore employing these rules, the PCs will walk all over the game and will not only feel unchallenged, but will probably end up wandering aimlessly until boredom sets in.

This lends itself to balancing dual considerations of playing the game: 1) how do I emulate my character concept? and 2) how do I ensure that my character is statistically meaningful? Survival instinct. Characters take abilities that they have no reason or perhaps even desire to take because they want to be "survivable" or because it provides a tangibly meaningful "advantage".

In the average D&D game, nobody spends points on Profession: (haberdasher), because no one perceives any value from the skill...not when you could be taking Tumble or Spellcraft or Stealth with those points instead.

I will play the "rules-dense" games like everyone else and that's fine. When I run games, I prefer the more streamlined, less dense, more intrepretive rules systems when possible. The kind that tend to use the same mechanic for just about everything. No exhaustive list of specialized systems for every eventuality. Compact, universal, internally consistant, reliable and open-ended...that excites me.

That's all just off-topic, brainstormed opinion mumbo-jumbo, though. Forgive me for the thought-drift.

Farcaster
09-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Here is a great excerpt from the new Forgotten Realms Players Guide which I think illustrates well that the new focus of 4th edition is not all numbers without substance or roleplaying: 7526

Engar
09-05-2008, 07:50 AM
I looked for those things in the rules, and I am so glad I'm not playing your 4th Edition. I'd hate it too. In fact, your words have moved me to hate your edition of 4e. I wish you'd never played it. It makes me cherish the 4e that I have even more.

Agreed and to quote an old cartoon, "Knowing is half the battle".

Mindbomb
09-11-2008, 10:07 PM
Depending on your DM, alignment never mattered except vs. spells or other affects. I never played in a 3.5 game where alignment was forced, or a major part of the game.



Apparently you've never played Planescape, which was (is) the best campaign for D&D EVER. lolz

Farcaster
09-12-2008, 11:24 AM
I liked Planescape, and I like running planar campaigns, but I never could get much into the various factions. They just weren't that interesting -- to me, anyway.

tesral
09-12-2008, 12:56 PM
I liked Planescape, and I like running planar campaigns, but I never could get much into the various factions. They just weren't that interesting -- to me, anyway.

I have to agree here. While the setting itself had intriguing elements the factions thing gave you the what, but little of the why they did what they did. It embellished the whole "evil because they evil" idea with methods and means, but didn't expand beyond that.

Mindbomb
09-12-2008, 01:45 PM
... little of the why they did what they did. It embellished the whole "evil because they evil" idea with methods and means, but didn't expand beyond that.

I totally disagree, the whole system of factions is designed around the 'why'.

Engar
09-12-2008, 06:42 PM
I never played much Planescape. I think part of it was the proximity to Spelljammer in release. Perhaps taint from UA is a more real world premise than I care to admit.

I did like some of the Planescape stuff, but it seemed a bit contrived and complicated. I have a hard time with a setting that requires use of entirely new lexicon. I appreciate its appeal to others, but I lack the commitment to practice vocabulary for a game session. I bet it was great to play when the original creator DM'd it, but it felt like it would be a long walk in the wrong size shoes for me to run it. Then again, I always preferred original content.