PDA

View Full Version : 4 or 3.5



Chi
08-09-2008, 04:35 PM
Ok so they made 4 saying it would be easier for people. But I think there is too much info. It seems like (sorry to say it) But another way for people to get our money. All it is, is +2 to this and +2 to that. Where as the old one is + this - that seems like that is how it should be. Or maybe I am just used to 3.5. And NO MORE DRUIDS!!

nijineko
08-09-2008, 04:55 PM
or sorcerers... and i haven't heard any mention of psionics yet, either.

DMMike
08-09-2008, 11:12 PM
Chi, I'm with you on TMI. There used to be one set of combat rules for all classes, now each class has its own combat rules. Ugh.

Looks to me like play sessions will involve much more DM supervision, which could slow the game down, because unless the DM memorizes every class power (which would take up his 3rd level feat), he has to trust each player or double check to make sure each power gets used properly.

upidstay
08-10-2008, 07:08 AM
I have zero plans to buy the 4.0 books any time soon. I bought the 3.0, then had to spend more $$$ on 3.5 a short time later. I'm waiting for them to come out with 4.5, 4.6, 4.75, on up the line before I drop another $100 on books.

Also, I like 3.5 rules. I think they did a great job with it. Very versatile. Yes, it has a few flaws, but I just make up a house rule to change something I don;t like.

Engar
08-10-2008, 11:08 AM
If you want to play miniature combat scenarios 4e is an excellent system. If you want to roleplay stick with DnD.

Dimthar
08-10-2008, 03:05 PM
If you already have 3.X books and you played it before it is fair to say that the cheapest & easiest way to start a new campaign is to stick to 3.X. If you want "Experienced Gamers" they will all know 3.X and 4E is so new that one can hardly say that it completely took over.

On the other hand, like with any Edition of DnD, it is easier to find someone who is running the game to get a grasp of the rules and the experience.

There are plenty of threads to browse in this site about the Pros & Cons of choosing one edition over the other.


If you want to play miniature combat scenarios 4e is an excellent system. If you want to roleplay stick with DnD.

I may not agree with Engar, but will defend with my life his right to be wrong about "DnD 4E" :D; and also hope he can make it on the 09/13 to the meetup!.

.

agoraderek
08-10-2008, 07:28 PM
i'm going with pathfinder, just ordered the softback beta, should be getting it this week. it's OGL d20 based, so it'll be close to 3.5, but they are fixing some things (grapple, for one) and streamlining others.

4e is a decent system, but WotC is arrogant and their early marketing campaign turned me off from supporting them with my wallet. Paizo, on the other hand, is very "customer friendly", actually engages the players directly on their message boards, listens to what the consumer wants (even if they don't implement every suggestion, the designers WILL discuss it with you) and just seem to "get it" when it comes to the fans. so, i support them with my gaming dollar.

Maelstrom
08-10-2008, 08:14 PM
4e is a system designed from the ground up to be a consistent exception-based system: The underlying rules are very simple: Attack roll vs one of 4 defenses (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower). Exceptional powers provide flavor, new tactics, and balance. Easy to pick up, very deep in strategy.

Above all, the focus of 4e was to provide an immersive experience, with few road bumps such as rememorization of spells and calculation of spell durations to slow down the gameplay. Each player can be involved in each situation, and combat is fluid and dynamic.

In order to meet the above goals, yes, they did change a lot of what many consider fundamentals. In the end, I invite all to give it a try if you're so inclined. See if it does feel better to you. If not, 3.5 is not going away, and is in fact still advancing through Piazo. No need to have bad blood between the supporters of 3.5 and 4e.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-10-2008, 09:56 PM
I play them both but i have gotten rid of my 3.5 collection to my gaming buddy. As far as 4.0 is concerned, i wont be building another collection ever again. Now i'll keep my collecting to wfrp, star frontiers, traveller, and gamma world.

Btw, 4.0 is much simpler than 3.5... and yes, i will be purchasing the Alpha Pathfinder, 500+ page, 3.75 rules, HB book, when released.

Thoth-Amon

Valdar
08-10-2008, 11:44 PM
Druid, Bard, and Sorcerer will be in PHB2 next march, though don't look for them to be anything like their 3.x counterparts. Druid will be a Striker with some Controller ability (similar to Warlock in role), and Sorcerer will be a Controller with less raw damage than the Wizard, but more interesting side-effects to their powers. Bard will be a Leader, and lose a lot of their Jack-of-all-trades features, to make them more of a team member and have less of the Master-of-none syndrome that it suffered from.

Psi is mentioned as a future power source (PHB, p. 54), but will not be in PHB2, which will only cover Primal, Arcane, and Divine classes. Personally, I'm fine with that- IMHO, Psionics are for science fiction games, since Fantasy already has magic for that.

The reason for having two plusses rather than a plus and a minus is to have less pidgeonholing for the races. I loved playing Dwarf Paladins in 3e (they were the only "Usually Lawful Good" race), but it was simply not a good idea due to the CHA penalty hosing your saving throws, which was the main advantage Paladins had over Fighters. Now, you can play any class as a Dwarf and you won't be directly gimped, and they shine as both Clerics and Fighters now.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-11-2008, 12:04 AM
Druid, Bard, and Sorcerer will be in PHB2 next march, though don't look for them to be anything like their 3.x counterparts. Druid will be a Striker with some Controller ability (similar to Warlock in role), and Sorcerer will be a Controller with less raw damage than the Wizard, but more interesting side-effects to their powers. Bard will be a Leader, and lose a lot of their Jack-of-all-trades features, to make them more of a team member and have less of the Master-of-none syndrome that it suffered from.

Psi is mentioned as a future power source (PHB, p. 54), but will not be in PHB2, which will only cover Primal, Arcane, and Divine classes. Personally, I'm fine with that- IMHO, Psionics are for science fiction games, since Fantasy already has magic for that.

The reason for having two plusses rather than a plus and a minus is to have less pidgeonholing for the races. I loved playing Dwarf Paladins in 3e (they were the only "Usually Lawful Good" race), but it was simply not a good idea due to the CHA penalty hosing your saving throws, which was the main advantage Paladins had over Fighters. Now, you can play any class as a Dwarf and you won't be directly gimped, and they shine as both Clerics and Fighters now.
Of course, i am on the other side of the playing field. I do love Psionics and look forward to the release. I'm also curious what they did with the Druid in PH2. Bard? Not so much.

Thoth-Amon

Valdar
08-11-2008, 12:46 AM
Of course, i am on the other side of the playing field. I do love Psionics and look forward to the release. I'm also curious what they did with the Druid in PH2. Bard? Not so much.

Thoth-Amon

From the Races and Classes preview, pg. 83



Moving forward, design identified a few things that made the druid unique. We expect other classes to cast spells, and we expect other classes to summon monsters. We don't expect many classes to have the ability to transform into raging dire bears and elementals, so that talent became the foundation on which the druid is built.

...

To give the druid an incentive to walk around in humanoid form, he gains a selection of nature-themed spells that give him some ranged firepower and utility abilities.

Engar
08-11-2008, 04:54 PM
I may not agree with Engar, but will defend with my life his right to be wrong about "DnD 4E" :D; and also hope he can make it on the 09/13 to the meetup!

And I appreciate the defense of my rights even if Dimthar mistakenly considers 4e a version of DnD. Not sure about the meetup yet. I currently game most Saturdays using a miniature combat system and interjecting roleplay. It is like roleplaying in a Monopoly game, but the group wanted to try it.

Webhead
08-11-2008, 05:15 PM
And I appreciate the defense of my rights even if Dimthar mistakenly considers 4e a version of DnD. Not sure about the meetup yet. I currently game most Saturdays using a miniature combat system and interjecting roleplay. It is like roleplaying in a Monopoly game, but the group wanted to try it.

Part of me wishes I could be there just so that I could have the tangible experience of playing the game instead of just speculating.

But the Saga game is a lot of fun though...even with imminent party detonation...;)

Engar
08-11-2008, 06:18 PM
Saga makes me wonder how WotC so badly screwed the pooch with 4e. Saga is to SW roleplay as 4e is to medieval turn based strategy.

Bah, they had it coming! Who edits video without watching it? It is hypocritical to denounce slavery while practicing mind control. All they need to do is eat a little crow for acting dishonorably. Now for a bunch of maniachly egotistical jedi to actually do that...

Webhead
08-11-2008, 10:29 PM
Bah, they had it coming! Who edits video without watching it? It is hypocritical to denounce slavery while practicing mind control. All they need to do is eat a little crow for acting dishonorably. Now for a bunch of maniachly egotistical jedi to actually do that...

Ah, the folly of the Jedi. I do recall Yoda saying something about the growing arrogance of many young Jedi and even some of the "older, more experienced ones". ;)

I hear you, I hear you...

Dragon2605
08-12-2008, 12:36 PM
I can't say anything bad about 4th edition because I haven't sat down and played it. I'm just not ready upgrade from 3.5 yet. I spent a crap load of money on the books might as well get some use out of them.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-12-2008, 12:48 PM
I play all the editions but have found that my interest level drops a bit each edition.

4.0 was the nail in the coffin as far as spending big bucks on a game. Every edition was fine. If there was something we didnt like, we just houseruled a fix. I, not unlike Dragon2605, spend way too much money on 3.5 to take 4.0 seriously. Never again, i say... never again will i spend big bucks on a game. I went from serious fan to casual player. I even gave most of my 3.5 stuff away to a friend.

I'm suppose to fly up in a couple of weeks to participate in PacifiCon in SF. I was told by friends that i needed to get there early to spend a day making a great character. Guess what? I dont have the interest level to take/waste a day making a character. Yep, 4.0 needed more tweeking before release. At least i can say that Pathfinders' soon to be released Alpha listened to their fans.

Thoth-Amon

Valdar
08-12-2008, 05:51 PM
4e did give the game away with Chapter 10 of the DMG (DM's Toolbox). I'm wondering if I need to buy any more 4e stuff at all now that I know the algorithm for how things are created. Now I can just create anything I need, no extra money necessary.

More classes for players would be nice, though- but that will be the players' money :D

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-12-2008, 06:05 PM
4e did give the game away with Chapter 10 of the DMG (DM's Toolbox). I'm wondering if I need to buy any more 4e stuff at all now that I know the algorithm for how things are created. Now I can just create anything I need, no extra money necessary.

More classes for players would be nice, though- but that will be the players' money :D
Funny that you mention that for i think you are more right than folks on this board would think. One of my GMs(Jermaine) will be using 4.0 CH. 10 to run a WLD(Worlds Largest Dungeon/using all sections/1st-30th level) campaign beginning October(something i would love to run but dont have the time,) and another one of our GM's(Eric) will be running a full Ravenloft campaign using 4.0 CH. 10 rules as well. Also beginning in October. You know this guy as Tamerath on these boards. Outstanding GM... really big story guy.

Btw, Tamerath will be running a Star Wars campaign soon and they currently have a 4.0 campaign ongoing. If you're interested in playing, contact Tamerath for more details. Look to find him on my buddys list.

Game Location: Moreno Valley, California
Game Dates/Times: Every Saturday, Afternoon-Evening
Players needed: 1-3, we have 4 already slotted.

Thoth-Amon

agoraderek
08-12-2008, 06:34 PM
how far is that from dana point? maybe (if it's ok) i could sit in next time the gf and i go visit her uncle...

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-12-2008, 07:58 PM
how far is that from dana point? maybe (if it's ok) i could sit in next time the gf and i go visit her uncle...
I have no problem with you and your gf coming down and playing a session. Be sure to contact Tamerath(on these boards) and set things up.

Thoth-Amon

cplmac
08-12-2008, 09:08 PM
Now I am starting to see people saying that 4E is over complicating things and possibly slowing down the speed of the game. I have felt that way about 3.x when there were all these feats and skills to contend with. Never did make the jump from 2E. I know that there are lots of folks that say that 2E was "broken", but then you hear the same about 3.0 and 3.5 too. To quote tesral, "Just because a new version comes out, does not mean that the previous version is no longer able to be used."

Valdar
08-12-2008, 11:44 PM
Funny that you mention that for i think you are more right than folks on this board would think.

Uh, thanks, I guess =) Seriously, I know I may have a rep around here as being a fanatical 4e supporter, but personally, it's what brought me back to gaming. I know it's a thing specific to me, but I admit I have been a little overzealous against the "I hate 4e" posts.


Now I am starting to see people saying that 4E is over complicating things and possibly slowing down the speed of the game.

In my limited experience of running a 4e game since 4e was published, no. 4e is faster, hands down. Combat is faster. Looking up a skill on a skill list that's a third as long is faster. Crunching numbers against attributes that do not change is faster. How is 4e slower, apart from the fact that you just bought the books?

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
08-13-2008, 12:00 AM
Uh, thanks, I guess =) Seriously, I know I may have a rep around here as being a fanatical 4e supporter, but personally, it's what brought me back to gaming. I know it's a thing specific to me, but I admit I have been a little overzealous against the "I hate 4e" posts.



In my limited experience of running a 4e game since 4e was published, no. 4e is faster, hands down. Combat is faster. Looking up a skill on a skill list that's a third as long is faster. Crunching numbers against attributes that do not change is faster. How is 4e slower, apart from the fact that you just bought the books?
Nothing wrong with being a fanatical 4.0 supporter. Nice to have someone feel so strongly about DnD 4.0. Just because i have decided not to invest big bucks into another edition does not mean that i dont like it. I do play 4.0. In fact, it seems that's all i play.

As far as overcomplicating things and slowing down the game, as 4.0 has been accused, not only is this not my experience, i dont have an inkling what folks are referring too.

Thoth-Amon

Tamerath
08-13-2008, 12:25 AM
Uh, thanks, I guess =) Seriously, I know I may have a rep around here as being a fanatical 4e supporter, but personally, it's what brought me back to gaming. I know it's a thing specific to me, but I admit I have been a little overzealous against the "I hate 4e" posts.


I'm right there with you Valdar. I love 4th Edition and I borderline fanatical at times myself :)



In my limited experience of running a 4e game since 4e was published, no. 4e is faster, hands down. Combat is faster. Looking up a skill on a skill list that's a third as long is faster. Crunching numbers against attributes that do not change is faster. How is 4e slower, apart from the fact that you just bought the books?

4E IS faster. I've been running AND playing in a game and I've not seen it stop to a grinding halt yet over a grapple check, acrobatics check, a bull rush, endurance check, etc.. I've seen some pretty cinematic actions taken (me flipping over two enemies to get them in range of my attacks while shielding my allies being one of them). I think it's all in how you play, the group you are in, and knowledge of the rules. People will ease into the system over time or they won't...just like any other version of D&D released to date.

As for the things they left out? Well all I got to say on that is each class having more than a single page of powers at their disposal...Fighters in 3.5 got what? Bonus Feats? one little chart of progression? Honestly the Fighter recieved much love in 4th Edition. lol...well here I go on the fantatical part. I'm just going to sum up and say what they left out they have said MULTIPLE times that they are going to bring them back in the future...and till then...make stuff up! There's a large group here at Pen and Paper that could help you remake a druid class I'm sure. (I'm one of them)

agoraderek
08-13-2008, 12:39 AM
i don't even care for 4e much, but, from what i've played, the combats are faster to resolve, but not blazingly so compared with a 3x combat where the players have a firm grasp of the rules.

but i can't see any way they'd be slower, unless you're just starting out and aren't familiar with the changes yet...

Valdar
08-13-2008, 12:46 AM
make stuff up!

I could certainly do that, but I'm too busy crafting my plots. I've told every player, if you want to play something that doesn't exist yet, play an equivalent. I'm pretty sure my group has a Fey-pact warlock who will go Druid, and a Cleric that will go Bard, when the time comes...

If someone got up in my juice and said, "I want to play a Barbarian NOWS!!!", I'd probably sit down and craft 30 levels of powers. If that player were worth it.

Webhead
08-13-2008, 09:31 AM
The more I start to think about it, the more I'm considering giving 2e another pitch with my group next time possibility to play D&D comes up. It's been 8 or 9 years since I last played it and I find some nostalgia creeping up. Yeah, rules options for classes are more limited and non-weapon proficiencies is a pretty awkward system, but that's just when imagination has to take over, I guess. I liked D&D when it was played less complicated and more interpretive. We shall see...

Engar
08-13-2008, 12:19 PM
I may be considered a smidge critical of 4e on occassion or by a few on the board and yet I do not see it slowing down combat. Now we did have a really long combat recently, but it was due to unfamiliarity and distractions, not the system. The speed of 4e may be its greatest advantage once players are well versed.

Regarding 4e support, I like strong opinions. They demonstrate character. I do not have to share them to respect those that espouse them. I strive to always debate the position or even the tactic, but never the person. Everyone I argued with on PnP was very respectful to me and it is my sincere hope to have retained their respect as well.

Webhead, I would love a 2e game. I am the new guy, but, depending on the timing, willingness of the group, etc, I might even challenge you to try me as a GM. I like running for other GM's; they tend to give good feedback.

Jcosby
08-13-2008, 01:01 PM
Well, I'm not a fan of D&D 4.0. I have played it, I beta tested it (If that's what you want to call what WotC did.) and I find it's lacking in many areas. I really have no desire to get into a debate on the merits or lack there of, of 4.0. It's just not for me. Now, Pazio's Pathfinder RPG or what we like to call 3.75, that's got some great potential.

The new Beta Handbook will be ready for Free PDF download and softcover FLGS purchase on or around the 14th of this month. I would suggest everyone download the free PDF at least and take a look.

Jeff

Chi
08-13-2008, 05:55 PM
Sanks everyone for your feedback! I guess it really is just a matter of what you like whether it be two or four and anywhere in between. But I am also glad to here that I am not the only one who is just not into 4.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-13-2008, 06:15 PM
I had started 4th ed. but i realized that it wasn't as much fun as 3rd. I realized that there were more choices in 3 (i know people will disagree with all the powers and what not). I also realized that i had so much invested into 3 and that i hadn't really gotten my use out of them (if that will ever happen) and just decided to stick with 3rd edition for now if not forever.

Anaesthesia
08-13-2008, 07:16 PM
I haven't played 4 ed (yet), and aside from the fact I am massively disappointed what I've read so far in the PHB, I would like to at least try it once. Then maybe get my money back. Heck, I can't even find a 3.X group, let alone a 4e or a 3.X group that'll let me try (as a player) 4e once within a 1 1/2-2 hour radius. (I would do online, I'd hate to give a DM the charge of helping me learn 4e. I also have the belief that 4e is way too hard for me, even for tabletop/face-to-face game). *sigh* Oh, and my local gaming store is banning 4e Forgotten Realms to be played there, just because. So, my chances of playing 4e is slim to none, unless I want to cave and give myself and a DM a migrane and learn online... (Anyone who's says 4.0 is extremely easy, and is willing to teach me online, go right ahead. No guarantee that I'll learn anything...)

Is anyone else having this much trouble finding a group that at least wants to try 4e? Believe me, I'm happy in 3.X land, but this is depressing that I can't find any groups relatively near me. I'm at the point where I want to sell/give away the 4.0 PHB and give up trying it.(anyone want it?--I can trade for postage or 3.X books)

(sorry for ranting/whining a bit..I'll shut up now..)

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-13-2008, 10:23 PM
I haven't played 4 ed (yet), and aside from the fact I am massively disappointed what I've read so far in the PHB, I would like to at least try it once. Then maybe get my money back. Heck, I can't even find a 3.X group, let alone a 4e or a 3.X group that'll let me try (as a player) 4e once within a 1 1/2-2 hour radius. (I would do online, I'd hate to give a DM the charge of helping me learn 4e. I also have the belief that 4e is way too hard for me, even for tabletop/face-to-face game). *sigh* Oh, and my local gaming store is banning 4e Forgotten Realms to be played there, just because. So, my chances of playing 4e is slim to none, unless I want to cave and give myself and a DM a migrane and learn online... (Anyone who's says 4.0 is extremely easy, and is willing to teach me online, go right ahead. No guarantee that I'll learn anything...)

Is anyone else having this much trouble finding a group that at least wants to try 4e? Believe me, I'm happy in 3.X land, but this is depressing that I can't find any groups relatively near me. I'm at the point where I want to sell/give away the 4.0 PHB and give up trying it.(anyone want it?--I can trade for postage or 3.X books)

(sorry for ranting/whining a bit..I'll shut up now..)

I gave up on 4th edition. to much work and i like 3.x better

Kalanth
08-14-2008, 08:19 AM
or sorcerers... and i haven't heard any mention of psionics yet, either.

Sorry to dig up an old post but just wanted to mention that you may have missed the notations in the PHB of 4th edition (if you have read them). Page number I currently am unaware of as it is not infront of me, but there is a snipit speaking about additional power sources and future power sources. In that snipit they talk about the Monk, Barbarian, Druid, and Psion and the power sources they will use when the classes are introduced. They are planned, but likely for the same reason that all things in a major corporation are planned for, and that is profit. Likely not to see these until PHB 2.

Now, I am a huge fan of 4E. The speed to make a character, plan an encounter, and run a round of combat really make things interesting. In the two sessions I have put together with my PnP group we had one that was story light to adapt to the rules and each fight was challenging and fun unlike the 3.5 fights I have experience that usually were some form of cake walk. On the second session we had the familiarity with the rules and moved over to the story and found that the rules were able to be pushed aside more easily for RP. The rules did not (often) spur the urge for people to toss a die in a social situation to get what they wanted. The players actually tried to RP that moment and it was a blast.

And there are things in 4E that are different and fun when done right. Like the Skill Challenge, of which I am a huge fan, and the way to calculate a Challenge and the XP of the encounter. Simplicity is king in my book. 3.5 was a great system, to tell the truth, but looking back at it now that I have played some 4E games and I realized that there was to many broken things in 3.5 and it had gotten to point where I had done just about everything I can do.

Chi
08-15-2008, 09:25 PM
I had started 4th ed. but i realized that it wasn't as much fun as 3rd. I realized that there were more choices in 3 (i know people will disagree with all the powers and what not). I also realized that i had so much invested into 3 and that i hadn't really gotten my use out of them (if that will ever happen) and just decided to stick with 3rd edition for now if not forever.

What are you talking about if that will ever happen

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-15-2008, 10:30 PM
What are you talking about if that will ever happen

I mean that i may never get my use out of 3.5 and may very well go on play it forever and not upgrading to 4th

Dimthar
08-16-2008, 10:25 PM
Is anyone else having this much trouble finding a group that at least wants to try 4e? Believe me, I'm happy in 3.X land, but this is depressing that I can't find any groups relatively near me. I'm at the point where I want to sell/give away the 4.0 PHB and give up trying it.(anyone want it?--I can trade for postage or 3.X books)


There are like 3 "Meetups" in DFW and looks like 4E is doing very well in this area, a lot of interest and new 4E campaigns starting here. I just arrived from the Plano meeting (North Dallas) and at least 2 persons are looking for 4E players.

I will start probably one in November once I get the FR Players and finish my try-out in CoC.

In my case even if I am switching to 4E (for the purpose of DMing), I still keept my 2 players (ADnD and 3.X), I am not disgusted or divorced with those editions as a player, and if later on I find a game running there that I would like to join, I'll do it. So I will keep the Player's 4E if I were you, just to have it as an option.

.

Engar
08-17-2008, 10:24 AM
I will keep the 3 core books even though I expect never to run 4e again. Who knows? I do not completely rule anything out, but I prefer DnD.

Anaesthesia
08-17-2008, 11:37 AM
There are like 3 "Meetups" in DFW and looks like 4E is doing very well in this area, a lot of interest and new 4E campaigns starting here. I just arrived from the Plano meeting (North Dallas) and at least 2 persons are looking for 4E players.

That doesn't help me-I'm in Pennsylvania! *lol* I know with my luck, the next few face-to-face games I get a chance to play, it'll be a 4.0!!

I do like hearing that some people do like 4.0 (my opinion is that no edition is without Pros, Cons, and Flaws), but it doesn't mean I'll be leaving 3.X behind anytime soon...

Scifione
08-17-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm still playing D&D 3.5 and using 3.x suppliments. I have read 4th edition and was not impressed by it. The faults I found in it are the same as the faults that have been stated, so no need to repeat them.

Thanks to the info I got on Pathfinder (v 3.75) I will be buying it in the future. Considering that I just spent $100 on 3.x suppiment books from Fantacy Flight Games, I will not be buying 4th edition any time soon. 2E has peaked my interest lately, and I may get some old books.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-17-2008, 09:36 PM
2E has peaked my interest lately, and I may get some old books.

I have a couple 2nd ed. books that i recently got. the mm is wicked.

Chi
08-17-2008, 10:53 PM
I mean that i may never get my use out of 3.5 and may very well go on play it forever and not upgrading to 4th

I thought your group was being difficult or least the other person in your group cause I am ready

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-17-2008, 11:08 PM
I thought your group was being difficult or least the other person in your group cause I am ready

oh sorry. i just meant that 3.5 might be enough for me to roleplay with for the rest of my days.

but i definately want to try some others rpgs

MortonStromgal
08-18-2008, 10:44 AM
Well I have to say 3.5, because I can adapt things I like out of 4e to 3.5. Like removing spells per day (I have hated that since I first played D&D), adding in the idea of Bloodied (only making it mean something), and anything else I feel like house ruling in.

Kalanth
08-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Well I have to say 3.5, because I can adapt things I like out of 4e to 3.5. Like removing spells per day (I have hated that since I first played D&D), adding in the idea of Bloodied (only making it mean something), and anything else I feel like house ruling in.

Bloodied already means something. Some races gain special abilities when bloodied (i.e. Dragonborn if they took a certain feat), some monster abilities do certain things when bloodied (i.e. Dragons and their breathweapon), and in some cases a bloodied opponent means that the player or monster gets new bonuses to certain powers. There are lots of things that Bloodied means, just most of those come latter on in the game.

MortonStromgal
08-18-2008, 05:05 PM
and in some cases

see thats my problem with it I want and in ALL cases, plus the 3.5 monsters don't have any bonus for bloodied.

Chi
08-19-2008, 11:15 AM
see thats my problem with it I want and in ALL cases, plus the 3.5 monsters don't have any bonus for bloodied.
I thought that was to make it a little easier on the players

Valdar
08-19-2008, 11:47 AM
see thats my problem with it I want and in ALL cases, plus the 3.5 monsters don't have any bonus for bloodied.

Assuming that you'll be giving some sort of penalty to bloodied foes, I think that would reduce suspense by first, making it easier for the players to die when things come down to the wire (so the players will play a more cautious game), and second, will make mop-up easier as the last few straggling monsters are made weaker.

It's a good change from a simulationist standpoint, but D&D is not friendly to simulationist systems- HPs are too abstract, so things break down when you try to start throwing in things like wound effects, crippled or severed limbs, etc. I've heard that Mearls is working on a grievous-wound system for a later core volume, whose mechanic will be similar to the existing poison/ disease tracks. I'll be curious to see how it goes.

DMMike
08-19-2008, 12:47 PM
3.5 had a version of bloodied. But it was called Morale, and it was an optional Heroes of Battle rule.

Valdar's right about D&D not being simulationist friendly. This keeps the game moving at an exciting pace. I imagine that combat would be painfully slow if you had to put in more die rolls, say, for hit location, overall damage, local damage, ability score damage, chance to drop weapon, and on and on.

Bloodied looks like a decent fix to that (except that it negates itself by allowing a healing surge). Morale is even better, because it gives value to fear-buffers (paladins and bards), and incorporates some abstract penalties (fear effects) that might or might not be derived from bodily harm.

MortonStromgal
08-19-2008, 03:09 PM
The point is I'll stick with 3.5 because I can adapt the ideas I like from 4e to 3.5. 4e does have some good stuff in it, its just not enough good stuff to make me switch from 3.5. Now if I'm playing in someone game I won't care which edition it is, but if I'm running it will stay 3.5 with 4e influences here and there.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-19-2008, 03:11 PM
from what i read of "bloodied" (for the 3 days i had the books) it seemed pretty cool. as a dragonborn, with the right feats, class, etc. you could deal some wicked damage when bloodied.

Webhead
08-19-2008, 04:04 PM
The point is I'll stick with 3.5 because I can adapt the ideas I like from 4e to 3.5. 4e does have some good stuff in it, its just not enough good stuff to make me switch from 3.5. Now if I'm playing in someone game I won't care which edition it is, but if I'm running it will stay 3.5 with 4e influences here and there.

Agreed. Even if I don't plan to run using 3.X or 4e, there are some good ideas in them that are worth stealing. Heck, I've heavily considered stealing the idea of "Aspects" from Spirit of the Century to plug into all my other favorite RPGs. "Aspects" are one of the coolest elements of RPG design that I've seen in a long, long time.

Talmek
08-20-2008, 06:28 AM
DM'ing a campaign - I must have 3.5
Playing a PC - Doesn't really matter to me.

After finishing up the core rulebooks for 4th, I deem the system acceptable (I know, I know, how pretentious of me) for playing a character. However, if I'm to DM then I would just be happier running a 3.5e campaign. I'm more comfortable with it, there's more options (for now), and I have sunk too much money into it to walk away from it now.

Kalanth
08-20-2008, 07:28 AM
DM'ing a campaign - I must have 3.5
Playing a PC - Doesn't really matter to me.

After finishing up the core rulebooks for 4th, I deem the system acceptable (I know, I know, how pretentious of me) for playing a character. However, if I'm to DM then I would just be happier running a 3.5e campaign. I'm more comfortable with it, there's more options (for now), and I have sunk too much money into it to walk away from it now.

I felt this way for a while as well, but then I ran a 4E one shot game and realized how much faster and easier it was to do up a 4E game compared to a 3.5 game. I would spend so much time flipping through this book and that, blocking out certain monsters and so on and then, when it came game day, I realized that I spent all that time and never really got around to the meat of the game, the story.

On the other hand with 4E its a quick flip, note the page, move on and I can really focus like never before. As a DM I appreciate and prefer a system that allows me to focus on the story more than the rules and the stats.

MortonStromgal
08-20-2008, 10:54 AM
Agreed. Even if I don't plan to run using 3.X or 4e, there are some good ideas in them that are worth stealing. Heck, I've heavily considered stealing the idea of "Aspects" from Spirit of the Century to plug into all my other favorite RPGs. "Aspects" are one of the coolest elements of RPG design that I've seen in a long, long time.

That is a good point, you can borrow from any rpg. Heck, if D&D would having these books of awesome monsters in it I would never buy another D&D book again. I've been hooked on the monster books since the Monsterous Manual though :( I even love some of the 3rd party ones (Tome of Horrors is my favorite)


I would spend so much time flipping through this book and that, blocking out certain monsters and so on and then, when it came game day, I realized that I spent all that time and never really got around to the meat of the game, the story.


I didn't have that problem with 3.X after I bought and played Mutants and Masterminds. Then my light bulb went on and I said "Oh that is how d20 works, I get it now" and I could wing it from there.

Webhead
08-20-2008, 12:09 PM
...I didn't have that problem with 3.X after I bought and played Mutants and Masterminds. Then my light bulb went on and I said "Oh that is how d20 works, I get it now" and I could wing it from there.

Ooh, another M&M fan! *applauds* :)

Kalanth
08-20-2008, 01:22 PM
I didn't have that problem with 3.X after I bought and played Mutants and Masterminds. Then my light bulb went on and I said "Oh that is how d20 works, I get it now" and I could wing it from there.

I am stuck in one of those "D&D only" kind of groups. Only twice in history did I break that with two ill fated attempts. One was d20 modern, and one was Classic Marvel Super Heroes. Other than that, D&D all the way for them leaving me the only one willing to branch out.

MortonStromgal
08-20-2008, 03:34 PM
Ooh, another M&M fan! *applauds* :)
You have no idea...

I became such a fanboy I left my beloved Shadowrun behind (that I had been GMing for years) and tried to do everything with M&M. Then I picked up nWOD core just for fun not thinking I would do anything with it. I like the idea of a dice pool horror mortals game so I wrote an adventure and we played it on Halloween... My players wouldn't let me go to bed until the adventure was done (I tried several times but they wanted to finish, after over 12 hours of gaming we finaly did). That made me a fanboy of nWOD and it has become my "generic" system.

Webhead
08-20-2008, 03:47 PM
I am stuck in one of those "D&D only" kind of groups. Only twice in history did I break that with two ill fated attempts. One was d20 modern, and one was Classic Marvel Super Heroes. Other than that, D&D all the way for them leaving me the only one willing to branch out.

I've felt a little of that crunch before as well. Not that my players are "D&D-only" people, but D&D is one of the few games that most of them can agree on, hence it tends to get played a lot (more often than I would care for). But I'm being overly critical. They're a good bunch and have been willing to branch out to other things on occasion, which I greatly appreciate.


You have no idea...

I became such a fanboy I left my beloved Shadowrun behind (that I had been GMing for years) and tried to do everything with M&M. Then I picked up nWOD core just for fun not thinking I would do anything with it. I like the idea of a dice pool horror mortals game so I wrote an adventure and we played it on Halloween... My players wouldn't let me go to bed until the adventure was done (I tried several times but they wanted to finish, after over 12 hours of gaming we finaly did). That made me a fanboy of nWOD and it has become my "generic" system.

Very cool. I love M&M. I have read some of nWoD and like some of the ways that the system was cleaned up. Have never run it though. If I did, I'd want to run a strictly "mortals" campaign with it.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-20-2008, 11:09 PM
I've felt a little of that crunch before as well. Not that my players are "D&D-only" people, but D&D is one of the few games that most of them can agree on, hence it tends to get played a lot (more often than I would care for). But I'm being overly critical. They're a good bunch and have been willing to branch out to other things on occasion, which I greatly appreciate.

luckily for me my group is willing to try anything. so if we don't like it we don't play it anymore

Chi
08-20-2008, 11:16 PM
luckily for me my group is willing to try anything. so if we don't like it we don't play it anymore
what if I want to play something that you boys hate though and then I don't get to play.:(

Webhead
08-21-2008, 01:22 PM
what if I want to play something that you boys hate though and then I don't get to play.:(

From what I understand, you play D&D and Star Wars, two of the most prolific, popular and well-established RPG settings in the history of the hobby (it is commonly said that the quality of an RPG is judged by how well it can be adapted to run Star Wars :D). I doubt you'll have any problems finding players. Now, finding good players is slightly more difficult...;)

Seriously though, some people are just more open to trying new games than others. The trick is, you never know if you'll like something until you try it. It's convincing them to try it for the first time that usually takes the most effort.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-21-2008, 06:37 PM
what if I want to play something that you boys hate though and then I don't get to play.:(

like what Web said. i don't know i don't like it if i don't try it. i'm open to trying any game.

Chi
08-21-2008, 11:38 PM
like what Web said. i don't know i don't like it if i don't try it. i'm open to trying any game.
And Ambartur.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-21-2008, 11:45 PM
And Ambartur.

he will try anything too. i think he will. he is just nervous to play i think

Ben Rostoker
08-22-2008, 03:08 AM
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/dungons-dragons-4th.php

Valdar
08-22-2008, 02:36 PM
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/dungons-dragons-4th.php

I like this satire better:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618

Chi
08-22-2008, 06:01 PM
he will try anything too. i think he will. he is just nervous to play i think
I think that he finds it weird to talk in charecter around us. I think he thinks it is silly

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-22-2008, 06:05 PM
I think that he finds it weird to talk in charecter around us. I think he thinks it is silly

i don't know if he thinks it's silly. well actually he might. cause he absolutely love fantasy and sci-fi. so maybe you are right.

hopefully he will grow into it.

Chi
08-22-2008, 06:20 PM
i don't know if he thinks it's silly. well actually he might. cause he absolutely love fantasy and sci-fi. so maybe you are right.

hopefully he will grow into it.
Well maybe we should start him out with star wars

Ben Rostoker
08-22-2008, 06:35 PM
I like this satire better:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618

That one's nice too. :) I Still prefer mine though.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-22-2008, 09:05 PM
Well maybe we should start him out with star wars

maybe do you want to do that?

Chi
08-22-2008, 09:09 PM
maybe do you want to do that?
Ya cause then he can be what are the goood guys called.............Oh yea JEDI

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-22-2008, 09:22 PM
Ya cause then he can be what are the goood guys called.............Oh yea JEDI

ya cause he does lean more towards sci-fi. and loves star wars. so ya we will start there

Chavic
08-22-2008, 09:44 PM
I'm pretty surprised to be reading all these complaints about 4th edition. I don't have a lot of personal experience, but I learned the 4e rules very quickly. Character creation took me about half an hour, including a brief background. I played two sessions and was very comfortable with the rules and the game as a whole. I have played a few more sessions since, and I greatly enjoy it.

I play with a group that played 3rd edition and then 3.5 edition DnD, and EVERY session they comment on how quickly combat goes by. They feel it is very smooth and and easy. The game just flows great.

Engar
08-23-2008, 11:29 AM
4e is excellent for a quick game wargame. I almost said it is good for a quick game of chess, but I think it relates better to stratego.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-23-2008, 02:34 PM
i had no problem with 4th edition. i just realized that i still had years to play in 3rd. and just because wotc came out with a new edition didn't mean that i had to run out and get it.

Talmek
08-26-2008, 09:09 PM
i had no problem with 4th edition. i just realized that i still had years to play in 3rd. <SNIP>

My sentiments exactly. I have a ton of money invested in an edition that is less than *three* campaigns old. Heck, none of my core rulebooks have broken their spines away from the cover due to continuous use yet!

Seriously, the only gripe I have/had is that WotC decided to stop support for 3.5e. That's it. I even understand why they did it (most probably to force 3.5 into obselescence and focus on their "new" product), but that doesn't make it right/fair in my book.

Bottom line: I said it before and I'll say it again, I just have too much money invested in 3.5 to make the switch.

Chi
08-27-2008, 03:06 PM
i had no problem with 4th edition. i just realized that i still had years to play in 3rd. and just because wotc came out with a new edition didn't mean that i had to run out and get it.
I don't know too too much about 4 but I know we have a good thing with 3.5 so why lose what is already good in your life.

Thriondel Half-Elven
08-27-2008, 07:53 PM
I don't know too too much about 4 but I know we have a good thing with 3.5 so why lose what is already good in your life.

ya exactly what i mean

Kalanth
08-27-2008, 08:26 PM
I don't know too too much about 4 but I know we have a good thing with 3.5 so why lose what is already good in your life.

Because, to some of us 3.5 is no longer a good thing in our lives. All the bad memories I have playing D&D, ranging from arguments to group breakups and more, those moments came during the 3.5 era. With a gathering of friends that had been so for 12 - 15 years and played through many versions of D&D we began to bicker and fight over the many rules of 3.5. Those that once played only to RP began to only see the numbers and developed their power gamer side, and the overwhelming amount of time invested just to run one session much less a campaign resulted in many piss pour campaigns than ever before.

But in all those things I charged on, in love with 3.5 and (in the beginning) full against 4e. The more I read the more I loosened my grip on that hatred. Eventually the group split, with half following me to a 4e campaign and the other deciding that they would not make the change. The arguments were not pretty and I have not seen those that stuck with 3.5 since the group split. Now, as an experienced 4e player and DM, I have learned that 4e is the system I prefer and the many errors and cluster of books and numbers that made of 3.5 was no longer interesting. I have not been able to look back at any of the 3.5 material for even just a reference point as it all makes my skin crawl in all honesty. The bad memories creep in, the mass of crunchy bits overwhelming each book, and the faint portions of fluff that one has to spend hours digging for. Itís at a point that I have been posting the fire sale on as many sites as I can just to dump off all the 3.5 books I have so as to remove the clutter of something I will never touch again.

agoraderek
08-27-2008, 08:44 PM
Itís at a point that I have been posting the fire sale on as many sites as I can just to dump off all the 3.5 books I have so as to remove the clutter of something I will never touch again.

whatcha got and whatcha want for it?

(and i agree with the rest of your post, btw, as far as gaming is supposed to be fun. i'm glad that 4e has allowed you to enjoy the game again, as it would be a shame to lose another member of our exclusive fraternity)

Chi
08-27-2008, 10:42 PM
Because, to some of us 3.5 is no longer a good thing in our lives. All the bad memories I have playing D&D, ranging from arguments to group breakups and more, those moments came during the 3.5 era. With a gathering of friends that had been so for 12 - 15 years and played through many versions of D&D we began to bicker and fight over the many rules of 3.5. Those that once played only to RP began to only see the numbers and developed their power gamer side, and the overwhelming amount of time invested just to run one session much less a campaign resulted in many piss pour campaigns than ever before.

But in all those things I charged on, in love with 3.5 and (in the beginning) full against 4e. The more I read the more I loosened my grip on that hatred. Eventually the group split, with half following me to a 4e campaign and the other deciding that they would not make the change. The arguments were not pretty and I have not seen those that stuck with 3.5 since the group split. Now, as an experienced 4e player and DM, I have learned that 4e is the system I prefer and the many errors and cluster of books and numbers that made of 3.5 was no longer interesting. I have not been able to look back at any of the 3.5 material for even just a reference point as it all makes my skin crawl in all honesty. The bad memories creep in, the mass of crunchy bits overwhelming each book, and the faint portions of fluff that one has to spend hours digging for. Itís at a point that I have been posting the fire sale on as many sites as I can just to dump off all the 3.5 books I have so as to remove the clutter of something I will never touch again.
No I meant for our group. Eventually I would like to try 4 and if you need someone to buy the 3.5 books off you let me know

Kalanth
08-28-2008, 07:47 AM
No I meant for our group. Eventually I would like to try 4 and if you need someone to buy the 3.5 books off you let me know

I figured as much, but at the same time the line was a great sounding board for my reasons for departing the edition. 3.5 had some good moments, but the bad out weighed the good and so it was time to move on.

Chi
08-28-2008, 10:10 AM
I figured as much, but at the same time the line was a great sounding board for my reasons for departing the edition. 3.5 had some good moments, but the bad out weighed the good and so it was time to move on.
I hear ya. I will get there too aventually I am sure!

Jcosby
08-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I think for me, it boils down to choice; choice of a game, and choices in the game. I echo something said by a previous poster, I wish they wouldn't have just dropped the support for 3.5 although there is always Paizo. As for choices in the game, that's something they really take away from you in 4th edition. They have really "Reduced" (being nice) the options that players have and some people really like that, and some (myself) really dislike that.

Options and choice are what made 3.5 great it's not the bad thing that people try to make it out to be. As a DM you need to learn how to corral those choices and options so they don't get out of hand. But if you have a good DM 3.5 can be and I believe is the best RPG system out there. It's flexible enough to serve any role(roll) you want it too.

Jeff

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-01-2008, 07:29 PM
I never cared about the edition wars.

I was in a 3.5 group of folks that grew up playing 2nd edition before I even knew it existed. To them 3.5 was a welcome change and more coherent than blah, blah, blah...

I was just happy to be at a full table of people that enjoyed playing some fantasy roleplaying!

Then I got 10 years of playing 3.5 under my belt, several campaigns run by me and taught to new friends. And it was still fine, difficult to teach, sometimes difficult to run, but all in all fine for what we wanted to do, roleplay!

Then Star Wars d20 came out! Oh man I freaked the F out! We played the crap outta that game! And it was a big pain in the arse! It pointed out every single little flaw that was wrong with the d20 system and made it almost unbearable to look at!

Then along came SW Saga Edition and with it news of a D&D 4th edition. After fully giving up on the old version of Star Wars and playing Saga Edition now, and realizing how good d20 CAN be it renewed my faith in D&D 4e.

Granted I haven't played a single game yet of 4e, but if it is anything like Saga edition, which since I am GMing a 4e game I am realizing it is, I will enjoy it.

In fact, since we have been playing SW Saga edition the hardest thing is going back to playing 3.5, which we are still doing. It is tiring in its clumsiness.

d20 needed an overhaul and so far the change has been good.

Engar
09-01-2008, 10:44 PM
Not that it is the same for everyone, but after playing both I love Saga and dislike 4e.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-02-2008, 12:23 AM
Not that it is the same for everyone, but after playing both I love Saga and dislike 4e.

I think what you are finding is that Saga fits Star Wars possibly much better than 4e fits D&D.

The problem D&D has is that it has been around for so long, had so many versions, had so many different players that it is difficult to pin down what game system is best for it.

Star Wars on the other hand had an excellent yet skewed game system to start, d6, then came along d20 and ruined it, then was revised and perfected in Saga edition.

The previous versions of D&D, I think, were all meant to correct "problems" in the previous version. The bold step WotC has taken with 4e is them defining what D&D is and creating a game system that they (the designers) think fit that definition. And whenever you define something as difficult to pin down as roleplaying, especially the progenitor of RPGs, then you are going to step on some toes.

Is it good or bad, better or worse, it doesn't matter at ALL! What matters is that you and your friends enjoy playing it.

People still play the RCR version of Star Wars and I have no idea why. A friend I have been rping with for years still prefers it over Saga! And that is after playing Saga!

But to each his own.

Engar
09-02-2008, 06:24 AM
People still play the RCR version of Star Wars and I have no idea why. A friend I have been rping with for years still prefers it over Saga! And that is after playing Saga!

You had me going for awhile until you said that! Now that is just rediculous. So this "friend" also is the one who can vouch for bigfoot, threw back nessy while fishing in the loch and also validates all UFO pics? Likes playing RCR SW, chaa sure!

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-02-2008, 08:51 AM
You had me going for awhile until you said that! Now that is just rediculous. So this "friend" also is the one who can vouch for bigfoot, threw back nessy while fishing in the loch and also validates all UFO pics? Likes playing RCR SW, chaa sure!

I know! I couldn't believe the words coming out of his mouth! I don't think he likes adjudicating rules and since Saga doesn't cover every detail of the SW universe he is forced to make judgment calls and I don't think he likes doing that.

The RCR had a rule for EVERYTHING, and that's what he likes about it.

ronpyatt
09-02-2008, 09:10 AM
The RCR had a rule for EVERYTHING, and that's what he likes about it.
That's it! That's the clue. Sorry to bring this back on topic, but in the 4th Edition D&D Dungeon Masters Guide on page 105, the last paragraph talks about the rule of having fun. If you're not having fun then skip to the fun part. Only play the fun parts. So, if you're not having fun with 4e, then skip it. If you end up punishing yourself through not having fun... you're not playing by the most important 4e rule.

Webhead
09-02-2008, 09:24 AM
You had me going for awhile until you said that! Now that is just rediculous. So this "friend" also is the one who can vouch for bigfoot, threw back nessy while fishing in the loch and also validates all UFO pics? Likes playing RCR SW, chaa sure!

Sadly, it happens. That's the subjectivness of "fun". At the risk of ruffling feathers, there are people I've known who are fanatical for Palladium's game system and they will defend it forwards, backwards and standing on their heads. If there are people like that, then it's not too hard to surrender to the idea that there are those willing to torture themselves with OCR Star Wars...and enjoy it...somehow.

Saga is an excellent expression of the d20 system from the perspective of both streamlining the game and opening up customizability at the same time. Much more so than core 3.5, there are universal patterns to the implementation of the rules which lends itself to greater cohesion and easier understanding of the precedent for each rule. Like the +2/+5/+10 modifier ladder. No more worrying about seperate mechanics for cover, concealment, two-weapon fighting, full defense options, etc.

It is still d20 at its core and thus still has a few of the systems quirks, but it is a much more consistent and approachable form of d20.

I'm not sure if 4e makes D&D more consistent and approachable, but something tells me that that is the direction the designers were intending to go. I don't think that's a bad ambition (quite admirable, actually) but it seems that perhaps in their effort, the apple fell too far from the tree for most fans of D&D. Ideas gave rise to more ideas until the result is a Frankensteinian creation that resembles its component parts on only a surface level. But like Shelley's monster, perhaps beneath the frightening exterior is really nothing more than a gentle, misunderstood soul. I don't know...haven't played it...but the metaphors are fun! ;)


...The RCR had a rule for EVERYTHING, and that's what he likes about it.

Yuck! That might be for some, but not for me. See how subjective role playing is! You can have two people look at the exact same thing and have completely opposite reactions. :)

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-02-2008, 01:45 PM
I'm not sure if 4e makes D&D more consistent and approachable, but something tells me that that is the direction the designers were intending to go. I don't think that's a bad ambition (quite admirable, actually) but it seems that perhaps in their effort, the apple fell too far from the tree for most fans of D&D. Ideas gave rise to more ideas until the result is a Frankensteinian creation that resembles its component parts on only a surface level. But like Shelley's monster, perhaps beneath the frightening exterior is really nothing more than a gentle, misunderstood soul. I don't know...haven't played it...but the metaphors are fun! ;)

Why am I always in 100% agreement with you Webhead?

And since you brought it up, I would like to mention that I find it incredibly interesting that we get to witness game design progressing as it has in the past few years. It seems as if the industry is growing, which is good, and that we are getting game designers who want to learn from each other, make the industry better and revolutionize game systems. And its cool to be witness to that more so now than we ever did before. The industry is becoming that like any other industry, it has to grow and keep up with the times if it wants to succeed. Afterall, where would we be if console games stopped at the Atari? Or if computer technology reached its peak with the Commodore 64? Or if D&D was still Chainmail?

Times change, industries grow, the only thing we as the consumer can hope for is finding what we like best and stick with it for awhile. I'm still watching TV on my old tube TV and haven't upgraded to digital or HD or any of that fancy mumbo jumbo. Just like High Def is on the way out to make way for Blue Ray, I'm sure they will still make DVDs, for a short time. My friend has a massive collection of VHS tapes and it sgetting harder and harder to find a VHS player. Etc...

Webhead
09-02-2008, 03:16 PM
Why am I always in 100% agreement with you Webhead?

What can I say? Great minds think alike! :)

Engar
09-03-2008, 04:58 PM
That's it! That's the clue. Sorry to bring this back on topic, but in the 4th Edition D&D Dungeon Masters Guide on page 105, the last paragraph talks about the rule of having fun. If you're not having fun then skip to the fun part. Only play the fun parts. So, if you're not having fun with 4e, then skip it. If you end up punishing yourself through not having fun... you're not playing by the most important 4e rule.


4e can be fun. I just do not have time anymore to tweek what I consider a mediocre system into something consistently fun. I guess my point is now 4e will be "skipped" for lacking depth of fun.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-03-2008, 05:10 PM
4e can be fun. I just do not have time anymore to tweek what I consider a mediocre system into something consistently fun. I guess my point is now 4e will be "skipped" for lacking depth of fun.

Because your above statement might be unclear I want to clarify it. Correct me if I am wrong.

4e is NOT "lacking depth of fun" because you also said, "4e can be fun", you just lack the time to make 4e into a game you consider fun.

I just wanted to note the confusion your statement could construe to some folks.

Engar
09-04-2008, 06:56 AM
To me 4e is fun the way playing a boardgame is fun. I like most boardgames. I even love a few of them (Catan, Risk, etc). I do not want to play them weekly. I certainly do not want to pick one to play for five or six hours at a time each week.

Chi
09-04-2008, 01:13 PM
OK so we gave 4E a second chance and I am glad to say that I love it! I have made several charecters ( go to my pics to see them) and cannot wait to get the call from some people we met at tacticon, to start playing.

Thriondel Half-Elven
09-05-2008, 04:49 PM
OK so we gave 4E a second chance and I am glad to say that I love it! I have made several charecters ( go to my pics to see them) and cannot wait to get the call from some people we met at tacticon, to start playing.

I too like it. can't wait til the PHB 2 comes out with all the other races and classes.

but ya glad we went back

Vulture
09-07-2008, 01:46 PM
im sticking to 3.5, i love my Half-Orc barbarian too much. plus i already run a game in that system, i dont want to convert it to 4.0

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-07-2008, 02:01 PM
I love the half-orc barbarian. Shunned by both races, never really fitting in anywhere. Just getting used for his skill in fighting and then discarded when the higher ups are done with him/her. The ability to role-play this character and his psychology is endless.

Thoth-Amon

GC13
09-07-2008, 10:18 PM
I keep reading over 4E and have a hard time swallowing it... I loved SAGA (heck, I even liked d20 Modern, though wished the Advanced Classes packed with it were... better). It's a modification of the d20 system that takes some getting used to, but I've finally gotten over the way skills are represented. :D

4E... How shall I say this... I knew D&D. D&D was a friend of mine. 4E, you are no D&D.

It's gotta be the move lists for everybody, and how important the move lists are to your character build. It's like, everybody's a wizard now, except wizards can't summon. >.< It seems alright though. I'll try getting into a PbP or two and see how it works out for me. It'll just take some getting used to, and I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to deem it "better" than 3.5E. Though I must say, I enjoyed how they explicitly laid out the three tiers of character power. Very, very helpful, and they even built it into gameplay.

Chi
09-08-2008, 10:01 PM
I keep reading over 4E and have a hard time swallowing it... I loved SAGA (heck, I even liked d20 Modern, though wished the Advanced Classes packed with it were... better). It's a modification of the d20 system that takes some getting used to, but I've finally gotten over the way skills are represented. :D

4E... How shall I say this... I knew D&D. D&D was a friend of mine. 4E, you are no D&D.

It's gotta be the move lists for everybody, and how important the move lists are to your character build. It's like, everybody's a wizard now, except wizards can't summon. >.< It seems alright though. I'll try getting into a PbP or two and see how it works out for me. It'll just take some getting used to, and I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to deem it "better" than 3.5E. Though I must say, I enjoyed how they explicitly laid out the three tiers of character power. Very, very helpful, and they even built it into gameplay.
Have you tried 4E yet?

GC13
09-10-2008, 06:18 PM
No, as referenced when I said I would attempt to get in a PbP (play-by-post) or two to get a more tangible feel for it.

I'll say this though: SAGA sure read a heck of a lot better than 4E.

Thriondel Half-Elven
09-10-2008, 06:34 PM
No, as referenced when I said I would attempt to get in a PbP (play-by-post) or two to get a more tangible feel for it.

I'll say this though: SAGA sure read a heck of a lot better than 4E.

yes it did:)

Kalanth
09-11-2008, 04:52 PM
No, as referenced when I said I would attempt to get in a PbP (play-by-post) or two to get a more tangible feel for it.

I'll say this though: SAGA sure read a heck of a lot better than 4E.

PbP 4E does not do it justice, to be honest. It's good, and run well it can really be entertaining, but there is nothing like sitting down at the table with the rules and giving a real collage try. I have yet to be dissapointed with it. My group has one player that also has a 3.5 session during the week and he tells me that he struggles to go to those sessions because it is less fun rules wise and story wise, and all he thinks about during that session is the 4E game.

Mindbomb
09-11-2008, 06:10 PM
...all he thinks about during that session is the 4E game.

Blasphemy. I played 4e for about 2 months with the group I've been gaming with for about 15 years and finally told them I would not be coming back. To steal a quote from someone else here 'I like 4e like I like board games, and I love some board games (Runebound, Risk, Zombies etc.) but I would not want to play them every week (or more) and I certainly wouldn't want to play them for hours at length. If D&D is about the rules than this game (4e) is for you. However if it's actually about the characters you get to grow with and see become WAY more than you could have imagined you gotta go with any other version.
my 2cents

Kalanth
09-12-2008, 06:02 AM
Blasphemy. I played 4e for about 2 months with the group I've been gaming with for about 15 years and finally told them I would not be coming back. To steal a quote from someone else here 'I like 4e like I like board games, and I love some board games (Runebound, Risk, Zombies etc.) but I would not want to play them every week (or more) and I certainly wouldn't want to play them for hours at length. If D&D is about the rules than this game (4e) is for you. However if it's actually about the characters you get to grow with and see become WAY more than you could have imagined you gotta go with any other version.
my 2cents

I disagree completely. Ok, so 4e is much easier rules wise, with watered down characters when held up against 3.5. Compare it to PHB only characters out of 2nd edition and you have pretty much the same growth concept. You have options, but not nearly as many as 3.5 and, near the end of my 3.5 time, I found that having that many options detracted from the game instead of adding to it. As for character growth there is plenty of that. Rules wise the characters continuosly grow stronger as you move forward and more options are being released all the time by WoTC through the E-Zines.

In regards to RP wise, that is dependent on the player not the system. People that use the "Not enough rules for the RP" argument come across, to me, as plain bad RP'ers. You don't need any rules in RP, and the players develop the character as they wish in how the play them out. Even with the party only being level three it has been more exciting rules wise and roleplay wise than any game short of an Eberron stint that we did back in 2005.

Jcosby
09-12-2008, 10:21 AM
In regards to RP wise, that is dependent on the player not the system. People that use the "Not enough rules for the RP" argument come across, to me, as plain bad RP'ers. You don't need any rules in RP, and the players develop the character as they wish in how the play them out. Even with the party only being level three it has been more exciting rules wise and role-play wise than any game short of an Eberron stint that we did back in 2005.


That's a funny quote because I've never seen anyone say "There isn't enough rules to RP" Itís usually the other way around. "The rules of this system are bogging the game down not allowing us to role-play the way we would like too." To that I say what I have always said. Role-Playing has nothing what so ever to do with the system, nothing not one thing.

In the end the differences between 3.5 and 4.0 are options. In 3.5 you have a much larger number of options for game development and character development. Some people want more options, some people what less options. I think that pretty much boils down the whole 3.5 Vs. 4.0.

In my opinion only the DM should worry about the amount of options since he has to know and manage all of those options. Once a player creates his character that's all he has to worry about. I just can't fathom why a player wouldn't want as many options for their characters as possible. You only have one character in a particular campaign to worry about. How hard is that.. Compare that to the work the DM has to do. Also, 4.0 as it stands now (and I'm sure it will change with the 4.0 splat books) will get old as there are very few options for characters. Even between classes they are to similar for my tastes. Powers don't change they just get a new name a bit more powerful. Maybe when 4.0 has had time to mature and more material has come out I might give it a chance again.

JC

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Maybe when 4.0 has had time to mature and more material has come out I might give it a chance again.

JC

I have noticed that this seems to be the direction WotC is heading with these new rules both in 4e and SW Saga Edition. While playing a SW game with only the core book it felt completely and obviously incomplete. Now that we have 3 supplements, about to get the 4th on Tuesday, 1 more before the end of this year and 3 more around the beginning of next year, Saga edition is feeling much more complete.

So while the character options may be slim with 4e right now, I am confidant that will change. They are planning on releasing more PHBs with more core classes and if the Martial Power Sourcebook is a sign of things to come then it appears there will be a Sourcebook for every Power source in 4e. And that is a lot of books!

Webhead
09-12-2008, 12:18 PM
...In the end the differences between 3.5 and 4.0 are options. In 3.5 you have a much larger number of options for game development and character development. Some people want more options, some people what less options. I think that pretty much boils down the whole 3.5 Vs. 4.0...

The following is not a defense of 4e, but rather, of a general game system sensibility that I hold:

I like options. Who doesn't? But, to me, too many, highly specific options detract from the flow and enjoyment of the game. That's the crux of my beef with 3e. Too many options that are overly specific. I would rather have 50 options that are a little more broad and adaptable than 100 options that are very narrowly and specifically defined. In the same way, I would rather spend 30 minutes building a character that is half as "dense" rules-wise than an hour to get twice as much specificity on paper. But then, I'm not as much of a "mainstream" gamer as some and so I probably have a little bit different opinion than some (or even most).

In reality, there should be a balance. 75 adaptable but detailed options to satisfy both those who need to know what their character looks like in exact rules-terms and those who want their character to not be too tightly constrained by "if the rules don't say you can, you can't".


...I just can't fathom why a player wouldn't want as many options for their characters as possible...

Part of this goes back to a documentary that I was watching years ago about a bunch of game programmers designing a piece of software. The had a round table discussion about how many options they should give the user. At first, a lot of people espoused giving as many options as they could to encourage freedom. But a few of the programmers came back to say that too many options can distract and muddle the experience to the point that the user feels overwhelmed and thus can't enjoy any particular aspect of the program. There is validity to both sides of the arguement. In the end, they had to meet "half way". Enough options to be entertaining without burying the user in needless complexity.

A similar study was performed on infants and toddlers. Put 3 or 4 different kinds of food in front of a young child and they will often be so overwhelmed trying to decide which food to eat that they often end up eating none of it.

My 2 cents.

Engar
09-12-2008, 05:34 PM
A similar study was performed on infants and toddlers. Put 3 or 4 different kinds of food in front of a young child and they will often be so overwhelmed trying to decide which food to eat that they often end up eating none of it.

My 2 cents.

That struck me odd. There are many more choices these days, fewer parents limiting them and a great deal more child obesity. Perhaps an infant is confused, but by kindergarten kids seem perfectly happy to eat all the options at once while playing PS3.

I really do try to keep my cynism on a leash, but it slips out sometimes.

Webhead
09-12-2008, 05:56 PM
That struck me odd. There are many more choices these days, fewer parents limiting them and a great deal more child obesity. Perhaps an infant is confused, but by kindergarten kids seem perfectly happy to eat all the options at once while playing PS3.

I really do try to keep my cynism on a leash, but it slips out sometimes.

Yes, this study was specific to infants and young toddlers. Older children, especially those achieving school-going age are not faced with the same issue. Indeed, parents who do not instill a proper sense of meal proportions with their children at a young age are only encouraging the likelihood of overeating. Other studies have shown that your body can "lose" the ability to recognize when you are full if you constantly overeats.

Yep, we sadly live in a society that thrives on keeping kids indoors, in front of the television, stuffing their faces with Coca-Cola, Big Macs and Oreos. Meanwhile, everyone is blaming somebody else. No accountability anymore. Whatever happened to freeze tag, stickball and family dinners? They were replaced by MySpace, iPods, T-Mobile and value menus.

Webhead
09-12-2008, 06:01 PM
That struck me odd. There are many more choices these days, fewer parents limiting them and a great deal more child obesity. Perhaps an infant is confused, but by kindergarten kids seem perfectly happy to eat all the options at once while playing PS3.

I really do try to keep my cynism on a leash, but it slips out sometimes.

Come to think of it, this might say something profound about WotC's path with 3e. The "toddlers" (less experienced gamers) see the veritable sea of options and get confused and frustrated and turn away. Meanwhile, the "older kids" just take what they're given and gorge themselves to the point of obesity, cramming so many rules down their gullet that they can barely move and then getting crabby when somebody tells them, "No".

Yeah, I'm a bit cynical too... :)

Vulture
09-13-2008, 06:47 AM
Come to think of it, this might say something profound about WotC's path with 3e. The "toddlers" (less experienced gamers) see the veritable sea of options and get confused and frustrated and turn away. Meanwhile, the "older kids" just take what they're given and gorge themselves to the point of obesity, cramming so many rules down their gullet that they can barely move and then getting crabby when somebody tells them, "No".



I started playing D&D during 3e, and i loved all the options that i had to take my character.

Kalanth
09-13-2008, 08:36 AM
That's a funny quote because I've never seen anyone say "There isn't enough rules to RP" Itís usually the other way around. "The rules of this system are bogging the game down not allowing us to role-play the way we would like too." To that I say what I have always said. Role-Playing has nothing what so ever to do with the system, nothing not one thing.


I get it mostly from the WoTC forums where the argument I see usually revolves around the streamlined skill system and the impact that has on the roleplay in the game. I completely agree with you that the system should have anything to do with the roleplaying, but I have seen some (not all) that grew up on the 3.5 rule set use the rules as a crutch in their roleplaying.

Webhead
09-13-2008, 12:32 PM
I started playing D&D during 3e, and i loved all the options that i had to take my character.

Oh, I don't doubt that there are many who enjoy 3e despite the encyclopedias worth of rules that it has become mired in. In fact, I'm sure there are those who like the game because of the sheer volume of rules options available. I should know...I'm friends with some of them.

I first played D&D in 2e and had fun. It was far from a "perfect" game system, but we didn't pay too much attention to the rules beyond what we needed to play our characters and for the DM to run traps and monsters.

When I first heard about 3e coming out through previews in Inquest Magazine and online, I was really excited because it seemed like it was D&D re-tooled to be more streamlined, flexible and internally consistent. And it was. When I first picked up the 3 core books, it was a pretty neat game. We played a good bit of it and we were happy with the overall changes. Everything seemed to be a step forward in game design.

Then, 3e got away from itself. Everybody was stoked by the idea of "Feats" and "Prestige Classes". These were new and exciting concepts to D&D. So guess what WotC did...they milked the cow...dry. Every book was an excuse to release more feats, spells and PrCs. And while more options is a noble goal, eventually you can beat a horse so far that you don't recognize it as a horse anymore...and it starts to get kinda smelly.

I picked up on WotC's trend about the time that Tome and Blood came out, which was the last 3e book that I purchased. 3e was becoming too bloated and heavy-handed. I have since sold all my books and resolved myself to the notion that if I were ever to run a 3e game again, it would be "core books only". I have no desire to wade through the bog of extra rules that are out there. Yes, some of them are very "kewl"...but that's not what I want my game to be about. But WotC established a precedent of "everything and the kitchen sink", and people get crabby when you tell them "no"...or so I have observed with 3e.

One of my greatest pet peeves is to watch a player spend hours pouring through the plethora of sourcebooks looking for "just the right feat" to go with their character. If you need new feats to be creative, you're not trying very hard. There are more than enough options in the corebooks alone to build from. Concept is key...that's me. And that's not everyone...but that's how I roll (...a d20).

Kalanth
09-13-2008, 12:51 PM
I agree completely about there being to many options in 3.X. Those that I played with have that complaint constantly when it comes to that edition as well. We all started on 1st edition or the Red Box and as more came out it was fun and interesting, but eventually it because overwhelming and diluted. It was now more time consuming to make a character than it was to play the game, and in some cases it was just plain game breaking to use those splat books. I like the reduction in options and the more linear character design as it allows us to focus more on the story and RP behind the character instead of the nuts and bolts.

Engar
09-13-2008, 01:01 PM
I like core books only + custom content. 3.5 was excellent for that, but many DMs and players do not create custom content. I have spent time pouring through obscure supplements as well and not only does it fail to spur my imagination, but it takes as much or more time than creating something original and typically at a significant cost in quality. I say this in regard to both running and playing in a game.

Webhead
09-13-2008, 01:20 PM
...I like the reduction in options and the more linear character design as it allows us to focus more on the story and RP behind the character instead of the nuts and bolts.

I couldn't have said better myself. Give me enough rules to give basic shape to my character and leave the imagination up to me.


I like core books only + custom content. 3.5 was excellent for that, but many DMs and players do not create custom content. I have spent time pouring through obscure supplements as well and not only does it fail to spur my imagination, but it takes as much or more time than creating something original and typically at a significant cost in quality. I say this in regard to both running and playing in a game.

Agreed.

Jcosby
09-16-2008, 12:08 PM
I like core books only + custom content. 3.5 was excellent for that, but many DMís and players do not create custom content. I have spent time pouring through obscure supplements as well and not only does it fail to spur my imagination, but it takes as much or more time than creating something original and typically at a significant cost in quality. I say this in regard to both running and playing in a game.

I love 3.x editions. But, I will be the first person to limit my games to core books only, and then do a by exception only rule for anything outside of the core books. The reason isn't that there are 4,000,000 books for 3.5 that is actually a good thing. The problem is after so many books you get power creep in a lot of the new classes, abilities and feats. I think one of the most important parts of D&D for a "roll-playing" aspect is balance. Even role-players want to have an even ground when making your characters. Other wise people wouldn't have any rules, go ahead and give your character all 30's across the board on stats, give them a million Hps. There has to be rules for character creation and progression. We all want fair and even rules. With a lot of the splat books a smart player can combine feats and skills to make their characters unbalanced. When a player wants to use a skill, feat, class or what ever from a non-core book I make them present that new ability to me and I check them out on a case by base basis. Most of the time I will actually say yes, but there are times that it's obviously something broken and I will either adjust it and give it back to the player to decide on after it's been altered or just flat out say no.

But the one thing that I like is molding my character through advancement. Getting new abilities and using them while I play. 4th edition really lacks in this environment. Everything is just to cookie cutter for me. As I've stated a 100 times before, the rules and system have nothing to do with Role-playing. You don't even need a "system" and or "rules" to Role-Play you could just sit down at a table and improvise as you go with a group of people. So, saying that rules prevent you from this or that is just not true. But the lack of options will prevent you from creating and molding a character that is truly unique and different from everyone else. That's what 4th edition truly lacks.

JC

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-16-2008, 12:12 PM
1E will always be the best! <runs and ducks for cover>

Truth be known, all the editions have their merits. In the end, it really comes down on what one likes to play the most, so when i read these posts, i realize everyone is right.

Just one more reason why DnD is awesome. It brings out the passion in all of us.

Your brother and fellow gamer,

Thoth-Amon

kirksmithicus
09-16-2008, 01:05 PM
I moved recently and while I was unpacking I found my old B2 Keep on the Borderland Module. So I was thinking about running it as a 4E campaign if I get the chance
. :D

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-16-2008, 01:51 PM
I moved recently and while I was unpacking I found my old B2 Keep on the Borderland Module. So I was thinking about running it as a 4E campaign if I get the chance
. :D
Definitely do it. If i lived closer I'd ask for a seat at your gaming table, for i havent played that module since it initial release. Two of my friends/GM's updated WLD and Ravenloft, respectfully, for 4.0. They are both a blast.

Thoth-Amon

Webhead
09-16-2008, 02:57 PM
...But the lack of options will prevent you from creating and molding a character that is truly unique and different from everyone else...

From a purely statistical/rules stand point, I agree. The difference then, is the emphasis on the statistical/rules part of your character. I have a great fondness for a handful of games like Risus, Wushu and PDQ where the uniqueness and tweak-ability of your character doesn't come so much from the statistics themselves as the creativity the player decides to put into them. A multitude of characters might have the exact same "numbers" but each might reflect very differently upon the character, how it is played and how it affects the story of the game.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that more "rules" options doesn't intrinsically make for more "character" options. Like you said, you don't need rules to role play. Some people take rules (and RPGs) at strictly face value...and that's a shame because there's a lot more to a role playing game than math and resource management.

Jcosby
09-17-2008, 11:18 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that more "rules" options doesn't intrinsically make for more "character" options. Like you said, you don't need rules to role play. Some people take rules (and RPGs) at strictly face value...and that's a shame because there's a lot more to a role playing game than math and resource management.


The problem is, math and resource management is at the heart of D&D. There are many games out there that, that is not the case. But D&D is and has been since 3.0 esp. heavily dependant on crafting your character through skills and feats to make them unique. How you role play your character has nothing to do with the feats and skills he or she has. If youíre a good role-player you will have a concept in mind for what you want to role-play and you will build a character concept to support that in the underlying rule system. People see it the other way around and I don't know why.

In 4th edition, you have so few choices on character concept the way you go about doing things in the roll-playing system of 4th edition makes you just like everyone else. Also you character never grows; he just gets a new ability that does the exact same thing with just a bit more power. I ask why? Youíre not changing, your not growing. How are you going to role-play that your character is different when in 30 levels you've had basically the same abilities since you were created.

They have striped the game down to much and hand-cuffed the players to much in my opinion. Having all of these options isn't a deterrent from good role-playing itís a great support system. It's up to the DM and the players to create the good role-playing not the system. With 4th edition they are trying to make the system create the role-playing which is the wrong way.



JC

Webhead
09-17-2008, 12:38 PM
The problem is, math and resource management is at the heart of D&D. There are many games out there that, that is not the case. But D&D is and has been since 3.0 esp. heavily dependant on crafting your character through skills and feats to make them unique.

Which probably explains my declining interest in D&D post-3e. Not that I'm opposed to rules or options for making characters unique, but 3e's heavy-handed dependancy on rules options tended to dominate the game and lent itself more to "wargaming" in my experience because it clearly and elaborately rewarded that kind of play. Not that you can't role play in 3e, quite the contrary, but the gameplay seemed to lend itself much more to a series of jarring transitions from "fight time" to "talk time" due to its rules heft and that tended to break up the flow of the game for me.

I'm not saying 4e doesn't do the same and by every indication, it might even exacerbate the problem. I've never played it so I honestly couldn't say.


How you role play your character has nothing to do with the feats and skills he or she has. If youíre a good role-player you will have a concept in mind for what you want to role-play and you will build a character concept to support that in the underlying rule system. People see it the other way around and I don't know why.

And that is a trend that I notice more frequently post-3e. Players building the rules first and then coming up with "justification" by molding a character concept around it. Like in my comments above, I think this was primarily the result of the fact that there is such immediately tangible "reward" for the player by manipulating the rules. I've seen characters built because of a chain of feats. They wanted a character who could have this, this and that feat (because it was a powerful/kewl combo) and they would set about building a path of character progression that would take them there.

But I agree, concept should begin before the player sets pencil to paper. Sometimes, players need a creative "jumping off point" and so they will flip through rules looking for ideas. It's when the concept is simply an excuse to rules-tweak that I get a bit weary.


In 4th edition, you have so few choices on character concept the way you go about doing things in the roll-playing system of 4th edition makes you just like everyone else. Also you character never grows; he just gets a new ability that does the exact same thing with just a bit more power. I ask why? Youíre not changing, your not growing. How are you going to role-play that your character is different when in 30 levels you've had basically the same abilities since you were created.

They have striped the game down to much and hand-cuffed the players to much in my opinion. Having all of these options isn't a deterrent from good role-playing itís a great support system. It's up to the DM and the players to create the good role-playing not the system. With 4th edition they are trying to make the system create the role-playing which is the wrong way.

You're probably right about that. From my limited readings of the game, most things do come across as either overly restrictive or overly generic, but I've never actually played it so I will refrain from ultimate judgement.

Just to be clear, my previous posts are not in defense of 4e but rather, my voicing on the issue of what D&D on the whole looks like to me as a game and where I think it works and where I think it falls down. In 3e, it has fallen down for me far more often than it has worked...so I prefer to play other things.

boulet
09-17-2008, 12:50 PM
It's up to the DM and the players to create the good role-playing not the system. With 4th edition they are trying to make the system create the role-playing which is the wrong way.
To a point I can agree : people are playing the game. It's ultimately them who create "the game", the activity, the social thing happening. But your affirmation troubles me a bit too. For instance take alignment rules. Is there any reason for those rules other than influence, even generate the activity of "role-playing" ? Hasn't been alignment part of D&D for a long time ?

I may not understand what you're pointing at when you say "make the system create the role-playing which is the wrong way". Could you develop on that ?

Jcosby
09-18-2008, 10:07 AM
To a point I can agree : people are playing the game. It's ultimately them who create "the game", the activity, the social thing happening. But your affirmation troubles me a bit too. For instance take alignment rules. Is there any reason for those rules other than influence, even generate the activity of "role-playing" ? Hasn't been alignment part of D&D for a long time ?


I may not understand what you're pointing at when you say "make the system create the role-playing which is the wrong way". Could you develop on that ?

With 4th Edition WotC is trying to force role-playing into the game with certain mechanics. Off the top of my head the one example is the social encounter, (Edit. Skill Challenge) I know that's not the name but it's where you roll x-skill checks and you have to get x-successes before you get x-failures. Now honestly does that sound like role-playing to you? I always thought the DM posses a challenge to the playerís that could be a monster, puzzle or NPCs and it's up to the players to work through that challenge while role-playing. Even combat can be role-played while you roll the dice. I've stated in posts before there is a roll-play way of doing things and there is a role-playing way to doing the same thing. It's up to the players and DM to decide which way they want to do it.

Unlike a lot of people even on here I don't think that roll-playing is a bad thing. Why is it bad? If it's the way everyone at the table wants to play and its how they get their enjoyment then how could that be bad? I've played in heavy role-play games and war simulation type roll-playing games in D&D and I have loved them both.

Back to the point I was making before. Options are never bad in life. Never Never Never. Using an excuse that 3.x is bad because there are too many options are just utterly ridicules. If you believe there are too many splat books to keep track of as a DM then limit it to the ones you want to use. Guess what, you just made a choice. But you had the choice to make. A lot of people take that for granted.

We also have one more choice; play 3.x, 4.0 or heck even both or neither. That's the point, we have choices. Without choices life is bland and boring. Sorry I don't want a bland and boring version of D&D and that's what I see 4th edition as.

JC

Webhead
09-18-2008, 11:59 AM
With 4th Edition WotC is trying to force role-playing into the game with certain mechanics. Off the top of my head the one example is the social encounter, (Edit. Skill Challenge) I know that's not the name but it's where you roll x-skill checks and you have to get x-successes before you get x-failures. Now honestly does that sound like role-playing to you? I always thought the DM posses a challenge to the playerís that could be a monster, puzzle or NPCs and it's up to the players to work through that challenge while role-playing. Even combat can be role-played while you roll the dice. I've stated in posts before there is a roll-play way of doing things and there is a role-playing way to doing the same thing. It's up to the players and DM to decide which way they want to do it.

What my instincts tell me about the designers' purpose for inventing the concept of "Skill Challenges" is to give some rules options to the "roll-players" that you mention who don't get their thrills from the purely social or cerebral encounters. I know those kinds of players and have had them in my games from time to time. Just as you mentioned that one can role play during combat encounters, I don't think that "Skill Challenges" are trying to force role play into the rules so much as give the "roll-players" something interesting to do and to get them involved in those scenes that, traditionally, left them with nothing to do but wait around. Every character in D&D has a way to contribute in combat encounters. I see "Skill Challenges" as a way to have everyone contribute in non-combat encounters as well.

Again, I've not played (and don't directly forsee playing) 4e, so this is just my "game designer hunch". I find that the idea of "Skill Challenges" sounds interesting in theory. Whether or not it works in practice, I'm not sure.


Unlike a lot of people even on here I don't think that roll-playing is a bad thing. Why is it bad? If it's the way everyone at the table wants to play and its how they get their enjoyment then how could that be bad? I've played in heavy role-play games and war simulation type roll-playing games in D&D and I have loved them both.

Yes. There is nothing "wrong" with people who get a lot of enjoyment out of doing the "numbers" part of the game. But some people enjoy that more than others. RPGs need rules on at least some level to work the way they do. Even more rules-lite, "narrativist" games still have (and need) rules, even if they keep them very short and simple. It's really about finding a comfortable balance that works for the group and the game being played. Yes, I too have played everything from diceless "story games" to detailed, simulationist wargames. Each lends itself to a different (fun) kind of experience. For me, RPGs is about finding a reasonable balance of the two. Enough rulesy-ness to appease some players and enough narrativism and role play to appease me and others.

In short, I don't tend to enjoy the "roll-play" to the same extent as the "role-play" in my RPGs. That's what brings me enjoyment, so how could that be "bad" either?


Back to the point I was making before. Options are never bad in life. Never Never Never. Using an excuse that 3.x is bad because there are too many options are just utterly ridicules. If you believe there are too many splat books to keep track of as a DM then limit it to the ones you want to use. Guess what, you just made a choice. But you had the choice to make. A lot of people take that for granted.

Very true. The only difficulty that one might face then, is one of expectation. If players expect to be able to draw upon such vast "freedom" via the gobs and gobs of sourcebooks, and then they are told that the DM wants to "limit" things because he doesn't want to keep track of all of it in his game, then some people get snippy.

Jcosby
09-18-2008, 04:17 PM
Very true. The only difficulty that one might face then, is one of expectation. If players expect to be able to draw upon such vast "freedom" via the gobs and gobs of sourcebooks, and then they are told that the DM wants to "limit" things because he doesn't want to keep track of all of it in his game, then some people get snippy.

That's an extremely weak reason to say that 3.x is a bad system because it has to many options though. My point still stands. If you are at that impasse then you have a problem between players and the DM. That's something you can and should work out before the game ever starts. Honestly, with my open approach I have never had that problem. Again, I allow players to submit a request for a feat, skill what ever from any splat book but I tell them in advance that I may either alter it or refuse it into the game.

Again, I have never seen an argument that stands up to simple logic that to many options is a bad thing especially when as a DM you have complete and utter control over all of the options; which to use, which not to use. Hell, I know a lot of DM's that say... Core books only, period. 3.5 is a great game with just the three core books.

JC

Webhead
09-18-2008, 05:21 PM
That's an extremely weak reason to say that 3.x is a bad system because it has to many options though.

I wasn't attempting to say that 3.X is a "bad" system so much as a system that sits on the edge of my "comfort zone", primarily because it encourages a different kind of focus and player-thinking in-game than I would like. My comments about "expectation" were meant to be more referentially tied to what I have experienced of the game's "focus" to be rather than the breadth of rules options allowed by the DM.


My point still stands. If you are at that impasse then you have a problem between players and the DM. That's something you can and should work out before the game ever starts. Honestly, with my open approach I have never had that problem. Again, I allow players to submit a request for a feat, skill what ever from any splat book but I tell them in advance that I may either alter it or refuse it into the game.

I have never met an impasse due to a difference in allowable material in 3.X, but I have met players who were a bit discouraged when the DM tells them that certain things from (splatbook X) that the player finds cool are not allowed, or even when the DM proclaims that only books X, Y and Z will be used.

If you make an exception for one player, you have to be willing to make exceptions for the others to be fair. The trick becomes knowing when and where to draw the line before you've handed out so many exceptions that you've defeated the point of making restrictions to your game at all.


Again, I have never seen an argument that stands up to simple logic that to many options is a bad thing especially when as a DM you have complete and utter control over all of the options; which to use, which not to use. Hell, I know a lot of DM's that say... Core books only, period. 3.5 is a great game with just the three core books.

Like I said, I'm not against options. I think options are great. I suppose the crux of my comments boils down to "the options should enhance the way the game is played without making the options the purpose of the game". Options should exist to inspire creativity enough to get players excited about their characters. My primary (and probably somewhat biased) gripe with 3.X is that I've largely seen its options make players get excited about the rules governing those options...thus how cool a character's rules are rather than how cool a character's concept is.

3.X (like any RPG really) is a great game when played with the right people. 3.X can even be enjoyed a great deal by people who don't really care for its rules system (like me). 3.X gives players lots of freedom to mix and match options for their characters. Most of those options are deliberately granular and inter-referential and, as a player, you either like that level of detail or you don't. The level of detail, balance and referencing is what wearies me about 3.X, not it's attempt to increase player freedom.

Valdar
09-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Again, I have never seen an argument that stands up to simple logic that to many options is a bad thing especially when as a DM you have complete and utter control over all of the options; which to use, which not to use. Hell, I know a lot of DM's that say... Core books only, period. 3.5 is a great game with just the three core books.

JC


A lot of the options in 3.0 were deliberately underpowered, and put there to punish a lack of system mastery- basically, some of the choices were bad, and finding the good options was an important strategy. But don't take my word for it- read what one of the 3.0 designers had to say about the subject:

Ivory Tower game design (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

So yeah, lots of options is good, but lots of the stuff in 3.0 wasn't really an option if you didn't want to gimp your character.

Curiously, I did at one point say "Core books only" when starting a new 3.5 game. The party said they'd walk if they couldn't have their splat books, so I withdrew my offer to DM.

tesral
09-18-2008, 10:52 PM
A lot of the options in 3.0 were deliberately underpowered, and put there to punish a lack of system mastery- basically, some of the choices were bad, and finding the good options was an important strategy. But don't take my word for it- read what one of the 3.0 designers had to say about the subject:

Ivory Tower game design (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

So yeah, lots of options is good, but lots of the stuff in 3.0 wasn't really an option if you didn't want to gimp your character.

Curiously, I did at one point say "Core books only" when starting a new 3.5 game. The party said they'd walk if they couldn't have their splat books, so I withdrew my offer to DM.

The other side of that is "Training Wheels Welded On". A game that doesn't allow you to master it because the rules are stiflingly simplified. There is nothing to master. Playing Candyland for the 10,000th time is no different than the first. I don't think the Forry rules go quite that far, but they do lean more towards that end that Ivory Tower.

I think there is a comfortable middle ground. This approach explains to me better why the whole feat system has left me a feeling that it was broken. It was broken, certain feats were meant to be a waste. That annoys me. If you are putting it in the book, make a good reason for it to be there.

Kalanth
09-19-2008, 07:33 AM
That would explain why there was a feat in one splat book that was written and designed for a Bard / Paladin. Had I not sold off that book I would be able to tell you what feat and book, but off hand can't remember.

The feats now seem a whole lot more in line with the game. No overwhelming boost like one would get with the Vow feats and nothing to insanely underwhelming either. I like that a +1 really carries a lot more weight than it used to and that makes feat choice even more important.

Valdar
09-19-2008, 08:45 AM
That would explain why there was a feat in one splat book that was written and designed for a Bard / Paladin. Had I not sold off that book I would be able to tell you what feat and book, but off hand can't remember.


Devoted Performer. Basically a feat that let you circumvent a core rule. I got tired of memorizing core rules when my players could just get around them with sufficient book purchases.

Webhead
09-19-2008, 09:29 AM
...I think there is a comfortable middle ground. This approach explains to me better why the whole feat system has left me a feeling that it was broken. It was broken, certain feats were meant to be a waste. That annoys me. If you are putting it in the book, make a good reason for it to be there.

Indeed. It was clear to me that in 3.X, certain options were greatly favored (or even encouraged by the game) over others.


Devoted Performer. Basically a feat that let you circumvent a core rule. I got tired of memorizing core rules when my players could just get around them with sufficient book purchases.

This was what really shaped my impressions of 3.X as well. It increasingly became a system of "exceptions". "Rule X functions this way...except under Circumstances A, B and C, or when Rule D is combined with Rule E, unless you have Special Ability F, in which case..." :frusty:

I exaggerate of course, but the complaint is valid.

Jcosby
09-19-2008, 11:21 AM
[quote=Webhead;47402]This was what really shaped my impressions of 3.X as well. It increasingly became a system of "exceptions". "Rule X functions this way...except under Circumstances A, B and C, or when Rule D is combined with Rule E, unless you have Special Ability F, in which case..." quote]

Welcome to 4th Edition. That is exactly what the system is designed on.

Good Luck with that.


Again people are saying the same things over and over. Too many options is bad, my players were going to walk out because I wouldn't cow to them. Hey DM's.. Itís your game. It's your hard work, it's your creation. You are doing this for your enjoyment and the enjoyment of the entire group. Find players that have similar tastes to you or find players that are willing to work within the system. If I had a player that just told me flat out, I'm walking out of the game if I can't use all my splat books I would hold the door open for him on the way out.

3.5(75) (Really not 3.0 because that system sucked) is all about options like I have said a 100 times. You don't have to bog yourself down with things you think are to much, broken or you just don't want in your campaign.

I recently started a Pathfinder campaign with brand new rules that are just in beta form. I told the players that not only will they NOT be able to use any splat books that their characters might be altered in the middle of the campaign based on the changes to the beta rules. Guess what, for the first time since I started DM'ing in 1980 I've accepted 9 players at my table. I have a folder in my Yahoo email account with 5-6 more people that want to play, but I've had to say no cause there are just too many at the table already.

So, please don't say you can't get people to play a game because of rules, changes, lack of splat books. That shouldn't be the driving factor behind your players anyways. Players should want to come to a game to have fun, if you need those 5,000 splat books to make the most over powered PC you can, then maybe you're not right for my game. If you're willing to work with me, I'm willing to work with you. As I've said before I allow things from splat books on a one by one basis. That way I have control over what enters MY game. Yes, some players have a real problem over that; but they don't play in my game.

JC

Webhead
09-19-2008, 01:54 PM
Welcome to 4th Edition. That is exactly what the system is designed on.

Good Luck with that.

No need to get defensive (unless I am misreading your reply, in which case, I apologize). As I was mentioning before, I've never played (nor directly intend to play) 4e. I don't even own the books and probably never will buy them. Nor was I intending at any point to defend anything about 4e. So please don't misconstrue my comments as, "this is what I think 4e does better than 3e". My comments were strictly regarding my opinions on 3e by itself and not as compared with any other version of D&D.

If, like you say, 4e only exacerbates the kinds of problems I was enumerating about 3.X, then yes, it will probably not be a game I would ever pay any attention to.


...Again people are saying the same things over and over. Too many options is bad...

I was actually explicitly stating that I don't think "too many options is bad". Instead, I was trying to express that I feel that the design and implementation of 3e's options does not move the game's focus in the direction that I would most enjoy.


...3.5(75) (Really not 3.0 because that system sucked) is all about options like I have said a 100 times. You don't have to bog yourself down with things you think are to much, broken or you just don't want in your campaign...

Very true. I like the idea of the freedom of choice that 3e gives players. That is what attracted me to 3e when it first came out. More choices to make characters more flexible. After spending time with 3e getting an understanding of it, what I've found I don't like are the rules systems used to govern those choices, with game balance heavily slanted in certain directions. It's not the choosing that is bad, but the way those choices influence the game mechanics that I did not enjoy overly much.

I also didn't have any significant or memorable problems with 3.0 that didn't also carry over into 3.5. For me, while 3.5 "cleaned up" a few things (which is always welcome), it didn't bring anything "game-changing" to the D&D experience that I felt like I couldn't live without. I'm not saying that 3.5 didn't improve on 3.0, but its changes didn't seem to make the game any more or less playable than it had been previously. Honestly, other than slight changes to a handful of class abilities, a couple new or revised skills and feats, and a reworked Polymorph spell, I couldn't really tell you the difference between the two.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-19-2008, 03:42 PM
This was what really shaped my impressions of 3.X as well. It increasingly became a system of "exceptions". "Rule X functions this way...except under Circumstances A, B and C, or when Rule D is combined with Rule E, unless you have Special Ability F, in which case..." :frusty:

I think what Jcobsy was trying to say is that in 4e PHB (I think, might be the DMG) there is a passage that states that while there are rules, these rules can often become contradicted by powers, feats, spells, rituals, etc... and in those cases the power, feat, spell, ritual, superceedes the ruling.

Now while that was more prevalent in 3.5, the fact that it is less prevalent in SW Saga Edition, I am assuming that it will also be not as prevalent in 4e.

The great thing about Saga (and hopefully 4e) is that with streamlined rules it allows them to be more open to variations in the rule. Not overtly so as to completely contradict the rule but to add a minor tweak to it.

So far from what I have read it appears that 4e is heading this direction also, the powers are evidence of this, clearly.

Jcosby
09-19-2008, 04:53 PM
No need to get defensive (unless I am misreading your reply, in which case, I apologize). As I was mentioning before, I've never played (nor directly intend to play) 4e. I don't even own the books and probably never will buy them. Nor was I intending at any point to defend anything about 4e. So please don't misconstrue my comments as, "this is what I think 4e does better than 3e". My comments were strictly regarding my opinions on 3e by itself and not as compared with any other version of D&D.


No, sorry about that I wasn't getting defensive but I wasn't actually pointing that comment to anyone person. I chose that comment because I thought it was kind of funny since that's almost word for word the way the designers state the rules for 4th edition work. I'll come back and edit this post with the exact wording from the designers.

If, like you say, 4e only exacerbates the kinds of problems I was enumerating about 3.X, then yes, it will probably not be a game I would ever pay any attention to.

Yes it does actually. You shouldn't listen to anyone here actually. If youíre really interested you should get into a couple of games at least before you make up your mind. I myself have purchased the books and poured over them, and then played in a handful of games. There actually is nothing in the 4th edition that I care for other then a couple of small rules that you could easily add into your 3.5 game with a simple house rule. (Paladin's of any Alignment is one I really like)

I was actually explicitly stating that I don't think "too many options is bad". Instead, I was trying to express that I feel that the design and implementation of 3e's options does not move the game's focus in the direction that I would most enjoy.

With that I agree with you 100%


Very true. I like the idea of the freedom of choice that 3e gives players. That is what attracted me to 3e when it first came out. More choices to make characters more flexible. After spending time with 3e getting an understanding of it, what I've found I don't like are the rules systems used to govern those choices, with game balance heavily slanted in certain directions. It's not the choosing that is bad, but the way those choices influence the game mechanics that I did not enjoy overly much.

Again agree with you.

I also didn't have any significant or memorable problems with 3.0 that didn't also carry over into 3.5. For me, while 3.5 "cleaned up" a few things (which is always welcome), it didn't bring anything "game-changing" to the D&D experience that I felt like I couldn't live without. I'm not saying that 3.5 didn't improve on 3.0, but its changes didn't seem to make the game any more or less playable than it had been previously. Honestly, other than slight changes to a handful of class abilities, a couple new or revised skills and feats, and a reworked Polymorph spell, I couldn't really tell you the difference between the two.

My memory isn't 100% correct anymore if it ever was. But 3.0 had many rules that were in contradiction which each other, and had many broken feats, skills and rules. 3.5 was a much needed update to the 3.x system. I guess the point I was poorly trying to make is.. there really is no reason to ever play 3.0 with 3.5 out.


The great thing about Saga (and hopefully 4e) is that with streamlined rules it allows them to be more open to variations in the rule. Not overtly so as to completely contradict the rule but to add a minor tweak to it.


So far from what I have read it appears that 4e is heading this direction also, the powers are evidence of this, clearly.

I don't know about streamlining, the one thing that I found cumbersome more so then even the over burdened 3.x system was remembering all of the abilities and moves for each player in 4th Edition. New DM's and even experienced DM's are bombarded with things to remember right from level 1. Combats in 4th edition are anything but quick. They are just as long if not longer then combats in 4th edition. There is actually more figure movement and tactical moves in 4th edition then in 3.x. That actually surprised me.

JC

Valdar
09-19-2008, 05:02 PM
Combats in 4th edition are anything but quick. They are just as long if not longer then combats in 4th edition.

You might want to edit that, but if you mean that 4e combats are slower than 3e combats, my experience has been the exact opposite. In 4e, your choices are plentiful and obvious. In 3e, a Fighter would do something besides his basic attack once in a long while, and would spend his turn trying to figure out if there was something interesting he could do that would make tactical sense (there usually wasn't.)

I guess it's a matter of how fast your players pick up the system, however- most people are complaining that 4e is too simple, and you seem to be claiming the opposite.

edit: And looking up, you're claiming the opposite too. In this thread, you've complained that 4e doesn't have enough options, and that 4e has too many options to keep track of. So, which is it?

Webhead
09-19-2008, 05:12 PM
...*snippity*...

Cool. We seem to agree on more than a few things. :)

Game on!

Engar
09-19-2008, 05:40 PM
4e combats have been consistently slow compared to my experience with previous editions. This is my experience in both the 4e game I run and that which I play. I have experience with Adv DnD, 2e DnD, 3.x DnD, and now 4e.

Kalanth
09-20-2008, 12:26 PM
4e combats have been consistently slow compared to my experience with previous editions. This is my experience in both the 4e game I run and that which I play.

Slow I disagree with. Long I agree with. 4e combat in all my sessions have, at times, dragged. Especially when things get to a stalemate and there are suddenly little options. Terrain can really break this up and make it longer but more interesting, and that was something I nearly never did in 3.X.

ronpyatt
09-20-2008, 03:03 PM
There really hasn't been a long enough period of trial for me to say that 3.5 is absolutely slower than 4.0, but if my experience is typical of the two systems then 4.0 is faster. Multiple session encounters were not that uncommon in 3.5. That aside, I don't think there is a significant difference between them at the lower levels I've been playing.

There are a few factors I can think of that affect the speed of an encounter.

Preparedness of the DM.
Preparedness of the Players.
Familiarity with the basic rules.
Familiarity with special actions and their rules.
Applying the Rule of Fun.


Just a couple days ago I had to play the role of 4 characters (some players were out sick) in addition to my own character. It was surprisingly easy to juggle 5 PC's in a 4th Edition combat encounter- luckily it was not a social encounter. I played the role of 2 wizards (the DM was trying to kill 1 of them), a cleric, a warlord, and my paladin. I could not do that in 3.5.

Mindbomb
09-21-2008, 11:09 AM
... I had to play the role of 4 characters (some players were out sick) in addition to my own character. It was surprisingly easy to juggle 5 PC's in a 4th Edition combat encounter- ...

What did they have? The D&D bug lol.

Grumpy Old Man
09-21-2008, 12:33 PM
Dinosaur input here. I don't feel as if i was ever restricted in my movements during combat, it was just another form of role playing. Can't really judge 4e because i have only played an abbreviated campaign but I kept trying to go back to 3.5 because the system is burn in to my synapses and its a little slow learning new responses.

Just because 3.5 works for me I would prefer to play 3.5 but I can drag along in 4e to fill a spot.

I am one of those if the campaign is starting from scratch I will specify core books only until at least 6th level or better. By then the group has jelled or fallen by the wayside. If they are still in there its easy to let the players expand their wings a little but way to unbalanced at the beginning of the game unless every player in the group has a hundred books on his shelf and they all play from the same deck. The campaign I would like to start right now the players actually start at 0 level, no books needed in a little pregame session, then core books then anything they have in their grubby little hands is fine by me but building the group into a cohesive unit first is more important to me than building a mess of supermen. I really wouldn't know how to do that in 4e, gonna take some new synapses.

Jcosby
09-22-2008, 05:42 PM
You might want to edit that, but if you mean that 4e combats are slower than 3e combats, my experience has been the exact opposite. In 4e, your choices are plentiful and obvious. In 3e, a Fighter would do something besides his basic attack once in a long while, and would spend his turn trying to figure out if there was something interesting he could do that would make tactical sense (there usually wasn't.)


I guess it's a matter of how fast your players pick up the system, however- most people are complaining that 4e is too simple, and you seem to be claiming the opposite.

edit: And looking up, you're claiming the opposite too. In this thread, you've complained that 4e doesn't have enough options, and that 4e has too many options to keep track of. So, which is it?


Ok, let me try and state this as simply as I can. There arenít enough options in 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. The rules are written very poorly for interpretation of different moves with in combat.

I donít think anyone would argue that there are many more options for 3.5 then there is for 4th edition. Just the age of 4th edition along would explain this. I guess I worded my explanation poorly. What I was trying to say is that there are in fact more options in 3.5 then in 4th and I believe that to be a good thing.

But in 4th when they do have options say with Daily, Encounter, At-Will powers they are named poorly. Iíll use Tide of Iron as an example. If you didnít know ANYTHING about Tide of Iron could you tell me what it has to do with? Oh, itís a Fighter Attack 1 At-Will attack power, it requires you to use a shield and you have to use your STR to attack their AC. Thatís simple? Also how is Tide of Iron obvious?

In 3rd edition Iíll use Power Attack as an example. With Power Attack, Iím pretty sure it has something to do with an Attack and Iíll go even a bit farther and say it has something to do with making your attack more ďPowerĒful. I wonít bother quoting the rules for Power Attack as Iím sure 99% of the 3.x players know what Power Attack does. Itís pretty simple.

Now, for players 4th edition isnít that big of a deal. You have x-amount of Powers be it Daily, At-Will, Encounter etc and you only have to worry about your little world. But as the DM which I was, it was much more of a head ache; more so then when I first DMíd 3.0. I had to remember very subjective names what everyoneís powers did, how often they can use them and when they do or donít re-charge. How is that more simple then 3.5?

So, to answer the question above directly, no 4th edition doesnít have enough options as a whole for the game system; but it should be able to grow into that with extra books. But when it does have options (Like Powers) it does a horrible job with them. This of course is purely my opinion. Also donít get me wrong I was hoping that 4th edition would be a great system, esp. since they are using Forgotten Realms as the main world. Also, this conversation could go on forever because no groups of people are ever going to agree on everything. Some people like 4th Edition, some donít. If you like 4th edition, thatís great. As long as you and all your players are having fun at the table, then what does it matter what system you are playing.

JC

PS: Sorry if this seems rushed wrote it at work..

MortonStromgal
09-22-2008, 05:55 PM
Ok, let me try and state this as simply as I can. There arenít enough options in 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. The rules are written very poorly for interpretation of different moves with in combat.

I donít think anyone would argue that there are many more options for 3.5 then there is for 4th edition. Just the age of 4th edition along would explain this. I guess I worded my explanation poorly. What I was trying to say is that there are in fact more options in 3.5 then in 4th and I believe that to be a good thing.

But in 4th when they do have options say with Daily, Encounter, At-Will powers they are named poorly. Iíll use Tide of Iron as an example. If you didnít know ANYTHING about Tide of Iron could you tell me what it has to do with? Oh, itís a Fighter Attack 1 At-Will attack power, it requires you to use a shield and you have to use your STR to attack their AC. Thatís simple? Also how is Tide of Iron obvious?

In 3rd edition Iíll use Power Attack as an example. With Power Attack, Iím pretty sure it has something to do with an Attack and Iíll go even a bit farther and say it has something to do with making your attack more ďPowerĒful. I wonít bother quoting the rules for Power Attack as Iím sure 99% of the 3.x players know what Power Attack does. Itís pretty simple.

Now, for players 4th edition isnít that big of a deal. You have x-amount of Powers be it Daily, At-Will, Encounter etc and you only have to worry about your little world. But as the DM which I was, it was much more of a head ache; more so then when I first DMíd 3.0. I had to remember very subjective names what everyoneís powers did, how often they can use them and when they do or donít re-charge. How is that more simple then 3.5?

So, to answer the question above directly, no 4th edition doesnít have enough options as a whole for the game system; but it should be able to grow into that with extra books. But when it does have options (Like Powers) it does a horrible job with them. This of course is purely my opinion. Also donít get me wrong I was hoping that 4th edition would be a great system, esp. since they are using Forgotten Realms as the main world. Also, this conversation could go on forever because no groups of people are ever going to agree on everything. Some people like 4th Edition, some donít. If you like 4th edition, thatís great. As long as you and all your players are having fun at the table, then what does it matter what system you are playing.

JC

PS: Sorry if this seems rushed wrote it at work..

I think its just what your used to. I didn't play 3.X enough to know what even 1/2 the spells and abilities do and there are more than a handful with quirky names, Bigsbys Big Hand, Color Spray, & others. I also don't find the idea of at-will, encounter, and daily to be any more difficult than before. The only change is encounter and that not too difficult to understand you can use it once per encounter. 3.X already had at-will and per day. If you play 4th ed enough I'm sure Tide of Iron will be just as strait forward as Color Spray. Please don't think I'm saying 4e is so much better you must switch, just that the problem your listing I think is one more of farmiliarity than a problem with 4e directly. You would have the same problems playing WFRP or some other RPG.

Engar
09-22-2008, 06:01 PM
My problem is with 4e directly. I do not like it. It is not fun enough.

Grimwell
09-22-2008, 07:25 PM
Which is succinct and good to go.

Now if folks would stop treating this like a "Must win" situation we can all be happy. ;)

Chi
09-22-2008, 07:32 PM
My problem is with 4e directly. I do not like it. It is not fun enough.
How so?

ronpyatt
09-22-2008, 08:53 PM
In 3rd edition Iíll use Power Attack as an example. With Power Attack, Iím pretty sure it has something to do with an Attack and Iíll go even a bit farther and say it has something to do with making your attack more ďPowerĒful. I wonít bother quoting the rules for Power Attack as Iím sure 99% of the 3.x players know what Power Attack does. Itís pretty simple.
Lol. Not really that simple. I thought Power Attack was a "Power" attack, meaning I could get an extra power to attack with. It was through experience that I learned the truth that power attack was not a magic spell enhancement, magic item bonus, or psionic power; just a fighter thing. Disappointing to say the least.

Mindbomb
09-22-2008, 09:35 PM
My problem is with 4e directly. I do not like it. It is not fun enough.


LOL shhhhh....(i agree)

Engar
09-23-2008, 07:08 AM
How so?

I will not answer that. I think I finally understand why too.

4e is like a big new toy. No one wants me telling them what is wrong with their big new toy. They want me to say wow, sweet new toy!

Especially since we are mostly all "aquaintances" it is not appreciated for me to ask how much the new toy costs or why the quality is so low. The sale is over so no point pondering why they needed to buy a shiny yet lower performing new toy with the old toy being of better quality despite the wear. Comments about how the old one is just as fast, more reliable or higher functioning are also mute. It is my place to say, "nice toy!" and then simply leave them to it.

kirksmithicus
09-23-2008, 08:14 AM
I just wanted to start by saying. "My D&D is better than your D&D" *Sticks tongue out*.

From reading the books I think 4E is gonna suck. Does it suck more than 3.x? I don't know, probably not, but it could. Regardless though, I have my shiny new toy and I want to try it out. That does not appear to be the case with other gamers in me area though. Everyone I've talked to locally (seven people) about the new addition tells me that 3.x is much better and that 4E sucks. At the same time they have all admitted to not playing it at all in most cases and twice at most. When I suggested playing a 4E campaign, most politely declined but one guy snorted, another rolled his eyes, and a third just turned around and walked away. All lovely people really.

But I have to agree with Engar that it is a shiny new toy, and nobody wants to be told their shiny new toy sucks. Especially when no one is even willing to even play with it (CAN'T THEY SEE HOW SHINY IT IS!), even though it's really the same old toy we all had but with a new paint job.

Honestly it all reminds me of the whole T-90 speculation and debate of the early 1990's. For those who don't know, a T-90 is a tank, it was first manufactured in 1990. You gotta love the classification of Soviet equipment, simple and straight forward. Anyway there was quite a bit of speculation about the amount of armor, the design, the gun, etc. Military analysts were curious because they wanted to see how it stack up against the new M1A1 Abrams tank that the U.S. was now building and if it would force the soviets to adopt some of the new tech. used in the M1 and / or radically change 40 years of soviet tank design. So when the first T-90 was inspected close up everyone got a good laugh, because the much hyped and feared new T-90 was a T-80 with some cosmetic changes. What makes it even funnier is that a T-80 is a T-72 with some cosmetic changes. Basically It's the same old whore with fresh make-up. If you are old enough you may remember how the old soviet whore fared against the M1 in the Gulf War.

Since I paid close to a 100.00 for this old T-90 whore with fresh paint, I'm at least gonna ride her, and ride her hard until the next M1 rolls up and blows her to pieces. I suggest you do the same with your T-80, or your T-72, or hell even your T-55 if your still riding around in that thing.

*Waves cowboy hat in the air*

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! BABY! :D

Webhead
09-23-2008, 09:56 AM
I went to visit my brother for a few hours this past weekend just to hang out, goof around and shoot the breeze. Strangely, 4e came up as we started talking about RPGs and he told me that he recently started playing in a 4e game to test the system. He said that they had played only 2 sessions thus far and that the group was small (DM and 2 players) but that his impression thus far was mostly positive.

He commented that he liked how everything offensive was a "roll" and everything defensive was a "target number" (something I like about Saga). He said that he felt that all classes seem useful and capable even from Level 1. He liked the "Skill Training" system over the "Skill Rank" system (as do I) and said that, in general, he liked the feeling of the hierarchy of powers (At Will/Encounter/Daily). He said the whole experience of play felt "iconic" and "epic". Most importantly, he said that the game has been fun thus far and that he wants to see if it will continue to be enjoyable after several more sessions.

This was an interesting and unexpected reaction as his initial response upon hearing of the release of 4e was one of blatant rejection. He, like me, grew increasingly weary of 3e and much prefered other RPGs over D&D. I'll admit that I was a little surprised to learn that he was playing and enjoying 4e. I'll be listening in on their game as it continues to see if any of his perspectives change over time.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-23-2008, 10:00 AM
One week from tomorrow we will start my 4e campaign. Stay tuned for a full report!

Skunkape
09-23-2008, 10:05 AM
I will not answer that. I think I finally understand why too.

4e is like a big new toy. No one wants me telling them what is wrong with their big new toy. They want me to say wow, sweet new toy!

Especially since we are mostly all "aquaintances" it is not appreciated for me to ask how much the new toy costs or why the quality is so low. The sale is over so no point pondering why they needed to buy a shiny yet lower performing new toy with the old toy being of better quality despite the wear. Comments about how the old one is just as fast, more reliable or higher functioning are also mute. It is my place to say, "nice toy!" and then simply leave them to it.

Very well stated, and I feel the same way!

Webhead
09-23-2008, 10:28 AM
One week from tomorrow we will start my 4e campaign. Stay tuned for a full report!

I look forward to hearing what your experiences are.


Very well stated, and I feel the same way!

Indeed. As long as the people who are playing with their toy are having fun, I'll leave them be. I no longer get irritated by people who want to play Star Wars d20 OCR and RCR. I don't understand it, but if they are somehow having fun, more power to them. If prompted, I will interject with my perspectives, opinions, criticisms and comparisons, but I will otherwise leave them alone.

Enjoyment comes in many forms and from many sources. There are a great many RPGs with rabid fanbases that I don't fully understand or agree with. Yet somehow, they have fun. A game that is not fun is no longer a game, it's a chore.

Jcosby
09-23-2008, 10:31 AM
My problem is with 4e directly. I do not like it. It is not fun enough.


Should have said this from the begining.. discussion closed.. (for me)

JC

Skunkape
09-23-2008, 10:37 AM
Indeed. As long as the people who are playing with their toy are having fun, I'll leave them be. I no longer get irritated by people who want to play Star Wars d20 OCR and RCR. I don't understand it, but if they are somehow having fun, more power to them. If prompted, I will interject with my perspectives, opinions, criticisms and comparisons, but I will otherwise leave them alone.

Enjoyment comes in many forms and from many sources. There are a great many RPGs with rabid fanbases that I don't fully understand or agree with. Yet somehow, they have fun. A game that is not fun is no longer a game, it's a chore.

I also will voice my opinion on the various gaming systems that I have knowledge about at least a grasp of the rules and will also not hesitate to give reasons for why I won't look into a game system. Am I right in my opinions on those subjects, to me I am, but it's just my opinion.

I wasn't too happy with the release of 4e, but did actually look over the rules to see if I would like them but when I found it wasn't a game I was interested in, I didn't buy it. I am amazed by how rabid fans will get over their game of choice, but I don't deny them their interest. Course, don't expect me to play a game I don't like, no matter how great you think it is.

But I'm also not going to deny you the same opinion on a game that I might like. But yeah, if a game isn't fun anymore, why keep playing it!

Kalanth
09-23-2008, 11:15 AM
I am amazed by how rabid fans will get over their game of choice, but I don't deny them their interest.

Just remember, fan is short for fanatic and fanatical. It is in the very nature of the word to expect a fan to become rabid about a sport, team, event, or game. I am a fan of D&D and defend each edition, but I am more of a fan of 4th edition, so I get a bit rabid about the new edition. I expect heavy resistance for a few years as there are still those out there that resist 3rd edition as well (and in some cases, 2nd).

tesral
09-23-2008, 11:27 AM
I will not answer that. I think I finally understand why too.

4e is like a big new toy. No one wants me telling them what is wrong with their big new toy. They want me to say wow, sweet new toy!

I think you understand why. "I'm Bob Gamer and I just spent 100 bucks on smearing books that fall apart in the heat and have a rules set really no better than before but are totally unrelated to any previous edition rendering my multi-hundred dollar book collection useless."

"Don't worry. All that will come later in more smearing fall apart 35 dollar books." --Lizards, the Hasbro sock puppet.

Yea, I can see the why behind the "don't dis Forry" movement. Thank you, most insightful.



I also will voice my opinion on the various gaming systems that I have knowledge about at least a grasp of the rules and will also not hesitate to give reasons for why I won't look into a game system. Am I right in my opinions on those subjects, to me I am, but it's just my opinion.


Likewise. I looked ,and declined to buy. It just wasn't useful to me. I am not a "fan" of D&D. I'm a critic. To me the system is something I am constantly examining in a critical fashion and looking for "improvement" I "" that because my idea of improvement is not the next guy's idea of improvement. I have simple rules to define improvement. It curbs my urge to tinker.

And yes, I've notices that some people don't like the gaping flaws pointed out in their toy, even if I have a caulk gun handy.

Webhead
09-23-2008, 12:24 PM
It's like I was telling a coworker earlier today:

As kids, we used to play all day long with sticks and rocks. We never got bored. These days, seperating a kid from their iPod is like putting a cat in the car wash.

The definition of a "toy" has changed significantly over the last several generations...

tesral
09-23-2008, 02:46 PM
It's like I was telling a coworker earlier today:

As kids, we used to play all day long with sticks and rocks. We never got bored. These days, seperating a kid from their iPod is like putting a cat in the car wash.

The definition of a "toy" has changed significantly over the last several generations...

I never buy kids electronic toys. Lego, wood building blocks, constrix, anything but electronic toys. I like kid powered toys.

Call me old fashioned, but I didn't need a TV show and fancy action figures to give me plots to have fun with. I consider RPGs to be the ultimate fun construction set, you don';t need lots of pieces, you don't need "official" figures. All you really need is yourself and a few friends.

Chi
09-23-2008, 03:12 PM
It's like I was telling a coworker earlier today:

As kids, we used to play all day long with sticks and rocks. We never got bored. These days, seperating a kid from their iPod is like putting a cat in the car wash.

The definition of a "toy" has changed significantly over the last several generations...
A cat in the carwash?!?!?!

Webhead
09-23-2008, 03:41 PM
A cat in the carwash?!?!?!

Exactly! Another way of saying, "ain't gonna happen"! ;)

boulet
09-23-2008, 03:54 PM
Exactly! Another way of saying, "ain't gonna happen"! ;)
What a tease ! I was looking for some action (depending on the size of kitty)

Grimwell
09-23-2008, 10:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn36VoiC-hU

This is wrong for many reasons, but is a cat in a car wash of sorts

Webhead
09-23-2008, 11:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn36VoiC-hU

This is wrong for many reasons, but is a cat in a car wash of sorts

Yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.

Speaking of cats, I love this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs

boulet
09-24-2008, 07:40 AM
Oh I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when the kitty loving 1000 years old Lich sees what you posted !

tesral
09-24-2008, 08:02 AM
Oh I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when the kitty loving 1000 years old Lich sees what you posted !

<VOICE="dry rasping"> He just did! </VOICE>

Webhead
09-24-2008, 09:11 AM
<VOICE="dry rasping"> He just did! </VOICE>

Good think I picked up that "lich repellant" last time I swung by the Batcave! :boxing:

tesral
09-24-2008, 04:46 PM
Good think I picked up that "lich repellant" last time I swung by the Batcave! :boxing:

<VOICE="Dry Reasping"> Guess who makes it. </VOICE>

Chi
09-24-2008, 06:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn36VoiC-hU

This is wrong for many reasons, but is a cat in a car wash of sorts That is quite funny!


Yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.

Speaking of cats, I love this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs
That is quite mean.

Webhead
09-24-2008, 07:06 PM
...That is quite mean.

Well...the car is evil! I found it hilarious though. I laughed so hard that tears were streaming down my face the first time I saw it! :pound:

Chi
09-26-2008, 03:08 PM
Well...the car is evil! I found it hilarious though. I laughed so hard that tears were streaming down my face the first time I saw it! :pound:
Ok ok I admit it I laughed a little.

Kalanth
09-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Well...the car is evil! I found it hilarious though. I laughed so hard that tears were streaming down my face the first time I saw it! :pound:

That had me crying I was laughing so hard. That kind of add would never fly in the states. Gotta love europeans and there broader sense of humor.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-27-2008, 04:50 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.

Speaking of cats, I love this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs
Ive seen this video before. Hilarious. Too bad we have sooo many sensitive folks here in the states, they complain about everything, otherwise more stuff like this would be shown. Heck, if we have a nipple-slip, the moral army comes out to save us all, but yet it's okay to show drug usage, murder, etc. That's okay. Perhaps some day someone can explain it all to me.

tesral
09-27-2008, 11:12 PM
Ive seen this video before. Hilarious. Too bad we have sooo many sensitive folks here in the states, they complain about everything, otherwise more stuff like this would be shown. Heck, if we have a nipple-slip, the moral army comes out to save us all, but yet it's okay to show drug usage, murder, etc. That's okay. Perhaps some day someone can explain it all to me.

Sex And Western Society (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/Politicks/sex.html)

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
09-28-2008, 12:13 AM
Lich Tesral, once again, your epic-level wisdom is appreciated.

Lich Thoth-Amon

agoraderek
09-29-2008, 01:34 AM
Yeah, that's pretty much the way of it.

Speaking of cats, I love this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzi_8Rscfs

i need to get one of those. i'm tired of having to wash my car three times a week because of strays...

(j/k)

Webhead
09-29-2008, 08:59 AM
i need to get one of those. i'm tired of having to wash my car three times a week because of strays...

(j/k)

Oh, absolutely! It's anti-bird too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxSex9VxlwI

Kalanth
09-29-2008, 12:54 PM
WOO WOO! Gotta love the derail train!

Webhead
09-29-2008, 01:54 PM
WOO WOO! Gotta love the derail train!

All aboard!!!

Kalanth
09-29-2008, 05:25 PM
All aboard!!!

All aboard the choo choo train, all aboard the choo choo train! All aboard the choo choo train, all aboard, all aboard! It's Choo Choo Soul!


Dear god.... my kids are seeping into my brain!

Kalanth
09-29-2008, 05:26 PM
I gotta get me one of these!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ-fyst4-7w&feature=related

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-29-2008, 06:13 PM
Anyway!

4e is waaaaaay better than 3rd edition any day!!!



:tongue:

tesral
09-29-2008, 08:13 PM
Anyway!

4e is waaaaaay better than 3rd edition any day!!!



:tongue:

At what, smearing and falling apart?

Valdar
09-29-2008, 08:18 PM
At what, smearing and falling apart?

Yeah, it was pretty sad that they had to go with such low production standards, due to all the thieves getting the books by illegal download and not paying for them. But you wouldn't know anything about that ;)

tesral
09-29-2008, 08:25 PM
Yeah, it was pretty sad that they had to go with such low production standards, due to all the thieves getting the books by illegal download and not paying for them. But you wouldn't know anything about that ;)

No actually I wouldn't. I couldn't even tell you where to look. Production values were their decision long before it was released, not the result of downloads. It's an old excuse flogged to death by the RIAA and the MIAA and when faced with facts, doesn't hold water. Ad Hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks never do.

Kalanth
09-29-2008, 09:27 PM
I have yet to have an issue with any of the four 4E books I have regarding ink. I have noticed some seperation with the first and last page of the Players Handbook but I am not concerned about it.

As for the .pdf's, I will admit to having a .pdf for all three core books, Adventurers Vault, Players Guide to Faerun, and Scepter Tower of Spellguard (the last two were side effects of getting Adenturers Vault as I could only find the packaged deal). I have a hard copy of all but two, and the only reason I even have the .pdf's is because of the amazing amount of convenience there is in being able to cut the monster / item / trap / applicable rule out of the .pdf and slap it into a word file. During game sessions I have opened my books three times, maybe, because of those. I would rather Wizards kept to the original plan of being able to download a .pdf from them that couples with the purchase of the book, but until that happens I will just have to hunt down the files for any books I buy.

This is something that would never have worked in 3.5 as the stat blocks were just to cluttered and clunky to be able to really make solid use out of them. It would take an entire page in my old write ups where now the text flows nicely around the stat block like a well edited newspaper article.

Inquisitor Tremayne
09-29-2008, 09:59 PM
At what, smearing and falling apart?


Yeah, it was pretty sad that they had to go with such low production standards, due to all the thieves getting the books by illegal download and not paying for them. But you wouldn't know anything about that ;)

Strange, my first printing of the books haven't smeared or fallen apart. I also haven't TRIED to smear them, or left them in my car to deteriorate. I also wouldn't carry them through a rain storm, let them sit in the sun because of fading, or anything else that would cause harm to my books.

What I am saying is that normal wear and tear and my books are still in near mint condition if not mint.

tesral
09-29-2008, 11:44 PM
What I am saying is that normal wear and tear and my books are still in near mint condition if not mint.

Spearmint or peppermint?

It seems that the ink problem is intermittent. Some smear easily, a casual and slightly damp finger was enough. Others, don't smear at all. You have been lucky in that regard.

I have paperbacks I've had since I was eight years old. I know how to care for books.

However the current lack of quality in general is disgusting. Nothing beats the old AD&D first edition for tough. They put the money in the binding and it shows. My old DMG shows the effect of a decade of hard wear. About the most abused book I own, but it is in one piece. No color at all between the covers, but the book is intact.

I personally could do without the full color full page printing on every page and could do with better bindings. The 3.x books are particular violator in a lack of white space. The one change I do approve of in Forry, is the cleaner layout.

Valdar
09-30-2008, 03:33 AM
No actually I wouldn't. I couldn't even tell you where to look.


Uh huh.



I've read through the books and no I did not change my mind. I was given a bootleg. (Which I will not be sharing so no one can bother asking. Lizards security sucks.)

Engar
09-30-2008, 06:44 AM
I wish I had saved my money. Of course that has nothing to do with the quality of 4e products and attempting to tie together pdf pilfering and poor production quality is lockstep naive.

My books smear. They smear easily and without effort. Accept it. You can no more change it than I can. I have to deal with it for now, but look forward to a day very soon when they will no longer smear because they will be too busy collecting dust.

DeathByDM
09-30-2008, 07:29 AM
I haven't had any trouble with my core set, but I have noticed that the published adventures (Keep on the Shadowfell in particular) are low-quality. The binding is terrible and they do smudge easily. I just have to be extra careful with them I suppose.

I'd be a lot more upset if I paid full price for them, but if you go on Amazon and look at new/used copies you can usually get them for half price.

I do have PDF copies of the core books as well, and I find them quite useful. For instance, I have it on my computer here at work and on my laptop for quick reference.

Kalanth
09-30-2008, 07:52 AM
I haven't had any trouble with my core set, but I have noticed that the published adventures (Keep on the Shadowfell in particular) are low-quality. The binding is terrible and they do smudge easily. I just have to be extra careful with them I suppose.

I'd be a lot more upset if I paid full price for them, but if you go on Amazon and look at new/used copies you can usually get them for half price.

Price point is a huge thing for me. When my one friend purchased KoTS I looked it over and decided then and there that if that was what they would be doing for modules, and charging $35 - 40 per for it, then I was better off making my own adventures. The module is shown as a hardcover book in the back of the core books and instead in a horrible folder like contraption with pour quality print and everything. Besides that the modules to this point feel more like traning manuals to get people used to 4e, and not like story driven adventures that I want / expected.

Now, of all their things so far there are two that tip the scales. One for being amazingly bad and should be pulled from shelves, and one for being amazingly good and should have been the standard all along.

The first is the character sheet set for 4e. They are littlerally paper copies of something that had been downloadable from the WoTC website since shortly after the launch of the product. There is nothing in there usefull except the folder, and that was only useful in that it was one less piece of school supplies I had to buy for my daughter. This was something that should be redesigned and put out with more thought. There is a lot of waisted space that they could have put useful quick facts for players in and they could have made a wider variety of the sheets as well.

The second is the DM Screen. Simply amazing that they went with a high gloss hard cover board that is sturdy and durable. It has more than enough information that it further assists me in my quest to never open the books while DMing a 4e game (and so far I have only opened them 4 times in 6 sessions). This is what they should have been doing all along and it is easily my favorite thing to put out when I am preparing for a game. And the same Wet Erase markers I use on the battle mats wash right off of the board to so I can make notes and highlights on that board if needed.

In a short time Wizards has shown me that they are all over the map right now in production. I don't fault them for cutting corners as most companies are doing that these days what with the economic situation making people want to be more careful. They have improved the ink with each printing and none of the books at our table, all 10 of them, have smudged yet.

tesral
09-30-2008, 12:44 PM
Uh huh.

So I don't know where to look, and didn't keep the bootleg. Your point? By given I mean physically handed on a USB stick. Where to download? Not a clue.

tesral
09-30-2008, 12:53 PM
My books smear. They smear easily and without effort. Accept it. You can no more change it than I can. I have to deal with it for now, but look forward to a day very soon when they will no longer smear because they will be too busy collecting dust.

I don't. When/if I get a book where the ink smears, It is going back. Companies that have poor quality control need to pay for it. Failing to make them pay for it is asking for more poor quality.

This issue has nothing to do with the quality of the content. It has everything to do with demanding a good physical plant for your content. I don't care if it is content by Ghodd, if Old Scratch did a lousy job printing and binding I'm returning it.

DeathByDM
09-30-2008, 01:20 PM
the modules to this point feel more like traning manuals to get people used to 4e, and not like story driven adventures that I want / expected.

I agree with this sentiment. I feel that these prepub adventures are good for teaching people the rules, but they are not great for building a story. I've been running KoTS for my group and I am getting bored to tears. I am going to tell them this session that we'll finish this adventure and either someone else is going to start DMing or I'm going to start over from scratch.

On a semi-related note, I am thinking about running with a campaign idea mentioned in the Evil campaigns threat, a campaign loosely based on "Villains by Necessity" by Eve Forward.

That's a nice endorsement of the DM screen. I might take a look at that. I always thought the Character Sheet offerings have been crap. It's always been cheaper just to download and print them.

Webhead
09-30-2008, 01:25 PM
...I don't care if it is content by Ghodd, if Old Scratch did a lousy job printing and binding I'm returning it.

I do so like the old names! ;)

Kalanth
09-30-2008, 01:25 PM
I don't. When/if I get a book where the ink smears, It is going back. Companies that have poor quality control need to pay for it. Failing to make them pay for it is asking for more poor quality.

This issue has nothing to do with the quality of the content. It has everything to do with demanding a good physical plant for your content. I don't care if it is content by Ghodd, if Old Scratch did a lousy job printing and binding I'm returning it.

That is a good plan and all, but most people are content with just sitting back and taking it. That is why some companies offer rebates, they are banking that the majority of people wont make the effort to complete the document to pay the rebate. So far it has been an effective plan and that is why you still see rebate offers.

Webhead
09-30-2008, 01:32 PM
...I always thought the Character Sheet offerings have been crap. It's always been cheaper just to download and print them.

I have never found an "official retail publication" of character sheets for any RPG to be anything other than a waste of money. They are almost always the exact same sheets you can get online for free or Xerox from the back of your book for 5 cents.

Same with "official dice". Why pay $10-12 for a set of dice that you can get for $4-5?

DeathByDM
09-30-2008, 01:35 PM
I have never found an "official retail publication" of character sheets for any RPG to be anything other than a waste of money. They are almost always the exact same sheets you can get online for free or Xerox from the back of your book for 5 cents.

Same with "official dice". Why pay $10-12 for a set of dice that you can get for $4-5?

That's exactly what I said in the dice review thread.

DeathByDM
09-30-2008, 01:40 PM
OK, since we've derailed the thread enough, here's my impression of 4e.

Pros:
DMing is WAY easier. Anything from mooks to BBEGs, it takes a fraction of the time it took to create the same guys in 3.5e.
Leveling is more straight-forward, but you have choices

Cons:
Not enough options (but they are coming)
Playing is harder. Too many different powers can make things confusing, each character has to have their powers all written out on cards or something or have to constantly refer to the books. It was easier when you just had one attack per weapon and a few special moves.


Pretty much everything else, IMO, is a wash.

Webhead
09-30-2008, 01:41 PM
...That is why some companies offer rebates, they are banking that the majority of people wont make the effort to complete the document to pay the rebate. So far it has been an effective plan and that is why you still see rebate offers.

Indeed. A "rebate" is a way to seem like you're giving money back to the customer without the cost of 100% redemption rate. In actuality, depending on the value of the rebate of course, redemption is actually closer to about 50%. About 75% of people will apply for the rebate, but many of them will not follow or pay attention to the requirements and will be disqualified. They miss postmark deadlines, they forget to include UPC codes, they mail it to the wrong address, etc.

Yes, a rebate is like saying, "Hey...you can save some money on this product...if you're diligent and careful". They're counting on people not redeeming and banking those dollars. That's why they run them as rebates instead of "instant savings". They are much gentler on the company's merchandising budget.

Yeah...I used to work in rebates. ;)

Valdar
09-30-2008, 02:48 PM
So I don't know where to look, and didn't keep the bootleg. Your point? By given I mean physically handed on a USB stick. Where to download? Not a clue.

Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)). You made use of an illegally downloaded book rather than paying for it. Whether you downloaded it yourself, kept the download, or know how to download it is irrelevant- you're still complaining about the production quality of a book you used a stolen copy of, which is almost as ironic as complaining that Wizards heavily modified a game that you yourself had already heavily modified, often in the same ways (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6442).

Kalanth
09-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)). You made use of an illegally downloaded book rather than paying for it. Whether you downloaded it yourself, kept the download, or know how to download it is irrelevant- you're still complaining about the production quality of a book you used a stolen copy of, which is almost as ironic as complaining that Wizards heavily modified a game that you yourself had already heavily modified, often in the same ways (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6442).


It must be burried in the other 14 pages of this thread, but he said that he did not know where to even get the .pdf's. Where did you get that he is using the illegal copies? I use illegal copies, but I don't know where it came up that he admited to using them. Unless you were mixing us up...

Webhead
09-30-2008, 03:23 PM
I, for one, believe that the "bootleg" PDFs were (whether WotC would admit it or not) leaked on purpose to generate interest/dicussion and to get the books in front of some folks who otherwise wouldn't give it a second glance at the book store. In much the same way free music sharing has been shown to increase music sales, I imagine WotC was hoping for something similar regarding 4e. But who knows.

I've seen copies of the 4e PDFs. They are not image scans from the books. They are the actual master files for the printer cut sheets. The files that would be sent to the printer for production. That means it had to have come from someone internally at WotC (perhaps accidentally, but not likely), or that someone at the printer leaked it (which wouldn't make a lot of sense).

This is not a defense of the distribution of the illegal copies, just some speculations as to how they became available in the first place.

Valdar
09-30-2008, 04:21 PM
It must be burried in the other 14 pages of this thread, but he said that he did not know where to even get the .pdf's. Where did you get that he is using the illegal copies? I use illegal copies, but I don't know where it came up that he admited to using them. Unless you were mixing us up...

I quoted him from another thread- the arrow icon in a quote is a link to the source of the quote-

Kalanth
09-30-2008, 04:53 PM
I quoted him from another thread- the arrow icon in a quote is a link to the source of the quote-

Oh, thats cool. I mean, I couldn't trace your footsteps back far enough to find the quote that said he downloaded them, but I will take your word for it. Just wanted to make sure you didn't mean me. I will happily admit that I had the core books on .pdf weeks before they launched.

tesral
09-30-2008, 06:07 PM
Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29). You made use of an illegally downloaded book rather than paying for it. Whether you downloaded it yourself, kept the download, or know how to download it is irrelevant- you're still complaining about the production quality of a book you used a stolen copy of, which is almost as ironic as complaining that Wizards heavily modified a game that you yourself had already heavily modified, often in the same ways (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6442).

No different that reading the books in the store dude. It was make or break for whether I bought the books. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with how 4 compares to 3. It also has no bearing on the quality of the book. Bad quality is bad, whether I bought it or not. When I buy something and the quality is bad, I take it back.

Curious thing, but I I was so inclined I could produce a better Forry book they they do, and do it cheaper. Good paper, color laser, and I know a thing or two about book binding.

Taking an example from the 3.5 320 pages at 2.2 cents a page. $7.04 in toner. 160 sheets of paper, about 2 bucks. Now I'm drifting into speculation as I've never bought hard cover binding supplies. We'll bind it in good thick cowhide. About 10 bucks or so, get good stuff, neck hide, stops bullets. This assumes that I either have or can get my hands on a book press and have the necessary supplies to use it, call it a couple more bucks for thread and glue.

So about $21.00 in materials to do a job that will last the ages, discounting my own labor, which frankly if I was doing it for pay, I could not afford to. You also have the cost of the people that wrote the thing. Wage slaves, they don't get anything of the price per book.

Now, buying materials in bulk, and having the machines that do the same thing from start to finish in minutes, even incluing the labor and the machine running cost Lizards publishes those books for a few dollars each. However by the time you add shipping, distribution and other factors they are probably making pennies a book.

Would it have hurt that much to cut down on the interior color and use a better quality of ink? A better glue?

As of yet I have not had a book smear. I don't leave my books to bake in the car. People have reported 3x books with the same behavior. I have seen smearing ink, in a weekly news magazine, meant to be read and thrown away, never in a hard cover book.


I, for one, believe that the "bootleg" PDFs were (whether WotC would admit it or not) leaked on purpose to generate interest/dicussion and to get the books in front of some folks who otherwise wouldn't give it a second glance at the book store. In much the same way free music sharing has been shown to increase music sales, I imagine WotC was hoping for something similar regarding 4e. But who knows.

I've seen copies of the 4e PDFs. They are not image scans from the books. They are the actual master files for the printer cut sheets.

This is not a defense of the distribution of the illegal copies, just some speculations as to how they became available in the first place.

Exactly. I have no clue as to the source, but it wasn't from outside Lizards. I commented on that myself. It was either released into the wild by Lizards, or their security sucks. I'm inclined to believe the former as you speculate. In which case it's rather like handing out free copies and complaining when they get used.

In any case, I looked, read, and declined to buy. Wiped it off my drive. It is not the issue.

Valdar
09-30-2008, 09:43 PM
No different that reading the books in the store dude.


Except that curiously, reading the books in the store is legal.



In which case it's rather like handing out free copies and complaining when they get used.


Circular Argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument) Is the idea that Wizards released the books for free the premise or the conclusion here? You seem to have it down as both. It's pretty convenient (and specious) to think that Wizards released their product for free, before the stores got it, as a marketing strategy- why not put it on their site if it's what they intended? (They did, and big surprise, it's not free.) Much more likely that this was leaked by someone who would lose their job if they were caught, either within WotC or their printer.

Anyway, ethics and economics aside, my point being, you're complaining about the quality of a book you used without paying for.

tesral
10-01-2008, 12:52 AM
Anyway, ethics and economics aside, my point being, you're complaining about the quality of a book you used without paying for.


No, other people are complaining about the quality of the books they bought. I am advising they return defective merchandise. As I would do if I got a defective book. I have to say that the stories of defective books isn't increasing my likely hood of ever buying Forry, even if the content wasn't to my liking. It does sadden me that the quality has dropped that far.

Who knows, in five years when ForryFive hit the shelves I might pick up a few Forry books on the used market.

This is a point were my practice of buying used books can bite me. I bought two more last week. You can't return a used book for manufacturer defects. So far I've been lucky there. The one was a bit on the rough side but the description did say "fair". I got a MM and a Complete Mage for the new price of the MM, with shipping.

I have four new books on order from Plazio I'll be getting Pathfinder when the final edition is released. Lizards can hang out to dry.

And it still has no bearing on the issue of 3.5 vs. 4.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
10-01-2008, 08:54 AM
Id be happy if everything was black and white and they moved the savings to paper and glue quality. No color... you say in shock... yeah, i was around when all modules were b&w, and yet some of my most vivid memories were from those modules. Just a side note.

Grimwell
10-01-2008, 09:39 AM
At what, smearing and falling apart?


No, other people are complaining about the quality of the books they bought.

Your own statements invalidate your logic. You can't have your cake and eat it tesral. You used an illegal and pirated copy of the rules to take a look at them for yourself. Then you complained about the quality of the books.

Because you admitted to piracy, despite trying to then deny it as an attack, (Clue: Ad hominem attacks are invalid and unrelated attacks on a person within a larger arguement. People telling you that you are a pirate, when you admitted it yourself, are not making ad hominem attacks, even if you try to distract them with fancy words) invalidates your opinion as valued in a discussion about the merits of the published book.

Further, your inability to take this criticism without waving your hands around and trying to spin the situation adds not to your credibility, but to your semblance of being willing to do anything to get your digs in on 4E's printing quality, and systemic integrity. The problem is, it's not working. You are a pirate and even deleting the file does not absolve you of the fact that you went down that road.

You attacking 4E as a pirate lacks legitimacy because you came at it from an illegitimite angle. It's entirely different when I say that the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign book was enough of a dissapointment to me that I gave it to a friend and don't expect it back. I paid for that book and it does make a difference.

There are many good things you bring to this site tesral, you are a smart and insightful person -- but you really do your social credit harm when you step up and attack 4th edition, and then revert to internet troll responses to the people who point out that you had to steal the edition to view it, and never owned a single smeared page of the books despite railing about printing quality and your qualifications about printing. Two of my best friends are paper scientists, if I really wanted to know about the quality of the paper in these books that I paid for, I'll send it to them for an evaluation without breaking the law.

I'd honestly suggest that you either avoid dipping in these waters, or that you own your situation and stop trying to deflect very valid criticism when you do step in. The criticism is valid, and some of us are going to dismiss your points as a matter of course because you did pirate. Accept that consequence and move on.

Inquisitor Tremayne
10-01-2008, 10:24 AM
So...

We haven't started playing yet but already I can tell I like being a DM of 4e better than 3.5.

In 3.5 encounter building and subsequently adventure building was a chore. A laborious one that I did not look forward to. I was looking at about 10+ hours of work, and that was for a short adventure.

In 4e I altered an encounter, added 2 other encounters to that adventure, and am halfway through the next adventure all in the span of about 8 hours of work. Not to mention picking and choosing monsters to add to an encounter is easy as pie due to the new XP budget system.

The other nice thing about 4e is that traps are now given stat blocks like monsters, this is good. The other thing WotC seems to be doing is putting all relevant information where it needs to be in whatever they have released, meaning less page flipping and cross-referencing, and that is always good.

Now the only other thing to watch for is how combat plays out.

So far it doesn't look like lack of or support of ROLEplaying is going to be an issue. I think the PCs have pretty interesting backgrounds and I have created an interesting enough story to get the players involved, at least I think so.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
10-01-2008, 10:38 AM
Put me down as another DM that prefers 4.0. It is a nicer edition to run, no question.

tesral
10-01-2008, 10:50 AM
Accept that consequence and move on.

I have, you haven't, it not about me, you keep making it about me, which it's not. Where I made my evaluation pf the content has nothing to do with the value of that judgment. And yes, my comment o the book physical quality are comments, hearsay. I have yet to find a Lizards product that behaves that way. However my shock in finding that ANY do is valid.

And no I didn't break the law. Having a bootleg is not "illegal" distributing, which is different is still a civil matter, that is if the RIAA hasn't bought more law for themselves. Being a writer myself I know copyright law.

And do you have any Lizards PDFs? They are all in exactly the same boat even if you own hard copies. Bootlegs, every one of them. I think some people need to clean their hard drives before they start piling on. I sense a lot of pot calling the kettle black.

AND THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT ME. I am not bowing my head and shuffling off. Get use to it .:focus: :deadhorse:

Webhead
10-01-2008, 11:13 AM
That's it! I'm switching to Warhammer!...(just kidding ;)).

Though I did notice last night that Green Ronin has released their first preview of Warriors & Warlocks at www.mutantsandmasterminds.com (http://www.mutantsandmasterminds.com). I'm looking forward to that one! :D

tesral
10-01-2008, 11:18 AM
That's it! I'm switching to Warhammer!...(just kidding ;)).

Though I did notice last night that Green Ronin has released their first preview of Warriors & Warlocks at www.mutantsandmasterminds.com (http://www.mutantsandmasterminds.com). I'm looking forward to that one! :D

d20 Fantasy through Superheros. That could be different. As long as the price doesn't make my hair fly off I could be worth a look for reaping concepts at the least.

Kalanth
10-01-2008, 11:32 AM
Put me down as another DM that prefers 4.0. It is a nicer edition to run, no question.

Put my name in that pot as well. Since starting to run a 4e game I actually look forward to writing for the game. I mean, what the hell is wrong with me? I want to write for my game? I have not wanted to write for my game since 3rd edition came out!

Webhead
10-01-2008, 12:03 PM
d20 Fantasy through Superheros. That could be different. As long as the price doesn't make my hair fly off I could be worth a look for reaping concepts at the least.

The nice thing about the Mutants & Masterminds system is that it is scalable (insofar as a system like d20 is scalable), so you're not restricted to playing "Sword-and-Sorcery Justice League" or anything of the sort. You could very easily set the Power Level of your game to something more modest to emulate a "1st level D&D" style if that was your flavor.

What it is is a "toolbox" of options to build what you want. I'm thinking it might be what I need to finally get a Battle Chasers campaign off the ground...a fantasy campaign that doesn't work well in D&D.

Valdar
10-01-2008, 12:03 PM
And no I didn't break the law. Having a bootleg is not "illegal" distributing, which is different is still a civil matter, that is if the RIAA hasn't bought more law for themselves. Being a writer myself I know copyright law.


On a tangent, I asked my roommate about this (who happens to be an attorney, who specializes in intellectual property). She confirmed that, if you made use of an illegally copied piece of IP, then you broke the law. What are your sources for claiming that using illegally obtained IP is legal?



And do you have any Lizards PDFs? They are all in exactly the same boat even if you own hard copies. Bootlegs, every one of them.

Not a one. I have the books, you see. I didn't even download the PDFs early. And as mentioned, there are legal copies of the PDFs out there- Wizards is selling them on their site. So no, they aren't all bootlegs.

Back to topic, I don't think that one bad print run has anything to do with the quality of the game either, but hey, you brought it up. Nor do I think it was intentional on Wizards' part to put out a bad run of books (my post about that was sarcastic, sorry if people didn't pick up on that.)

For setup, yeah, I'm running a game tonight, and I'm giving myself two hours to set up 3-4 encounters, which should be plenty of time (it has been in the past.) Equivalent setup for a 3.x game was about fifteen hours.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
10-01-2008, 12:28 PM
:eek:
Put my name in that pot as well. Since starting to run a 4e game I actually look forward to writing for the game. I mean, what the hell is wrong with me? I want to write for my game? I have not wanted to write for my game since 3rd edition came out!
Not to mention(who am i kidding, ill mention it), two of my fellow DM's have remarked how easy it was to convert other edition modules to 4.0, they being: WLD(Worlds Largest Dungeon), and Ravenloft. See Community calendar:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=3227&day=2008-10-4&c=1

Grimwell
10-01-2008, 12:34 PM
And no I didn't break the law. Having a bootleg is not "illegal" distributing, which is different is still a civil matter, that is if the RIAA hasn't bought more law for themselves. Being a writer myself I know copyright law.

Yes. You did. Further, you break the law in the PDF you linked to your wonderful list of races that are available for play in your world. The artwork you put in there contains numerous images that are lifted from other products and you end the document with a copyright to your own company. That is not "fair use" of the content. It's theft and infringement upon the work of other people.

Which establishes a clear trend of willingness to commit these crimes, and a fundamental misunderstanding that they are crimes.



And do you have any Lizards PDFs? They are all in exactly the same boat even if you own hard copies. Bootlegs, every one of them. I think some people need to clean their hard drives before they start piling on. I sense a lot of pot calling the kettle black.

See now, THAT is an ad hominem as you are suggesting that I'm a pirate too. Problem is that I'm not a pirate and you have nothing to point to to suggest it. So we have an unwarranted and false attack that tries to put my credibility in question -- which is a deflection that avoids your lack of credibility. I pay for my resources because I want the people who put in hard time creating them to reap the profits and make more.

Deflect all you want, you are a thief and I'm tired of you trying to pretend you aren't, and tired of you attacking 4th edition from some position of authority when the truth is you are a weasel.

You could do so much better for this community if you would stick to the insightful and helpful posts and get off your crusade against an edition that you have stolen and printed on your superior paper.

You can call it a tangent, you can say that it's off topic, you can link to dead horse images all you want -- point of fact is that you are the one who continues to make these statements about the edition you have stolen, and then you start to spin and deflect to defend your theft when people call you on very factual points.

Get off the dead horse and I'll stop beating it.

Webhead
10-01-2008, 01:16 PM
On a tangent, I asked my roommate about this (who happens to be an attorney, who specializes in intellectual property). She confirmed that, if you made use of an illegally copied piece of IP, then you broke the law...

Curiousity that your attorney friend may be able to answer: What is the legal definition of "making use" as it pertains to the issue of Intellectual Property? I'm just wondering what the law establishes as the guidelines for this.

Thanks.

Grimwell
10-01-2008, 01:31 PM
You know what, I apologize tesral.

I feel strongly about what I said above, but it's not worth the effort or the resulting chaos on Farcaster's site. I won't edit my post to take it back, because the internet never forgets -- but I will let the issue drop and never bring it up again with you.

My apologies to anyone who had to suffer through my part of the back and forth.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
10-01-2008, 01:35 PM
You know what, I apologize tesral.

I feel strongly about what I said above, but it's not worth the effort or the resulting chaos on Farcaster's site. I won't edit my post to take it back, because the internet never forgets -- but I will let the issue drop and never bring it up again with you.

My apologies to anyone who had to suffer through my part of the back and forth.
No worries and no suffering inflicted. It's nice to see passion in ones beliefs and both of you offer quite alot to this site. I'm sure i speak for everyone(yes, i can be that arrogant) when i say: no harm, no foul.

Webhead
10-01-2008, 01:40 PM
No worries and no suffering inflicted. It's nice to see passion in ones beliefs and both of you offer quite alot to this site. I'm sure i speak for everyone(yes, i can be that arrogant) when i say: no harm, no foul.

Yes...sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best course of action. Winning an arguement or proving a point will only take you so far before it becomes heedless pursuit of vindication regardless of cost.

Again, sometimes it's nice to be nice! :clap2:

Kalanth
10-01-2008, 01:49 PM
Man, now I feel bad for having the .pdf's. Least I purchased the books too (even went to a Midnight sale for the core books) and get massive amounts of use out of both. And out of my entire gaming party, I am the only one that has the .pdf's, so thats a plus.

Webhead
10-01-2008, 02:06 PM
Man, now I feel bad for having the .pdf's. Least I purchased the books too (even went to a Midnight sale for the core books) and get massive amounts of use out of both. And out of my entire gaming party, I am the only one that has the .pdf's, so thats a plus.

Well, as an owner of the product, you are entitled to create and maintain backup copies of that product for yourself and your private use in the event that your product should fail, become lost or destroyed. These rights really most specifically come about from "soft" products (software and such), but it's likely that they are extended to include some "hard" products such as publications.

As long as you don't try to distribute and make money from those copies, you should be legally sound.

MortonStromgal
10-01-2008, 03:11 PM
On a tangent, I asked my roommate about this (who happens to be an attorney, who specializes in intellectual property). She confirmed that, if you made use of an illegally copied piece of IP, then you broke the law. What are your sources for claiming that using illegally obtained IP is legal?



I'm afraid its no where near that strait forward (DMCA, look but don't touch, fair use, to name a couple) however to protect oneself from litigation her advise is sound.

There is also a difference between legal and look the other way. In Seattle today weed is not legal but its considered such a minor offense that unless your suspected for committing some other crime they will not arrest you (usually). Its very much still illegal though and if they catch you with it while speeding for example they may prosecute you for both.

If you bootleg some pdf chances are no one will go after you but that does not make it legal. Depending on the "bootleg" though it may fall into a loophole of legal system like stuff writen in the US prior to 1930s, preview clause if you delete it after preview (don't try that one because the amount of time is entirely up to the judge), or look but don't touch. Just don't count yourself safe by a loophole because you'll still need a good lawyer to argue your way out if it goes to court.

I just always advise anyone with bootlegs to understand that if they go to court they better have a good lawyer.

Kalanth
10-02-2008, 09:27 AM
:eek:
Not to mention(who am i kidding, ill mention it), two of my fellow DM's have remarked how easy it was to convert other edition modules to 4.0, they being: WLD(Worlds Largest Dungeon), and Ravenloft. See Community calendar:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&e=3227&day=2008-10-4&c=1

That is pretty cool. I was thinking about going through the Castle Ravenloft 3.5 module that came out last year and using it in my 4e game. Not sure how I would squeeze it into the current plot, but it is a module I have been drooling to run for a while.

And I have noticed this in other situations as well. Converting over a Behir and Rust Monster proved to be very easy with some modifications done to make them 4e effective. For example, my Rust Monster did not destroy the weapon and armor during combat cause I did not want to screw the players. So instead it had a special attack that would instil a hefty penalty that would last until the the monsters next round.

It is definetly good times trying to get these things translated into the new edition.