4th Edition 4 or 3.5 [Archive]

Dimthar

Sunday 08-10-2008, 04:05 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

Sunday 08-10-2008, 08:28 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

Sunday 08-10-2008, 09:14 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.

Thoth-Amon

Sunday 08-10-2008, 10:56 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

Monday 08-11-2008, 12:44 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.

Thoth-Amon

Monday 08-11-2008, 01:04 AM

Valdar

Monday 08-11-2008, 01:46 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

Monday 08-11-2008, 05:54 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

Monday 08-11-2008, 06:15 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

Monday 08-11-2008, 07:18 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

Monday 08-11-2008, 11:29 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

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 01:36 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.

Thoth-Amon

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 01:48 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

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 06:51 PM

Thoth-Amon

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 07:05 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

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 07:34 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...

Thoth-Amon

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 08:58 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

Tuesday 08-12-2008, 10:08 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 12:44 AM

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?

Thoth-Amon

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 01:00 AM

Tamerath

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 01:25 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 01:39 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 01:46 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 10:31 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 01:19 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 02:01 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 06:55 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 07:15 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 08:16 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

Wednesday 08-13-2008, 11:23 PM

Kalanth

Thursday 08-14-2008, 09:19 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

Friday 08-15-2008, 10:25 PM

Thriondel Half-Elven

Friday 08-15-2008, 11:30 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

Saturday 08-16-2008, 11:25 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

Sunday 08-17-2008, 11:24 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

Sunday 08-17-2008, 12:37 PM

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

Sunday 08-17-2008, 04:55 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

Sunday 08-17-2008, 10:36 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

Sunday 08-17-2008, 11:53 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

Monday 08-18-2008, 12:08 AM

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

Monday 08-18-2008, 11:44 AM

Kalanth

Monday 08-18-2008, 03:03 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

Monday 08-18-2008, 06:05 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

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 12:15 PM

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

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 12:47 PM

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

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 01:47 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

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 04:09 PM

Thriondel Half-Elven

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 04:11 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

Tuesday 08-19-2008, 05:04 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 07:28 AM

Kalanth

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 08:28 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 11:54 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 01:09 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 02:22 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 04:34 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

Wednesday 08-20-2008, 04:47 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

Thursday 08-21-2008, 12:09 AM

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

Thursday 08-21-2008, 12:16 AM

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

Thursday 08-21-2008, 02:22 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

Thursday 08-21-2008, 07:37 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 12:38 AM

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

Friday 08-22-2008, 12:45 AM

And Ambartur.

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

Ben Rostoker

Friday 08-22-2008, 04:08 AM

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/dungons-dragons-4th.php

Valdar

Friday 08-22-2008, 03:36 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 07:01 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 07:05 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 07:20 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 07:35 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 10:05 PM

Well maybe we should start him out with star wars

maybe do you want to do that?

Chi

Friday 08-22-2008, 10:09 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 10:22 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

Friday 08-22-2008, 10:44 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

Saturday 08-23-2008, 12:29 PM

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

Saturday 08-23-2008, 03:34 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

Tuesday 08-26-2008, 10:09 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

Wednesday 08-27-2008, 04:06 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

Wednesday 08-27-2008, 08:53 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

Wednesday 08-27-2008, 09:26 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. It’s 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

Wednesday 08-27-2008, 09:44 PM

It’s 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

Wednesday 08-27-2008, 11:42 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. It’s 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

Thursday 08-28-2008, 08:47 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

Thursday 08-28-2008, 11:10 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

Friday 08-29-2008, 11:34 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

Monday 09-01-2008, 08:29 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

Monday 09-01-2008, 11:44 PM

Not that it is the same for everyone, but after playing both I love Saga and dislike 4e.

Inquisitor Tremayne

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 01:23 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 07:24 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 09:51 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 10:10 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 10:24 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 02:45 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

Tuesday 09-02-2008, 04:16 PM

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

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

Engar

Wednesday 09-03-2008, 05:58 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

Wednesday 09-03-2008, 06:10 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

Thursday 09-04-2008, 07:56 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

Thursday 09-04-2008, 02:13 PM

Thriondel Half-Elven

Friday 09-05-2008, 05:49 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

Sunday 09-07-2008, 02:46 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

Thoth-Amon

Sunday 09-07-2008, 03:01 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

Sunday 09-07-2008, 11:18 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

Monday 09-08-2008, 11:01 PM

GC13

Wednesday 09-10-2008, 07:18 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

Wednesday 09-10-2008, 07:34 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

Thursday 09-11-2008, 05:52 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

Thursday 09-11-2008, 07:10 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 07:02 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 11:21 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" It’s 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 11:44 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 01:18 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 06:34 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 06:56 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

Friday 09-12-2008, 07:01 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 07:47 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 09:36 AM

That's a funny quote because I've never seen anyone say "There isn't enough rules to RP" It’s 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 01:32 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 01:51 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 02:01 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

Saturday 09-13-2008, 02:20 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

Tuesday 09-16-2008, 01:08 PM

I like core books only + custom content. 3.5 was excellent for that, but many DM’s 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

Thoth-Amon

Tuesday 09-16-2008, 01:12 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

Tuesday 09-16-2008, 02:05 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

Thoth-Amon

Tuesday 09-16-2008, 02:51 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

Tuesday 09-16-2008, 03:57 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

Wednesday 09-17-2008, 12:18 PM

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 you’re 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? You’re 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 it’s 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

Wednesday 09-17-2008, 01:38 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 you’re 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? You’re 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 it’s 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

Wednesday 09-17-2008, 01:50 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 11:07 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 player’s 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 12:59 PM

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 player’s 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 05:17 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 06:21 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 06:46 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

Thursday 09-18-2008, 11:52 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 wa