106 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylixe]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

If this had been 4th edition D&D it really would be WoW.

A 100% accurate description of 4th edition D&D.

MerinTB wrote...

Merlik wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

I am glomy about 4e. I suppose it would make a good anime-based game and I am sure it will translate to the computer seamlessly, but as a tabletop RPG I find it decidedly lacking in flavour. After about 15 sessions our group universally decided to shelf 4e and move on to games whee characters actually have...character.

I do agree that 4e tends to make you focus more on the rules and less on character.

More so than 3.5?  Really?  Or 2nd Edition?  Or 1st?

Compare the PHB and DMG of each edition, and you'll find remarkably little in ANY of those books about "acting in character", "developing a good backstory for your character", "personality quirks for your NPCs" or the like.  The point of those RULE books are to give you the RULES for the game.

Honestly, 4E simplifies character creation, make combat easier to understand and the game as a whole more accessible to new players and new dungeon masters.

All editions of D&D put out later books (whether DMG2's or Campaign Sourcebooks or World Books (FR, Eberron, etc.)) that would delve more into the game world, fleshing out PCs and NPCs, tips on how to run a game, on how to role-play, etc.

The lack of character comes only from the group of players and the DM, not from the books.  It is up to the gamers, not the game's rule books, to add all the acting and personality and story to your sessions.

Why not just say what you really mean.  They made the game easy enough for people with the IQ of a turnip to understand it now.  It's a total hack and slash fest with no story or emphasis on skills.  However since that is the type of gamers the new generation are now.  I can understand them doing what they did.

Modifié par Sylixe, 31 décembre 2009 - 08:09 .

[MerinTB]

Sylixe wrote...

Why not just say what you really mean.  They made the game easy enough for people with the IQ of a turnip to understand it now.  It's a total hack and slash fest with no story or emphasis on skills.  However since that is the type of gamers the new generation are now.  I can understand them doing what they did.

I did say what I meant.

I guess I have the IQ of a turnip then since I really disliked 3rd edition and love 4th ED. *shrug*

New generation of gamers?  I'm about the same age as Scott Kurtz, and we both were "brought back" to D&D by 4th ED after disliking the mess that 3rd ED was.

4th ED may seem to be geared towards the MMO gamer, but 3rd ED was geared towards the CCG crowd.

[Sloth Of Doom]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylixe wrote...

Why not just say what you really mean.  They made the game easy enough for people with the IQ of a turnip to understand it now.  It's a total hack and slash fest with no story or emphasis on skills.  However since that is the type of gamers the new generation are now.  I can understand them doing what they did.

I did say what I meant.

I guess I have the IQ of a turnip then since I really disliked 3rd edition and love 4th ED. *shrug*

New generation of gamers?  I'm about the same age as Scott Kurtz, and we both were "brought back" to D&D by 4th ED after disliking the mess that 3rd ED was.

4th ED may seem to be geared towards the MMO gamer, but 3rd ED was geared towards the CCG crowd.

I respected you Merin....until you compard yourself to Scott Kurtz, who actually does have the IQ of a turnip, and a personality that makes even ME look pleasant.

[Darpaek]

HA Sloth! No worries, bud! Nothing makes you look pleasant... =P



I don't believe I'm here sticking up for 4e DnD, but... healing surges primarily exist to allow healing casters to cast spells on you. It's actually a pretty cool mechanic to limit the infi-medic aspect of clerics and to explain why people still die/get crippled, etc in a world where every village has a mid-level cleric.

[BlarkW]

I am so glad that this isn't DnD and they went the route that they did!

So refreshing to have something different. I've been playing DnD for about 15+ years or so and it has been getting bad and DA has brought back that "spark" that DnD used to. I still love my DnD and still go to my weekly games but DA now has a large amount of my free time.

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylixe wrote...

Why not just say what you really mean.  They made the game easy enough for people with the IQ of a turnip to understand it now.  It's a total hack and slash fest with no story or emphasis on skills.  However since that is the type of gamers the new generation are now.  I can understand them doing what they did.

I did say what I meant.

I guess I have the IQ of a turnip then since I really disliked 3rd edition and love 4th ED. *shrug*

New generation of gamers?  I'm about the same age as Scott Kurtz, and we both were "brought back" to D&D by 4th ED after disliking the mess that 3rd ED was.

4th ED may seem to be geared towards the MMO gamer, but 3rd ED was geared towards the CCG crowd.

I respected you Merin....until you compard yourself to Scott Kurtz, who actually does have the IQ of a turnip, and a personality that makes even ME look pleasant.

I wouldn't say I was comparing myself to him - I only wish I had the man's success - but he has stated on a number of occasions how 4E brought him back to a game that 3E had driven him away from.  In that, we are similar.

Awhile back I actually started a series of articles on looking at 4E -
here - http://ingenre.com/2...4th-edition-dd/
and here - http://ingenre.com/2...tion-dd-part-2/

I fully intend on finishing the series (probably about 4-5 articles total) someday soon, but just haven't gotten around to it.

So instead of going into my reasoning why I think 4E is great, I'll just point to those articles for anyone who cares to read them.

[Skellimancer]

Maviarab wrote...

Agreed Blark,

WotC have ruined it beyond redemption. kudos to Bioware for making their own unique system.

Yeah, standing still for 5 seconds for full HP/MP recovery is much better!

[Darpaek]

Late game it kinda annoys me that post-battle health/stam regen doesn't scale with you having more health/stam. Some of the 20+ late games have you standing around for 30-40 seconds to fully recharge between battles.



I'm with ya - the system as is is stupid. But if they're gonna have the stupid post-battle regen, they should have just made it an insta-heal instead of a regen.

[Sledge454]

>>If this had been 4th Edition D&D

I wouldn't have bought it

[AsheraII]

Maviarab wrote...

Agreed Blark,

WotC have ruined it beyond redemption. kudos to Bioware for making their own unique system.

They even managed to do that with their own game. Made me sell every single MtG card I had that was released after '97, including older cards with new artwork. And then some people claim I have cards that give overpowered combinations, while they have those very same combinations condensed into a single card

[Beechwell]

I don't know much about D&D, but it's interesting to see that D&D seems to get easier with each iteration, while the main German system, The Dark Eye, is getting more and more complicated with with each new version.

They are now at a point where I find the level of rules to simulate pretty much every aspect of gameplay to be a hindrance to a smooth role-play experience. Also it makes it more and more difficult to introduce newecomers to the system.

So I think a simple and accessible system has its merits, especially if you want to concentrate more on the character interaction and role-playing part of the game.

[Darkened Dragon]

Pretty simple, if this were 4th ed. D&D I wouldn't be here nor would I own the game. Sorry but with what WotC did to it I won't support anything I know is 4th ed. As far as I see it ... D&D is now a broken system to me. The PnP games I will play is AD&D 2nd ed, D&D 3.5ed (if I can't find another session), V:TM, and my own designed system. I am really thinking about checking out the DA PnP game out sometime, too.

[AsheraII]

Oh, Dark Eye still isn't half as bad as MERPS got at some point. On our "introduction", our group spent most of the evening rolling a character (yes, just rolling), to find out *exactly* what stats we had on everything. Somehow I was lucky enough to have chosen a rogueish profession, since it turned out I was a kleptomanic during character creation (yes, that was actually the result of one of the rolls. we also had a hydrophobic priest and a mage who was afraid for bright lights). 20 minutes into the game I fell down from fatigue because my pockets were too full with stuff I stole at the GM's discretion (even ooc I had no idea that my pockets were full O.o)



The one good thing about D&D, which was stated at least in AD&D 2e, but I hope for those still playing it in the newer versions as well, was that the books were GUIDES, NOT RULEBOOKS. Only refer to the books when there's something you can't solve in a normal manner and the GM or the players can't agree upon. The minute you let go of the "rules", the game becomes much more involving and entertaining.

[Abriael_CG]

To be honest, for me, D&D died after AD&D 2nd edition. The system was simple, intuitive, and made sense. It had exactly the focus on rules that it needed to have, and that's very little. Since the acquistion by wizards of the coast (the ones that destroyed roleplaying with their "Magic: the idiocy" collectible abomination) it just went downhill.
Now, a Warhammer fantasy roleplay-based game (one appropriately rated M, and thankfully Bioware has no problems doing those, instead of struggling for a T rating to appeal the kids), that'd paint me interested.
After all now Bioware and Mythic are under the same roof (well it's more like Bioware swallowed Mythic I guess), so who knows, it might even be a possibility.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 01 janvier 2010 - 01:40 .

[Kalcalan]

MerinTB wrote...

The lack of character comes only from the group of players and the DM, not from the books.  It is up to the gamers, not the game's rule books, to add all the acting and personality and story to your sessions.

Which means that rulesets don't matter at all provided you've got the right group of players. IMO there is nothing wrong with playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition in 2010 or even the original Dungeons and Dragons ruleset.

I play pen and paper RPGs from time to time (it's harder as one gets older). Although I can understand game companies like WotC wanting to make money out of new editions I don't see the necessity to change my gaming habits because of that.

There are many other RPGs (like Runequest for instance) that offer rulesets that make more sense than any D&D iteration because they didn't have to implement some basic D&D concepts that some may find by now outdated (levels and classes mainly although some systems have managed to get rid of hitpoints as well).

I can understand that D&D has a lasting appeal on gamers but I for one welcome the fact that Dragon Age uses an original system. I resent the fact that D20 was used with every settings as IMO it didn't adapt that well to modern or scifi settings like Call of Cthulhu or Star Wars. The use of that system in KotOR was the only thing I didn't like about that game. Using classes and levels didn't make much sense to me in a Star Wars setting.

Modifié par Kalcalan, 01 janvier 2010 - 01:52 .

[Abriael_CG]

I always find the "OMG levels and classes are so bad!" argument laughable. It's what made things simple and intuitive. Straying from it is quite often just an attempt to appeal to the elitists or to be "different" than a practical choice.

[Kalcalan]

Abriael_CG wrote...

I always find the "OMG levels and classes are so bad!" argument laughable. It's what made things simple and intuitive. Straying from it is quite often just an attempt to appeal to the elitists or to be "different" than a practical choice.

There is nothing simple and intuitive about classes and levels. You accept them because you are used to them and no other reason.

Why do levels make sense? Seriously. They are arbitrary values and bring up the question of XP. You get XP for killing people and completing quests which allow you to increase your abilities or get new skills that you didn't learn or even practice in game. That makes so much sense... In real life you have to train and be taught skills.

What about getting extra HP when gaining levels? If you're playing a lower level character a sword will kill you with one thrust but if you get a few levels it won't anymore. Does this make sense?

What about classes then? If classes were so logical in D&D they wouldn't have thought of breaking the system with multiclasses and dual classes. The 3rd edition is all about allowing more options in multiclassing.

[Beechwell]

Abriael_CG wrote...

I always find the "OMG levels and classes are so bad!" argument laughable. It's what made things simple and intuitive. Straying from it is quite often just an attempt to appeal to the elitists or to be "different" than a practical choice.

Levels I can understand, but classes in the D&D sense I find terribly limiting. I prefer skill-based systems where I don't have to multi-class a character t get a skill/talent that isn't part of the original package (lockpicking with a warrior for example). I suppose they are good for balancing and enforcing specific character roles, but in a PnP system I find them out of place.
(Wtih all due respect to the grandmother of rpgs that D&D is)

[Abriael_CG]

Kalcalan wrote...

There is nothing simple and intuitive
about classes and levels. You accept them because you are used to them
and no other reason.

Why do levels make sense? Seriously. They
are arbitrary values and bring up the question of XP. You get XP for
killing people and completing quests which allow you to increase your
abilities or get new skills that you didn't learn or even practice in
game. That makes so much sense... In real life you have to train and be
taught skills.

What about getting extra HP when gaining levels?
If you're playing a lower level character a sword will kill you with
one thrust but if you get a few levels it won't anymore. Does this make
sense?

What about classes then? If classes were so logical in
D&D they wouldn't have thought of breaking the system with
multiclasses and dual classes. The 3rd edition is all about allowing
more options in multiclassing.

ahaha at the "in real life" argument. Please... we're talking about a game here, not real life. A game needs to be fun and a role playing game needs to allow to "play a role" without having to min-max and number-crunch all the time. The class/level system makes sense because it gives you a simple template to work with without having to worry about numbers for every single action.

Your character didn't "train" certain skills? Is that so? 'm sure you play every single moment of your character's life. Do you make him go to the latrine too? Make sure you roll on the "aiming in the hole" skill 

But i'm not surprised D&D went downhill. WotC didn't have any interest in expanding it's popularity, it was an hindrance to their silly card game, so they swallowed it and destroyed it's core to make it even more niche than it was.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 01 janvier 2010 - 03:00 .

[MerinTB]

Abriael_CG wrote...

But i'm not surprised D&D went downhill. WotC didn't have any interest in expanding it's popularity, it was an hindrance to their silly card game, so they swallowed it and destroyed it's core to make it even more niche than it was.

Ok, I'm not a fan of WotC buying TSR (but, then again, TSR was about to go bankrupt so...) and I've stated I don't like 3rd Edition -

but WotC INCREASED D&D's market share, and it sells more now (3rd and 4th) than it did prior.

Whether that's because you have the players garnered by the earlier editions (minus some attrition) plus new players just coming to the game or not, I couldn't tell you.

But I do know that D&D outsells the next 3 game systems combined.

[NDAv]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

There is nothing simple and intuitive
about classes and levels. You accept them because you are used to them
and no other reason.

Why do levels make sense? Seriously. They
are arbitrary values and bring up the question of XP. You get XP for
killing people and completing quests which allow you to increase your
abilities or get new skills that you didn't learn or even practice in
game. That makes so much sense... In real life you have to train and be
taught skills.

What about getting extra HP when gaining levels?
If you're playing a lower level character a sword will kill you with
one thrust but if you get a few levels it won't anymore. Does this make
sense?

What about classes then? If classes were so logical in
D&D they wouldn't have thought of breaking the system with
multiclasses and dual classes. The 3rd edition is all about allowing
more options in multiclassing.

ahaha at the "in real life" argument. Please... we're talking about a game here, not real life. A game needs to be fun and a role playing game needs to allow to "play a role" without having to min-max and number-crunch all the time. The class/level system makes sense because it gives you a simple template to work with without having to worry about numbers for every single action.

Your character didn't "train" certain skills? Is that so? 'm sure you play every single moment of your character's life. Do you make him go to the latrine too? Make sure you roll on the "aiming in the hole" skill 

The whole idea that should be formal training is valid. A rigid class system only makes sense if characters had formal training. If they learn purely from experience, then there is no reason why they can't learn and improve skills and abilities from other classes. The strict divisions between class doesn't make sense without the formal training. And yes there are games out there where characters obtain and improve abilities and skills from formal trainers, or obtain a new class from trainers.

BTW, D&D sucks.

Modifié par NDAv, 01 janvier 2010 - 09:05 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Abriael_CG wrote...

ahaha at the "in real life" argument. Please... we're talking about a game here, not real life. A game needs to be fun and a role playing game needs to allow to "play a role" without having to min-max and number-crunch all the time. The class/level system makes sense because it gives you a simple template to work with without having to worry about numbers for every single action.

Your character didn't "train" certain skills? Is that so? 'm sure you play every single moment of your character's life. Do you make him go to the latrine too? Make sure you roll on the "aiming in the hole" skill 

But i'm not surprised D&D went downhill. WotC didn't have any interest in expanding it's popularity, it was an hindrance to their silly card game, so they swallowed it and destroyed it's core to make it even more niche than it was.

I find a game more fun when it's not bound by classes and levels, does that make me an elitist even though I can see that other people might like that?  Regardless, there are plenty of systems that work without classes or levels, from GURPS to World of Darkness, but that is getting sidetracked from the topic raised by the OP so doesn't matter.

Back to the topic at hand, I haven't played 4th ed and got no interest in it, but 3.5 was good and the best edition from my perspective, though it seemed to lack the soul of 2nd ed (the author in character gen in the PHB 2nd ed trying to explain how low stats could be good for roleplay purposes for instance, made it seem more like it was written by a fellow roleplayer).  So I'll go by 3rd ed stats for Alistair:

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 12 (he's not retarded and is highly trained)
Wis 8 (he is, however, lacking in real world experience and common sense in some places)
Char 14 (he does become a 'leader' if you make him king and is liked by most people)

This is him at level 1 anyway.  He's not stupidly strong but is healthy and can take a beating.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 01 janvier 2010 - 09:31 .

[bussinrounds]

The 1st and 2nd editions were the sht !! Bioware please get back the d&d licence, and make some new "old school " games based on these, PLEASE. I know it's not gonna happen, i just had to say it though.