58 réponses à ce sujet

[Arbiter Libera]

Of course you can't, you can't really jump into any PnP game if it has some sort of attributes focus. Of course, there are a few games out there that are relatively easier to "jump into" judged on the crunchy side at least (like Nobilis for example). It's just a nature of the majority of this hobby, although indie games have always experimented with rules. CRPGs are a good introduction, but it's just not the same because you're not really gradually introduced into the system. I remember when I saw my friend playing BG2 and he was like: "... alright, WTF am I looking at here? Spreadsheets on LSD?" so, yeah.

But then again, he's glad I didn't try to get him into RIFTS... THAT would've blown his mind away.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 06 mars 2010 - 07:56 .

[MerinTB]

Sloth of Doom wrote..
Poor Merin, I'd respect you more if you stopped referencing Kurtz, the
biggest dbag to ever bag a d

I'd apologize except I like PVP, I generally really like what Kurtz writes, and I thoroughly loved the Penny Arcade / PVP D&D podcasts.

As for fanbois, the fanatical devotion to 3rd Edition reminds me endlessly of Apple devotees and Playstation die-hards.  What you like is perfect and what is not what you like sucks.
I did comment in another thread how much I dislike the "us vs. them" mentality.  Let's not attack each other because of which games we like and don't like, ok?

I know that's asking a lot from you, SoD, to not be so sarcastic.  But just once in awhile?

Sloth of Doom wrote...
Previous editions built upon the editions before them, you can easily
see where the game evolved and changed, and despite the rules being
quite different from the Basic set to 3.5 it still feels like the same
game. 4th decided to scrap everything and write a new game that
apparently takes most of its ideas from MMOs. Aside from havng D&D
stamped all over it, it has nothing in common with previous editions and
just desn;t feel lke D&D anymore.

This is subjective, and I can't argue that you are wrong in saying that it doesn't feel like D&D to you anymore.

Let me say a few things though:
1 - All editions prior to 3rd limited what races could be what classes.  3rd Edition tossed that out the window.  I'm still baffled by Dwarf wizards and Halfling Paladins, seriously.
2 - All editions prior to 3rd limited how much you could multi-class, if at all.  Humans had to dual-class.  Multiclassing in 1st and 2nd ED look NOTHING like the garbage that 3rd ED gives you.  4th ED steers BACK towards more of the original D&D limits on mutli-classing that 3rd ED completely trashed.

What are big changes in D&D that 3rd made that 4th kept?
1 - No more THAC0
2 - AC goes UP, instead of DOWN, as it gets better.
3 - The idea of Prestige classes (changed into Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.)
4 - The switch from Saving Throws for Death Magic, Wands, Petrification, Magic, etc,  to Fortitude, Reflex and Will saves (4E just took it further.)
5 - The idea of Encounter powers began in 3.5
6 - Skills (as opposed to OPTIONAL NWP - including taking staple Thief class abilities and making them accessible to virtually any class)
7 - FEATS!

What 4E got rid of that were staples of D&D (that still existed in 3.5)
1 - Spell memorization (like THAC0, I understand being used to something (like the American measuring system) but when presented with an easier and better system of d20 based combat (or Metric) I cannot understand calling it worse.)
2 - All non-magic combat coming down to just a die roll plus bonuses (now, regardless of class, you have "Powers")

I'm sorry, SoD, but if you accept "progression" as an argument, I do have a hard time seeing the addition of Powers and the elimination of spell memorization (and whatever else 4E did that was different from 3.5) being bigger shifts from D&D than getting rid of the way AC was handled, getting rid of THAC0, getting rid of race/class restrictions, the Skill system, Feats and unleashing the unholy hell of virtually unlimited multi-classing,

Ahisgewaya wrote...
Another thing is I really liked being able to play as a monster, which was allowed in the 3rd edition rules. Now you can't.

Not true, depending on what you consider a "monster."  What do you consider a monster?  Would you
consider any of the following to be monster races:
Shifters,Dragonborn, Tieflings, Devas, Goliaths, Half-Orcs, Minotaur, Githzerai, Wilden?

Those are all races from the PHB's.  If
none of those count, I wonder at what your definition of monster is? 
Is your definition of monster "evil", or "non-player race" or what?

From the Monster Manuals and other 4E sourcebooks the following races are also available:
Bladeling, Bugbear, Bullywug, Doppleganger, Drow, Duergar, Gensai, Githyanki, Gnoll, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kalshatar, Kenku, Kobold, Orc, Revenant, Shadar-Kai, Warforged

What are you looking for, a dragon or a beholder?

Not a single edition fo D&D, from basic to 3.5, had in the PHB a "monster" race in the playable races UNTIL 4E arguably (and that depends on how you see half-orcs).  Follow me (I've got all the PHB's in front of me right now):
Basic D&D: you choose from Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Halfling, Magic-User, or Thief.  Hint - if you don't choose Elf, Dwarf or Halfling you are automatically human in any other class.
AD&D: Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Halflings, Half-Orcs, Humans.
2nd ED :Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Halflings, Humans.
3.5 ED (don't have a 3.0 PHB, sorry): Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Halflings.
4th ED: Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, Tiefling

Any other races offered come from Monster Manuals or later source books.
Claiming that 4E doesn't allow monsters as PC races and other editions did is provably false.

Ahisgewaya wrote...
Not only that, but druids who wild shape can't fly anymore.

Yes, yes they can.  Not initially, but no one can fly initially.  At later levels there are powers that allow the wildshape of Druids different movement powers, such as Sky Talon granting flight in an eagle form.

Ahisgewaya wrote...
But most of all I don't like that they retconned so much of the fluff they had in the 3rd edition books, but now just about every book they make is chock full of mechanics but no fluff.

Have you read any of the world books?  The Powers books?  Any of the planes books, or Open Grave?
Or are you basing that call on the 3 initial core books alone?


---

Ok, honestly, I have no problem if people hate 4E and love 3.5 - that's personal preference, and fine.

But when the arguments for why 4E sucks are based on faulty reasoning (bigger changes than 3rd Edition made) or on outright provably false arguments (you can't RP as well, there's no monster playable races, etc.) - then I do have a problem.

Like it our don't, but please be careful about making claims that are hard to back up or are easily shown to be untrue.

[Jae Onasi]

I agree there is no 'jumping into PnP games', and you certainly can't learn it from CRPGs (though a friend of mine did give it a good try. He understood the rules perfectly, but couldn't role-play to save his life because he was so rules-bound). This is a game you have to start playing with at least 1 person who's played before who knows how to apply rules intelligently.

Since I play with my kids, who are fairly young (pre-teen and school-ager), and online via skype with some friends who are new to DnD, we dumped the stuff that bogged us down or made 3.5e too complicated. For instance, I threw attacks of opportunity into the 9th circle of hell where it belongs. It's the stupidest concept I've ever seen (you NEVER stop fighting a guy to take a swing at another guy just because he stepped within 6 feet of you), and made battles unnecessarily complicated. I also bumped up the PC's stats--heroes are supposed to be above average, and cannon fodder is cannon fodder. I did bump up the boss stats to compensate. I'm going to ditch the 3.5e skillset in favor of the 4e set, however--it's much, much simpler to use that. I hate the 4e alignment limitations, and I can't decide how I feel about the new fighting mechanics. 

Spell memorization--since my AD&D days, we've always played with the assumption that a. people had enough time to study and memorize their spells/pray unless the DM said otherwise and b. they had all their spell components.  Searching for spell components (except very rare high level things that could become quests unto themselves) were ignored, the DM just charged a 'spell components/armor repair/supply fee whenever we went into town to cover the costs of things like food, firewood, lodging, etc.  The spell casters did have to specify what spells they'd picked for that day, however, before heading off for their day of adventure, but otherwise that was as complicated as it got.

As DM, I want to encourage my players to think outside the fighting box, so I give extra XP for creative non-fighting solutions, and just arrange for the loot that would have dropped from that encounter to be 'discovered in a chest' in that area or something equally workable. In that respect, I actually like White Wolf's system used in their vampire PnPs better--you get xp for the encounter, regardless if you sneak by the baddie using obfuscation or stab his brains out.

Modifié par Jae Onasi, 06 mars 2010 - 08:51 .

[Ahisgewaya]

MerinTB wrote...

Ok, honestly, I have no problem if people hate 4E and love 3.5 - that's personal preference, and fine.

But when the arguments for why 4E sucks are based on faulty reasoning (bigger changes than 3rd Edition made) or on outright provably false arguments (you can't RP as well, there's no monster playable races, etc.) - then I do have a problem.

Like it our don't, but please be careful about making claims that are hard to back up or are easily shown to be untrue.

Nice wall of text there, I'll counter with a wall of my own. lol

Look man, I'm not trying to start a war or anything. I started this thread because I wish Bioware or SOMEBODY would make some more really good D&D games. That includes 4th edition, although although I prefer 3rd edition. The Monster manual is mostly what I was referring to, as it does not have the same ammount of fluff the 3rd edition monster manual had. I haven't read Open Grave yet, mostly because I'm worried it won't be as good as Libris Mortis. Does it let you play as an undead? If no, then I consider it not as good.

The 4th edition Monster Manual has breif statistics on monster races (emphasis on the breif). They do not however tell you how to balance them with other classes (no way a minotaur and an elf are the same power level)
and this is inferior to 3.5, which had the level adjustment mechanic.

And since you brought it up, yes I enjoy playing as a Dragon. Draconomicon had rules for playing as a dragon which worked out quite well. I was a bit weaker than the other people's characters in my group, but hey, I was a dragon. You could do that with 3.5.

As far as I know you can't be a dragon in 4. At least not without being insanely overpowered, which is not what I want. I am not a min/maxer, I just really like dragons. Which made me very interested in playing a Dragonborn until I got the Forgotten Realms campaign setting book, and found out that in the forgotten realms, Dragonborn Hate dragons.

[Ahisgewaya]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Dungeon and Dragons and all their players can burn in hell!

You do know Vin Deisel plays Dungeons and Dragons, right?
So you just told Riddick to burn in hell? I'm going to laugh when he kicks your ass.

[Arbiter Libera]

Jae Onasi wrote...

As DM, I want to encourage my players to think outside the fighting box, so I give extra XP for creative non-fighting solutions, and just arrange for the loot that would have dropped from that encounter to be 'discovered in a chest' in that area or something equally workable. In that respect, I actually like White Wolf's system used in their vampire PnPs better--you get xp for the encounter, regardless if you sneak by the baddie using obfuscation or stab his brains out.

I think that's my main problem with D&D and why I'm partially biased; the fact that it was, by default, always driven by dungeon crawling and loot hoarding, everything else was and still is secondary to those two things. Once I was inclined to believe that it could have simply been my players/DMs who have made it into such a game, but after playing other PnP games (WW games as well, with their Storyteller system) I've realized that's just what D&D is at it's core, every else (especially in 4th Ed. where skills are streamlined) requires additional effort on the behalf of player, effort not many are willing to make.

Ahisgewaya wrote...
So you just told Riddick to burn in hell? I'm going to laugh when he kicks your ass. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

With a tea cup.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 06 mars 2010 - 11:07 .

[Giantevilhead]

With the whole dispute between Atari and Hasbro, it'll probably be a while before anyone makes another D&D game.



However, I'm sure that Bioware would want to make another D&D game if given the right opportunity if they like the 4th Edition rules.

[MerinTB]

Ahisgewaya wrote...
Nice wall of text there, I'll counter with a wall of my own. lol

Ah, "wall of text" - another one of those insults, like "troll", that's tossed out way too often without really sticking to it's meaning.

wall of text - A piece of writing that does not use proper grammar and generally looks like a giant essay with 20 to 400 sentences without using paragraphs or any bit of spacing at all

Good example: http://uncyclopedia....ki/Wall_of_Text

Neither I nor you used "wall of text"'s - we used proper grammar, punctuation, spacing, and stuck to actually responding to each other.

Ahisgewaya wrote...
The Monster manual is mostly what I was referring to, as it does not have the same ammount of fluff the 3rd edition monster manual had. I haven't read Open Grave yet, mostly because I'm worried it won't be as good as Libris Mortis. Does it let you play as an undead? If no, then I consider it not as good.

The 4th edition Monster Manual has breif statistics on monster races (emphasis on the breif). They do not however tell you how to balance them with other classes (no way a minotaur and an elf are the same power level)
and this is inferior to 3.5, which had the level adjustment mechanic.

And since you brought it up, yes I enjoy playing as a Dragon. Draconomicon had rules for playing as a dragon which worked out quite well. I was a bit weaker than the other people's characters in my group, but hey, I was a dragon. You could do that with 3.5.

As far as I know you can't be a dragon in 4. At least not without being insanely overpowered, which is not what I want. I am not a min/maxer, I just really like dragons. Which made me very interested in playing a Dragonborn until I got the Forgotten Realms campaign setting book, and found out that in the forgotten realms, Dragonborn Hate dragons.

I tried to think of what I could cut out from above, but decided all of what you wrote was relevant.  Instead I will try to be very brief.

1 - Core books vs. Core books, there are equal amounts of fluff in all editions I believe.  Less or more fluff in Libre Mortis vs. Open Grave != whether undead are playable in Open Grave.  But, for the record, Revenants are a playable "race" in 4E, and pretty damn cool.
2 - The monsters in the back of the 4E Monster Manual are not intended to be PC races unless player and DM agree as it states they are not balanced - but many of those races are later expanded into PC races in other books (gnome, minotaur, shadra-kai, shifter, githzerai, drow, gnoll and warforged) and as such balanced against the other races with no confusing and unnecessarily complicated CR for level adjustment and such nonsense.  That said, the DMG now has rules for leveling monsters down and up to fit encounters and the PC party levels so, hey, improvement.
3 - You got me there - the Draconomicon of 3rd Edition does, indeed, allow for dragon PCs.  3 years after the release of 3rd edition.  In 2011, complain to me.  Or, better yet, see that the Draconomicon is the outlier - Basic, Advanced, 2E and 4E don't have dragons as playable characters so they all suck but 3rd edition, huh, becasue of that one thing?
If that's your opinion, that you need a playable dragon race or else the game sucks, you've got me.

Seriously, going back a step - it is utterly unfair to compare the 8 years of books 3rd edition released to the 2 years of books that 4E has and say there's more in 3E.  OF COURSE THERE IS.

---

Again, if you prefer the game mechanics of 3rd Edition to 4th, that's absolutely your choice, it's your opinion, and it's fine.

If not having race X as a playable race, or class combo Y is what you need to have fun, and that is enough for you to call a whole game system bunk, well, you have a pretty narrow focus, but again it's a matter of taste and opinion, ok.

But to say there are no monster races available, and then to move the goal posts to "well, the ones in the Monster Manual aren't balanced" and "dragons aren't include, so they don't REALLY allow playable monster races" while completely disregarding the list of playable monster races (9 if you disregard gnomes, elves, dwarves, halflings) available from the PHBs of 4th ED alone makes your complaints seem absolutely disingenuous.

Like one game or don't, no skin off my nose.  I won't argue with you TO like something that you don't (or don't want to.)
But I'll defend something I do like against patently false statements.

Modifié par MerinTB, 07 mars 2010 - 06:19 .

[Seagloom]

I will make one point in support of Ahisgewaya's post... 4e's Monster Manual *was* a big disappointment to me. Granted, 3e and 3.5's manuals were hardly paragons of lore. In fact they were crappy compared to 2e manuals with their ecology information and noting of general combat tactics for each monster. But 4e had even less lore in the original Monster Manual than 3e's version and that was a big negative in my opinion.

WotC went through all this trouble to reshuffle certain monsters and drastically change others, and all they included in their information blocks were two to three lore snippets meant for players succeeding on a die roll, a brief physical description, and typical combat behavior. Since I'm familiar with D&D it was't a huge deal in my case. I could fill in the blanks with knowledge gleaned from past editions. It was simply annoying... particularly where fiends were concerned. However, if I was new to D&D and 4e was my first game, and all I had to go by was the 4e Monster Manual... well... damn. I would have to do most of the serious lore legwork myself if I cared about consistency and logic in my game world at all. In that sense I think 4e's core books failed spectacularly. Well that and how item economy was handled. That is an unrelated issue though.

Modifié par Seagloom, 07 mars 2010 - 12:29 .

[Loerwyn]

I use my two 3.5ed books to prop up my monitor. And my Oblivion guides (yes, plural) and my Inquisitor guide.

[Ahisgewaya]

MerinTB wrote...

Ahisgewaya wrote...
Nice wall of text there, I'll counter with a wall of my own. lol

Ah, "wall of text" - another one of those insults, like "troll", that's tossed out way too often without really sticking to it's meaning.

wall of text - A piece of writing that does not use proper grammar and generally looks like a giant essay with 20 to 400 sentences without using paragraphs or any bit of spacing at all

Good example: http://uncyclopedia....ki/Wall_of_Text

Neither I nor you used "wall of text"'s - we used proper grammar, punctuation, spacing, and stuck to actually responding to each other.

Look man, it was a joke. Not an insult. I meant you have a lot of information there so I was going to also add a lot of counterargument.

ANd you know, your further argument has actually made me think about a few things, especially where you pointed out 4th edition hasn't been out for very long. That is a good point and one I will consider.

However, it pisses me off when they release not one but two books called Draconomicon in 4th edition yet they both together don't have what made the 3rd edition draconomicon so great - the dragon culture and society as well as feats, prestige classes items and dragon pcs. No paragon paths, no items, no spells. That is lessening their own product and I cry foul.

[Ahisgewaya]

Seagloom wrote...

I will make one point in support of Ahisgewaya's post... 4e's Monster Manual *was* a big disappointment to me. Granted, 3e and 3.5's manuals were hardly paragons of lore. In fact they were crappy compared to 2e manuals with their ecology information and noting of general combat tactics for each monster. But 4e had even less lore in the original Monster Manual than 3e's version and that was a big negative in my opinion.

THat's my point exactly! THe lore is less and less each time! by the time we get to fifth edition it will say "Boo! it's a dragon! kill it!" and that's it.

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 07 mars 2010 - 01:25 .

[Loerwyn]

Ahisgewaya wrote...
THat's my point exactly! THe lore is less and less each time! by the time we get to fifth edition it will say "Boo! it's a dragon! kill it!" and that's it.

I thought that was 3.5ed.

[Sloth Of Doom]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Ahisgewaya wrote...
THat's my point exactly! THe lore is less and less each time! by the time we get to fifth edition it will say "Boo! it's a dragon! kill it!" and that's it.

I thought that was 3.5ed.

Yeah, it sounds too compicated for 5th at the rate things are going.  5th is going to take everything one step further than fourth; a bunch of nerds show up in a room, one says "MONSTER!" and all the others say "DEAD!" in chorus and then they all gain a level.  That way everyone "knows their role" and "has fun because not doing things is boring" also, the game mechanics are easy for ANYONE to learn.

[MerinTB]

Ahisgewaya wrote...
ANd you know, your further argument has actually made me think about a few things, especially where you pointed out 4th edition hasn't been out for very long. That is a good point and one I will consider.

However, it pisses me off when they release not one but two books called Draconomicon in 4th edition yet they both together don't have what made the 3rd edition draconomicon so great - the dragon culture and society as well as feats, prestige classes items and dragon pcs. No paragon paths, no items, no spells. That is lessening their own product and I cry foul.

Hey, I'm glad I'm making you think about it.  That's more than I normally hope for.

I think, in your case, you and your DM could probably just adapt some kind of dragon PC race for 4E if you wanted to and your problem would be solved.
The books are meant to be guides and rules.  Like someone else mentioned in speaking about older edition spellcasting, no group I ever played in ever dealt with encumberance, no group I was ever part of had us roll to see if we learned our new spells, no group I was ever part of EVER EVEN CONSIDERED using spell components.  Despite the rules written as they are, prior to playing 4E I was only ever in one D&D game that used mini's and maps/terrain (and that was with a DM who also played a heck of a lot of Warhammer, so go figure.)

If there's an aspect missing in an RPG, the game designers themselves would strongly encourage you to add it for your group if everyone wants it.  It's in the books - the core design philosophy for the 4E team was "make the game fun" and if you read everything they write they constantly tell DMs to "say yes" when players ask for something.

So if I were DMing a game and you wanted to play a dragon, I personally would ask you a few questions to find out why.  If I was satisified that you (as you have written here) just love dragons so much that you somehow wanted to play one, I'd probably first give you the option of playing a Dragonborn who was really a dragon cursed by a dark ritual into the form of a Dragonborn, and a side quest for you character would be to remove the curse.  If that wasn't enough for you, I'd work with you to design a playable dragon PC race (using Rifts as an example of how NOT to do it, btw.)  Because it's a game of fantasy and playing a role you want to play, so you being a dragon would make it fun for you.

The lack of that one aspect shouldn't be a game system killer - and if you had a good DM, it wouldn't be.

---

Onto the complaints about lack of depth of lore in the books (for Seagloom here) -

WotC have acknowledged this.  They've taken the complaints to heart.

If you haven't checked out these books yet, Seagloom, go to your local library or bookstore and look through Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, Primal Power ... all good examples of less mechanics more backstory / history / world description.  Primal Power, in particular, marked a turning point in the Powers books for how much "fluff" they added to class/race combo descriptions.

And as for Monster Manuals, while I'll say I love the format of the first two for 4E (I seriously, completely love the layout and design of the books and really did NOT for the 3rd ED books at all) but I understand the desire for more background on the monsters.  Mike Mearls and others as WotC have, again, acknowledged the fan complaints about this and say that the 3rd Monster Manual is designed with those complaints in mind.  I'd suggest checking it out when it comes out and seeing if that is more to your liking.

---

I'm not a fan of WotC.  I played Magic for maybe 3 years back when it first came out and, while it was something of a revolution in gaming at the time, it grew stale for me quickly with the constant release of more and more cards!  I was pissed off when WotC bought out TSR and went about CCG'ing D&D (really, I swear to you, the uproar over this was even greater than the haters of 4E - just the wider use of the WWW makes it louder now) - but I got over it and accepted that it was where D&D was.  I wasn't playing much at the time, but when I finally tried getting back into it I swear it felt very little like D&D to me.
Skills?  Feats? Dwarfs can be Paladins or Wizards?  No more THAC0?  Challenge Ratings?  I can take a level of Fighter then a level of Monk then a level of Thief then a level of Wizard, and this makes story-sense HOW?  I can easily make a super-nerfed character?
I understood how min-maxer's loved 3rd, and how people who love having a ridiculous number of options (even if most of them, and most of the combinations, lead straight to suckville) - but I liked a game about the story and the adventure and not focused on who had built the coolest killer-class combo (and EVERY 3rd ED game I was ever in, that was ALL IT WAS ABOUT.)

So you'll have to accept that when 4E removed that unbalanced nature of 3rd ED D&D, and made the fighter as fun to play as the wizard, and simplified encounter design for DM's... I found reason to play D&D again (that is, without having to find groups still running 2nd ED.)

[Ahisgewaya]

MerinTB wrote...
So if I were DMing a game and you wanted to play a dragon, I personally would ask you a few questions to find out why.  If I was satisified that you (as you have written here) just love dragons so much that you somehow wanted to play one, I'd probably first give you the option of playing a Dragonborn who was really a dragon cursed by a dark ritual into the form of a Dragonborn, and a side quest for you character would be to remove the curse. 

You know, that sounds really awesome. I think I'm going to use that, if it's okay with you (and probably if it's not)

[MerinTB]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
So if I were DMing a game and you wanted to play a dragon, I personally would ask you a few questions to find out why.  If I was satisified that you (as you have written here) just love dragons so much that you somehow wanted to play one, I'd probably first give you the option of playing a Dragonborn who was really a dragon cursed by a dark ritual into the form of a Dragonborn, and a side quest for you character would be to remove the curse. 

You know, that sounds really awesome. I think I'm going to use that, if it's okay with you (and probably if it's not)

Run with it.

I hope whatever edition of D&D you play that you are having fun!  If not, play a different edition (or a different game!)

You having fun is the only real measure of whether a game is good for you or no that should matter, not comparisons to other games or such silliness.

[Sloth Of Doom]

I have to say Merin, that i think 90% of your problems with 3rd edition come fro playing with a bunch of morons. If every game you played was a bunch of min-maxing and stat whoring, that is an issue with the players (and a DM that allows it) not the game.

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

I have to say Merin, that i think 90% of your problems with 3rd edition come fro playing with a bunch of morons. If every game you played was a bunch of min-maxing and stat whoring, that is an issue with the players (and a DM that allows it) not the game.

Quite possibly.  If the players weren't doing such and the DM not allowing such, could I still have had fun?
Sure, I can have fun with a group of people who are ignoring the rules and just acting-in-character in ANY RPG.

The difference being, SoD, that 3rd ED was designed to allow that.  I wasn't trying to nerf myself, but my characters (whom I never built with combat or "being the best" in mind but just with trying out some interesting concept) couldn't handle their challenge rating.  Saw that in NWN, too - seriously, when rules are so broken that you can create an unplayable character in a video game version...

3rd ED seems to be loved by people who really like to delve into lots of books and lots of options and come up with interesting or overpowered or different builds.  That's fine.

I like it when it doesn't matter what character or class or race you choose you still know that you'll be about the same amount of effective overall.

---

I'm focusing on the game system.  3rd ED's rules, while making some much needed changes (a step in the right direction on saving throws, getting rid of THAC0, getting rid of the backwards way of measuring AC, adding options to abilities (skills and feats) for all classes so that Fighter can do more than swing a sword and mages can do more than cast spells)
but the overall balance of the system was shot.  The designers have admitted, repeatedly, that they had no system or formula for deciding if a class was balanced with another, or a race, or if one monster of CR 1 was as difficult as another monster at CR1.

I'll say it again, SoD, you are right - the 6 different groups of (aggregate) almost 30 different players of varying ages across 3 cities and 2 states whom  I'm played with were probably all the problem with my having fun due to their "my character is best!" "no, my build would kick your build's ass!" - really, that attitude ruined the fun for me regardless of the system -
but the system also ruined games lie ToEE and NWN for me, where I didn't have people I was playing with.
AND I'd argue that a system that not only allowed but seemed to encourage the above probably made most of those players act that way.

I'm with a group of players now that I have fun with - 9 different people across 3 games.  Mostly the same people in all three games.  Here's how they go:

Star Wars Saga: heavy on the RP, but the party often goes off in groups of one or two characters for side missions and such, but even then people talk half the game about which talent and feat combos will work best, and we keep making new characters (even though we've played 3 years and are at level 11) to try different builds to see what's more effect.  Saga isn't as bad as 3.5 D&D, IMO, as it's a bridge from the 3.5 thinking to the 4E thinking, and it has some interesting mechanics like the Condition track.  Still, end of story, even in an RP heavy campaign we talk half the time bout builds.

Serenity RPG: Extremely RP heavy.  Playing almost a year and have had very few skill rolls and, even though its a weekly game, maybe 4 combat scenes (though some of those I wouldn't even call combat.)  Stats and weapons and stuff are never really discussed.  Assests and complications are, however, frequently discussed as they often become the focus of scenes.  It's probably an unfair comparison, as quite often I split up the players and have some of them running NPCs and such - but Cortex system, while having a lot of options and you could build a great combat oriented character, the game is NOT focused on combat at all.

4E D&D: After 3 previous attempts, we've finally weeded the 3rd ED die-hards out of the group.  They constantly were not having fun as they complained they had no options nor variety (the rest of us read that as "I can't make my character more powerful than the other characters" and, honestly, in discussions that is what it boiled down to - that and the fact that they couldn't make a wizard/warlock/druid or some such crap.)  Now that we've got a core group of 4 players who enjoy the system (including 1 other player, not me, who hates 3.5), we've had 2 sessions and in those two sessions we have 2 combat encounters and some very fun, very cool RPing.   Again, though, this was after weeding out (read: players leaving as they don't want to play anymore) the players who kept wanting to change characters or **** about the lack of options in the game and how no RPing could be done in such a combat heavy game.

So players and dm matter a lot, but how the game is designed and the rules fo character creation and combat and such will illicit certain behaviors and encourage undesirable (unless everyone enjoys the "I'm tougher than you" pissing matches) playstyles.

But I get it, SoD, you don't like the changes in 4E.  Cool.  I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.
Just believe me when I say I tried, hard, to like 3rd ED.  Like I watched Phantom Menace in the theater 4 times trying to find something worth praising the film for.  Like I played NWN on and off for about 5 years before finally deciding that I just didn't like the game -

I played years of, with several different groups, 3rd Edition D&D.  If you've played years of 4th ED with more than a couple groups of players, I'll grant you the same kind of "ok, you've really tried and don't like it" that I hope I get allowed.

[Sloth Of Doom]

I have a constant group of 4 people that I pay various games with. There are four other 'odd man' players who play one or two of our games. (which might take a while to come around again) and there are dozens of people who we ran with for a few sessions and then "uninvited" to our group over the last 10 years or so.

Most of the people who have been asked to leave are exactly those min-maxy "my character is uber" idiots that tend to ruin things for everyone.

Our simple rule is that character and RP comes first. This doesn't mean you have to be theeing and thouing and wearing funny hats when yu play, it means you need to develop a character for your erm..character...and play them in a way that makes sense, not in way that makes you 'win'.

Our core group of players know the rules extremely well, and if it were our wont we could easily out minmax some retard but that isn't the point at all. We are currently playing Mentzer's version of 1e D&D (Having just wrapped up a six year 3e campaign at level 16-18), Shadowrun 3e, Dark Heresy (which tends to have very little fighting in it for us), TORG (anyone remember TORG?) and Call of Cthulu (a game in which fighting is just a bad idea). All completely different systems (Although DH seems very similar to CoC) and all sstems at which we have had new players attempt to make some idiotic minmax character that didn;t make sense.

Could you do this in 3e? Sue...especially with the later books. In fact, the stupid amount of books for 3e was a major turnoff, and we flat out refused to use most of the later ones. in fact, any feat or spell taken from a book other than the 3 core rulebooks had to be pre-approved by the DM. Of course, as you stated, 3e had YEARS of publishing crap....4e has only had 2 years so far. I can guarantee you by the time 4e has been out as long as 3e was there will be just as many (if not more) crappy books with crappy feats and powers in them.

An interesting thing you mention is that 4 is so "balanced' but while I was down buying paint at one of the local game stores last weekend there were a bunch of high school kids discussing how to make the most powerful characters....I recognized two of them as people who had been removed from our games

I have no problem with 4e being combat heavy, in fact our group uses minis for almost every game whether necessary or not, probably because two of us are avid mini painters. Saying that RP is impossible in 4e because of the combat is just silly. I -will- say, however, that I found RP difficult in 4e more because the background seems unfinished. At first there were no campaign source books (which is standard) but apparently WOTC felt that other books needed no mention of any type of game world at all, everyone felt like we were just jumping from one random location to another. the whole 'points of light in the blackness' thing made it very difficult to develop a character background that made any kind of sense in a persistent world since we never knew how the next module might affect things. We tried to play again when some world books had been released (specifically FR) but we found that almost worse. The FR campaign setting is a total abortion, and though we can now at least have something persistent to put characters into, it seems like we come from a world written by chintzy minmaxers who are writing crap to cover plot holes in their backstory.

Much like phantom menace I really wanted to like fourth, and tried it multiple times. Also, much like phantom menace, I felt it lacked the excitement of the previous titles, was aimed more towards the masses than fans and generally insulted my intelligence while destroying the lore that I loved. I never would have thought to compare the two, but now that you mention that movie I think it is a perfect comparison. Hell, i even think phantom menace would have been a decent movie were it not part of the "Star Wars" saga.....another interesting parallel.

Modifié par Sloth Of Doom, 07 mars 2010 - 10:23 .

[MerinTB]

I don't want us to hijack the thread anymore than we have, but that last point is one that I think is important.



I disagree that Phantom Menace would be good as a stand-alone film. The acting and the dialog and the story are just so bad.



But I have often thought that if 4E was not from WotC and not called D&D that even people who found it not for them wouldn't "hate" it the way we see people hating on it.

Honestly, as many people have said elsewhere, when 4E appeared it wasn't like everyone's 3E books burst into flame.

You know, compared to when White Wolf recalled all the books when they rebooted their game system.



If you stuck to the core books of 3.5 E, it would probably be far less annoying to me, too. And I FULLY AGREE that 4E will have way too many books and options in another year (they are nearing it now for me, and I think PHB 3 (and the other 3's) will be the last I buy, if I make it through all of them.



Ok, I'm done defending 4E again. Sorry for taking up so much space on this thread!

[Ahisgewaya]

I'm sorry, what? I still have all of my old White Wolf books.
Although I like the new setting much better (Werewolf the Forsaken is my all time favorite RPG now)

And no worries with taking up thread space, I started this thread to discuss things like this. Also because I am a little worried that the Forgotten Realms is going to be dead pretty soon due to all the DRASTIC changes, as well as the Atari/Hasbro thing. D&D computer games that are really good (such as Baldur's Gate) tend to get more people interested in the PnP games as well, and if there are no more of these kinds of computer games I think the hobby will suffer.

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 08 mars 2010 - 05:10 .

[bzombo]

i was never really a fan of 3e, 3.5, or 4e. i come from the ad&d second edition days. i happen to like thaco and the idea of lowering armor as you get better armor as opposed to raising it. i had a great time in the groups i played in back then. i was in a 3.5 group a few years back and i was pretty bored by it. i also find myself struggling to get through games that use 3e or 3.5. as much as i enjoy toee, i still have my moments where i get annoyed and stop playing. the ruleset just drives me nuts! i like when classes have limits on them. it makes each class have value and strengths and weaknesses. the 3e+ stuff just kinda gave every class access to everything if they just use extra points on skills/feats.