For starters, I have been a long time player and I stopped for awhile after 3.5. I was wondering if the latest version was any good. I am considering picking up again and was wondering what the general opinion of it was.

Well, you may want to wait, now. 5th edition is on the horizon, apparently.

Having played 3.5th and 4th, it's... different. I can tell you that it's perfect for people who have never role-played, since it's mechanics work very much like a video game, with each class having 'powers'. So, it's a bit more fun in that the fighter doesn't just hit stuff while the wizard flies around shooting magical lasers from his crotch.

You'll also have to be wary of 4th and Essentials (basically, 4.5th edition). Also, don't listen to people who say that 4th edition doesn't allow for actual role-playing.

Fifth is on the way as infinite mentioned so investing serious money into a controversial edition that has half a foot in the grave might not be the best idea if you're looking to get some longevity from your purchase.

Well, I do have the DM's Guide, first Monster Manual, all 3 players guide, a 1st level adventure, and the rules manual that I may consider selling.

IF you want to mess around with it while waiting for fifth the Essentials books are quite cheap online ($12-13 a piece) and there are only a few books.

Heroes of the Forgotten Lands
Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms
Essentials Rulebook*
Monster Vault


*There is a "DM Kit" that has the Rulebook and a little adventure, map tiles, and some counters. Overall you just need the Rulebook but if want the extra stuff go for it, but you don't need both.

4th has some great ideas, and a very 'clean' and usable presentation... Unfortunatyely, the presentation is so clean and sterile that this has turned many of. The 'powers' structure does remind a few of a computer game, and combats work best when using a grid map, but it's a neat system.

My only personal complaint, really, is the math can get a bit silly. At high levels it seems like you're rolling 1d20+38 for basic to-hit rolls, so it's a little wonky.

The 'powers' system is a bit of a shift from previous editions, but the main thing is it works! it makes character classes much more balanced: Everyone has neat, interesting stuff to do each turn, rarely forced to either fall-back to "I hit them with my sword!" or trying a stunt that relies on GM whim, as was common in previous editions.

The Essentials material adds some more varied classes from the base by disrupting the 'standard' power structure from the main books. What this means is the 'core' versions of classes have similar progressions: You get a couple at-wills, an encounter, and a daily to start, then a power a level as you advance. Some of the essentials versions might get more at-wills at the cost of encounters, or vice-versa, that changes things a bit. For example, the Essentials version of the Ranger is based around stances, a concept in which the character can be under one stance at a time that provides certain bonuses... But the character has less 'big hit' Encounter or Daily powers to select from.

It's a good system. I'm a bit annoyed about some details, but it's pretty solid. A core 'philosophy' is that mechanically, the world is a prop for the PCs to interact with. Instead of 3.0's interesting but sometimes overly complex system where PCs and monsters 'played by the same rules' there's trimmed-down rules to make monsters interesting (Unique powers, including space for special powers that trigger when seriously wounded, etc.) and more fun and manageable for the GM (Minions (one-hit monsters to make massive hordes viable); Monsters generally are built with 'encounter' abilities as they're expected to be around for one scene at a time and what they do of-camera is no one's business; there's multiple variants of most monsters to fulfill basic roles like melee, long-range, etc.)

Not perfect, but very interesting. I'm hopeful 5th edition (2013 release) won't listen too much to the negative press and throw away all the good parts.

Havok210 wrote:For starters, I have been a long time player and I stopped for awhile after 3.5. I was wondering if the latest version was any good. I am considering picking up again and was wondering what the general opinion of it was.

Really all depends. 4th is very different from 3.5. The combat rules are very clearly written. There is more direct balance between the various classes. The only probably I've had with it is the obsession people have with completing a certain number of combat encounters in a session as opposed to role playing. Many people have slipped back to more of a hack and slash approach since the rules are more combat focused now. I disliked 4th for some time because of this. I am now running a 4th edition campaign myself, since it was easier to get everyone on the same page for the game wiht 4th edition books still readily available. I am running it just like I always do: Heavy on roleplaying with combat there when appropriate and not the sole focus of things. With the clear combat rules, combat is no longer muddled or confused in anyway either, so it is good on that front. I am actually really enjoying it now. Never thought that would happen.

If you go with 4th, stay away from essentials. Essentials was supposed to "fix" the complains people had with 4th and instead dumbed down and limited things even more extremely. The regular 4th edition rules have enough options available that multiple people can play the same class and have completely different powers. In essentials pretty much every character of a given class has the same abilities as any other. BOR-ING!!

All that said, 5th edition is in the works. I have not seen it or investigated it much. At this point in life, having owned every D&D and AD&D version since Chainmail so many years ago I have no intention of my buying 5th edition. Just don't see the need to reboot yet again. Unsure how close we are to 5th ediiton at this point, so it is unknown if buying into 4th edition now is a good plan or not.

Skriker

Havok210 wrote:For starters, I have been a long time player and I stopped for awhile after 3.5. I was wondering if the latest version was any good. I am considering picking up again and was wondering what the general opinion of it was.

I didn't care for 4th edition, and my group refused to play it.

If you enjoyed 3.5, then Pathfinder by paizo might be a good idea. It modified the 3.5 rules a bit, and they have a bunch of support right now. Plenty of modules and players guides. Our group is really enjoying it.

However, a lot of people don't like the setting. You should check out some of the threads on it here, if you're at all interested.

Balance wrote:4th has some great ideas, and a very 'clean' and usable presentation... Unfortunatyely, the presentation is so clean and sterile that this has turned many of. The 'powers' structure does remind a few of a computer game, and combats work best when using a grid map, but it's a neat system.

By "works best with map" Balance means to say, that the powers are actually defined in terms of how many "squares" they affect. Most characters have at least one "power" that affects a 3 X 3 square area that you can declare somewhere in the battlefield. Even the rogue has a "throw lots of knives" power that somehow ends up having a 3x3 area effect cloud, and has no actual bearing on the number of knives said character might or might not be carrying. It's very much a miniatures game with world setting loosely attached. As always you can roleplay without any rules at all, but if you choose to use rules, the way they are written will always have some impact on the way your players approach the world. This is why you see far more running and jumping in, say, 7th Sea than you do in 4th Edition D&D.

Redeemer wrote:
By "works best with map" Balance means to say, that the powers are actually defined in terms of how many "squares" they affect. Most characters have at least one "power" that affects a 3 X 3 square area that you can declare somewhere in the battlefield. Even the rogue has a "throw lots of knives" power that somehow ends up having a 3x3 area effect cloud, and has no actual bearing on the number of knives said character might or might not be carrying. It's very much a miniatures game with world setting loosely attached. As always you can roleplay without any rules at all, but if you choose to use rules, the way they are written will always have some impact on the way your players approach the world. This is why you see far more running and jumping in, say, 7th Sea than you do in 4th Edition D&D.

OTOH, certain characters in 4th edition D&D only 'work' in combat if they stay mobile. It's definitely a pretty 'detail-oriented' tactical combat system. The fighter-types (Defenders as a catch-all 'role') are often a bit stationary, and some powers may reward this, but others may be more rewarded for moving and taking chances. Rogues go from pitiful damage to massive damage if they can backstab, which often requires setting up attacks.

Many monsters get special bonuses if they're in groups. Players can get these, too, but not quite as strongly. As such, it is often in the player character's best interest to use abilities to push/pull/slide/teleport opponents around. Break up a shield wall, or pull an enemy so he's between two allies and set him up for an an attack with benefits.

It's a system that does reward thinking a few steps ahead and working as a team. A great combat was when I realized my Druid could 'chain' a few moves together to create a Zone effect (Catch-all for stationary effects like cloudkill, ice storm, etc.) that caused damage 'when opponents left the zone' then used another ability (which required my Druid wild shaping into his dog... he's his own best friend) to 'pull' enemies from the zone, so they took damage a couple times over.

If I look back on what I'd think if I was the GM and saw that, I think I'd be happy as it wasn't a spammable effect, it was very situational, and was damaging without being overpowering. And, the important thing, it was fun.

kronk wrote:

Havok210 wrote:For starters, I have been a long time player and I stopped for awhile after 3.5. I was wondering if the latest version was any good. I am considering picking up again and was wondering what the general opinion of it was.

I didn't care for 4th edition, and my group refused to play it.

If you enjoyed 3.5, then Pathfinder by paizo might be a good idea. It modified the 3.5 rules a bit, and they have a bunch of support right now. Plenty of modules and players guides. Our group is really enjoying it.

However, a lot of people don't like the setting. You should check out some of the threads on it here, if you're at all interested.

This. My group has thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder, and the Adventure Modules are a ton of fun, for a new and experienced groups a like.

Redeemer wrote:

Balance wrote:4th has some great ideas, and a very 'clean' and usable presentation... Unfortunatyely, the presentation is so clean and sterile that this has turned many of. The 'powers' structure does remind a few of a computer game, and combats work best when using a grid map, but it's a neat system.

By "works best with map" Balance means to say, that the powers are actually defined in terms of how many "squares" they affect. Most characters have at least one "power" that affects a 3 X 3 square area that you can declare somewhere in the battlefield. Even the rogue has a "throw lots of knives" power that somehow ends up having a 3x3 area effect cloud, and has no actual bearing on the number of knives said character might or might not be carrying. It's very much a miniatures game with world setting loosely attached. As always you can roleplay without any rules at all, but if you choose to use rules, the way they are written will always have some impact on the way your players approach the world. This is why you see far more running and jumping in, say, 7th Sea than you do in 4th Edition D&D.

Just to point out, there is a line in there somewhere commenting that multiple target attacks required a weapon/ammo per target. Don't have my books at work, so I can't exactly give you a page quote, but it came up for my rogue once.

streamdragon wrote:
Just to point out, there is a line in there somewhere commenting that multiple target attacks required a weapon/ammo per target. Don't have my books at work, so I can't exactly give you a page quote, but it came up for my rogue once.

Really? I may have missed that. The 4e rules just aren't "casual read friendly" to me (combined with my current general lack of free time) but in general there's a "Ammo tracking isn't fun" philosophy, especially since most of the wizard expensive components have been removed, abstracted (ritual costs/residuum), etc. Making melee-types track arrows when the wizard can at-will magic missiles seems very against the 43 design philosophy. We've always treated it as requiring the character have bought arrows, at some point, but tracking individual arrows is a pain and encourages not-fun stuff like policing rooms after fight scenes to recover spent arrows, etc.

I will track it down this evening and give you a page reference. I did find it sort of odd that the requirement was made for martial characters, but it made some sort of sense at the time.

I remember our ranger basically kept track of arrows by their equivalent copper value. If you played FF6 (or FF3 if you prefer the US numbering), you may remember Setzer having a special attack that required you lob money at your enemies; same concept. Made my Fullblade fighter feel a bit better about his damage when it didn't cost him 3cp per enemy.

4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

streamdragon wrote:I will track it down this evening and give you a page reference. I did find it sort of odd that the requirement was made for martial characters, but it made some sort of sense at the time.

It'd be interesting. We certainly didn't do that, but I am not saying we did everything 100% strictly to the rules.

One thing I do hope D&D Next takes from 4th is a strong 'reskinning' philosophy. While not unknown in earlier editions, there was a big push in 4 to say "OK, you want to play some weird class variant there's no rules for... let's find the closest variant we can and go from there."

For example, my DM's setting has a 'first one' kind of race that died out millenia ago... A character we wanted to bring back from games in a previous edition used the Deva race description with minor tweaks, and it worked great! Another idea was to use the Goliath for a subset of humans that were wild brawler-types.

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

Please, explain to me how 4.0 played any more like an mmo than 3.0/3.5 did. I have posed this question to multiple people, and none have been able to give me a satisfactory answer beyond 'because'.

Balance wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I will track it down this evening and give you a page reference. I did find it sort of odd that the requirement was made for martial characters, but it made some sort of sense at the time.

It'd be interesting. We certainly didn't do that, but I am not saying we did everything 100% strictly to the rules.

One thing I do hope D&D Next takes from 4th is a strong 'reskinning' philosophy. While not unknown in earlier editions, there was a big push in 4 to say "OK, you want to play some weird class variant there's no rules for... let's find the closest variant we can and go from there."

For example, my DM's setting has a 'first one' kind of race that died out millenia ago... A character we wanted to bring back from games in a previous edition used the Deva race description with minor tweaks, and it worked great! Another idea was to use the Goliath for a subset of humans that were wild brawler-types.

Few games tend to be 100% strictly by the rules, in my experience. In 2.0 we certainly did not roll stats using 3d6 straight down the line. In 3.0/3.5 we allowed people to choose between average and rolling for HP (I always took average, because dice hate me), and 4.0 we didn't use RAW in regards to haggling and a few other things.

As to the reskinning, I agree it's awesome and I agree 4e's leniency with some of its concepts was a big draw. My biggest love for 4e was that you could play martial characters without being almost completely redundant to caster types. Fighters actually had the tools to do their job, rather than relying on a DM to finesse a monster's actions. I mean, in earlier versions, why wouldn't the dragon just destroy the mage first? What's the fighter going to do about it? At least 4e gave the fighter some abilities to make that an actual question.

streamdragon wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

Please, explain to me how 4.0 played any more like an mmo than 3.0/3.5 did. I have posed this question to multiple people, and none have been able to give me a satisfactory answer beyond 'because'.

"It is known, Khal."

I have been trying to avoid this thread because it is the same tired edition wars that always comes up. Sigh. It is okay to play different versions of D&D without bashing on others.

pretre wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

Please, explain to me how 4.0 played any more like an mmo than 3.0/3.5 did. I have posed this question to multiple people, and none have been able to give me a satisfactory answer beyond 'because'.

"It is known, Khal."

I have been trying to avoid this thread because it is the same tired edition wars that always comes up. Sigh. It is okay to play different versions of D&D without bashing on others.

I'm not trying to launch an edition war. I played 3.0/3.5 for years and enjoyed (almost) every minute of it. I'm not saying 4.0 >>>>> 3.5 or anything else, I'm simply asking someone to explain a comment, that's all. It's not meant to be a trap, there's no secret meaning. To me, there were few major style changes between the editions. The essence of the game didn't change. Someone once described it to me this way:

"At it's root, D&D is all about kicking in someone's door, killing them and taking their stuff".

Obviously that's a bit simplistic and not descriptive of every campaign, but it is fairly to the heart of D&D.

I'm not placing blame, just saying that multiple posts (not necessarily yours) are promoting the (often inaccurate) stereotypes of multiple editions and that never ends well. I completely agree with your quote though.

streamdragon wrote:

pretre wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

Please, explain to me how 4.0 played any more like an mmo than 3.0/3.5 did. I have posed this question to multiple people, and none have been able to give me a satisfactory answer beyond 'because'.

"It is known, Khal."

I have been trying to avoid this thread because it is the same tired edition wars that always comes up. Sigh. It is okay to play different versions of D&D without bashing on others.

I'm not trying to launch an edition war. I played 3.0/3.5 for years and enjoyed (almost) every minute of it. I'm not saying 4.0 >>>>> 3.5 or anything else, I'm simply asking someone to explain a comment, that's all. It's not meant to be a trap, there's no secret meaning. To me, there were few major style changes between the editions. The essence of the game didn't change. Someone once described it to me this way:

"At it's root, D&D is all about kicking in someone's door, killing them and taking their stuff".

Obviously that's a bit simplistic and not descriptive of every campaign, but it is fairly to the heart of D&D.

OMG! HOW STUPID R U!? 4.0 IS TOTAL TRASH AND YOU ARE TRASH FOR LIKING IT! LOL JK,

Sorry I couldn't resist.

The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

That's mostly it. There are more, and when I actually played 4.0 I had an even longer list of arguments. Seriously, there are elements of 4.0 that feel ripped right out of an MMO. But, these are the basics. Take 'em or leave 'em. I don't hate 4.0, its just not better than 3.5 in my eyes.

I find most of those reasons not well considered or very compelling, but to each his own.

DnD has never been a RP heavy/Combat Light system. Where that idea germinated I am uncertain.

Ahtman wrote:I find most of those reasons not well considered or very compelling, but to each his own.

DnD has never been a RP heavy/Combat Light system. Where that idea germinated I am uncertain.

We see what we choose to.

ZombieJoe wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I find most of those reasons not well considered or very compelling, but to each his own.

DnD has never been a RP heavy/Combat Light system. Where that idea germinated I am uncertain.

We see what we choose to.

That is an incredibly silly response. Even more so since you seem not to apply it to your own statements. I didn't go into detail of why I find your reasons spurious because this is not an Edition War thread, but I'm not going to pretend that I think your reasons are well thought it.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.

You know that spells were all dailies in 1st/2nd/3rd ed, right? That 3rd ed had powers in the Tome of Battle for martial characters. That daily magic item powers have existed since 1st ed. Heck, even encounter based powers aren't new to 4th. They just simplified it so that everyone could get to them.

2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.

This is the one that I get the least. No system increases combat and decreases roleplay. THe players and DM increase combat and decrease RP. I played campaigns in 1st ed that were just monster manual lists. Heck, ever play Keep on the Borderlands? It is just a huge dungeon crawl. Where was the roleplay there?

3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.

Tear system? What is this from?

4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.

Wait, so art evolved over time and they use similar art styles? Were you expecting pencil art like 1st ed?

5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

There has always been a roll vs role in D&D. If you think this is a new thing, you are sadly lacking in historical perspective.

That's mostly it. There are more, and when I actually played 4.0 I had an even longer list of arguments. Seriously, there are elements of 4.0 that feel ripped right out of an MMO. But, these are the basics. Take 'em or leave 'em. I don't hate 4.0, its just not better than 3.5 in my eyes.

The whole D&D ripped off MMOs is ridiculous. You know that MMOs ripped those things right out of RPGs, right? Nothing is new under the sun.

I'm not an MMO expert, but...

ZombieJoe wrote:
1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.

What, like wizards/magic users/mages from every other edition?
I also don't know of many MMOs with anything similar to 'Dailys' other than a few 'summoning' type abilities. Most MMO 'cool downs' seem to be more time-based.
"Resource management" is a pretty common game design theory. The AED powers is jsut one novel way of doing it.

ZombieJoe wrote:
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.

A great quote I've heard to this is that the 4.0 team made the split between combat and role-playing more defined. This was probably a good thing, as it meant that both could stand on their own.RP is as common in 4e as the group wants it to be.

ZombieJoe wrote:3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.

I assume you mean Tiers.

Again, RPGs did it first. Early DYD editions were split into several sets for (if I remember correctly) Basic/Expert/Immortal. These actually map suprisingly well to the 4e tiers, actually...

'Tiers' are a measure of what style of gaming is expected. Basic tier (Heroic, I think?) characters are going to tend to be gritty adventurers of limited means. the 2nd tier is more heroes that can act on a larger national/worldly scale, while 3rd tier characters are practically demigods and can theoretically take on gods if they work together. It's a very broad system to classify what players should expect their characters to do.

You do get a 'Paragon Path' at the beginning of the 2nd tier, and a 'Epic Destiny' at the 3rd tier. These are much like 3.0's Prestige Classes, really. Which MMOs let you pick a second class at roughly 1/3 and 2/3 of the level cap? (Not doubting there is one... I just don't know it.)

ZombieJoe wrote:4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.

No argument here. WotC was horrible to use a popular art style to entice people into reading their horrible, no-fun derivative RPG they stole from MMOs even when their game came up with stuff first.

ZombieJoe wrote:5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Dungeon Crawls are not a new thing to 4e.

Healing surges are actually a pretty cool idea. Note that you can only use 1/combat without special abilities, so they by no means replace 'traditional' magic healing. They fix a couple 'system oddities' as well: D&D has often mentioned that HP is an abstraction. It's not that a higher-level character has more blood, body mass, or redundant organs than a lower-level character, but that they have experience, force of will, and plot immunity to ignore or minimize wounds. In game effects, they soak more HP. But healing has often fallen more into a mechanical aspect: it heals a random range. In 4e, much healing is based of healing surges, so it heals a percentage of the character's HP. Thus a healing spell is as useful to a mid-level character as a low-level character. This helps prevent some weirdness (for beginning adventurers pre-4, Cure Light is often full-up. For level 10s, it's for nicks and scratches. In 4e, it's always a relatively light healing spell).

Similarly, the whole 'healing surge' concept is a great thing for many character abilities to key off of: It adds another 'resource' to manage (I think there's undead that can steal healing surges, and I think I saw an adventure where a puzzle could allow a character to voluntarily forfeit a healing surge for a benny). I don't know of any powers off the top of my head that do this, but a power could require the player 'exert themselves' (lose a healing surge) to activate a more useful power. Pre-4e, a lot of this stuff would either just have x/day limits (Oh wait, see your first point... A lot of pre-4e D&D characters have "May use power X 1/day and similar...)

Bloodied, in actual practice, is just a neat 'status' to key off of. Some monsters have 'berserk' effects when they get to bloodied, and more than a few PC abilities key of themselves or others getting bloodied. Also, in practice, I think it's a lot more flavorful way of players tracking each other's status than throwing HP counts around. I'd rather the cleric target whoever's bloodied than looking at HP totals.

In practice, healing surges and other 4e elements really encourage teamwork in combat. Offensively, there's a lot of opportunities for a player to set up another player. lure enemies into position with abilities that force movement. Use a low-damage power that has a side effect that knocks an enemy prone or grants combat advantage so another party member can hit them with a nasty maneuver. Defensively it is much the same. There's powers to rescue a character that is in trouble by healing them, moving them around, attracting enemy attention, etc.

A low-level team won't do as much teamwork, but in my experience once the group hits 3rd or 4th level they start to discover combos that make sense for the group. For example, if there's a rouge in the group, anyone that can make enemies grant combat advantage is going to be the backstabber's best friend.

I'm not saying any edition is intrinsically and objectively better, I just don't like how 4th plays.

Don't like how 1st plays, either, so I'm not exactly "it's better cause it's older" about this.

That's cool. I wasn't a fan of speed factors and thac0 after I learned there were other ways to play. I can see how a more defined system could not sit well with some folks.

It just pisses me off when people regurgitate the same arguments that they heard somewhere else and have no basis on reality. 4E has problems but they have nothing to do with MMOs.

Balance wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I will track it down this evening and give you a page reference. I did find it sort of odd that the requirement was made for martial characters, but it made some sort of sense at the time.

It'd be interesting. We certainly didn't do that, but I am not saying we did everything 100% strictly to the rules.

Found the page reference:

Page 271, Area Attack, third bullet, second paragraph:

If you're using a projectile weapon to make an area attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you're using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.

I remembered it only because it became an issue for my rogue, who needed to carry multiple daggers to use Cloud of Steel (encounter, level 7). I opted to get the Armbands of Daggers, or whatever the things were called that let you create +2 daggers.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

That's mostly it. There are more, and when I actually played 4.0 I had an even longer list of arguments. Seriously, there are elements of 4.0 that feel ripped right out of an MMO. But, these are the basics. Take 'em or leave 'em. I don't hate 4.0, its just not better than 3.5 in my eyes.

I know several people have already responded to your list, but as I was the one that posed the question I feel compelled to answer it. Please don't feel like I'm jumping all over you or anything. I enjoyed 3.0/3.5 greatly before 4e, and I've no doubts if I played another 3.5 game now I would still enjoy it.

1. As others have said, even in 3.0/3.5 you had powers with limited uses. Spells per day, Druid Shapeshift, Paladin Lay on Hands, etc. etc. This isn't exclusive to 4e by a long shot, and is vastly different from MMOs to me, where each power can be used each and every encounter, over and over. In essence, an MMO has mostly At-Will powers, not AEDU powers.

2. This is one that is flatly and blatantly wrong. Pure and simple. 4e did not one thing to dilute roleplaying. In fact, I would argue it is the first D&D system to actualy ENCOURAGE it. Previously, any XP awards outside of combat were purely at the whim of the DM; 3.0/3.5 had not a single system in place to reward roleplay style encounters, whereas 4e had skill challenges (even if the system was deplorable). There are numerous utility powers for each class that are not combat powers. Paladins get Astral Speech at level 2, for instance, which added to Diplomacy checks. Rogues had a whole slew of skills designed for sneaking around out of combat, as well as skills like Master of Deceit that let you reroll bluff skill checks. There were plenty of powers and feats that were for out of combat encounters.

3. Tiers are nothing new to D&D either. Early versions of D&D had the whole "Name level" thing, where early fighters could then learn to be rangers or paladins. 3.0/3.5 had prestige classes. All 4e did was tack on another layer.

4. Art is such a subjective thing I can't take this point seriously. The art in the D&D books has changed drastically over the years, from early artists to Elmore to other fantastical styles, nothing here is really screaming "MMO" as much as it screams "FANTASY!"

5. I'll admit it: I love both the Bloodied mechanic (which I feel 4e actually underutilized) and the idea of healing surges. In making 3.0/3.5 parties, it always came down to "okay, who wants to play the healer". There was simply the assumption there would be one, because it was 100% mandatory, and really clerics were the only truly viable option. Druids were awesome at lots of things, don't get me wrong, but with delayed access to Heal and no access to Mass Heal, they simply couldn't truly compete with a cleric, let alone a Radiant Servant of Pelor. So I played a LOT of clerics, and let's face it, the pressure is on clerics. In 2.0, a cleric's spell list was almost always the same. Cure _____ Wounds xhowevermanyyoucouldget for each level. 3.0/3.5 did a nice job of lessening that burden by allowing you to channel spells as a FRA, which helped. 4.0 allowed a party to truly have options. Warlords are viable healers, and all players share the healing resource, which I will always see as a step up. I also have no idea how either of those relates to MMOs, and I've been playing MMOs since EQ. And there is no way you could possibly say "3.0/3.5 had less dungeon crawls", since that's simply a playstyle, and playstyles vary so much from group to group. My group actually had a set of characters specifically for a dungeon crawl, for when none of the usual DMs felt like DMing that night.


So again, please don't feel like I'm saying "OMGeesies, you like 3.0/3.5 what in the flaming spoon farts is wrong with you?" I'm just saying that the comparisons of 4e to MMOs always seem to fall ridiculously flat. If I were to try to compare it to anything, I'd point at "squares" and square area of effects and compare it to something like Final Fantasy Tactics, but even then the comparison isn't completely apt.

Arguing that 4e reduces roleplay is not an argument at all. The levels of roleplay vs combat is entirely up to the DM. He or she decides whether your two-hour session is spent wandering around the hillside doing nothing, or fighting monsters. He or she decides if those statues are going to come alive and attack the party (combat), or if the doors will all suddenly shut and the party will be trapped (RP).

If players or DMs want to cave crawl and fight monsters, so be it. It's one of the reasons why we play these games in the first place, instead of playing video RPGs - the flexibility. "You need Item X to open Door Y" - an unavoidable circumstance in some games, but in D&D? No matter the edition, the DM decides whether or not Item X is the only way. Maybe your Warforged Paladin can smash the door down, because it's evil or something. Maybe there is no door.

I play 4e. I'm not saying it's the best thing ever, but what is? It's good, casual fun. Although, to the OP, I'd probably wait until 5e is released, since it's coming soon, apparently.

Also, yeah, art? That's a silly argument! If anything, WoW is just copying D&D . It's like complaining that D&D is exactly like The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion because it has elves in it.

EDIT: Also, it's not like you can't RP while in combat. For example, my Tiefling Warlock character followed the Cleric around the battleboard asking him for a heal, even though he'd only been scratched (extremely few hit points gone), because he's prissy and stuff. As long as your party plays IC, everything is 'RP'.

streamdragon wrote:
I remembered it only because it became an issue for my rogue, who needed to carry multiple daggers to use Cloud of Steel (encounter, level 7). I opted to get the Armbands of Daggers, or whatever the things were called that let you create +2 daggers.

Huh. Maybe it was just something we handwaved, or simplified. I have an archer-type 'on-deck' if we start up a 4e game, but we may honestly wait for 5e with some current stuff going on. We're in a hiatus, though I hope we start up something in the interim.

I can see why groups would waive the requirement considering it only really pertains to martial characters (and the Seeker maybe?), but beyond the Ranger shooting away money I found it rarely impacted the game immensely.

I wouldn't wait on 5e as an edition, since they just released the first playtest I have a hard time believing it's headed to print soon. I myself haven't actually gotten to a game in, a year and a half maybe? Not regularly anyway. Darn gas prices.

There is a Wondrous Item that is a quiver of unlimited arrows, and it is fairly low level I think.

D&D Next is scheduled for release sometime next year, so it may be a wait if you aren't planning any games between then and now.

My my the flame war is on. I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish. If you don't thats fine, I'm not that interested in getting into a flame war with you.

The OP wanted opinions on the game. I gave mine. That's it. This latest edition was watered down and made your characters a lot less customiziable.

And as far as the art goes... seriously, pull out your 3.5 book, your 4.0 and your copy of wow, and seriously look at the cover art. If you don't see some striking similarities then...

I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

ZombieJoe wrote:My my the flame war is on. I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Way to miss the point. It isn't that we are fans of 4E; it is that we are fans of statements that aren't false. Also, citation needed on 'it was mostly a flop'.

Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish. If you don't thats fine, I'm not that interested in getting into a flame war with you.

Obviously, you are confused by what a flame war is. No one has flamed you. We have laid out coherent, provable statements that show that your recycled arguments about 4E being an MMO are patently false. If you said that you found many of the qualities of 4.0 to be Pokemonish, we would do the same thing.

The OP wanted opinions on the game. I gave mine. That's it. This latest edition was watered down and made your characters a lot less customiziable.

The only reason that 3E has 'more customization' is that it had more splatbooks. Editions previous to that had the same issues with only 2.5 having the number of splatbooks to join 3E in the realms of 'customization by additional material'.

And as far as the art goes... seriously, pull out your 3.5 book, your 4.0 and your copy of wow, and seriously look at the cover art. If you don't see some striking similarities then...

You do know that fantasy art progresses over time, right? Pull out a first edition book and compare it to novels of the time and artwork being produced. Now pull out a 2nd edition book and compare it to early Shadowrun books. OMG 2nd edition ripped off Shadowrun art! Now pull out a third edition book and compare it to any fantasy artwork from the late 90's. OMG 3rd edition has striking similarities to art of the same period!

I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

I played WOW for quite a few years, starting in early BC and ending after Cataclysm. Before that, I played a number of other muds and MMOs. You are confusing somethign that is derivative of a genre (MMOs) with something that defined the genre (D&D). Of course D&D has similarities to MMOs. MMOs are based on the concepts that D&D was founded on. Your argument is like saying that real militaries ripped off 40k for designs. You have it completely backwards.

ZombieJoe wrote:My my the flame war is on.

Disagreeing with someone isn't a flame war.

ZombieJoe wrote:I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Then you must be sheltered or narrowed your view so greatly that you assume your personal experience is somehow reflective of all reality. 4E wasn't a flop, either. It did well, but not as well As WotC taskmasters would like. Of course it was the first D&D that was dealing with a fractured fanbase dealing with two concurrent running systems.

ZombieJoe wrote:Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish.

No one is getting up in arms, they are disagreeing. Obliviously you think it has those qualities, but, it would appear, that many don't find that your conclusion stands up very well to even mild scrutiny.

ZombieJoe wrote:I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

Or, we've played MMO's and still find your reasoning specious.

Image comparison:

Covers of World of Warcraft


Cover of First Edition D&D


Cover of Second Edition D&D


Covers of 3.0 and 3.5


Cover of 4th edition D&D


If anything, 3.0/3.5 are the odd ones out, breaking a tradition going back to the Red Box. I'm also not seeing the comparison to WoW, honestly. If your entire point is "They have pictures of people in the fantasy world!" then while you are indeed correct, the comparison is useless.

Edit: And as I've said, I've been playing MMOs since the original EverQuest launched. I didn't see people comparing 3.0/3.5 to EQ, even though OMG they both have half naked elf caster women involved.

Omg, you guys might never have seen this before, but Pathfinder art is a ripoff of D&D art AND WOW art!!!!

This thread has the feel of some flammy-ness going on. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, my bad. But, here, let me supply you with some sauce there, on 4.0 flopping. Check the communities bro, most people I've spoken with and the stuff online I've read speak volumes of how unhappy people have been with 4.0. Also, 4.0 has been getting outsold by pathfinder for a while. Here's some material you can read to gett a feeling of what I'm talking about.

http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/2008/06/06/dd-4th-edition-fail/
http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2011/01/pathfinder-outselling-dungeons-and.html
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/28834747/Lets_discuss_why_4th_edition_failed
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd
http://www.cafepress.com/mydarkdesigns/5819642
http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=21623
http://dnd4.blogspot.com/
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?609762-Could-someone-please-show-some-evidence-of-4E-s-failure
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3881922108

Patently false? Just cause I say," Hey look that tree over there, its kind of big!" and you say," No way dude, that tree is totally just average size!" Does not make anything you've said fact. It's opinion man. The only thing you proved is that you disagree with me.


Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

D&D 4.0 is not using the "art of the age", its using WOW. This is just a general consensus of what my peers and the internet at large feel. This is completely opinion based so I really don't wanna get into too much detial on it. They look the same to me. Just my two pence, anyone interested in this concept can google image the two and compare till they are happy.

I'm afraid not. In 3.5 you didn't have Herioc paths or paragon paths. You just had your character and the wealth of options he was given. In 4.0, you follow a strict path up a power tree. This is an MMO style leveling system. I play many RPG's, digitcal and pen and paper, and MMO's use this system a lot more than anymore system. This does not mean that 4.0 = MMO. It means that the creators took some of their design cues from an MMO. I dont know if you challanged or something by these comments, I'm not attacking WoC or WOW or D&D. I"m saying that 4.0 feels more like an MMO then an D&DRPG. If you have all this experience how is it that you cannot admit that there is some justification for the arugment that 4.0 feels like WOW? Instead, you're clapping your hands to your ears and scream, "BLA BLA BLA! NOPE ITS DIFFERENT NOPE!" Come on dude, at least admit that the argument has merit, don't act like its some alien remark that has no grounding. Do some googling and you'll see that a lot of people feel this way. Its not random, I'm not one guy with this opinion. Are you saying that ALL these people are just wrong and stupid because they don't agree with you? If so, then I do belive, you've just started a flame war.

I don't know what came out first, but yes , you are correct. Nobody is even trying to be original.

Wanna go ahead and fix your quotes before I reply?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, go ahead and google 'Appeal to Authority' and 'Appeal to Common Belief'. You're doing an awful lot of it.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

pretre wrote:Wanna go ahead and fix your quotes before I reply?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, go ahead and google 'Appeal to Authority' and 'Appeal to Common Belief'. You're doing an awful lot of it.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

I just gave up and deleted them. This is the longest thread I've commented in, the qoute system eludes me for now lol.

ZombieJoe wrote:This thread has the feel of some flammy-ness going on. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, my bad. But, here, let me supply you with some sauce there, on 4.0 flopping. Check the communities bro, most people I've spoken with and the stuff online I've read speak volumes of how unhappy people have been with 4.0. Also, 4.0 has been getting outsold by pathfinder for a while. Here's some material you can read to gett a feeling of what I'm talking about.

This is an appeal to authority and appeal to common belief. Use your own words to phrase your arguments. Your list of links are all blogs. Please cite actual factual evidence that shows that 4th wasn't successful. If you want anecdotal blog evidence, I can go onto the newgroup search and show you posts of people saying why 3rd failed, 2nd failed, etc so on.

Patently false? Just cause I say," Hey look that tree over there, its kind of big!" and you say," No way dude, that tree is totally just average size!" Does not make anything you've said fact. It's opinion man. The only thing you proved is that you disagree with me.

If you say that a tree is big and it is 3 foot tall, sure that's your opinion, but it is provably false. A 3 foot tree isn't a 'kind of big'. D&D 4E isn't derivative of MMOs beyond the fact that it is derivative of previous editions of D&D, which of course MMOs are themselves derivative of.

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

How many of the feats in 3E/3.5 were duplicate feats or practically useless? More stuff does not equal more customization, it just means more stuff.

D&D 4.0 is not using the "art of the age", its using WOW. This is just a general consensus of what my peers and the internet at large feel. This is completely opinion based so I really don't wanna get into too much detial on it. They look the same to me. Just my two pence, anyone interested in this concept can google image the two and compare till they are happy.

Show me two pieces of art, with date of creation that show that D&D 4E 'copied WOW'.

I'm afraid not. In 3.5 you didn't have Herioc paths or paragon paths.

Umm. Paragon Paths are direct descendents of Prestige classes. They are almost exactly the same. Basic D&D had 'tiers' of Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal. This is nothing new.

In 4.0, you follow a strict path up a power tree. This is an MMO style leveling system. I play many RPG's, digitcal and pen and paper, and MMO's use this system a lot more than anymore system. This does not mean that 4.0 = MMO. It means that the creators took some of their design cues from an MMO.

You mean a strict levelling system? Like existed in D&D since the late 70's? That's what D&D stole from MMOs? Oh, now I get it, you have no historical context. The idea of prestige classes didn't come until 3rd ed and the idea of multiclassing didn't come until 1st edition hardbacks. Original D&D used the strict levelling system that you are saying was created by MMOs.

Come on dude, at least admit that the argument has merit, don't act like its some alien remark that has no grounding.

It has merit because MMOs are derivative of D&D. Of course 4E D&D is derivative of earlier D&D versions. So they both have the same sources. But saying that D&D is like an MMO because it is also like early D&D is just silly.

Do some googling and you'll see that a lot of people feel this way. Its not random, I'm not one guy with this opinion. Are you saying that ALL these people are just wrong and stupid because they don't agree with you? If so, then I do belive, you've just started a flame war.

Appeal to Common Belief. Also, confused over what a flame war is.

I don't know what came out first, but yes , you are correct. Nobody is even trying to be original.

This is the point. D&D 4E didn't copy MMOs. It copied D&D. Which MMOs also copied. This is what you don't understand.

I just gave up and deleted them. This is the longest thread I've commented in, the qoute system eludes me for now lol.

Thanks for fixing them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, my favorite thread from 2002.

"3rd Edition: The Diablo-ization of Dungeons and Dragons"

There is truly nothing new under the sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:21:45 -0400
> "Starbuck" <Starbuc...@excite.com> writes:

> > What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
> > stats.

> Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
> been Diablofied!

> It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
> obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.

> By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."

I meant his analogy about the stats held true because it happens in both
games. I never mentioned anything else.

And by the way, about the idiot comment... takes one to know one.

1. This is what we call "confirmation bias". You have formed an opinion, and then tend to see only those things that support that decision.

2. As with any forum group, those on the forum do not usually represent the majority. They represent those who use the forum, nothing more. Appealing to that as some sort of proof. If I provided you an equal number of links promoting 4e, it would do nothing to prove that 4e was a huge success. Edit: as to Pathfinder outselling 4e, remember that 4e released literally over a year before Pathfinder did. It shouldn't be surprising that something new outsells something a year older.

3. Feats and skills in 4e are much more compact versus 3e, this is true. However, the basis for comparison is flawed. A compact system opens up options for players, as for example, they only need to use the "Stealth" skill as opposed to having to sink points into both "Move Silently" and "Hide". "Listen", "Spot" and "Search" were all condensed into "Perception" as well. Streamlined does not mean less options, as all the options those skill provided remain in the game. 3.0/3.5 also had plenty of skills that were absolutely pointless to have as skills (lookin at you Profession). These skills are fantastic as numerical role play additions (my fighter used to be a blacksmith and blah de blah de blah) howover they're unnecessary; my 4e fighter could have been a blacksmith too, he just doesn't need a skill he'll never roll. 3.0/3.5 feats were much in the same boat.

4. Please show me, exactly how D&D 4e is using WoW art. Because that would be copyright infringement. Hell, Ron Spencer (who does art in the PHB, among others) does art for White Wolf, and for the WoW trading card game. Does that mean White Wolf is stealing from WoW? Say it's "what you feel" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it a valid argument of any kind.

5. 3.0/3.5 had Prestige Classes, often in tiers based on what minimum level they required. I had a cleric / divine disciple / hierophant. That's not all that different from 4.0 except that you could, concievably, choose not to take any prestige classes; that doesn't mean that they're not there however.

6. WoW does not have that tier system that you describe. Neither did EQ, neither did DAoC, nor TERA or anything else I've played where you literally jump a tier. Sure, WoW has level brackets for battlegrounds, but that's not even remotely the same as a tier system. I will point out that one supplement for 3.0 was the EPIC Level Handbook.

And again, I'm not saying you're a fool for liking 3.0/3.5. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people who feel the same way you do, clearly there are. I'm saying that the reaction never seems to be one that can be explained clearly with valid arguments; too often it's irrational dislike simply because of the massive shift the game took from 3.5 to 4e and people not reacting well to that much change. You can try to blame WoW all you want, but realistically the two are nothing alike beyond both being set in a fantasy universe.

My WoW warrior picked one class and stuck with it.
My 4e fighter was a Fighter/Scion of Arakhosia/something I forget what.

My WoW warrior has changed from using sword and board, to 2H as arms, to dual wielding as Fury; repeatedly.
My 4e fighter uses a Fullblade; has since he could retrain one feat when the Adventurer's Vault released; he used a greatsword before that.

Oooh, here's a good one. From the thread 'WOTC is officially dead' in 2002:

I really, honestly, think 3rd edition, on balance, is not for me. I know
many people disagree, but I wonder how many people _agree_. I'm not really
tossing this out for discussion, just noting it; there is no point arguing
about it, because many people _like_ 3rd edition for many of the reasons I
hate it. The point here is that I really wonder how the numbers actually
break.


I know that I, personally, haven't spent a dime on the new stuff, and would
never do so. I have the books, but only because WOTC gave Stormfront a few
copies of them when Pools of Radience 2 was being developed. When I got
them, I was excited at the prospect of the new version, but but I just
couldn't dig it. Probably the biggest gripe I had was the high magic and
the fact that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to play without
a battle board.

3rd edition catered to a specific market, one that did not include me, and I
think many old players may feel similarly. High magic, battle boards, and
multi-classing were built into the system in such a way as to be almost
inextricable without starting over from the ground up. My impression of the
way 3rd edition has been handled of late can be summed up as going out in a
blaze of glory. Call me silly, but I think the ELH might have been the real
signal that something was wrong. I mean, didn't we used to call this stuff
'munchkin'? Was it a last ditch effort to milk the system, to basically put
out official rules for playing characters that, all in all, might as well be
gods? I dunno, but I wonder.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This looks familiar... From a '3rd edition complaints' thread in 2000 where someone addresses the fact that 3rd is too ROLL playing vs ROLE playing:

To say that it has never promoted a certain type of play is flat-out
wrong. Look at first edition, where the only ways to earn experience
were to kill things and get treasure. You *could* run campaigns that
weren't combat-heavy, but the rules simply weren't suited for it. Of
course, you could change those rules, but you can change any system to be
anything.

With that said, I agree that 3rd edition doesn't force a certain type of
play. The rules explicitly say that XP are for overcoming challenges --
which don't have to be killing things and getting treasure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
1999

every piece of 3rd edition artwork I've seen I
have hated. The classic style that I like just doesn't seem to be in
fashion anymore.

I swear, ZombieJoe is a time traveler!

Every here is trying very hard to disprove what I'm saying. And that's cool, cause you obvioulsy disagree, and I'm fine with that part. The issue I got is that people are trying to prove/disprove thigns that are nothing more that subjective views. I'm not accusing WoTC of stealing anything from anyone. I'm saying that they took a decided step towards a more MMO style feel. And I don't blame them for doing so really. MMO's are very populare, so it's not illogical that they would move in that direction.

The evidence I supported my arguments with are not intended to prove definetively that 4.0 is a rip off. It's to show that a reasonable argument exhists for the claim. I find it hard to believe that I"m the only one on this thread who sees this.

Also, in reguards to my using blogs as evidence. Consider this, it does not matter what WoTC intended to do with 4.0, it matter what player think. I challange anyone to find me more articles that are PRO 4.0 then CON. This IS evidence of its failures. The fans make the game what it is, and if the fans dislike it then its a failure. 4th is not a total flop, but generally it was not as successful or well recieved as it probably could hav been.

Blog are representive of the game's success. Read the comments, see what the fans are saying about it.

ZombieJoe wrote:Every here is trying very hard to disprove what I'm saying. And that's cool, cause you obvioulsy disagree, and I'm fine with that part. The issue I got is that people are trying to prove/disprove thigns that are nothing more that subjective views.

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

I'm not accusing WoTC of stealing anything from anyone. I'm saying that they took a decided step towards a more MMO style feel. And I don't blame them for doing so really. MMO's are very populare, so it's not illogical that they would move in that direction.

Whoops, you just made a declarative statement.

The evidence I supported my arguments with are not intended to prove definetively that 4.0 is a rip off. It's to show that a reasonable argument exhists for the claim. I find it hard to believe that I"m the only one on this thread who sees this.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Also, in reguards to my using blogs as evidence. Consider this, it does not matter what WoTC intended to do with 4.0, it matter what player think. I challange anyone to find me more articles that are PRO 4.0 then CON. This IS evidence of its failures. The fans make the game what it is, and if the fans dislike it then its a failure. 4th is not a total flop, but generally it was not as successful or well recieved as it probably could hav been.

Blog are representive of the game's success. Read the comments, see what the fans are saying about it.

Appeal to the commons. Seriously, do you know what a fallacy is?

Let's go with Rhetological Fallacies: Errors and manipulations of rhetoric of logical thinking. If your only real argument is 'everyone else thinks the same as I', then your argument has no real merit.

I thoguht 3e was a great 'cleanup' of the mess 2e had unfortunately become. It became a mess in it's own way, but still much more manageable as it was easier for a GM to delineate lines and the system was a bit more modular.

"OK, core PHB/DMG and WotC class books only, plus this one book of setting-specific stuff. Go!"

4e tried to deal with different problems, mainly the whole 'Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard' concept, CoDzilla, or the '15 minute work day" (In which, for campaigns where the GM runs things mechanically and doesn't apply any time pressure, it generally makes sense for adventurers to go forth, clear a room or two by using their 'big gun' spells, then retire to a nearby town to rest, reload spells, etc.). Some of these efforts worked better than others, and it's not without faults, but (most importantly) it's fun!

I still wonder how 4e would have done if it had been a separate game without the weight of being "the new D&D."

Balance wrote:I thoguht 3e was a great 'cleanup' of the mess 2e had unfortunately become. It became a mess in it's own way, but still much more manageable as it was easier for a GM to delineate lines and the system was a bit more modular.

"OK, core PHB/DMG and WotC class books only, plus this one book of setting-specific stuff. Go!"

4e tried to deal with different problems, mainly the whole 'Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard' concept, CoDzilla, or the '15 minute work day" (In which, for campaigns where the GM runs things mechanically and doesn't apply any time pressure, it generally makes sense for adventurers to go forth, clear a room or two by using their 'big gun' spells, then retire to a nearby town to rest, reload spells, etc.). Some of these efforts worked better than others, and it's not without faults, but (most importantly) it's fun!

I still wonder how 4e would have done if it had been a separate game without the weight of being "the new D&D."

I agree with most of these points. Each version of D&D has tried to fix the sins of the previous, often at the expense of being its own game. 3E and 4E were both huge leaps forward in terms of how the game plays compared to earlier editions.

As for what would have happened if they marketed it as something other than D&D? How many fantasy RPGs are successful without marketing as D&D. Even Pathfinder does it with a wink and a nudge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aha, here's a good opinion from 2000:

A large
majority of players are taking issue with the 3e Concept artwork for its
"20th century, cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic, sharp-edged, War Hammer like,
freak ass tattooed, weirdo, immature, Spawn comic book, non-traditional
fantasy like" style.

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

Forums do not convey tone the way we'd like them too. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and you can't have a discussion without some declarative statements.

Whoops, you just made a declarative statement.

See above if you are still confused.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Yes, cause one forum undermines all others. Because in this instance the weight of numbers is on your side, you are therefore correct?

Appeal to the commons. Seriously, do you know what a fallacy is?

Let's go with Rhetological Fallacies: Errors and manipulations of rhetoric of logical thinking. If your only real argument is 'everyone else thinks the same as I', then your argument has no real merit.

So then, by admission of your own logic, your opinion is void? You seem pretty ready to point out that this thread agrees with your views over mine that you must therefore be correct. You have after all, patently proved, me wrong, right? I made a subjective statement and you made a subjective statement, yet somehow, you are the one who is correct? Since there is no objective way you could be correct for expressing an opinion, and I assume you are smart enough to see that, than you must be using the fact that more people have made comments in agreement with you to prove me wrong. If that is the case, then your argument is only backed by the number of people whom agree with you. So, you’re right cause in this thread,

'everyone else thinks the same as

you. So when I pull outside sources and appeal the commons then I am wrong, but when you do it, you are correct? There is a difference between using big words because it makes you sound smart and being smart. Your own logic seems to have some holes in it.

Do not be confused, let me help you. This conversation cannot be proven true or false by anyone. I pointed out similarities that are not backed by facts because no facts exist here. If there was a direct way saying, “hey Wotc ripped off WoW,” then there would be a law suit right now. It’s not the case. I feel that 4th Ed plays like an MMO. It’s a matter of feel, of interpretation; in other words, opinion. If you do not agree with me that is fine, convincing you to agree with me is not my intention, nor should it be anyone’s. The goal of an argument is to reach understanding. You cannot denounce my supporting evidence in this case without denouncing your own.

ZombieJoe wrote:

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

Forums do not convey tone the way we'd like them too. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and you can't have a discussion without some declarative statements.

You can make them, but don't try to hide behind 'It is just my opinion' afterwards.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Yes, cause one forum undermines all others. Because in this instance the weight of numbers is on your side, you are therefore correct?

No, the weight of fact is on my side. I am providing facts.

So then, by admission of your own logic, your opinion is void? You seem pretty ready to point out that this thread agrees with your views over mine that you must therefore be correct.

Wrong. I have never Appealed to the Commons to make my point.

You have after all, patently proved, me wrong, right? I made a subjective statement and you made a subjective statement, yet somehow, you are the one who is correct?

Wrong. Again, you are confused. You say '4E is like an MMO'. I show you that the things you claim are derivative of MMOs existed before MMOs, so hence that point is incorrect. I am using facts.

Since there is no objective way you could be correct for expressing an opinion, and I assume you are smart enough to see that, than you must be using the fact that more people have made comments in agreement with you to prove me wrong. If that is the case, then your argument is only backed by the number of people whom agree with you. So, you’re right cause in this thread,

'everyone else thinks the same as

you. So when I pull outside sources and appeal the commons then I am wrong, but when you do it, you are correct? There is a difference between using big words because it makes you sound smart and being smart. Your own logic seems to have some holes in it.

Show somewhere where I Appealed to the Commons in this thread.

Do not be confused, let me help you. This conversation cannot be proven true or false by anyone. I pointed out similarities that are not backed by facts because no facts exist here. If there was a direct way saying, “hey Wotc ripped off WoW,” then there would be a law suit right now. It’s not the case. I feel that 4th Ed plays like an MMO. It’s a matter of feel, of interpretation; in other words, opinion. If you do not agree with me that is fine, convincing you to agree with me is not my intention, nor should it be anyone’s. The goal of an argument is to reach understanding. You cannot denounce my supporting evidence in this case without denouncing your own.

But there are facts. If you say 'WOTC ripped off WOW' and we can show prior art, then you are proved incorrect. We have proved prior art multiple times, but you do not accept it and say 'yeah, but my opinion says those facts don't matter'.

Your position is that 4E is like WOW because of tiers and level progression and art style, etc. We have shown in this thread that all of these things existed prior to 4E and WOW.

Name one thing that 4E ripped off WOW that did not exist prior to WOW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, you're getting all butt-hurt that I am disputing your points. It is nothing personal, I just find someone making uninformed points to be rather distasteful, so am trying to correct them.

Hopefully, you would see that some of these opinions are based on incorrect assumptions.

ZombieJoe wrote:

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

I disagree- move silently and hide have been rolled into 'stealth', innuendo and diplomacy have been rolled together. Knowledge(Rocks),Knowledge(caves),Knowledge(derp) has been rolled into dungeoneering.
It is more streamlined. If that's your argument then 5th has EVEN LESS OPTIONS!!! (ZOMG!)

LOL, at what point have you proven anything factual? I said that 4th Ed went the rout of WOW. All you said was, "NOPE! Didn't happen". You've proven nothing. All you did was scream WRONG, at anything that was said. How exactly did you prove anything? You remind me of one of those guys who talks louder when he wants to sound smarter. Seriously guy, nobody here is challanging your nerd cred, I'm sure you spent many constructive hours playing WOW and you are totally awesome sauce at it. But, you need to learn the proper format of an argument. So lower that E-pene a bit and let’s have a useful discuss about this game. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, I forget how easy that can be with some people.

Let's format this convo a little better, I'd like for this to not get canned by the Mods. Let's go with this format.

I'd actually like to take a moment and rephrase my claims here. I think that maybe this dialogue got side tracked cause I used MMO's as an example. Let's go with video game.
Here is one reason, to start, that I feel D&D 4th Ed feels like I'm playing video game.

1. Skills and feats that were most for role playing purposes were removed. Listen, spot, and search are now all in one, called perception. This is a video game concept. I've never played a game that had three different skills for seeing and hearing, they were always just one thing, and often called 'perception'. This reduces roleplaying. When I play 3.5, I like to make characters with personality flaws; they just make the character more interesting. In one instance, I wanted to make an old man who was hard of hearing but had keen eyes sight. So I dropped no points in listen and haggled with my DM to give me a minus to it, but give me a bonus to spot and listen. This will not happen in 4th ed. Since these are now one skill.

D&D 4th Ed lower the number of customizable options you could give your character. What they give it, was more combat abilities. Largely they made the game more modular. A DM could grab some monsters and throw them at a party much easier now. I think we can all agree that 3.5 and its CR system was a little wonky. That's cool, it made the game more accessible to people with less time. When I got to my FLGS on Tuesday, I see tons of people playing ad-hoc dungeon crawls. It's awesome. But, its also not Roleplaying. 4th Ed supported combat and lots of it. Video Games, and especially MMO's are largely driven by the need for players to get together and go on kill monsters as a party. YES, before you say it, I know that MMO's took ideas from RPG's. The pen&paper game came first, so the VG's barrowed from them. But, with 4th edition, WoTC lowered roleplaying options and raised combat ones. This made the game into an almost MMO parody.

ZombieJoe wrote:LOL, at what point have you proven anything factual? I said that 4th Ed went the rout of WOW. All you said was, "NOPE! Didn't happen". You've proven nothing. All you did was scream WRONG, at anything that was said. How exactly did you prove anything? You remind me of one of those guys who talks louder when he wants to sound smarter. Seriously guy, nobody here is challanging your nerd cred, I'm sure you spent many constructive hours playing WOW and you are totally awesome sauce at it. But, you need to learn the proper format of an argument. So lower that E-pene a bit and let’s have a useful discuss about this game. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, I forget how easy that can be with some people.

Try to attack the argument and not the poster.

Here is one reason, to start, that I feel D&D 4th Ed feels like I'm playing video game.

1. Skills and feats that were most for role playing purposes were removed. Listen, spot, and search are now all in one, called perception. This is a video game concept. I've never played a game that had three different skills for seeing and hearing, they were always just one thing, and often called 'perception'. This reduces roleplaying. When I play 3.5, I like to make characters with personality flaws; they just make the character more interesting. In one instance, I wanted to make an old man who was hard of hearing but had keen eyes sight. So I dropped no points in listen and haggled with my DM to give me a minus to it, but give me a bonus to spot and listen. This will not happen in 4th ed. Since these are now one skill.

World Of Darkness had perception back in the 90's, which covered all of those skills. 2nd edition D&D had no perception skills except as house rules, addon rules. Previous art and has nothing to do with Video Games.
You can still haggle with your DM to add flaws. This is no different in different editions. In fact, 3rd ed was a step down from 1st ed which had hundreds of flaws and tables for flaws and such in the DMG.

D&D 4th Ed lower the number of customizable options you could give your character.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

When I got to my FLGS on Tuesday, I see tons of people playing ad-hoc dungeon crawls. It's awesome. But, its also not Roleplaying. 4th Ed supported combat and lots of it. Video Games, and especially MMO's are largely driven by the need for players to get together and go on kill monsters as a party. YES, before you say it, I know that MMO's took ideas from RPG's. The pen&paper game came first, so the VG's barrowed from them. But, with 4th edition, WoTC lowered roleplaying options and raised combat ones. This made the game into an almost MMO parody.

This has nothing to do with the edition. In 1st edition, there was literally no way to get XP other than killing monsters. Does that mean that 1st edition was nothing other than a kill monsters quest and ripped off MMOs? What about 2nd? Same thing. Someone call Gygax and tell him that he ripped off MMOs back in the 70s with his experience system.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Again, your points are covered by prior art. If that is not clear, then let me explain. Prior art means that someone did it before MMOs did it. D&D didn't copy MMOs, it copied other RPGs (including D&D) from previous editions. The problem is that you lack historical context in the statements you make so assume that MMOs did it first.

Phototoxin wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

I disagree- move silently and hide have been rolled into 'stealth', innuendo and diplomacy have been rolled together. Knowledge(Rocks),Knowledge(caves),Knowledge(derp) has been rolled into dungeoneering.
It is more streamlined. If that's your argument then 5th has EVEN LESS OPTIONS!!! (ZOMG!)

How can we know what 5th Ed has?! It's not out yet. I know nothing about what is in it. And what you call 'streamline' I call strinkage. YOu have less ways of making a unique character. People keep telling me that you can just roleplay those things, that roleplaying hasn't changed at all. But, thats not true for me. I want rules to reflect my character. Its funny, this is Dakka Dakka, its pretty much a 40K thread, or at least a large part of it is. Many 40K players complain that the rules do not reflect the fluff. Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

ZombieJoe wrote:Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

Easy, Orc Ranger. Take stealth and just don't use it for hiding. Wow, lookit that.

Edit: The funniest part of this is that you are reinforcing the idea of ROLL playing versus ROLE playing. You want the ROLLs to define your character by providing you rules. Whereas we want the ROLE to define the character external to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Top Reasons D&D 4E is ripping off WOW:
1) Weapons! They use the same weapons as WOW!
2) Spells! Some of the spells have the same names!
3) Classes. Some of the class names are the same.
4) Wait, they use the word Class too.
5) Races. Orcs, Dwarves, Elves. Wtf, they stole races from WOW
6) Quests!!!! WOW totally invented quests,
7) Art! Chicks in skimpy armor with swords. Nuff Said.
8) Skills! You can take skills in WOW. Total ripoff.
9) Crafting! You can make stuff in WOW.
10) Experience Points. Levelling based on killing things and completing quests? Totally ripped off from WOW.
11) Hit Points. We know that it is just code for health.
12) Levelling. Levelling in D&D works just like in Wow. You get XP and go up levels. Total rip off.

Try to attack the argument and not the poster.

Good advice, I hope you listen to it.

World Of Darkness had perception back in the 90's, which covered all of those skills. 2nd edition D&D had no perception skills except as house rules, addon rules. Previous art and has nothing to do with Video Games.
You can still haggle with your DM to add flaws. This is no different in different editions. In fact, 3rd ed was a step down from 1st ed which had hundreds of flaws and tables for flaws and such in the DMG.

Stay on target, I'm not talking about any other editions. 3.5 versus 4. 1st and 2nd have nothing to do with it, what they were is meaningless cause this is a converation of where 4thed went.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

We are talking 3.5, again. And, you cannot just call them useless. What, you never used them, so that means nobody else does? If you play D&D like you are playing munchkin then sure, many of them are useless.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Rules that reflect character made the game play fun and different.

Again, your points are covered by prior art. If that is not clear, then let me explain. Prior art means that someone did it before MMOs did it. D&D didn't copy MMOs, it copied other RPGs (including D&D) from previous editions. The problem is that you lack historical context in the statements you make so assume that MMOs did it first.

That past man, you are living in it. Get with the future. I'm talking 3.5 to 4. If you ran out of argument then move on. P&P RPG's are on one road and Video Games are on another, now those roads are starting to cross a bit.

First off, I think the condescending attitude of your fist paragraph is uncalled for.

As to your point:

1. If something in the game exists purely for roleplaying purposes, not mechanical ones, then it doesn't need to exist in the game. You yourself mention how you worked with your DM to get a penalty and bonuses, this is just as easily something you could do in 4e. GM fiat is the same regardless of edition.

There are plenty of other games that do not use Listen, Search and Spot as all separate skills. White-Wolf, for instance, uses Perception as an attribute, and has no specific skills for noticing things. Palladium games (ugh) also has no real system for noticing things in general. Cyberpunk 2020 has a single skill "Awareness/Notice", as does Shadowrun 4e. In fact, I would posit that D&D is one of FEW games that actually felt the need to break that down. D&D 2nd edition use Alertness, not listen and spot and search. So again, your evidence for comparison is false.

D&D 4e provided plenty of methods of customization. There were backgrounds providing tangible benefits, there were plenty of feats and utility powers, paragon paths and other actual mechanical things to customize your character. In regards to dungeon crawling, I will say again:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was the first edition of dungeons and dragons to offer a system for providing XP for NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTERS. The system may have had its problems, but it was the first time it existed. If I wanted to run a game where characters never pick up a single weapon, I can do so with a set system in place; previously, a DM would have to fiat every aspect of such a campaign. So when you posit "WOTC lowered roleplaying options", I give you evidence you are wrong. There are plenty of roleplaying options, and an all new method of playing the game which focuses entirely on roleplaying.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

Easy, Orc Ranger. Take stealth and just don't use it for hiding. Wow, lookit that.

Edit: The funniest part of this is that you are reinforcing the idea of ROLL playing versus ROLE playing. You want the ROLLs to define your character by providing you rules. Whereas we want the ROLE to define the character external to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Top Reasons D&D 4E is ripping off WOW:
1) Weapons! They use the same weapons as WOW!
2) Spells! Some of the spells have the same names!
3) Classes. Some of the class names are the same.
4) Wait, they use the word Class too.
5) Races. Orcs, Dwarves, Elves. Wtf, they stole races from WOW
6) Quests!!!! WOW totally invented quests,
7) Art! Chicks in skimpy armor with swords. Nuff Said.
8) Skills! You can take skills in WOW. Total ripoff.
9) Crafting! You can make stuff in WOW.
10) Experience Points. Levelling based on killing things and completing quests? Totally ripped off from WOW.
11) Hit Points. We know that it is just code for health.
12) Levelling. Levelling in D&D works just like in Wow. You get XP and go up levels. Total rip off.

Glib and out of logical arguments its seems. I was expecting more. Oh well.

ZombieJoe wrote:Stay on target, I'm not talking about any other editions. 3.5 versus 4. 1st and 2nd have nothing to do with it, what they were is meaningless cause this is a converation of where 4thed went.

You're saying 4th ripped off MMOs. I'm saying that it didn't. It ripped off 1st, 2nd and other previous RPGs. Completely on target.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

We are talking 3.5, again. And, you cannot just call them useless. What, you never used them, so that means nobody else does? If you play D&D like you are playing munchkin then sure, many of them are useless.

Having five feats to replicate skill focus is indeed useless. Way to disparage me again though.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Rules that reflect character made the game play fun and different.

Sure and 4E has those. Those rules for 4E are different than 3E and different than 2E and different than 1E. Different does not equal OMG MMO!!!!

That past man, you are living in it. Get with the future. I'm talking 3.5 to 4. If you ran out of argument then move on. P&P RPG's are on one road and Video Games are on another, now those roads are starting to cross a bit.

The past informs the present. MMOs copied those past RPGs. 4E copied those past RPGs. That doesn't mean that 4E copied MMOs.

Yes, the roads have been crossing since video games started, mostly because Video games have always copied RPGs. You know, because RPGs came first. Oh sorry, that was the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:
Glib and out of logical arguments its seems. I was expecting more. Oh well.

The list was meant as humor. Take it as such.

I note that you didn't address your want for more ROLL and less ROLE by providing rules to help you ROLEplay.

I note that you didn't address your want for more ROLL and less ROLE by providing rules to help you ROLEplay.

You are quiet clever with the puns. I don't find picking up dice and rolling them across the table too taxing. So, yes I do like to ROLL when I ROLE. I also eat ROLLS when I ROLE. I once ate a ROLL that I recieve from a MOLE who swung on a POLL when I went out on a STROLL, and then I was FULL and didn't have time to ROLE. But, that's getting off topic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:First off, I think the condescending attitude of your fist paragraph is uncalled for.

As to your point:

1. If something in the game exists purely for roleplaying purposes, not mechanical ones, then it doesn't need to exist in the game. You yourself mention how you worked with your DM to get a penalty and bonuses, this is just as easily something you could do in 4e. GM fiat is the same regardless of edition.

There are plenty of other games that do not use Listen, Search and Spot as all separate skills. White-Wolf, for instance, uses Perception as an attribute, and has no specific skills for noticing things. Palladium games (ugh) also has no real system for noticing things in general. Cyberpunk 2020 has a single skill "Awareness/Notice", as does Shadowrun 4e. In fact, I would posit that D&D is one of FEW games that actually felt the need to break that down. D&D 2nd edition use Alertness, not listen and spot and search. So again, your evidence for comparison is false.

D&D 4e provided plenty of methods of customization. There were backgrounds providing tangible benefits, there were plenty of feats and utility powers, paragon paths and other actual mechanical things to customize your character. In regards to dungeon crawling, I will say again:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was the first edition of dungeons and dragons to offer a system for providing XP for NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTERS. The system may have had its problems, but it was the first time it existed. If I wanted to run a game where characters never pick up a single weapon, I can do so with a set system in place; previously, a DM would have to fiat every aspect of such a campaign. So when you posit "WOTC lowered roleplaying options", I give you evidence you are wrong. There are plenty of roleplaying options, and an all new method of playing the game which focuses entirely on roleplaying.

4th Ed did do some cool things with the XP they gave away for roleplaying. It was one of the things I like most about it. To the OP, 4th Ed is not bad. It's just not great. If you are totally new to DND and young, then its a great place to start. If you are an old hand at DND then I'd not suggest moving to 4th.

To your point, yes there are other RPG's that what you said, but I do not play them all and do not have an informed opinion on the matter.

ZombieJoe wrote:To your point, yes there are other RPG's that what you said, but I do not play them all and do not have an informed opinion on the matter.

And I rest my case.

Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

ZombieJoe wrote:Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

Thanks! I appreciate your heartfelt congratulations.

More of the point was that those other systems did these things far before MMOs and that you were conceding that point. Either way, I appreciate you being big enough to admit when you are out of your depth.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

Thanks! I appreciate your heartfelt congratulations.

More of the point was that those other systems did these things far before MMOs and that you were conceding that point. Either way, I appreciate you being big enough to admit when you are out of your depth.

First, let's set the record straight, I am NOT a fish.
2nd....
What does it matter WHAT the other game system did or did not do? When I said 4th plays like an MMO, you pointed out that other systems did it too... that doesn't dispute that 4th plays like an mmo.

You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
WAIT! New approach. Please, enlighten me, why does it matter what other systems have done?

The point wasn't that those games play like an mmo (because they don't), but that the system you purport to be "MMO like', is in fact, not "MMO like", or even "Video Game" like. It's a standard through multiple other RPGs that have never been accused of being MMOs.

ZombieJoe wrote:What does it matter WHAT the other game system did or did not do? When I said 4th plays like an MMO, you pointed out that other systems did it too... that doesn't dispute that 4th plays like an mmo.

Because those other game systems did it far before MMOs did it. 4th Ed is copying earlier versions of D&D and other game systems, a tried and true tradition in RPGs. It just happens that MMOs also copied D&D and other game systems.

D&D 4E doesn't play like an MMO. MMOs play like D&D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:WAIT! New approach. Please, enlighten me, why does it matter what other systems have done?

See streamdragon's reply. D&D isn't MMO like; it is RPG like. RPGs have been doing the things that MMOs do for 20-30 years. Hence, D&D 4E isn't copying MMOs, it is copying an established continuity of RPGs.

DND 4E plays like an RPG. It just so happens that so do MMOs.

Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

ZombieJoe wrote:Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

Name one thing that D&D 4E does that MMOs do that did not exist prior to MMOs in D&D or other RPGs..

One thing.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

Name one thing that D&D 4E does that MMOs do that did not exist prior to MMOs in D&D or other RPGs..

One thing.

Name one thing that is meaningless to try and prove a moot point, go on, I dare you!

It’s not about that one thing that makes it what it is. It’s that, of all the ways 4E COULD have been built, it instead borrowed a lot of predominantly MMO qualities. Making it, appear, to play a lot like an MMO. It's the subtleties of the game that are eluding you my son.

The point you are missing is that those are not MMO qualities, those are RPG qualities.

Are you saying that everything MMOs do irrevocably become MMO qualities because they did them?

That doesn't leave a lot as RPG qualities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm guessing it is chronologically impossible for me to be your son.

pretre wrote:The point you are missing is that those are not MMO qualities, those are RPG qualities.

Are you saying that everything MMOs do irrevocably become MMO qualities because they did them?

That doesn't leave a lot as RPG qualities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm guessing it is chronologically impossible for me to be your son.

Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

ZombieJoe wrote:Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

Be a little less vague. What collectively makes an MMO what is is?

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

Be a little less vague. What collectively makes an MMO what is is?

I think maybe you should go back and reread the posts. Or start a new one. Cuase this is way off topic now.
You just need to think a little harder on the topic. Next time you play WOW. reallllly look it. Closesly, get down on that baby and just put your nose in it. Take a wiff o' that stuff and maybe then you'll get it.

Stop being so condescending and avoiding the question.

Okay, let me address your original points and show you that they are the same as previous editions.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

WOW has powers with cooldowns but not daily or encounters per se.
WOW has rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, skills and abilities for levelling.
It doesn't have tiers, but has expansion packs based on level. There are no prestige classes, or paragon paths, but rather different sub-classes basically for each class available at level 1.
The art is WOW art.
The XP is for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.


Is this your contention?

pretre wrote:Stop being so condescending and avoiding the question.

Okay, let me address your original points and show you that they are the same as previous editions.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

Is this your contention?

See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

So basically every version of D&D since the 80's is MMO-like, even though MMOs didn't start until the late 90's, early 00's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

Seriously? You're saying that a game that was published in the 80's (Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D) was designed to be MMO-like when the MMO didn't come out until 20 years later?

pretre wrote:So basically every version of D&D since the 80's is MMO-like, even though MMOs didn't start until the late 90's, early 00's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

Seriously? You're saying that a game that was published in the 80's (Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D) was designed to be MMO-like when the MMO didn't come out until 20 years later?

That's not really what I'm saying.

ZombieJoe wrote:
You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.

Would this be an admission of trolling?

Steamdragon and myself keep bringing up prior art for various 'MMO qualities' to illustrate that what you feel are MMO qualities were tabletop RPG qualities first.

It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

Balance wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:
You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.

Would this be an admission of trolling?

Steamdragon and myself keep bringing up prior art for various 'MMO qualities' to illustrate that what you feel are MMO qualities were tabletop RPG qualities first.

Please! Not at all! I'm very literal here. I have enjoyed this conversation with my fellow dakka's. I hate trolls, I come here to share an interest in gaming, not to aggrivate people and be aggrivated. This converstation may have gotten a little heated but I don't think anyone has gotten offeneded yet. I hope not!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

It's not though. I'm sorry, but you are so concerned with being right here that you are failing to see what I'm trying to say.

ZombieJoe wrote:

pretre wrote:It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

It's not though. I'm sorry, but you are so concerned with being right here that you are failing to see what I'm trying to say.

Okay, so because of the things I listed, D&D 4E is designed like an MMO.

How, if Basic and 3E have those exact same type of features, are they not also designed like an MMO?

Explain it to me, since I am obviously 'so concerned with being right that I am failing to see what you are trying to say'.

*Sigh* Look I'm can see you're worked up. I can't play anymore this evening. I'll come back to you in three days and give you a solid, compelling, and illrefutable explanation. OK?

lol

You'll be back in three days time, eh?

pretre wrote:lol

You'll be back in three days time, eh?

Yes I will. I'm leaving work soon and I don't generally use the intertubes much on the weekend. So Monday I'll expalin it to you again. Besides, I need to explain this to my little nephew and have him translate it for you.
lol

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

+1

I've got a small hoard of 3.5 stuff, and I feel no urge what so ever to walk away from it. On top of that, 4e dumbed things down and as its been said, put more focus on combat and less on story, which was a nail in the coffin for me.

*sigh* It's almost like there's arguements against those things in this very thread, and yet...

streamdragon wrote:*sigh* It's almost like there's arguements against those things in this very thread, and yet...

Reading is for losers!

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

The easy way around this is the keep playing it the same way. I was unhappy with 4th because the people I was playing with were focusing on the "complete X combat encounters a night" mentality and I hated that. Now I am running it myself and running it the way I run every RPG: heavy on the roleplaying and combat when it is important or necessary. Works just fine in that context, just without all of the old "But I wasn't even in the room!" issues that used to come up in combat in older versions.

Skriker

@Skriker: Exactly. You outline exactly the problem with all editions: the players. lol

Seriously though, the game is just a framework.

As a sidenote on X encounters per night, my group is off and on for combat vs RP, but we don't focus on encounters per night. We focus on encounters before extended rest. This way, there's plenty of time to do everything in the game whether it is RP, combat or shooting the shizz. As a challenge, we like to see how long we can go before resting though.

pretre wrote:@Skriker: Exactly. You outline exactly the problem with all editions: the players. lol

Seriously though, the game is just a framework.

As a sidenote on X encounters per night, my group is off and on for combat vs RP, but we don't focus on encounters per night. We focus on encounters before extended rest. This way, there's plenty of time to do everything in the game whether it is RP, combat or shooting the shizz. As a challenge, we like to see how long we can go before resting though.

The rules are now definitely *the rules*. There is no bumbling aspect of the rulebooks that tries to explain and push roleplaying in some esoteric way. Just because they don't tell you that you *have* to roleplay doesn't mean it has gone away. People look at how the game is run in convention tournies as for how the game should always be played, when tourney play has always been focused on fighting and finishing as fast as possible and not much by way of roleplaying.

Skriker

Quite the argument we've got going on over here. Who knew nerds could be so passionate?


My thoughts on the matter:

Yes, 4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs. By "MMOs", I specifically mean WoW. To say they haven't is just ignoring the obvious.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking elements from something else. The first MMOs were all ripped from D&D. Over the years, they've come up with some good ideas that would work well in pen+paper, and sometimes the pen+paper games came up with things that worked well in computer games. This ends up benefiting both genres.

4E has become much more combat focused than previous editions (not to the combat-only level of WoW, but closer). True, this all comes down to the playgroup, but when the rulebook is almost entirely devoted to combat abilities, that's the feeling that comes across.

4E has also blended the line between different classes. Now, every class attacks with a weapon that has stats (like WoW), and every class has abilities that they can use constantly in combat (like WoW). Spellcasters were dumbed down significantly, and can't do any of the cool things they could before (like WoW).

4E formalized the different roles you can take in combat (like WoW). They directly gave aggro management abilities to out, and formalized how each role works in combat. Sure, the groundwork existed long before, but this made it up-front and formal.

And, finally, leveling feels completely different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.



I really don't understand the rage at this suggestion. 4th clearly got some inspiration from WoW. That doesn't make it bad, and that doesn't make it good. If you like the way that plays, great, go have fun. If you don't, also great, go play 3rd, or whatever edition you prefer.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, 4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs. By "MMOs", I specifically mean WoW. To say they haven't is just ignoring the obvious.

Or misattributing something to an MMO that came from somewhere else.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking elements from something else. The first MMOs were all ripped from D&D. Over the years, they've come up with some good ideas that would work well in pen+paper, and sometimes the pen+paper games came up with things that worked well in computer games. This ends up benefiting both genres.

And most, if not all, of those things came from P&P first.

4E has become much more combat focused than previous editions (not to the combat-only level of WoW, but closer). True, this all comes down to the playgroup, but when the rulebook is almost entirely devoted to combat abilities, that's the feeling that comes across.

Umm, this misunderstands both 4E and WoW. All versions of D&D are combat focused. Combat rules have always overwhelmed non-combat rules. 4E just made those combat rules more streamlined. WOW on the other hand is not 'combat-only', in fact WOW had quest XP, non-combat skills, crafting, etc so on.

4E has also blended the line between different classes. Now, every class attacks with a weapon that has stats (like WoW), and every class has abilities that they can use constantly in combat (like WoW). Spellcasters were dumbed down significantly, and can't do any of the cool things they could before (like WoW).

This is just kind of crazy. So what you're saying is that every class having a focus item is a WOW specific thing (Wizards and wands, Clerics and Holy Symbols, Warlocks and Rods, etc so on)? That's been going back quite a bit and has been in D&D for a long time. As well, every class having abilities they can us constantly in combat is definitely not new to WOW, many systems have this. As for Spellcasters, they can do some of the cool things that they used to (Utlilities) but the love has been spread out so it isn't 'Play a Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Second Fiddle, your choice.'

4E formalized the different roles you can take in combat (like WoW). They directly gave aggro management abilities to out, and formalized how each role works in combat. Sure, the groundwork existed long before, but this made it up-front and formal.

This is the one thing that I will give you. They used similar role language to MMOs. These roles have always existed in D&D, but now they actually used the language. It is important to note that WOW itself didn't use this language until much later than 4E came out and it was a community thing that defined DPS/Tank/Mez/etc and not a system thing. As well, I would argue that my parties have had a skill-monkey, a meat shield, a healbot and a blaster for years before MMOs were a twinkle in some guy's eye. Just because we call them Defender, etc so on doesn't mean that we're copying MMOs.

And, finally, leveling feels completely different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.

Umm. In 4E, you get slightly better at combat, get some more HP, sometimes gain a feat and still gain things that are not combat related. In addition, you may gain a utility, daily or encounter. This is roughly equivalent to a Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, etc so on in 3.5/3/2/1 having to choose new spells when levelling, except everyone gets to do it. This system was also present in 3.5 when they released Tome of Battle and present for a number of classes previously. Again, this is not MMO specific.

I really don't understand the rage at this suggestion. 4th clearly got some inspiration from WoW. That doesn't make it bad, and that doesn't make it good. If you like the way that plays, great, go have fun. If you don't, also great, go play 3rd, or whatever edition you prefer.

You mistake a discussion for rage. The problem is that WOW did not start these things, it took them from D&D and other RPGs. Saying that 4E is WOW derivative is disingenous and misinformed because WOW is derivative of D&D for those things you are bringing up (save one that I kind of give you).

It is like you are saying that Alien vs Hunter is a ripoff of Tyranids. Noooo, it is a ripoff of Alien vs Predator. Tyranids are derivative of Alien. There is no commutative property of derivation.

pretre wrote:snip

Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.

Grakmar wrote:Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.

Sure there is crossover, because WOW didn't make those things up, it borrowed and stole them from other systems, video games, etc. Martial Classes had spells in 3.5 and earlier in D&D itself, forget about other P&P. The only thing that is new to MMOs is formal roles and even that was somewhat established in early D&D with the separation of classes (1st ed had Fighter/Ranger/Paladin, etc. The roles were separated pretty distinctly).

I just don't buy the '4E is P&P WOW lolz' argument or even the more reasonable '4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs' argument. If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.

pretre wrote:If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.

Why isn't that reasonable? (This is an honest question, I'm not trying to mock or anything like that.)

WoW is by far the most successful MMO ever. It's got millions and millions of players, and it's crossed the line into mainstream culture. I image every author/game designer/programmer is at least familiar with WoW even if they haven't played it. Surely they've all seen something they liked/wanted to improve upon.

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to say that everything fantasy related in the last 60 years has been influenced by LotR. Why not WoW?

Grakmar wrote:Why isn't that reasonable? (This is an honest question, I'm not trying to mock or anything like that.)

Because you are ignoring the things that came before WOW that actually created those things. You might say that WOW is the most successful game of its kind but it didn't create them.

Yes, you can say that most RPGs are influenced by LOTR and you could even say that modern RPGs are influenced by the MMO movement, but that is not what people say. They instead say '4E borrowed from WoW' and then can't back it up with specifics that are actually exclusive to WOW.

Let's say that you started a new game system, you called it Jarl of the Torcs. It has short men with beards, noble androgynous men in the woods with point ears and other noble men who are hearty and good at war, and was largely centered on the battle between the forces of good and the forces of an evil, immortal power who controlled all the evil races from his tower stronghold, etc so on.
If I said that your system borrowed from D&D or was a D&D rip off, would that be accurate? Or would it be more accurate to say it was derivative of LOTR?
Does it share derivations with D&D? Absolutely. Is it derivative of D&D? Not really, it is derivative of LOTR.

The same is true of 4E and MMOs. Sure, they contain many of the same elements. Just as 3E and MMOs have many of the same elements and 2E and MMOs have many of the same elements and White Wolf and MMOs have many of the same elements and LOTR and MMOs have many of the same elements, ad nauseum. But it is incorrect to say that 4E is derivative or borrowed from MMOs when it is really borrowing from its own past.

Grakmar wrote: In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.

Pretre has covered most of this, but I wanted to single this out for the sheer amount of rose colored glasses going on.

First off, in WoW, when you level you get abilities at set levels, and occassionally get a talent point every couple levels. This is a far cry from someone "[breaking] out the book and [looking] through a list of special skills" to pick from.

What does sound like that? Hm... who gets to "break out the book and look through a list of special skills" to pick from? Oh, that's right, every caster class in almost every version of D&D. This is not a WoW thing, this is a D&D thing.

Also, you clearly don't remember leveling in 3.0/3.5 the way I do. Let's take a fighter, he levels up from 1 to 2. What does he get? BAB - combat. HP - combat. Save increases - combat. A feat - usually combat (he is a fighter after all) but doesn't have to be, okay, so we hit one thing not combat related (possibly) and 2+int mod skill points. Cause fighters are known for those rocking int mods... Even then, many skills have direct combat applications, or at least combat-encounter applications: listen, spot for surprise rolls, move silently/hide (which you don't generally do if there's no an antagonist around). This is a far cry from the "ton of things that weren't combat related" that you mention. Hell, the one thing exclusive to fighters in Weapon Specialization which gives a bonus in combat.

Even classes that actually get abilities (unlike fighters) generally hinge on combat abilities. This is for a reason, as D&D itself hinges largely as a system on combat. (From the SRD, as I don't have my 3.5 books with me at work)

Barbarians - Illiteracy (yay!), Fast movement, Rage, uncanny dodge/improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR, Greater Rage, Indomitable Will, Tireless Rage, Might rage

Bards - Spells* (for what they're worth...), Songs (many of which are combat applicable), Bardic Knowledge

Cleric - Spells*, Domains Powers*, Turn Undead

Druid - Spells*, Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Woodland Stride (non-combat...sort of), Animal Companion*, Trackless Step (non-combat... sort of), Resist Nature's Lure, Wild Shape, Venom Immunity, A Thousand Faces, Timeless Body

Monk - Stunning Attack, Evasion, Deflect Arrows, Still mind, slow fall, Pureness of Body, Wholeness of Body, Leap of the Clouds, Improved Evasion, Ki Strike, Diamond Body, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self

Paladin - Spells*, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Aura of Courage, Smite Evil, Remove Disease, Turn Undead, Special Mount

Ranger - Spells*, Favored Enemy, Track, Wild Empathy, Combat Style, Endurance, Woodland Stride (non-combat, sort of...), Swift Tracker, Evasion, Animal Companion*, Camouflage (non-combat, sort of), Hide in Plain Sight (non-combat, sort of)

Rogue - Trapfinding, Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Special Abilities (5/6 of which are solely combat, with the last one being applicable to combat also)

Sorcerer - Spells*, Familiar*

Wizard - Spells*, Familiar*, Scribe Scroll, Bonus feats



I bolded the abilities that are largely non-combat. Some can obviously be used in combat (like a monk's Leap of the Clouds ability, or a paladin's Special Mount), and some like Woodland Stride are generally really only useful in combat though they can be used outside of it just as effectively. I also stopped bother to list increases to existing abilities, like a Ranger's Improved Combat Style or the increase in Rogue's Sneak Attack.

As for Spells, Animal Companions and Familiars these are varied enough that it's easy to go one way or another. I'd argue that they all see far more use inside of combat than out, but as that will vary more from group to group I just felt the need to separate them. They are, in no way shape or form, purely non-combat class features.


So beyond skill points, no class gets a "ton of non-combat things". Skill points for some classes (lookin at you fighter) are generally so low that they're prescribed by the choice of prestige class (lookin at you Weaponmaster and your Craft(Calligraphy) requirement). Feats can go either way, though I'd argue that there are far more combat related feats than non-combat related feats.

So really, not a whole lot changed in terms of non-combat abilities per level. 4e has plenty of non-combat utility powers, including skill utility powers, available to all characters.


4e did nothing to decrease the amount of roleplaying options. Did they increase the amount of combat stuff? Sure, they give non-caster classes a share of the book analogous to the caster classes. Did they take away any system or rules that allowed for role-play? Not in the slightest; as I've said at least twice now they added systems for both non-combat encounters, and for story competion bonuses. If your group suddenly turned more combat focused when they switched to 4e, that's not really the edition's fault. I've found that most times when a group tries a new system things tend to gravitate towards combat, because that is usually what's most explicitly spelled out in the rule book. The amount of roleplaying, and the number of ways a player makes the character their own have almost nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with the players.

pretre wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.

Sure there is crossover, because WOW didn't make those things up, it borrowed and stole them from other systems, video games, etc. Martial Classes had spells in 3.5 and earlier in D&D itself, forget about other P&P. The only thing that is new to MMOs is formal roles and even that was somewhat established in early D&D with the separation of classes (1st ed had Fighter/Ranger/Paladin, etc. The roles were separated pretty distinctly).

I just don't buy the '4E is P&P WOW lolz' argument or even the more reasonable '4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs' argument. If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.

Alright I'm back in this game after a small repreave.

So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?

ZombieJoe wrote:
So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?

When did he claim that? He was primarily refuting your claims that 4e was inspired by MMOs by pointing out that many of the stated MMO elements were taken from tabletop RPGs

Balance wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:
So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?

When did he claim that? He was primarily refuting your claims that 4e was inspired by MMOs by pointing out that many of the stated MMO elements were taken from tabletop RPGs

Read everthing he has written. He's made this claim many times. Maybe not directly but in his own words he has stated it.

We have provided numerous instances of WOW not having invented these things. You just have chosen not to accept them. Here's one where I took your original contentions of how 4E copied WoW and showed you how they existed in D&D back to basic edition:

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

WOW has powers with cooldowns but not daily or encounters per se.
WOW has rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, skills and abilities for levelling.
It doesn't have tiers, but has expansion packs based on level. There are no prestige classes, or paragon paths, but rather different sub-classes basically for each class available at level 1.
The art is WOW art.
The XP is for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.


Is this your contention?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amusingly enough, the two that had the least similarities to your contention of 4E copying MMOs were 4E and WoW. lol

pretre wrote:We have provided numerous instances of WOW not having invented these things. You just have chosen not to accept them. Here's one where I took your original contentions of how 4E copied WoW and showed you how they existed in D&D back to basic edition:

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

WOW has powers with cooldowns but not daily or encounters per se.
WOW has rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, skills and abilities for levelling.
It doesn't have tiers, but has expansion packs based on level. There are no prestige classes, or paragon paths, but rather different sub-classes basically for each class available at level 1.
The art is WOW art.
The XP is for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.


Is this your contention?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amusingly enough, the two that had the least similarities to your contention of 4E copying MMOs were 4E and WoW. lol

Regurgitating the same tripe you've used before is not giving supporting evidence. Where is your factual, documentable proof? I don't buy your subjective replies, drop some bibs, dorp some sauce. Come on man, bring the facts down!

What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?

pretre wrote:What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?

You still have not proven anything. All you have done is SAY that everyone else is wrong. What's worth is that you are either unwilling or incapable of admitting that the argument is atleast valid. Your stance that 4E is competely unlike WOW is foolish. Simple order or precedence, WOW came before 4E, WOW is insanely popular, therefore, ergo, inconclusion, its highly probably that 4E barrowed elements from WOW. You should be able to atleast admit that 4E plays like an MMO, feels like an MMO. Doesn't even have to mean you think that it got the ideas from WOW. It just means that you recognise that some similarities exist, enough so that some of us don't play 4E because of it. That and some of us feel that 4E lacks a good balance of rules supporting RP and combat.

pretre wrote:What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?

The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

You are completely ignoring everything we type, aren't you?

I have proved that there is Prior Art. 4E plays like D&D. It just happens that WoW copied D&D in making many of its features.

Of course there are similarities between WoW and 4E, because there are similarities between WoW and almost every Fantasy RPG. You know why? Because WoW borrowed heavily from most of them.

If the reason you don't play 4E is because of the similarities to MMOs, then you also shouldn't play any fantasy RPG, as they all have the same similarities.

4E has more rules than previous editions supporting non-combat interactions. It is the first system with an xp system for non-combat encounters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

No joke. Someone's about to join some others in the Boo!box (aka, ignore list). I don't mind debating with people. I do mind having to repeat myself because they ignore everything I type.

pretre wrote:You are completely ignoring everything we type, aren't you?

I have proved that there is Prior Art. 4E plays like D&D. It just happens that WoW copied D&D in making many of its features.

Of course there are similarities between WoW and 4E, because there are similarities between WoW and almost every Fantasy RPG. You know why? Because WoW borrowed heavily from most of them.

If the reason you don't play 4E is because of the similarities to MMOs, then you also shouldn't play any fantasy RPG, as they all have the same similarities.

4E has more rules than previous editions supporting non-combat interactions. It is the first system with an xp system for non-combat encounters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

No joke. Someone's about to join some others in the Boo!box (aka, ignore list). I don't mind debating with people. I do mind having to repeat myself because they ignore everything I type.

Look out!

If you think that: MMO VS. 4E > 4E VS. Elder Scrolls then your nuts. Pathfinder doesn't play like an MMO. You wanna try and ecompass all the things that make an RPG what it is and include that in the argument. You're trying to say things like, "well WOW has magic/mana equivelant, then Diablo and WOW are the same cause Diable has Mana. That is not what we are saying. The structure of the game, the way it plays, the balance of mechanics, those are what make WOW something unique. If you cannot see the differences there, then you must see all RPG's, pen & paper, or digital alike. Yes, you have very throughly made the the point that all fantasy games have some measure of similarties, that is because they all are apart of the genere. They all magic, armor, weapons, horses, HP, magica...ect ect. If they all have that, then why are they all exactly the same? Because we have other things that make the game different, like its looks, its mechanics, the way the game balances, the type of story if follows. This are what we can call, "fine tune details". They make the game what it is. They are what make all things different. You ever wondered how it is that stories can have strucures that are repeatable and themes that are repeatable and yet some how the books are different? It's the fine detail. Look at the millions of Vampire Stories to come out of the wood work in the last few years. They are very formulaic but, yet many of them are still unique in many ways. That is because of 'fine tuned details'.

In reguards to 4E and WOW, there are fine tuned details that they both share.

And you're the one not listening man. I don't recall anyone saying that they don't play the game cause its WOW like. Most people I know don't like the new mechanics. I don't for sure. And you cannot keep tossing about that ONE! thing 4E added to role play. Ok, woo, you can get XP in non-combat situations, something most 3.5 DM's mastered a while ago. But, they took away so much more. I've already listed a bunch of things to that point and don't feel like repeating mahself.

You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die. This is pretty far removed from the OP.

To the OP, whom we have forgotten, 4E is not for everyone. You'd have to play it to know if you like it or not. I think you've got a lot of good points you can pull form both sides and form your own expectations. Give it a shot though, its different and you may like it.

ZombieJoe wrote: The structure of the game, the way it plays, the balance of mechanics, those are what make WOW something unique. If you cannot see the differences there, then you must see all RPG's, pen & paper, or digital alike.

Specifics please. What balance of mechanics or structure of the game make it like WOW? So far every example you have provided, we have shown prior art for.

And you're the one not listening man. I don't recall anyone saying that they don't play the game cause its WOW like.

Really? Emphasis mine.

ZombieJoe wrote:You should be able to atleast admit that 4E plays like an MMO, feels like an MMO. Doesn't even have to mean you think that it got the ideas from WOW. It just means that you recognise that some similarities exist, enough so that some of us don't play 4E because of it.

Most people I know don't like the new mechanics. I don't for sure.

Appeal to the Commons.

And you cannot keep tossing about that ONE! thing 4E added to role play. Ok, woo, you can get XP in non-combat situations, something most 3.5 DM's mastered a while ago. But, they took away so much more. I've already listed a bunch of things to that point and don't feel like repeating mahself.

List something that we haven't addressed with Prior Art that they took away.

You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die. This is pretty far removed from the OP.

I am simply addressing your arguments. Provide additional examples and I will address those as well.

To the OP, whom we have forgotten, 4E is not for everyone. You'd have to play it to know if you like it or not. I think you've got a lot of good points you can pull form both sides and form your own expectations. Give it a shot though, its different and you may like it.

I can completely agree with this quote.

ZombieJoe wrote:
You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die.

When your argument is essentially 1+1 = 3 and we show that 1+1 = 2, we don't really need to create new arguments. To any reasonable person it is pretty clear that you have no leg to stand on in regards to your accusation against 4E. No one cares that you don't like 4E, but the reasoning behind it, or more likely the superficial reasons behind it, are pretty weak. No amount of argument or information would sway you, as you are not being reasonable, and it is a fools errand to try and use reasonable arguments with an unreasonable person.

You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.

ZombieJoe wrote:You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.

It does mean something. Appeal to the Commons is a poor logical/rhetorical device. Saying 'Everyone I know agrees with me' has no real value since they aren't here. Look, I can do it to. 'Everyone I know loves 4E and think it has nothing to do with MMOs.' See? How does that advance the discussion? Want a hint? It doesn't.

Everything you have given has been shown to have Prior Art and exist in D&D previous to WoW. If you can't come up with anything new, no one will mind if you bow out.

Ahtman wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:
You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die.

When your argument is essentially 1+1 = 3 and we show that 1+1 = 2, we don't really need to create new arguments. To any reasonable person it is pretty clear that you have no leg to stand on in regards to your accusation against 4E. No one cares that you don't like 4E, but the reasoning behind it, or more likely the superficial reasons behind it, are pretty weak. No amount of argument or information would sway you, as you are not being reasonable, and it is a fools errand to try and use reasonable arguments with an unreasonable person.

If only this was a straight mathmatical argument. I understand you guys think you are right and will refuse to see it any other way. This is to be expected. The evidence is there for anyone willing or able to see it. All you can do is attack my arguments with childish insults and that's fine. So far, I've been asked to give empyrical proof of my claims and I have. In response some of you guys have given none in return to counter my point or bolster you own. You simply clamp your hands tighter to your ears and scream nonsense at me. Unless someone has got real proof to back up their completely unfactual ( and I mean unfactual cause this is not a debate of facts but a debate of opinions that some people here some incapable of knowing the difference) I'm done with this repetitive section fo the debate. Unless something new is brought to the table.

Sigh. Link to a post where you provided any 'empyrical proof (sic)'.

We have again and again shown Prior Art and countered your arguments with facts, you just have ignored them.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced and far less flexible than older editions. 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder; it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs.

3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules, but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e. It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use. I tend to prefer 3.5/Pathfinder because I run rules-light story-based games and it's easier to ignore inconvenient clauses in the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder than it is in 4e, but it's entirely up to the consensus of the group which game they choose to play.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.

It does mean something. Appeal to the Commons is a poor logical/rhetorical device. Saying 'Everyone I know agrees with me' has no real value since they aren't here. Look, I can do it to. 'Everyone I know loves 4E and think it has nothing to do with MMOs.' See? How does that advance the discussion? Want a hint? It doesn't.

Everything you have given has been shown to have Prior Art and exist in D&D previous to WoW. If you can't come up with anything new, no one will mind if you bow out.

Oh my poor brains. I know I said I wouldn't continue this but I have to...
Look man, at no point did I say, "hey everyone agrees with me so bite it." Which is what you seem to think. You wanted evidence when I said that 4E was not recieved well. So I did, I gave you a nice list of sites that contain the opinions of many people. But, you didn't like that. You responded by saying that the point was invalid. Which is just asinine. Blogs are a great place to gather info on what people feel about something. Blogs are usually made by people who are fans of something. A DND blog would contain...*GASP! D&D fans. If you read enough of them you'll find out what the general consensus is for a give topic. Do not forget that Blogs usually have comment sections too, where *GASP fans write what they think!! When you read this info you'll be able to draw certain conclusions from the similarties in thier content. In this way, I have found supporting evidence that *GASP fans are not generally happy with 4th ED. You can keep spouting your community college education in basic physiology, but that doesn't mean your doing anything except ignore the evidence given to you. I have agrigated the evidence for you from the internet at large that a number of poeple, a considerable number, did not receive 4E well. By doing this I asnwered your question about that particular point.

Yes, it is an MMO on TT. That's okay.

I've played all the editions, and so far 4.0 has been the easiest to run as a DM. The game in general is easier this edition, and I think that makes it a lot of fun. Is it as "quality" as other edition? Maybe, or not. But we've had higher quality fun with 4.0 than any other edition.

But seriously? Wait for 5e.

AnomanderRake wrote:Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

Lol

4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced

I would say streamlined rather than simplified, but I agree with this thought in principle.

and far less flexible than older editions. 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder;

Okay, here's where we diverge. What can you do in 3E/3.5E that you can't do in 4E?

it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs

I think that you have to be very careful definining who a system appeals to. My group is neither casual or a 'kick in the door kill the monsters get loot' group, but we like 4E. All versions of D&D have had a lot of kick in the door, kill monsters, etc. Heck, Munchkin was created to satire and simplify the process.

3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules,

Agreed. That was the attempt. They are definitely more complex and there are more rules that you must know and more books to get in these systems.

but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e.

What bar is there to play in 4E?

It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

Again with the assessment. Prep time was a pain in 3E/3.5, I'll give you that.

In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use.

Completely agree.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:Look man, at no point did I say, "hey everyone agrees with me so bite it." Which is what you seem to think.

Except you did. You have consistently said 'Everyone I know X'. That is an appeal to the commons.

You wanted evidence when I said that 4E was not recieved well. So I did, I gave you a nice list of sites that contain the opinions of many people. But, you didn't like that. You responded by saying that the point was invalid. Which is just asinine.

No one is arguing that some people don't like 4E. That's what proof you provided, which we aren't disputing.

In this way, I have found supporting evidence that *GASP fans are not generally happy with 4th ED.

SOME fans are not happy with 4th ed. You have not surveyed all fans to be able to make a decision about what the majority are doing.

I have agrigated the evidence for you from the internet at large that a number of poeple, a considerable number, did not receive 4E well. By doing this I asnwered your question about that particular point.

You have gathered 20 or so blog posts. Good job. That isn't proof of anything other than 20 or so blog posts were written on the subject.

And as we said the first time, just because some blogs say it doesn't mean it is true. You provided evidence that some people on the internet did not receive 4E well. You know what? No one is disputing it. Some people don't like 4E. That doesn't have anything to do with whether 4E copied MMOs or not though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zygrot24 wrote:Yes, it is an MMO on TT. That's okay.

This statement is just silly. It is a Massively Multiplayer Online Game on Table Top. Really? How many players are in your gaming group? I'm guessing we can't say a 'Massive' number. Okay, assuming you didn't mean it literally, how is 4E an MMO or like an MMO?

I've played all the editions, and so far 4.0 has been the easiest to run as a DM. The game in general is easier this edition, and I think that makes it a lot of fun. Is it as "quality" as other edition? Maybe, or not. But we've had higher quality fun with 4.0 than any other edition.

I agree that it is easier to run and it is a lot of fun.

AnomanderRake wrote:Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

(1)4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced and far less flexible than older editions.

(2) 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder; it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs.

(3)3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules, but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e. It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

(4)In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use. I tend to prefer 3.5/Pathfinder because I run rules-light story-based games and it's easier to ignore inconvenient clauses in the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder than it is in 4e, but it's entirely up to the consensus of the group which game they choose to play.

Forgive me for numbering your points, but I thought it easier than splitting your quote over and over.

1: I'm unsure how you feel, specifically, 4e "plays very differently from older editions". I'm also unsure what you mean about "far less flexible than older editions", specifically. To "plays very differently", I would say this: I still roll 1d20 for skills or attacks, adding my modifiers trying to reach a target number. I still have a race and a class (which is admittedly different from 1e where "Elf", "Dwarf" and "Halflling" were classes! XD ), and a role within the group. If your contention is that non-casters suddenly have "powers", I could agree but for Tome of Battle and some of the 3.0/3.5 splats. I'm also one of the ones that feels that was a significant improvement in terms of "fun" for non-caster classes though, so if you love your Mike Mearl "fighter are for idiots, while wizards are for smart people" vancian system, then we'll have to agree to disagree here.

2. I will somewhat agree with your initial proposition: 4e has a slightly "lighter" rule set. Where I disagree is your conclusion. 4e has nothing more or less geared for a "kick in the door kill monsters get loot style of gameplay" than 3.0/3.5 Again, the inclusion of Skill Challenges and Questing as viable character advancement methods would actually lend itself to the being the exact opposite. 3.0/3.5 did NOT have systems for this sort of thing, and thus could easily be said to be geared more for a "kick in the door" type game; because there literally is NO other alternative for advancement in those systems.

3. I'm not sure what Bar you're referring to, so forgive me if I can't comment on that specifically. In terms of "complexity" that is purely subjective to the gaming group. I've seen brutally simple versions of everything from 1e to 4e (and really, with the sample adventure for 5e). As to "screw around with the rules on their own", if you're referring to House Rules, that is an idea that by its very nature transcends editions and even games; if i want to mess with the rules, I will mess with the rules and nothing short of an armed hit squad from the publisher will stop me.

4. How is it any easier to ignore one set of rules? Unless the book jumps up off your table and slaps the dice from your hands, ignoring rules in one edition is just as easy as it is in another edition: you simply pretend the rule isn't there! I'm designing a 1-30 campaign for 4e and have already decided on several changes to the system, some of them quite major. One example: players not replacing powers when they get into paragon, but instead adding to them so that all characters end up with a plethora of encounter powers instead of just 4. Look at that! I ignored a rule! I plan on having several "encounters" that are skill challenge encounters (even if the system needs a bit of tweaking [another house rule!]), some of which will effect the story in ways the characters don't and can't understand at the time (story!). Being able to come up with a story rich campaign is almost completely disconnected from the system; the books don't tell you what your game has to include, just HOW to include it.

streamdragon wrote: Look at that! I ignored a rule!

You're a monster! A MONSTER!

Haha it's true. Armed security team is en route from WotC at this very moment...

@AnomanderRake, I just want to make it clear my comments like that in my last paragraph should be taken light heartedly, and not at all as attacks. Tone and the internet, and all that stuff.

pretre wrote:

Zygrot24 wrote:Yes, it is an MMO on TT. That's okay.

This statement is just silly. It is a Massively Multiplayer Online Game on Table Top. Really? How many players are in your gaming group? I'm guessing we can't say a 'Massive' number. Okay, assuming you didn't mean it literally, how is 4E an MMO or like an MMO?

It is silly! Sadly it's a commonly used accusation of 4e.

Wasn't trying to make a super-serious inditement of 4e there. Of the 25-30 people I have played 4e with (not all at once) a large portion of them have admitted that it reminds them of WoW, EQ, etc. I think that's the streamlining talking more than anything. But it is a frequently invoked slur against 4e, stated with bitterness and indignation, both taking for granted and asserting that being MMO-reminiscent is a bad thing. I disagree that it is necessarily bad, but felt like returning the polemic ironically.

Having read all your posts in this thread, I think you and I agree 99%. /highfive

lol. /highfive

Yeah, the idea that something like this gets said and suddenly becomes the oft repeated truth is the most frustrating part. In most parts of daily interaction, I would just direct the person to an article on snopes, but it doesn't really work for this particular case.

Oh well.

ZombieJoe wrote:Regurgitating the same tripe you've used before is not giving supporting evidence. Where is your factual, documentable proof? I don't buy your subjective replies, drop some bibs, dorp some sauce. Come on man, bring the facts down!

Wow pot kettle...you bring out a subjective claim that 4 edition is heaviliy influenced by MMOs without any real proof, just some silly comments about things that have existed long before MMOs somehow being created by MMOs and then have audacity to whip out the "Where is your factual, documentable proof?" card. Why is anyone wasting time with this guy. He is "right and he knows it" and hasn't given any of his own facts at all so why waste time fulfilling his demands for facts that he didn't product to support his own arguement. Usually the ones most loudly demanding facts are the ones who have offered the least facts themselves...

Skriker

Wow, this thread swiftly became another pointless, bickery edition war. It's a shame this thread wasn't titled 'Current version of D&D - handle of people fight over opinion and semantics for four pages' or it would have been perfect. Come on guys, you're better than this. You're just arguing about arguing now.

htj wrote:Wow, this thread swiftly became another pointless, bickery edition war. It's a shame this thread wasn't titled 'Current version of D&D - handle of people fight over opinion and semantics for four pages' or it would have been perfect. Come on guys, you're better than this. You're just arguing about arguing now.

I disagree. We are not arguing about arguing. We are simply debating about arguing.


(That's 3 levels of arguments deep, it's like Inception in here.)

htj wrote:Wow, this thread swiftly became another pointless, bickery edition war. It's a shame this thread wasn't titled 'Current version of D&D - handle of people fight over opinion and semantics for four pages' or it would have been perfect. Come on guys, you're better than this. You're just arguing about arguing now.

Wow, thanks for that insight!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:

htj wrote:Wow, this thread swiftly became another pointless, bickery edition war. It's a shame this thread wasn't titled 'Current version of D&D - handle of people fight over opinion and semantics for four pages' or it would have been perfect. Come on guys, you're better than this. You're just arguing about arguing now.

I disagree. We are not arguing about arguing. We are simply debating about arguing.


(That's 3 levels of arguments deep, it's like Inception in here.)

And really we weren't even debating about arguing. We were spending a couple pages trying to get some dude to realize that his opinion was valid, but the 'facts' he based it on were false. I would say that it was different from a standard edition wars thread because we largely weren't playing the X is cool, X is not cards, but just dealing with his silly misconceptions.

Grakmar wrote:

htj wrote:Wow, this thread swiftly became another pointless, bickery edition war. It's a shame this thread wasn't titled 'Current version of D&D - handle of people fight over opinion and semantics for four pages' or it would have been perfect. Come on guys, you're better than this. You're just arguing about arguing now.

I disagree. We are not arguing about arguing. We are simply debating about arguing.


(That's 3 levels of arguments deep, it's like Inception in here.)

*gets little spinny thing out, just to make sure*

pretre wrote:
And really we weren't even debating about arguing. We were spending a couple pages trying to get some dude to realize that his opinion was valid, but the 'facts' he based it on were false. I would say that it was different from a standard edition wars thread because we largely weren't playing the X is cool, X is not cards, but just dealing with his silly misconceptions.

I think at this stage it's safe to say that it's not going to work.

htj wrote:I think at this stage it's safe to say that it's not going to work.

Well, of course. But since when has that ever stopped the internet. Although it did have the side effect of making the bad man leave, so I guess it really did work.

pretre wrote:

htj wrote:I think at this stage it's safe to say that it's not going to work.

Well, of course. But since when has that ever stopped the internet. Although it did have the side effect of making the bad man leave, so I guess it really did work.

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And in strange threads, even unrepentant posters can return to continue arguments.

Hmm. Doesn't really scan or rhyme as well...

pretre wrote:

htj wrote:I think at this stage it's safe to say that it's not going to work.

Well, of course. But since when has that ever stopped the internet. Although it did have the side effect of making the bad man leave, so I guess it really did work.

Oh I'm still here, watching over you all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm working on a post. 101 reason 4E is an MMO Rip Off.
I think you'll like it.

ZombieJoe wrote:I'm working on a post. 101 reason 4E is an MMO Rip Off.
I think you'll like it.

If it is coherent and has actual facts in it, I'll probably love it. If it is the same thing written 101 times that we have already shown prior art for? Yeah, not so much.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:I'm working on a post. 101 reason 4E is an MMO Rip Off.
I think you'll like it.

If it is coherent and has actual facts in it, I'll probably love it. If it is the same thing written 101 times that we have already shown prior art for? Yeah, not so much.

Dude we both know that if I had 1000 scientifically provable facts, complete with creator commenting and the voice of God, you'd still ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well for what its worth it was a fun debate. I hope nobody has any hard feelings.

Well, that cinches it then. Love that button.

Havok210 wrote:For starters, I have been a long time player and I stopped for awhile after 3.5. I was wondering if the latest version was any good. I am considering picking up again and was wondering what the general opinion of it was.

It's a hot steamy pile of gak.

Go back to ADandD, or the first edition. They took everything that was good and just threw it away. NOW? Its just a marketing tool and they are shilling out on the name.
Gygax should be climbing out of his grave to kick a few heads in for what they did to the game.


I'm sticking to what I liked, and thats thge first three boxs, and the second edition/ AD and D stuff.

You can't mess with something that worked for long, and expect it to not push back.

You know that 2nd AD&D flogged so much product that it ultimately brought TSR down, right? Just saying.

pretre wrote:You know that 2nd AD&D flogged so much product that it ultimately brought TSR down, right? Just saying.

Eh?

flog [flɒg]
vb flogs, flogging, flogged
1. (tr) to beat harshly, esp with a whip, strap, etc.
2. (tr) Brit slang to sell
3. (Transport / Nautical Terms) (intr) (of a sail) to flap noisily in the wind
4. (intr) to make progress by painful work
5. NZ to steal

I do not think it means what you think it means. Surely they didn't sell so much product that they went under?

In a way, they did. Although it is a weird definition of sold. A better way to say it is they tried to sell so much product. Perhaps that wasn't completely clear. Also, I wasn't aware that flog meant sell in britain. I was using it as beat, whipped, etc. Like beating a dead horse. lol

Perhaps meant in the sense that the 2nd edition product line was massive and kind of collapsed under its own weight?

I can see that. WotC is very concerned about the 'edition wars' today, that the Community is split between 3/3.5 fans, 4e fans, and of course people still playing 2nd and older editions.

2nd had a massive amount of material, with subdivisions into tons of settings:

Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, SpellJammer, Planescape, Council of Wyrms, Ravenloft, (and whatever I've forgotten...)

Most of the settings had at least 1 boxed set (usually multiple: I know I personally had a couple for SpellJammer, a couple for Dragonlance, and a bunch of random ones for other settings), a couple Monstrous Compendioum additions (either bundles of pages, new binders, or books) and some other materials.

Additionally, a lot of the setting materials were'GM only'... Players didn't really 'need' the setting material, and might find their enjoyment spoiled by it. They got the idea of doing Player's Guide to Setting X relatively late in the game. So, a gaming group only 'needed' one copy of the setting box set.

In addition, the 'brown cover' (Faux-leather covers in brown) where generally setting-agnostic books for a specific race or class. These did have a lot of value for players.

And the 'blue cover' books that covered a topic in detail. The Castle Guide was the one I have somewhere. Good for GMs, of interest to players.

Weren't there 'green cover' books for various historical eras. too?

And of course the 'core' books. Not just the PHB and DMG. I dropped out of RPGs for a few years, and when looking at 2e a few years later found that it was a very different game due to the 'Skills & Powers' stuff added after I left. It was practically an entirely different game at the core.

I kind of liked the 4e idea that they'd dedicate a year to focus on a specific setting. I hope 5th uses a similar policy.

Balance wrote:Perhaps meant in the sense that the 2nd edition product line was massive and kind of collapsed under its own weight?

Exactly. TSR went waaaaay too commercial and produced way too many products. WOTC has never gone that overboard with D&D.

Weren't there 'green cover' books for various historical eras. too?

Yeah, vikings, romans, etc.

And of course the 'core' books. Not just the PHB and DMG. I dropped out of RPGs for a few years, and when looking at 2e a few years later found that it was a very different game due to the 'Skills & Powers' stuff added after I left. It was practically an entirely different game at the core.

I think that was considered 2.5, but yeah.

5E is looking like 2E. Worrying.

I like 4E. Streamlined.

Phototoxin wrote:5E is looking like 2E. Worrying.

I like 4E. Streamlined.

/shrug

Just like every other edition change, your old books are still good. I have milk crates full of 3.0 and 3.5 books in my garage in case I ever want to use them.

From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

Manchu wrote:From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

I don't remember combat being any faster in AD&D, although it has been a while. I'm assuming less options would make it faster though. 4E does have the problem of 'Uhh, what should I do this turn' that is less of a problem as you head back into the depths of time.

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

I don't remember combat being any faster in AD&D, although it has been a while. I'm assuming less options would make it faster though. 4E does have the problem of 'Uhh, what should I do this turn' that is less of a problem as you head back into the depths of time.

I run two Pathfinder campaigns, and play in a 4E one, and the 4E combats are definitely longer lasting. I think one of the major factors is that monsters seem to have a lot more in the way of HP, and so take longer to go down in 4E. Coupled with the more involved tactical gameplay, of course.

And delayed 'ah I see' to your response from earlier, pretre.

Yeah, I actually cut all HP in half when I DM 4E games. It just makes things go faster. I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

pretre wrote:Yeah, I actually cut all HP in half when I DM 4E games. It just makes things go faster. I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

That's a pretty good idea. Although I've two ex or current 4E DMs in my group, so they might start getting suspicious if I did that. The long combats was one of the reasons I stopped DMing 4E. But there were a few other things too. It's fun to play, but I really don't like DMing it.

Oh. I enjoy DM'ing any kind of game, but yeah, that was something I did really early on in 4E and enjoyed. I need to remind the other guy who is DMing about that. We had a miserable fight on Sunday. It's always awkward to give someone else DM tips. lol

It also depends on the party composition. Double striker or a strikery defender can really speed things up.

Any character class I play in 4E ends up being a striker. There's a little part of me that's constantly saying 'yeah, yeah, more damage!' that I can't see to silence.

htj wrote:Any character class I play in 4E ends up being a striker. There's a little part of me that's constantly saying 'yeah, yeah, more damage!' that I can't see to silence.

lol. Yeah, I've always been a bit of a numbers whore in every edition. Our current party is actually pretty decent on both control and raw damage, so we make things go a bit faster. When the DM's only options are 'stand up and swing uselessly', it makes combat go faster.

It seems to me the idea of minions existed in 4E from the start and 4E combat has been slow from the start.

Manchu wrote:It seems to me the idea of minions existed in 4E from the start and 4E combat has been slow from the start.

Oh, I think minions were one of the greatest new things about 4E. What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag. I think this is something that I did in 3E as well when it came to mop up operations on combats.

I don't see the point of it. It's like not charging people for rent in Monopoly because its a drag for the banker. Fourth Edition shines brightest as tactically deep gameplay. If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners.

Manchu wrote:I don't see the point of it. It's like not charging people for rent in Monopoly because its a drag for the banker. Fourth Edition shines brightest as tactically deep gameplay. If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners.

I don't know. Although there are loads of rule-sets out there, the chances of finding one that absolutely perfectly fits your group's dynamic aren't super high. I mean, most GMs have a couple of house rules for the system they run. You might enjoy everything about a system but one thing, so why not change that one thing?

If you are using the older monster manuals for 4e I can see it, but from Monster Vault on WotC have, in general, decreased HP and increased the amount of damage. If you are going to half the HP you need to also give them some kind of attack or damage bump.

Manchu wrote:I don't see the point of it. It's like not charging people for rent in Monopoly because its a drag for the banker. Fourth Edition shines brightest as tactically deep gameplay. If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners.

I agree that it shines best in tactics, but you may be missing what I'm saying. In any system, there is often the point in the combat where an opponent that can't or won't surrender is outmatched and the combat is a foregone conclusion. This is especially true if your party likes the 'cut off the head of the snake' approach. You can hack away at hit points for those remaining badguys or you can speed things up a bit.

@Ahtman: I haven't DM'd since the new vault came out (with standard monsters at least), so that may have been my early 4E experience talking. My last game was using the converted fourthcore modules from Savevsdeath and before that I was a player for a while. My early 4E experience (before they released the new monster stuff and the new app on the site for monster maintenance) was that they were too buff and just ground on. Good to know they fixed that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:I don't know. Although there are loads of rule-sets out there, the chances of finding one that absolutely perfectly fits your group's dynamic aren't super high. I mean, most GMs have a couple of house rules for the system they run. You might enjoy everything about a system but one thing, so why not change that one thing?

Exactly. We love 4th ed, but I have always tweaked my games to do what felt right. Whether that is letting someone use a feat in a new and inventive way, changing a class feature for a player's request or finding ways to make combats go smoother, it is all the same thing.

Manchu wrote:I don't see the point of it. It's like not charging people for rent in Monopoly because its a drag for the banker. Fourth Edition shines brightest as tactically deep gameplay. If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners.

To me, this is a poor analogy.

The purpose of playing most board games (like Monopoly) is to win, typically by out-thinking and out-lucking your opponents. The rules are set in stone because everyone is being competitive and you need rules to govern things.

But, most P&P games (like D&D) are not competitive, but co-operative. Their purpose isn't to win, it's to sit around and have fun with your group of friends. The rules should exist in only as much as to create a loose framework for having fun. But, the moment something isn't fun, it should be ditched entirely.

Grakmar wrote:But, most P&P games (like D&D) are not competitive, but co-operative. Their purpose isn't to win, it's to sit around and have fun with your group of friends. The rules should exist in only as much as to create a loose framework for having fun. But, the moment something isn't fun, it should be ditched entirely.

That's a really good summation.

Grakmar wrote:To me, this is a poor analogy.

It's actually not, for a couple of reasons.

You seem to assume that competitive games are the only games that can be won. This is obviously false. The recent D&D boardgames, for example, are entirely cooperative and they certainly can be won or lost. You also seem to assume that there are no competing interests in tabletop roleplaying games. This is also obviously false. You could argue that you actually meant something "softer": rules are necessary because of competition and therefore rules are not as important in Fourth Edition because competition as between the players isn't the main point of that game. But the same objection applies: there are still competing interests and whether or not they are the supreme focus they still demand rules. In D&D 4E, especially regarding combat, competing interests are indeed the supreme focus. There are hostile teams on the board. In order for the game to be fun on its own terms, it must be fair. This is just as true of 4E as it is of monopoly.

If you have to change the rules of Monopoly so it's more like Battleship in order to be fun, you'd be much better off just playing Battleship. A lot of people treat RPGs as privileged regarding rules, as if the game were something besides the rules. It's actually not the case. Simply put, anybody can "roleplay" anything at anytime. You don't need dice, you don't need character sheets, you don't need a mat or minis or markers or any books to roleplay. If you want to play a certain game, however, you need the rules of that game to hand -- even if they're house rules. (And "ignoring rules when convenient" is not a houserule.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:The rules should exist in only as much as to create a loose framework for having fun.

I don't know how anyone can look at the 4E rules and see a "loose framework."

The same way you can look at any gaming system and see a loose framework. It's all a matter of perspective. Are the rules there to help you roleplay, roll some dice and have a good time or are the rules there to make sure you play by the rules?

For my group, it is the former. If something gets in the way of that, we can change it.

And again if that's what you want to do, there are far better games for it than 4E -- in fact, no edition of D&D is worse suited to that approach than 4E.

Manchu wrote:And again if that's what you want to do, there are far better games for it than 4E -- in fact, no edition of D&D is worse suited to that approach than 4E.

You keep saying that, but I just don't get it. Sure, there is probably a magical system that does exactly what I want in every way, but I don't own it and don't really want to play it. It may be the worst possible edition for that approach, but we have had a lot of fun doing it and haven't had any difficulties. I've modified every edition of D&D I've played (going back to the white book D&D I inherited from my parents) to fit my games and none of them have been difficult.

So you are probably right, but it really doesn't matter.

pretre wrote:So you are probably right, but it really doesn't matter.

True enough, as to your fun. But this tangent started because you objected to me saying combat in Fourth Edition was slow. And what we've just figured out is that I was playing Fourth Edition RAW and you were modifying explicitly to make things faster. So whether you think 4E combat is fast or slow is really immaterial to whether it actually is fast or slow since you aren't really talking about 4E in the first place.

A: "Monopoly is a game about buying property."
B: "No, it's about beavers building dams."
A: "Have you read the rules?"
B: "Rules schmools."

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:So you are probably right, but it really doesn't matter.

True enough, as to your fun. But this tangent started because you objected to me saying combat in Fourth Edition was slow. And what we've just figured out is that I was playing Fourth Edition RAW and you were modifying explicitly to make things faster. So whether you think 4E combat is fast or slow is really immaterial to whether it actually is fast or slow since you aren't really talking about 4E in the first place.

Right? I'm not sure of your point. I clearly said all these things originally and then you went off on how I play the game... I'm kinda confused where you're going with this.

Yeah, I don't play 'RAW 4E'. I play modified 4E. I have played RAW 4E and thought that the combat could be slow at times, so I sped it up.

See example dialog above.

Gargh, stop editing!

Minions in 4e seem to work best when they play to stereotypes: Clump up in 2s-3s and charge at individual heros.

Yes, that leaves them vulnerable to multiple-attack powers and wizard spells.

Right, but I said

Yeah, I actually cut all HP in half when I DM 4E games. It just makes things go faster. I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

And you said

It seems to me the idea of minions existed in 4E from the start and 4E combat has been slow from the start.

So I was giving an example of how the game is a bit slow and how I fixed it. You then brought up minions and said it was slow as well. I then gave another example of how I mess with the game to fit better in my group:

Oh, I think minions were one of the greatest new things about 4E. What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag. I think this is something that I did in 3E as well when it came to mop up operations on combats.

You then went off on how I play the game:

I don't see the point of it. It's like not charging people for rent in Monopoly because its a drag for the banker. Fourth Edition shines brightest as tactically deep gameplay. If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners.

etc, so on.

So I was just talking about how I like to speed things up and you started telling me that you didn't see the point of ever changing the rules of a game to make it more fun for the players.

It has nothing to do with your example dialog.

Balance wrote:Yes, that leaves them vulnerable to multiple-attack powers and wizard spells.

When I first saw minions in the MM, I was awestruck at the sheer brilliance of that concept. Instead of making the character feel powerful by focusing on the power itself, make the character feel powerful by allowing the player to use the powers effectively. Bowling would be gak if all the pins rather than just some of them were really tough to knock down.

Oh, you're talking about this:

Manchu wrote:
From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

pretre wrote:I don't remember combat being any faster in AD&D, although it has been a while. I'm assuming less options would make it faster though. 4E does have the problem of 'Uhh, what should I do this turn' that is less of a problem as you head back into the depths of time.

Yeah, I was over that as soon as I responded. My next response was to htj, not you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in my response to htj, I was agreeing that 4E was a bit slow and how I respond to it in game. So we're back to being in agreement.

pretre wrote:So I was just talking about how I like to speed things up and you started telling me that you didn't see the point of ever changing the rules of a game to make it more fun for the players.

What you described, using your own words, is "cheating." That's not the same thing as "changing the rules." But even if we were talking about "changing the rules," how many rules do you need to change before you're playing one game instead of another? Fourth Edition is all about deep, balanced combat -- which takes time. If you want faster combat, it does make sense to change the rules -- like systematically halving monster HP (although I think that's not a great solution). In fact, the 4E designers had the same problem with 3E that you do with 4E: combat is slow. So they came up with something like you slashing HP values, although their minion solution was more clever by far (no offense, minions are really cool). Even with that kind of "rules change" the combat remains slow and you can't really change that because it is part and parcel of the game and the point of the design, which is tactical. So if you're still not liking that, a "rules change" isn't ever going to be enough -- which is exactly what you described. Now it's cheating: arbitrarily dispensing with the rules because they're a drag. How is it not clear that what's actually happening is that you're not enjoying 4E?

I had a friend who once told me, I like playing golf except for the part about walking around and trying to hit the ball into the holes. Now he could go to the course and just drink beer all day and ride the cart. That would be "fun golf" for him. But actually it's not golf at all. (Just as a disclaimer, I'm obviously using a formalistic comparison to illustrate a point rather than looking for an exact analog.) Cheating at a game is basically just avoiding the game. If you have to cheat to get any enjoyment then you don't really like the game itself. By all means, I welcome you to continue playing 4E. I will not come to your house and flip over your table. It's just a little friendly advice. Just like I said to my friend when asked if I wanted to play golf: "why don't we just drink some beers outside instead." It was a much nicer time for everyone. What I'm hearing you say is "hey, buddy, I prefer to get drunk on the course." Fine with me.

Whatever, dude. You're right. I'm out.

Thread irony levels approaching maximum!

Seriously? I know I'm going to get a warning for this, but whatever.

Do you have to be a dick? I explained to you that we had a misunderstanding over who I was replying to and then you kept going. You are badgering me over how I play the game for no apparent reason. I conceded the point early on that I play a modified version of the game and you have attacked that as an inappropriate decision and told me that I should just play another game instead.

Finally, I decide to quit the conversation and you just have to rub it in.

Good job, Manchu! Way to represent.

How many pages of this thread are you and ZombieJoe debating? Is debate only okay when you have the better points? If you want to huff off, consider the saying about pots and kettles before calling someone else a dick.

Manchu wrote:How many pages of this thread are you and ZombieJoe debating? Is debate only okay when you have the better points? If you want to huff off, consider the saying about pots and kettles before calling someone else a dick.

There's a difference between Zombiejoe making a statement that begs argument and me debating with him and me saying how I play the game and you chasing me down to tell me how wrong I am for playing that way.

I did not tell Zombiejoe his opinions were invalid. I just told him the facts he based them on were incorrect and provided proof.

You are specifically going after me and telling me that because I play the game in a way that you don't approve of, I should quit and play a different game. I ceded the point to you repeatedly that I was not playing normal 4E. Heck, it was in my initial posts where I described how I was playing. And yet you keep coming after me. You're still doing it. I try to quit the thread, you rub salt in the wound. How is that not you being a dick?

I have said, emphatically because I know how people like to cast internet debate as this intensely personal confrontation, that I wasn't coming to your house to flip your table over. As for you, "quitting the thread" the classic "whatever dude" post is not "quitting the thread" nor are further posts calling me a dick or characterizing me as personally attacking you, or rubbing salt in your wounds, etc. So this is a lot like the ZombieJoe deal. Your "cheating" is certainly valid as to how you want to have fun. Your factual appriasal about 4E is incorrect, however. I agreed with you when you said that my opinion didn't matter because you have fun doing it your way. My point isn't that you should have fun in a particular way. We actually already kind of talked about this, when you mentioned that you and your group weren't interested in doing anything but what you were already doing.

Manchu wrote:I have said, emphatically because I know how people like to cast internet debate as this intensely personal confrontation, that I wasn't coming to your house to flip your table over.

Of course, you aren't. Because if you did, that would be a ridiculous statement. What you are doing is coming into the thread and repeatedly telling me I am wrong for modifying the game and that I should go play something else.

I agree with you time and time again and you just have to tell me I am wrong again and again.

As for you, "quitting the thread" the classic "whatever dude" post is not "quitting the thread" nor are further posts calling me a dick or characterizing me as personally attacking you, or rubbing salt in your wounds, etc. So this is a lot like the ZombieJoe deal.

I'm sorry... Was "I'm out" unclear? You just had to get the irony dig in, right?

Your "cheating" is certainly valid as to how you want to have fun. Your factual appriasal about 4E is incorrect, however.

I also think that you are intentionally emphasizing cheating again and again. I said it once to try to make a lighthearted point that I was manipulating the rules to make the game fun. You are driving it at me again and again. How is my factual appraisal incorrect? It agrees with yours? I said the combat could be slow. I agreed so much that I said that I changed the rules in order to speed it up.

I agreed with you when you said that my opinion didn't matter because you have fun doing it your way. My point isn't that you should have fun in a particular way. We actually already kind of talked about this, when you mentioned that you and your group weren't interested in doing anything but what you were already doing.

Then why do you feel the need to tell me to go play another game and that I am wrong again and again? If you're so interested in letting me having fun my way, then let me have fun and stop trying to prove that the way I play is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, count up how many times I said I cheated and then how many times you did? I had actually forgotten I had said it and by the time your post came around I found it insulting how many times you said it. My original 'Whatever' post was calling you out on name-calling. I had to scroll back to the previous page to find the post where I actually used the word cheat. Seriously, take a step back and read that post and tell me that isn't insulting.

I am using the word "cheat" because that is exactly what you were referring to and furthermore, I'm not putting words in your mouth when I refer to your solution as cheating. Are you trying to say it's not cheating now? It was just a joke?

Also, I am not telling you that you are "wrong" with regard to how you are playing. You keep saying this over and over again, along with characterizations of me "going off" and "attacking" you, but those things aren't getting any more true. Indeed, besides your intial point about 4E being no more slow than AD&D, what could I be saying you were wrong about? Maybe this is why you emphasize that you agree with me and then, supposedly, I respond by saying you are still wrong. That account makes no sense. Because it is false.

The point that I am making is about rules. Why do we have rules? Grakmar gave one take on it: as a loose framework to have fun doing something that is inherently separate from those rules. But that is not the only approach, even if that is what RPGers are always emphasizing. Third and Fourth Editions are especially good example of how that "loose framework" approach is not all that's out there. Those are immensely complicated games. The fact is that playing the rules of the game can itself fun. This is what 3E and 4E were designed to do in contrast to other games.

So, as I have been saying, this really isn't about you or how you and your group play. I am, however, talking about the assumptions that I see underlying your posts, which Grakmar made explicit and then you totally agreed with, confirming my analysis that they were indeed your assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I had to scroll back to the previous page to find the post where I actually used the word cheat. Seriously, take a step back and read that post and tell me that isn't insulting.

You mean this post:

Manchu wrote:What you described, using your own words, is "cheating."

where I specifically pointed out that I was using your terms? And the post in question was not on a previous page. It's the first post on this page:

pretre wrote:Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag.

Yes, I said it once. You have badgered me with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am using the word "cheat" because that is exactly what you were referring to and furthermore, I'm not putting words in your mouth when I refer to your solution as cheating. Are you trying to say it's not cheating now? It was just a joke?

I AM saying that you repeatedly using the word Cheat to describe the act of playing the game using different rules than you are comfortable with is really frakking annoying. I said cheat once to describe it. I also used 'changing rules', 'fudging' etc. You aren't using those. You are consistently emphasizing that it is cheating. I believe you are doing that intentionally to try to drive home your point. My contention is that this behavior can be considered 'being a dick' because of the known negative connotations of the concept of cheating.

Also, I am not telling you that you are "wrong" with regard to how you are playing. You keep saying this over and over again, along with characterizations of me "going off" and "attacking" you, but those things aren't getting any more true. Indeed, besides your intial point about 4E being no more slow than AD&D, what could I be saying you were wrong about?

"If you need to cut corners to make things more fun for you and your group, I'd suggest playing a ruleset that doesn't have those ... erm, corners. "
You claiming that me making shortcuts means I should just play another game.
"And again if that's what you want to do, there are far better games for it than 4E -- in fact, no edition of D&D is worse suited to that approach than 4E. "
You claiming that me making shortcuts means I should just play another game.

Me saying you are right and that I agree with your point and that it doesn't matter because it is a matter of fun and you still arguing with me:
pretre wrote:So you are probably right, but it really doesn't matter.

True enough, as to your fun. But this tangent started because you objected to me saying combat in Fourth Edition was slow. And what we've just figured out is that I was playing Fourth Edition RAW and you were modifying explicitly to make things faster. So whether you think 4E combat is fast or slow is really immaterial to whether it actually is fast or slow since you aren't really talking about 4E in the first place.

I conceded all your points in a later post and then you went on with your post where you use the word cheat four times to make your point. How is this not saying I'm wrong and then coming after me after I conceded all of your points?

The point that I am making is about rules. Why do we have rules? Grakmar gave one take on it: as a loose framework to have fun doing something that is inherently separate from those rules. But that is not the only approach, even if that is what RPGers are always emphasizing. Third and Fourth Editions are especially good example of how that "loose framework" approach is not all that's out there. Those are immensely complicated games. The fact is that playing the rules of the game can itself fun. This is what 3E and 4E were designed to do in contrast to other games.

I agree with this point.

So, as I have been saying, this really isn't about you or how you and your group play. I am, however, talking about the assumptions that I see underlying your posts, which Grakmar made explicit and then you totally agreed with, confirming my analysis that they were indeed your assumptions.

What assumption am I making that you need to tell me to go play a different game everytime I make it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The point that I am making is about rules. Why do we have rules? Grakmar gave one take on it: as a loose framework to have fun doing something that is inherently separate from those rules. But that is not the only approach, even if that is what RPGers are always emphasizing. Third and Fourth Editions are especially good example of how that "loose framework" approach is not all that's out there. Those are immensely complicated games. The fact is that playing the rules of the game can itself fun. This is what 3E and 4E were designed to do in contrast to other games.

Just because 3E and 4E were designed to be 'tight' games doesn't mean they aren't also GAMES. That means that we can still play them as loose frameworks. This seems to be the contention that you are most objecting to.

I don't see how you can twist this into a personal matter.

I explicitly used "cheat" as a term to contrast against "changing the rules."

Manchu wrote:What you described, using your own words, is "cheating." That's not the same thing as "changing the rules."

So you knew the context I intended all along and just ignored it. Sorry but I refuse to play into this.

pretre wrote:What assumption am I making that you need to tell me to go play a different game everytime I make it?

The assumption that all rulesets are in effect equivalent because you will just change them at will to do whatever you need to in the moment. I'm not telling you to stop playing 4E because you don't know what you'e doing and you're insulting me by doing what you're doing. I'm saying, different rules systems are good for different things. The thing that you seem to want to do can be accomplished so much more easily with a game that wasn't designed to do the opposite. And for the last time, I'm not even talking about you personally, despite your insistence to the contrary. This is an abstract discussion and the point I'm arguing against is the "loose framework" style equivocation of all rules.

Manchu wrote:I don't see how you can twist this into a personal matter.

I'm just going to go with you not knowing how you came off and leave it at that.

The assumption that all rulesets are in effect equivalent because you will just change them at will to do whatever you need to in the moment. I'm not telling you to stop playing 4E because you don't know what you'e doing and you're insulting me by doing what you're doing. I'm saying, different rules systems are good for different things. The thing that you seem to want to do can be accomplished so much more easily with a game that wasn't designed to do the opposite. And for the last time, I'm not even talking about you personally, despite your insistence to the contrary. This is an abstract discussion and the point I'm arguing against is the "loose framework" style equivocation of all rules.

I never said (or agreed to) the fact that all games are essentially equivalent. I agreed to the fact that they are a loose framework around which we can play our games. Obviously, they are different and those differences matter, but there is a certain amount of wiggle room to make the game work for the individual group. I'm not going to use Vampire to play my D&D games, because that would be too much house ruling. I will use 4E with some modification to play my D&D games because that isn't a big deal. And when you directly respond to my points and say 'you' should probably look for a different game, that looks pretty direct to me.

In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

I'm not going to use Vampire to play my D&D games, because that would be too much house ruling.

That sentence partly captures the thing I am criticizing. VtM/tR cannot be "house ruled" into 4E except for just erasing all the Vampire stuff and re-writing 4E. The games do completely different things and their designs are totally informed by those different things. This what I mean about "house ruling" Monopoly into Battleship. The core aspect of 4E is its tactical, balanced combat; that is what it is primarily designed to do (whether or not it always succeeds is another matter). Changing the game to contradict its principal design goals seems to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the game as designed, i.e., its basic tenants need to be changed so that it's more fun. But we don't have to talk 4E compared to VtM/tR. Although 4E shares much more in common with 3E than it does with Vampire, 4E cannot be houseruled to play 3E, either. It's even more claer as to what that would look like: putting down your 4E books and picking up your 3E books. The "house rule" would read as follows: "okay guys, let's play 3E instead of 4E."

Manchu wrote:In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

Of course it isn't. Thanks for condescending.
That being said, the way you determine which one you are looking at is context. In the context you were presenting, you looked to be speaking directly to me and my situation.

That sentence partly captures the thing I am cirticizing. VtM/tR cannot be "house ruled" into 4E except for just erasing all the Vampire stuff and re-writing 4E. The games do completely different things and their designs are totally informed by those different things. This what I mean about "house ruling" Monopoly into Battleship.

You're arguing exactly my point. I was saying that you would never do that because game systems are not interchangable. Your earlier point was that I had said they were interchangable. They are not.

The core aspect of 4E is its tactical, balanced combat; that is what it is primarily designed to do (whether or not it always succeeds is another matter). Changing the game to contradict its principal design goals seems to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the game as designed, i.e., it basic tenants need to be changed so that it's more fun. But we don't have to talk 4E compared to VtM/tR. Although 4E shares much more in common with 3E than vampire, 4E cannot be houseruled to play 3E, either. It's even more claer as to what that would look like: putting down your 4E books and picking up your 3E books. The "house rule" would read as follows: "okay guys, let's play 3E instead of 4E."

I think that minor changes to combat (like halving hit points, which coincidentally is what WOTC did when they redid monsters for Monster Vault or letting monsters die early) is not contradicting principal design goals. You're reading WAY too much into it.

Forget the Vampire thing. You are specifically taking something I said out of context to make the wrong point. The Vampire was to prove that I don't think they are interchangable. edit: seriously, go back and read that paragraph. You took the V:tM thing waaay out of context.

Your tactic here seems to be to claim to agree, then actually disagree, then complain when I act as if we don't agree.

I agree that the VtM comparison was poor, which is why I dismissed it in my post. When I hear "let's disregard the balance of 4E for the sake of narrative," logic and experience compel me to ask "why not just play 3E?"

Also we are not talking about halving hit points:

pretre wrote: I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

pretre wrote:What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag.

pretre wrote:In any system, there is often the point in the combat where an opponent that can't or won't surrender is outmatched and the combat is a foregone conclusion. This is especially true if your party likes the 'cut off the head of the snake' approach. You can hack away at hit points for those remaining badguys or you can speed things up a bit.

We're talking about disregarding the rules on an arbitrary basis (what you called, quite correctly, cheating) for the sake of having fun.

Manchu wrote:Your tactic here seems to be to claim to agree, then actually disagree, then complain when I act as if we don't agree.

That's not at all what I'm doing. You are taking me out of context (intentionally or not). For example, I never said that the VtM comparison was poor, so agreeing with that is silly. I said that you took it out of context and ran with it.

When I hear "let's disregard the balance of 4E for the sake of narrative," logic and experience compel me to ask "why not just play 3E?"

When I played 3E, I would make minor changes to the game for the sake of narrative as well. No reason to go back to that, if I enjoy the balance of 4E more.

Also we are not talking about halving hit points:

pretre wrote: I also have a tendency to wing it a bit more than most and if players have basically won the combat, suddenly the badguys start dying in cinematic ways everytime they swing a sword.

pretre wrote:What I am saying is that at a certain point in the combat it becomes a foregone conclusion. At that point, a lot of non-minions tend to end up bloodied really quick and then end up dead even quicker. Basically, I cheat to make the combat less of a drag.

pretre wrote:In any system, there is often the point in the combat where an opponent that can't or won't surrender is outmatched and the combat is a foregone conclusion. This is especially true if your party likes the 'cut off the head of the snake' approach. You can hack away at hit points for those remaining badguys or you can speed things up a bit.

We're talking about disregarding the rules on an arbitrary basis (what you called, quite correctly, cheating) for the sake of having fun.

Nothing about my disregard is arbitrary. It is quite calculated as to what I am doing. I am ending a combat when it is a foregone conclusion to the player's advantage. Why is that such an affront to your perceptions of 4E? I did the same thing in 3E and many other systems. It isn't cheating, I was wrong when I called it that. I regret saying it was cheating because you are focused on that word to such a great extent that it is annoying. It is manipulating the game in order to have a better result for the players. D&D (and many RPGs) are collaborative systems. If the whittling away of hit points for non-essential bad guys serves no purpose for the story, the players or the game and it will make them enjoy the game more, why not have the badguys drop a little faster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why are you so focused on forcing me to play 3E, btw? You seem hell-bent to convince me that I would be happier playing 3E instead of 4E when I have clearly told you that I enjoy 4E more (even if it is modified) than I enjoyed 3E (modified and straight).

Why are you focused on me forcing you to do anything when we both know that is impossible?

Also, I meant "arbitrary" as opposed to "systematic." Collaborative gameplay does not sanction "manipulating the gameplay." That is something made up by certain players. There's a huge debate on the issue, centered around whether a DM should "fudge" the dice.

Forcing is, of course, a turn of phrase. Cajoling, badgering, trying to convince me that I should just play 3E.

And why is manipulation for a better result and collaboration exclusive? DM fudging is exactly what I'm talking about and, in my opinion, is perfectly okay.

pretre wrote:DM fudging is exactly what I'm talking about and, in my opinion, is perfectly okay.

Well, that is the heart of it after all rather than all this "forcing me to play 3E" nonsense. The only point I can see to fudging dice is tricking players into thinking something that they wouldn't think is fun is actually fun. If "one" doesn't think risking results on dice rolling is fun then "one" should play a game without dice or with less of an emphasis on dice.

Again, you are missing the point. The only fudging I am talking about (an that you have been railing against) is the time when the fight is basically over but still has mechanical bits to finish.

Ex: you're fighting the big necromancer and his 10 skeletons and 2 ghouls. The necro and skews are down and the ghouls are at full and completely unable to inflict meaningful harm on the players. We can either play it out fully where it takes 2 rounds for the party to burn through their hps or their next couple of attacks are particularly effective and we move on to the next part of the story. You basically minionize the unimportant actors in te scene.

I'm not saying wholesale fudging. I'm saying speed up one of the dull parts of combat for the players enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you don't want to be accused of telling me to play 3e than stop sayin things like you might as well just play 3e instead of doing stuff in your 4e game.

I hate the Internet.
I should be working on report cards but here I am, reading this thread. *sigh* At least it was entertaining.

Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.

And if you don't want to be accused of telling me to play 3e than stop sayin things like you might as well just play 3e instead of doing stuff in your 4e game.

No because it remains a valid abstract point. Basically, just because you want the point to stand for nonsense (me somehow trying or even wanting to control your life) doesn't actually make it nonsense. I could not give a single feth what you do in your games except inasmuch as I am posting on this game forum to talk about games. What you do in your games is as far as I am concerned nothing other than a point in a discussion.

pretre wrote:The only fudging I am talking about (an that you have been railing against) is the time when the fight is basically over but still has mechanical bits to finish.

The same principal as fudging dice applies. You correctly identified this before your last post. The "cinematic quality" you are trying to achieve is something outside of the rules. There are games that posit that the gameplay is indeed something that happens outside of and "next to" the rules, where the rules are only guidelines that inform the gameplay in a manner that is external to the gameplay itself. Fourth Edition is not such a game any more than Monopoly or Battleship of Warhammer 40k. The collaborative interpretation of RPGs like D&D, which is not the only interpretation (that should be obvious given the dichotomy of PCs and DM), is not a built-in "un rule" that sanctions dispensing with other rules. This is an unfortunate artifact of RPG design history, culminating in WW's imperialistic "golden rule." Strangely enough, some people have fun by actually playing the rules. After years of "do whatever you want" slogans found in the beginning of every RPG you can buy, RPGers have forgotten that RPGs are games and games are discrete sets of rules.

Manchu wrote:In English, second person plural and singular are the same. I'm sure this isn't the first time you (singular) have encountered it.

True, but when one wishes to speak about a hypothetical other or others, one can use the term 'one' rather than 'you' to avoid inference of another person in the discussion that they are under attack. It might make one sound a little pretentious, due to it's popular misuse by posh idiots, but it does help in this situation.

On this subject, correct me if I'm wrong here Manchu, but they way you speak about rules it makes it sound to me that you are fairly opposed to house-ruling full stop. Would it be fair to say that you are more likely to play a game without adjusting the rules at all, and seek an alternate rule system if you disagree with some of the design choices made in said system? Or is that an over-simplification of what you're saying here?

I am generally quite wary of house rules, yes. But I think that is a different issue. House rules are still rules, after all. My real objection, at least as far as certain games are concerned, is an arbitrary attitude about rules. I think I have mentioned it on Dakka before, but I see RPGs as falling more or less into two categories. On the one hand, there are interpretive games where rules inform the gameplay as guidelines but remain external to the game themselves. On the other hand, there are determinative games where the gameplay consists of applying the rules. To the extent that one refuses to apply the rules (cheating, manipulation, whatever you want to call it) of a deterministic game, one simply refuses to play that game.

I'm not exactly sure when it happened, but at some point RPG publishers started telling players to disregard rules "that were not fun." Can you imagine reading such a statement in the rulebooks for the D&D boardgames? This assumption that rules might be contrary to fun is absurd. Rules are what make games fun (not to mention games) in the first place by making gameplay fair. In the 70s and 80s, there used to be RPG tournament play -- a concept which barely makes sense to us anymore so ensconced are we in the WW "golden rule" mentality. But that mentality does not make any sense when applied to determinitive games.

In the DCC RPG, there is a rule about "character funnelling" -- the process of each player starting off with four 0-level PCs and throwing them into high mortality situations. The idea is to acount for both randomness and player agency in character creation. The book recommends that the system be used exactly as written. On the Goodman Games forum, I read people posting about how this was a flaw, that players should be able to make characters however they want to. What an arrogant attitude. The publisher, designers, and playtesters made this suggestion in the context of "golden rule" imperialism because the character funnel works best as written; not (as pretre insists for the last few pages about me) to control the lives of people sitting around their games.

RPGers tend to think that RPGs are a special sort of game where the rules are secondary. This is true, in some cases. (And of course, if you simply insist on cheating, it can be true in any case!) But most modern RPGs are not privileged in this way, at least not in terms of their design. They were designed to work as a discrete system and, especially in the case of games like 4E, the balance has already been tuned. "Hacking" the game needs to be done with precision if at all, not on a case-by-case basis. And one last time for the disclaimer: I am talking about a general attitude toward rules of determinitive games; not about anyone's particular playstyle.

The difference is the goal. For a boardgame or a tabletop minis game, the 'fun' is generally a product of competition. There's subsidiary inputs and fun-producers like hobby aspects and such, but in general board games have a pretty defined beginning, end, and victory conditions.

For RPGs, the fun is a product of the experience. There is no true 'winning' and while many games have a level of conflict between players and the GM, it's a rigged contest... The GM has an overwhelming advantage int hat they can create new threats, are the primary adjudicator for rules, etc. Bad GMs abuse this, good GMs make any use of their privileges almost seem to fade into the background (so players feel challenged).

This is the "collaborative not competitive" red herring. Again, look to the D&D boardgames. They are basically streamlined 4E combats plus tile laying. There is no PvP aspect and no DM. You could run 4E combat like this, too, if 4E provided stricter rules for monster movement/goals (they kind of already provide "softer" ones, in the tactics section of the MM entries). In 4E combat, the DM does not need to be a "rules adjudicator" because the rules are tight enough not to require more adjudication than players interested in fair play could require. Keep in mind that 4E combat also has a defined beginning, end, and victory conditions. The "no true win" excuse simply doesn't apply here.

I have never seen a book actively say to disregard a rule if it is 'not fun.' To be honest, I'd be quite shocked by that. I'm assuming that WW stands for White Wolf - I played a lot of VtM when I was younger but never ran it, so I've not come across it. I'm not saying you're lying or anything, it's just not something I've really seen. Only example I can think of is 40K's 'Most Important Rule.' I would agree, hands down, that it's not good to just ignore a rule if it isn't fun.

But. I don't think that a game is intractable. An RPG is different from a board game, no matter how close the similarities can be. The key element of this, to me, is that an RPG is a simulationist experience whereas a board game focusses primarily on the game itself, where there'll often be high levels of abstraction for the benefit of gameplay. Some RPGs are closer to this than others - 4E is an example of a carefully balanced and (in my opinion) well realised blend of tactical miniatures combat and RPG that delivers a combat experience that isn't too far removed from a board game. The neat way it blends into the new board games is testiment to that. Other RPGs are more about simulation - I would argue that the rules intensive 3E and its children are examples of a heavily simulationist RPG.

With these more simulationist systems, the game will always, always become less about balanced tactical play and more about representing a world in which the play exists. This leads to a more unbalanced game. The more rules you add, the more likely you will end up creating some form of imbalance. This, for me, is reason one for removing or changing rules in a system.

Another issue that arrives with these kinds of systems is that they end up being very hard and fast with their simulation of the world. When you have rules for everything, it leads to a great time sink of consultation as the GM has to either have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the system, or be constantly looking things up. If you ignore the rules for, say, lifting heavy things and just eyeball a strength check to see if a group of PCs can successfully open a portcullis are you cheating here? Is it wrong to drop these rules and let things move more slowly but more in keep with the system? I would say not. Unless you are keeping the movement of your PCs on a very tight rein, you're going to get situations like that come up fairly frequently, and nobody enjoys sitting and watching their GM look up a rule.

So, whilst I agree with you that arbitrarily dropping rules and ignoring them when convenient is a bad thing to do, I do not think it is applicable across the board. Not all games are carefully balanced for every scenario, and not all games are meant to be. It's no disrespect to the designers when I re-write the way a system I otherwise enjoy works - it's merely meant to turn the game into the ideal system for my players and my games.

The Golden Rule is in all the WW core books.

Remember that in the end there is only one real rule in any game in the Storyteller series: There are no rules. You should fashion the game into whatever you need it to be - if the rules get in your way, then ignore or change them. The true complexity and beauty of the real world can not be captured by rules; it takes storytelling and imagination to do that. These rules are designed to be guidelines, and you are free to use, abuse, ignore and change them as you wish. Players take note: the Storyteller is the final arbiter of any rules question.

You can find similar principles announced at the beginning of almost all RPGs published since, even including 4E D&D. It's like an apology for the rules. "Sorry we have all these rules -- you should just do whatever you feel is best." Ugh. Why would I have bothered to spend money on this game if not to play it? The golden rule apology has become the game design equivalent of political correctness, with designers blandly lying to gamers that anyone can be a good designer "for their group." Notice that the golden rule addresses your simulationist point, that the rules cannot capture the "complexity and beauty of the real world" -- which is kind of stupid considering that vampires and werewolves don't fething exist in the real world anyway -- as a justification of arbitrary application. The more I think about it, the more I think that this "golden rule" mentality was part of the punk attitude of early White Wolf. But now it has become mainstreamed into something meaningless that has actually hurt people's understanding of RPGs.

As to "applying it across the board," I've been pretty clear about the difference between what I call interpretive and determinative games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:Is it wrong to drop these rules and let things move more slowly but more in keep with the system?

I'm sorry but "is it wrong?" is the wrong question. There was some discussion over on the WW boards, very relevant here, about the golden rule which is instructive about the way it is often (mis)applied:

The Golden Rule is a fundamental part of gaming that doesn't actually need to be brought up as often as it is. It's already your game, you can already do whatever you want with it. I see it as patronizing to go on about it at any length, unless you're talking abstract theory and design.

Defending any argument one makes with the Golden Rule is usually disingenuous. Of course you can do whatever you want in your game, but if that's the basis for what you have to say to other people then all you really want to do is talk about your character. It is vanishingly rare that anyone invoking the Golden Rule is actually being told that they, personally, can't do a thing in their game.

The Golden Rule presents largely the same problem when it is used as an answer to a question.

When someone responds to "That's dumb" or "That's not what the published books say" with what is fundamentally "Well, I can do whatever I want," it reminds me of something. It reminds me of people who get told their ideas are dumb and then respond with some saw about freedom of speech. Someone who thinks your idea is dumb has just as much freedom of speech as you do.

The root of the problem, however, lies not with misapplication of the Golden Rule. It lies with how stupid people are in general. If someone tells you your idea is dumb, you feel assaulted. They're trying to steal your fun. So, instead of some guy just telling you what he thinks, this person is an Intruder, here to take your game away.

Manchu wrote:From the perspective of play, 4E is hardly streamlined. If anything, it's just a much, much deeper tactical experience. But that depth shows in terms of how long combats take. By comparison, theater-of-the-mind combat in AD&D was lightning fast.

That is because past a point people did the same thing every action. I hit it with my sword...I hit it with my sword...I hit it with my sword. So that saves time, but I find that the 4E combat setup stops a lot of the "Where is opponent X? Where am I?" confusion that happened all the time before. Combats really only take a long time if the players aren't prepared for their actions. There are mutiple ways of dealing with that: 1) Make everyone script at the beginning of each round or 2) Give time limits and if people continually start thinking about their actions at the beginning of their actions then they start getting fewer of them as they don't have the time to figure it out then.

Skriker

I don't think the length of combat is a problem when I play 4E. When I want a deep tactical experience, I use 4E. When I don't want combat to be as important or take up as much time, I use a different system.

I think you're fundamentally missing the point of the golden rule. (Oh and 40k, of course, has a version of this rule.)

It isn't an apology for the rules. Maybe in your experience the group isn't the best designer for their experience, but that isn't true for all groups. The Golden Rule is there to sanction players and DMs to do what they want in their own home. I completely agree that it is silly to have it, since they were of course free to do that before anyways and making it a rule makes it on par with 'Roll Initiative', but it doesn't make the concept any less valid.

Do I think we need to have a rule for it? No. Should that concept still exist and be a valid idea? Absolutely. Is it the solution for everything? No.

Does it have anything to do with how I play my game? Not really. I play my game however I want whether the game has a Golden Rule or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't think the length of combat is a problem when I play 4E. When I want a deep tactical experience, I use 4E. When I don't want combat to be as important or take up as much time, I use a different system.

I am happy that it isn't a problem when you play 4E. For myself (and by some other responses, some others in this thread), some combats have a tendency to drag at the end.

We get your point. You think if we don't like long tactically deep combats we should go play another system. So noted. We don't happen to agree.

Long, tactically deep combats do not have to be boring. I enjoy long, tactically deep combats. But, like skriker said, when it gets down to the last 2 goblins and you're just swinging away for 2 full rounds, that isn't tactically deep, that's just long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think that it is important to note that some groups don't have the option to swap between systems on the whim of what kind of experience they are looking for.

If you are an established group that has put a lot of money into say 4E, you aren't going to jump ship over to say Pathfinder because you are looking for a more pathfindery experience for one game. That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

pretre wrote:We get your point.

Who is this royal "we"? Anyway, I get your point, too. You want to do whatever you want to do in your group. That was a nonsequitur when you first said it and remains a nonsequitur now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

Not really. All you need is a core rulebook, which costs less than $40 on Amazon. And it's available free online anyway. Presumably, you already have the dice, miniatures, mats, etc from playing 4E. Furthermore, most folks who have 4E already have books from 3E or PF or both.

Manchu wrote:Notice that the golden rule addresses your simulationist point, that the rules cannot capture the "complexity and beauty of the real world" -- which is kind of stupid considering that vampires and werewolves don't fething exist in the real world anyway -- as a justification of arbitrary application. The more I think about it, the more I think that this "golden rule" mentality was part of the punk attitude of early White Wolf. But now it has become mainstreamed into something meaningless that has actually hurt people's understanding of RPGs.

Screw the real world, I'm talking about representation of the fantasy world. I've never been a huge fan of WW's, let's face it, wishy washy attitude to rules, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to throw this golden rule concept in there. No, it should not be used as a get out of jail free card, but as pretre says above, it's important to allow a group the flexibility of changing a system to apply more to their own enjoyment of the game. If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

As to "applying it across the board," I've been pretty clear about the difference between what I call interpretive and determinative games.

You have, and I apologise as that phrasing was overly sweeping. In my head, I was thinking of determinative games exclusively at that point. They're not all perfect, and some could use a good house-ruling.

Machu wrote:

htj wrote:Is it wrong to drop these rules to stop things from moving more slowly but more in keep with the system?

I'm sorry but "is it wrong?" is the wrong question.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:We get your point.

Who is this royal "we"? Anyway, I get your point, too. You want to do whatever you want to do in your group. That was a nonsequitur when you first said it and remains a nonsequitur now.

My bad. Appeal to the Commons on my part. I get your point. Way to ignore the rest of the statement though. Also, way to go back to something I wasn't even talking about in my post. We're talking about the Golden Rule now. Wanna actually respond to what I wrote?

pretre wrote:That's a big investment just to play one campaign.

Not really. All you need is a core rulebook, which costs less than $40 on Amazon. And it's available free online anyway. Presumably, you already have the dice, miniatures, mats, etc from playing 4E. Furthermore, most folks who have 4E already have books from 3E or PF or both.

I used PF as an example. And for a game to go forward into a campaign, it is often a lot more than one book. Core rulebook plus books for the players, etc so on. That's a lot more than just $40 on Amazon.

Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game. And this is something that any experienced GM should be able to do.

This I agree with.

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Very true. It's easier to introduce a small change than a big one.

htj wrote:

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Very true. It's easier to introduce a small change than a big one.

Yeah, I mean my friends aren't dumb or lazy, but if I said 'We're going to 3.5 for the next game' there would be some groans. We haven't played 3.5 in years now and they would need to relearn it, dig out the books, etc so on. They see studying up on the system as work (unlike me, who finds it entertaining) for the most part. They want to get together and roll dice. The system is really irrelevant to them as long as it doesn't bog down their experience and they have fun.

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game.

Yep, this is what I have been saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Wanna actually respond to what I wrote?

No, because what you wrote makes no sense. "I don't care about the Golden Rule, I do what I want." Um, okay.

pretre wrote:Again, the point is that groups have inertia and that they aren't going to just jump to a new system when they can easily modify the one they are in.

Group inertia is beside the point. It's like saying "bad DMs make for bad games."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:More to the point, people hiding behind the old 'don't tell me how to play my game' defence rather than accepting constructive criticism.

No, the issue isn't with "abusing the golden rule." As the quotation makes clear, the issue is with the golden rule itself. You hit the nail on the head here:

htj wrote:If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

Here you can see the golden rule for what it is: an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss the rules. Some people will use it to make games more fun, some people will use it to beat up on their players. The point is it is a terrible "rule" and its promulgation has been a set back for understanding rules.

Manchu wrote:This is the "collaborative not competitive" red herring. Again, look to the D&D boardgames. They are basically streamlined 4E combats plus tile laying. There is no PvP aspect and no DM. You could run 4E combat like this, too, if 4E provided stricter rules for monster movement/goals (they kind of already provide "softer" ones, in the tactics section of the MM entries). In 4E combat, the DM does not need to be a "rules adjudicator" because the rules are tight enough not to require more adjudication than players interested in fair play could require. Keep in mind that 4E combat also has a defined beginning, end, and victory conditions. The "no true win" excuse simply doesn't apply here.

I agree... Except that the D&D board games and the D&D RPG, for me, have different goals.

An 'Encounter' has defined beginning, ending, etc... An RPG is made of many encounters, hopefully with some sort of overarching storyline to connect them. Without this, it's just 'Combat Challenge Campaign' which I've played. It's fun, usually a sign of a novice or burned-out GM.

However, I admit some do prefer more of a 'sandbox' style game (Reference for sandbox being video games like GTAIII where the player can wander freely) These still tend to be different because the GM can apply consequences to the player character's actions. A few games try to provide rules for townsfolk reactions, breaking laws, etc. In general, these are cumbersome. A good GM works with the players to make things make sense in setting and respond in ways that pre-programmed scenarios generally can't.

In 4e, if the players say "OK, we've mostly cleared out the dungeon and have a ton of loot. Can we build a house nearby so we have a place to stash stuff? the GM can say, "Sure!" and use that as an adventure hook (Help the friendly alchemist, who will set you up with a lab... Or, the house is situation over an ancient indian graveyard... Or, the house is on the King's Land. or...)

The board games will likely have no option for this. 'Acquire Real Estate' is not int he game's limited toolbox because it's just not what the designer's felt was necessary. Nor is (for a more 'focused' example) scaling the walls of the evil overlord's castle, or undertaking a journey to research weapons and spells to sue against them.

I don't like house rules much myself, but I do like having unexplained things for GMs to use to make fun stuff with players. I also may not consider some things 'house rules' that some people do. For example, in 4e D&D, would saying "OK, the setting for this game is one where most people fear 'magic' of all sorts, so no classes with the Dive or Arcane power source" be a house rule? To me it's just a setting baseline.

I feel the need to add a disclaimer here: Your way of playing is not wrong. My way is not wrong, either.

I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

Also, there are many 'cooperative' board games, but again as I say above the issue is that things are rigidly defined. Arkham Horror, for example.

They're cooperative and have a definite 'win' condition. I don't consider them RPGs because they're not the same experience.

Some do play RPGs like cooperative boardgames, of course. That's their preferred style, and I'm OK with that, even though I probably wouldn't want tob e in that game. To repeat: Your way of playing is not wrong. My way is not wrong, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

Me neither, really.

Manchu wrote:

htj wrote:Fundamentally, what I'm trying to convey is that if you make sweeping reforms to the mechanics of a system, you are not playing the game 'wrong.' You are playing a different game.

Yep, this is what I have been saying.

It's come across a lot more like 'don't change the rules, play a different game' to me, to be honest.

Manchu wrote:

htj wrote:More to the point, people hiding behind the old 'don't tell me how to play my game' defence rather than accepting constructive criticism.

No, the issue isn't with "abusing the golden rule." As the quotation makes clear, the issue is with the golden rule itself. You hit the nail on the head here:

htj wrote:If that requires a rule that allows a GM to point to it when a rules lawyer in the group starts railing against a spot decision, then so be it.

Here you can see the golden rule for what it is: an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss the rules. Some people will use it to make games more fun, some people will use it to beat up on their players. The point is it is a terrible "rule" and its promulgation has been a set back for understanding rules.

There are always going to be bad GMs. A GM who adamantly follows the rules without any regard for the enjoyment of the group is just as bad as a GM who arbitrarily alters to rules to the detriment of the group. Calling it a rule is probably a bad idea, that is true. But it's a useful guideline to have. A good GM is the master of the rules, not the servant of them. That's not all it takes, of course, but not everybody should be GMing. A GM who flagrantly waves such 'golden rules' in his players face when they dissent an arbitrary rules adjustment is not bad because of the concept of the 'golden rule.' He's going to be a bad GM either way.

@Balance:

D&D4E came in for a lot of criticism for not supporting RP and my response has always been that all editions of D&D are primarily about tactical combat. What happens between combats is largely outside of the rules. That's why I was talking specifically about 4E combats. If you wanted to, you could add a story line to the D&D boardgames to "fill in" between encounters. But when combat starts back up, as with 4E, the RP gets "put aside" for a (long, long) moment and we start playing a skirmish game supported by RPG character development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

No worries. The debate seems to be whether rules are external to the experience of gameplay on the one hand or inherent to the gameplay on the other. As far as 4E combat goes, I think the gameplay is defined as "playing the rules" rather than "playing and referring to the guidelines as desired."

Manchu wrote:@Balance:

D&D4E came in for a lot of criticism for not supporting RP and my response has always been that all editions of D&D are primarily about tactical combat. What happens between combats is largely outside of the rules. That's why I was talking specifically about 4E combats. If you wanted to, you could add a story line to the D&D boardgames to "fill in" between encounters. But when combat starts back up, as with 4E, the RP gets "put aside" for a (long, long) moment and we start playing a skirmish game supported by RPG character development.

Which is how I've felt about 4E. I would even assert that 4E better supports game-impacting or rules supported RP by vastly simplifying the skill check system. It's more intuitive which skill you use and much easier to calculate the result. No, it isn't significantly different from 3E in that respect.

My position has always been that systems don't roleplay, people do. The players and the GM determines how much, and what quality, roleplay there is. I've played a system that was increadibly open-ended (the only mechanic was coin flips, and there were no skills. Only what your "stuperpowers" are), and one that was very regimented (Rolemaster, which has a chart, for each weapon, that takes up an 8.5"x11" page), and there was roleplaying in both. Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

Ogiwan wrote:Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

But saying that systems have nothing to do with how and to what extent the RP goes on is equally nonsensical.

Manchu wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

But saying that systems have nothing to do with how and to what extent the RP goes on is equally nonsensical.

I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Manchu wrote:Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Very true, you don't actually need anybooks or game system to do what you want. Though, I think few people have the time or creativity to do all the work necessary for a completely handforged game to be successful. Most of us need a solid set of rules, that are tested for balance already, and offer enough choice that people wont get board. Honestly, there are some many systems, including fantasy based ones, that it's really almost moot to worry too much about once system not being as good as it could be. And people are more than capable of modding a system that only has a few flaws. I think that 3.5 or 4th are both very capable systems to play, and with a few quick mods would be really good.

Zygrot24 wrote:I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

That is an interesting take because I prefer to reward my players for *not* using the rules in their roleplaying. In fact if a player is trying to bluff someone and comes up with an fantastically plausable explanation for their presence I won't even make them roll for it. I far prefer the roleplaying in my games to *be* the game with the rules only needed when there is some direct conflict with the environment or NPCs that needs to be addressed. Bad dice rolling for skills in my games will not result in completely ruining good roleplaying, meanwhile someone who is trying to be sauve who rolls exceptionally well, but all they say to the target is "Derp, derp, derp" is not going to achieve any kind of succes in my games. The rules support the *story* for me and the roleplaying *is* the story.

Skriker

ZombieJoe wrote:

Manchu wrote:Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Very true, you don't actually need anybooks or game system to do what you want. Though, I think few people have the time or creativity to do all the work necessary for a completely handforged game to be successful. Most of us need a solid set of rules, that are tested for balance already, and offer enough choice that people wont get board.

All true! And this is why it irks me so much when people talk about how rules and balance don't matter in RPGs. Of course they do.

Skriker wrote:

Zygrot24 wrote:I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

That is an interesting take because I prefer to reward my players for *not* using the rules in their roleplaying. In fact if a player is trying to bluff someone and comes up with an fantastically plausable explanation for their presence I won't even make them roll for it. I far prefer the roleplaying in my games to *be* the game with the rules only needed when there is some direct conflict with the environment or NPCs that needs to be addressed. Bad dice rolling for skills in my games will not result in completely ruining good roleplaying, meanwhile someone who is trying to be sauve who rolls exceptionally well, but all they say to the target is "Derp, derp, derp" is not going to achieve any kind of succes in my games. The rules support the *story* for me and the roleplaying *is* the story.

Skriker

Mostly I mean striking a good balance. I 've run into a lot of players that take for granted that what they are RPing will effect the game world. People will do things and just look at me expectantly. "What were you trying to do?" "Intimidate." "You wanna roll that?" But I think most players know (and hopefully good DMs) that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

There is a fine line and I've yet to find a competent DM that doesn't understand it.

Zygrot24 wrote:But I think most players know (and hopefully good DMs) that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

I would argue that, rather than bypassing, one should apply modifiers in that kind of a situation. If you're really, genuinely impressed, then you can always add a modifier so high that they cannot fail. I'd rather give situational bonusses and hindrance within the framework of the rules than discard them entirely at key intervals.

EDIT: Bonuses? Boni? Not sure on the spelling of that one.

Zygrot24 wrote:that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

So if I make a character that uses CHA (or equivalent) as a dump stat and waste no points in social skills, but I personally am a charismatic person, I can still get away with convincing or intimidating npcs if I roll play their lack of charisma well?

You guys know what I mean. You're arguing with me against a postion I'm not taking.

Within reason, good RP should be rewarded with modifying rolls, and good rule sets involve RP in the dice rolling part of the game.

Sounds to me like arbitrary rulings. That's fine with some groups.