Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Am I the only one seeing the irony of complaining about a gaming company (supposedly) having an OMG MONEYZ ONRY plan on a website devoted to Games Workshop?

pretre wrote:
Just because pathfinder has less books doesn't mean you get more for less. Sure you have 3 books and all the material is in there. Great. You don't need to buy all of the D&D books to benefit or play the system.

True, you don't need to get the rest of the books to play the system, but you need the other books to allow more diversity in available actions for the players during combat and outside of it as well. I merely speak of the contrast between the two systems and the simple difference in the amount material both offer. I believe both game systems have about the same amount of material, but only if you have all the books for both (ie: 4 pathfinder books vs 12+ 4th books)

I mean, if you had the option to buy really awesome minis that came in huge lots for cheap rather than another line that offered similar minis but for more and came in smaller packages, what would you choose?

Again, I'm not saying 4th is horrible, I'm just saying it's designed in a manner that I dislike from a broad perspective, and I say this having played and dm-ed 4th ed.

What saddens me is when people can't discuss the differences between the games and actually converse about it. Perhaps it shows the overall average intelligence of each gaming systems player base, perhaps it is blind zealotry, or some other equally absurd reason to be unable to talk about such things in a civil manner (of course, if could be both of those reasons in some cases)

I guess if I really had to pin down why I think 4th is bad... it just comes down to the book releasing system. Minimal content, more books, more revenue. Good from a economics perspective, bad from a consumer perspective. If that changed and there were at least half the books that there are now, I might sing a different tune about 4th.

Edit: Now try again and show some reasoning why what I'm saying is incorrect

juraigamer wrote: I know my facts and make every attempt to present them, however there are those ignorant zealots of specific editions that won't hear any of it. Hell, I expect some of them have already sent hate mail to me for speaking my mind.

Do you really see yourself as some above it all persecuted martyr? If you read the thread(s), you aren't saying anything that anyone hasn't generally said including myself, yet somehow you have this weird air about you like you see yourself floating in defending something that was never actually under attack in the first place. So it doesn't make sense that you, or someone else, would be getting hate mail about it. It would be wierd to go after the parrot instead of the speaker. Then you go off about "I know what I am talking about" but you don't actually talk like you do. You can't even tell that when someone says "that only manly men and attractive ladies play 4th edition", that it is a joke.

Ian Sturrock wrote:It's nonsense to suggest that game system has nothing to do with roleplaying.

I suggested that is there is nothing in 4E that makes it less "role" playable than any previous edition of D&D.

-----

I hated Amber. Amber is an acting exercise for amature thespians. A complete setting, where the characters have to agree who is better at what at everything before the campaign starts. The Game Master holds the character sheets and the players just act their parts, with the game Master the sole arbiter of success or failure. I know techincally that qualifies as role playing but by those standards sow does playing Cowboys and Indians. I always felt that the Amber setting was a way for the author to cash in on his fictional setting without bothering to actually develop a worthwhile game system.

Call me old fashioned but, I like my RPGs to involve pen, paper, and dice rolling.

As someone who is very familiar with 3.5, I can say one of the flaws was that there were some needlessly complex mechanics and flaws. The majority of people I knew who played 3.5 has house rules of some kind or customised errata of some kind to streamline it (as a DM myself, house rules were a must in 3.5). Not to mention the excess amount of sourcebooks as barebones 3.5 without any source books is pretty boring IMO. I dare say 3.5 without house rules and secondary sourcebooks was fairly unplayable and boring.

It appears that 4th edition is just a product of all the feedback as well as an attempt to get the younger generation to play D&D over a videogame, which is not a bad thing. Things change over time and nothing is ever eternal.

You guys should read the insane arguments on the DDO forums over 3.5 vs 4.0, it’s quite insane. I think the general consensus is that people felt there should have been 2 variations to the core gameplay mechanics. One focusing on streamlined gameplay (4.0 in its current form) and the other focusing on roleplay and fluff exploration (3.5 with some of the hardcore roleplay stuff from second edition like houses).

At the end of the day both systems have their benefits and flaws. I have to agree with some of the previous posters in saying that it boils down to group preference rather than stating one or the other is inherently better or worse.

adamsouza wrote:It's nonsense to suggest that game system has nothing to do with roleplaying.

This is quite true. 4th doesn't make it harder to roleplay at all. Perhaps the new players are merely looking for a pc game in tabletop form and are unaccustomed to roleplaying, but don't believe for a second that 4th is lacking in the ability to roleplay at all. The only think I'll say is unless you roleplay properly, you might end up with a gimped character, though this is true in all games. However the focus on static powers in 4th vs the gameplay of 3rd does provide limits based on core books alone.

candy.man wrote:

At the end of the day both systems have their benefits and flaws. I have to agree with some of the previous posters in saying that it boils down to group preference rather than stating one or the other is inherently better or worse.

+1. I really wish someone did some research on the types of people who currently play both rulesets for the game, some interesting similarity's would arise between those that chose one system over another, I'm sure of it.

Ahtman wrote:Out of curiosity, anyone tried the new D&D Essentials?

I have not, but I've read reviews.

I like the concept, but I do not like what I've heard of the actual product.

The classes are variants of the main iconic classes. The Fighter, for example, is a kinda-sorta variant of the standard 4e fighter that has no dailies but has some stances. This was done, supposedly, because some people complained that playing a fighter was too tough. I have not really heard how it would work if the Essentials stuff is mixed with 4e. it sounds like there'll be some weirdness as the Essentials player is used to playing in a bit simpler setup.

I think I would have preferred if it was more of a true starter set. Provide the four iconic classes, maybe a couple more, and give them limited builds to get them to level 10. Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric. They'll each have one 'build' and one or two powers to select from per level, but all of these are drawn from the PHB and related books. Essentials is designed as a "Let's try this" with the idea that moving to the regular books adds options, not changes options.

4th Edition is a good system for D&D. Not for Fantasy Roleplaying, which it has several failings at. it's really a funs system for people who want to get together and play dungeon crawls with a bit of story. More GM-moderated than Descent and similar 'Board Game RPGs) but (by default) very easy barrier-to-entry as you can make a character in minutes that is probably competitive, or at least not useless. Adding 'story' and 'character' is still up to the players, and D&D 4 really seems to have downplayed a lot of the 'meta game' bits in favor of concentrating on doing what D&D has always done best: focusing on a bunch of friends who go exploring caves, killing monsters, and stealing their stuff for fun and profit.

adamsouza wrote:I suggested that is there is nothing in 4E that makes it less "role" playable than any previous edition of D&D.

-----

I hated Amber. Amber is an acting exercise for amature thespians. A complete setting, where the characters have to agree who is better at what at everything before the campaign starts. The Game Master holds the character sheets and the players just act their parts, with the game Master the sole arbiter of success or failure. I know techincally that qualifies as role playing but by those standards sow does playing Cowboys and Indians. I always felt that the Amber setting was a way for the author to cash in on his fictional setting without bothering to actually develop a worthwhile game system.

Call me old fashioned but, I like my RPGs to involve pen, paper, and dice rolling.

I'd say that all editions of AD&D have been marginally less conducive to roleplaying than Original D&D. Generally, as you add complexity to an RPG, you reduce the elegance of the design, and remind players more consistently that they're *playing a game* rather than keeping them immersed in the roleplay experience.

You seem to have the wrong impression of Amber, on several fronts. Possibly you had a gaming group that just didn't gel for Amber, or a GM who wasn't that well suited to running it (no disrespect intended to either your group or your GM -- some of the best GMs of, say, Call of Cthulhu, or Pendragon, or Vampire, or Cyberpunk, that I know, wouldn't be well suited to running an Amber game). Certainly I would disagree that the setting is "complete" -- it's probably about the most open-ended one out there. There are loads of opportunities both before the game and during play for some players to become better at various game stats without the other players' knowledge. The GM doesn't particularly need to hold the character sheets. It's absolutely untrue that the GM is the sole arbiter of success & failure -- the rules give extremely clear guidance for just about every situation. The GM interprets the rules (as with any other RPG) but personally I find as an Amber GM that I have to that determining character success/failure is actually easier than 90% of other games because of those clear rules.

The Amber game wasn't written by the author of the Amber novels, either. So I make it that you're mistaken about just about every aspect of the game.

You are, of course, very much entitled to not like it, though.

I started out with D&D 4E, its not that bad, but it helps that the person running the campaign itself knows all of the new rules to the new system. Either way I do not believe that one system is better than the other, its about having a good time with your group of players. I do like the number of playable races in forth edition, however i hate buying the new books that come out every month or so.

My Two Cents (Okay, more like a Half Dollar).

I do not personally like Fourth Edition D&D. I grew up on 2'nd and 3'rd/3.5 and if I'm going to play D&D, 3.5 is definitely the way to go in my opinion. But I'll admit, it's suffered from a fair amount of over-elaboration. The heart of the problem, in my opinion, is the company (emphasis on the big company) WOTC, which has been in charge of the D&D title for some time. As a company, it is their goal to make as much money and that, unfortunately, means squeezing as much money out of us (the consumer), as is humanly possible through the use of installments, settings, scenarios, rules modifications (3.5 ring any bells), and supplements. Again, unfortunately, this tends to lead to an excess of material and a horrible jumble of rules, and we all know what happens if you don't keep up with the times. Quite frankly, I've just about had my fill of being exploited. Bring me back the days of small developers, little companies, and loyal, helpful fan bases.
Of Course the 'New Direction' for D&D is not my favorite, it's geared towards the maximization of profits for the Wizards, and that means the maximization of customer bases, in that spirit, the rules have to be as easy to use and 'cookie-cutter' as the Wizards can make them. Don't Get me wrong, I own a few books, and I've played it, but the reality is that the mainstream RPG industry is moving in a direction that is simply not geared towards hard-core (I use the term loosely, but that's a whole 'nother post) gamers who want to spend great time and effort investing their characters as a person, instead of as a fighter or wizard. Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against the Wizards, they have the right to maximize profit, it's kind of the point of being a business, and...



(I jest, I have no problem with V-Gamers, or MMO's)
But Damnit, sometimes I miss the older days.

I've only played 3rd-4rth edition and 4rth edition isnt absolutley horrible its just not nearly as good as the others mainly due to the fact that I could just play World of warcraft if I felt like playing 4rth edition (its pretty much the same thing)

Eura wrote:I've only played 3rd-4rth edition and 4rth edition isnt absolutley horrible its just not nearly as good as the others mainly due to the fact that I could just play World of warcraft if I felt like playing 4rth edition (its pretty much the same thing)

Are you trying to start trouble? Why would you say something that devoid of thought?

I believe that's his opinion, one he's probably put some thought into but didn't waste time elaborating and just put the conclusion to his thoughts.

KingofthePeeps wrote:My Two Cents (Okay, more like a Half Dollar).

I do not personally like Fourth Edition D&D. I grew up on 2'nd and 3'rd/3.5 and if I'm going to play D&D, 3.5 is definitely the way to go in my opinion. But I'll admit, it's suffered from a fair amount of over-elaboration. The heart of the problem, in my opinion, is the company (emphasis on the big company) WOTC, which has been in charge of the D&D title for some time. As a company, it is their goal to make as much money and that, unfortunately, means squeezing as much money out of us (the consumer), as is humanly possible through the use of installments, settings, scenarios, rules modifications (3.5 ring any bells), and supplements. Again, unfortunately, this tends to lead to an excess of material and a horrible jumble of rules, and we all know what happens if you don't keep up with the times. Quite frankly, I've just about had my fill of being exploited. Bring me back the days of small developers, little companies, and loyal, helpful fan bases.
Of Course the 'New Direction' for D&D is not my favorite, it's geared towards the maximization of profits for the Wizards, and that means the maximization of customer bases, in that spirit, the rules have to be as easy to use and 'cookie-cutter' as the Wizards can make them. Don't Get me wrong, I own a few books, and I've played it, but the reality is that the mainstream RPG industry is moving in a direction that is simply not geared towards hard-core (I use the term loosely, but that's a whole 'nother post) gamers who want to spend great time and effort investing their characters as a person, instead of as a fighter or wizard. Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against the Wizards, they have the right to maximize profit, it's kind of the point of being a business, and...

Honest question: Do you remember TSR? I don't understand why people talk about WoTC being money grubbers when TSR had a strict policy of "Don't playtest it, just ship the damn thing and crank out another" for years. It was also run by a woman who forced Buck Rogers after Buck Rogers product out the door because her family owned the rights.

I don't know if it's rose tinted glasses or what but compared to TSR, WoTC is like a kindly old grandpa.

juraigamer wrote:I believe that's his opinion, one he's probably put some thought into but didn't waste time elaborating and just put the conclusion to his thoughts.

That is almost as poorly thought out as the post you are feebly trying to defend. Being an opinion is a worthless argument and the last resort for those who actually haven't thought something through. Or for those who haven't read through the thread they are posting in becuase that subject has been discussed already. That is why bringing it back up is a bit silly. So, not only is it wrong (yes, opinions can be wrong) it was also redundant.

Gr3y wrote:I don't know if it's rose tinted glasses or what but compared to TSR, WoTC is like a kindly old grandpa.

It is a combination of nostalgia mixed with WotC being the ones we have to pay at this point. They are taking our money.

I don't mind it in the least. It made things less time consuming and more streamlined. Honestly, who really gave a gak about exploring? That's all verbal anyway. Combat SHOULD be the focus of the game.

I agree with Gr3y's sentiments.

People forgive all the sins of 1st edition because at the time there simply wasn't anything better.
A lot of the monsters and models were direct imports from their tournaments where the adventures and monsters were made to slaughter characters and had no semblance of play balance.

2nd Edition focused on player balance, but pretty much just straight over converted the entire monster pantheon, often adding new tricks and powers with variants. Creating magic items and spells was now an epic task. Character's created with "kits" out shined those without. demi Humans were still superhuman, but the min maxed "dual class" human could have muti class abilities in excess of any other race. (Dex, Str, and Int of 17 you say ? You could be Fighter 10, Thief 10, Wizard 10 before your single class team mate hit level 13)

3rd Edition was awesome, but with the OGL came more supplements/feats/spells/magic item combinations than could ever be play tested together. The new freedom allowed Min Maxers to go hog wild, while other players gimped them self with sub-optimal feat choices. There was also a game balance break where high level clerics were involved.

got to run...

So instead of the obvious and hoping it would come naturally through deep thought, I'll just spell it out for ya.

4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

Now you can't really do extreme freeform in Wow, but for those whose first experience with table top rpgs, it's damn similar and there are quite a few who agree.


I have yet to see anyone prove there is no similarity to 4th and Wow, so until then



Now as a whole:

I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

The combat system was deliberately designed to make miniatures mandatory for any combat situation.

I completely agree with Kingofthepeeps' post above, all 4th boils down to is "How to rework dnd to maximize profit". Yet at the same time when it came to the later stages of 3rd and 3.5 the money grubbins can be seen.
I don't agree that 4th is most like Wow though, I feel it's most like a board game, a feeling that only got reinforced when they actually released 4th ed board games...

Now don't get me wrong, I've played and dm-ed the game for more than a for at least a year at one point, thought it's not like I can prove that. However in the end 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons was seriously a complete waste of time and money.

By my current count, there are 3 core books and 15+ some books that you need to add content that equals what should be in 1/4 that amount of books at least.

In contrast, What my group has been playing, The pathfinder rpg (D&D) only has 3 core books out, the first a 500+ page monster with 2-4 books worth of 4th equivalent material in it.

I don't care what you play or why you play it, but other people play other games and enjoy them. If your gonna start a discussion about why someone believes they way they do, you should start with your own reasons why you believe their opinions are wrong. I'm going to go use the cash I saved not buying any more 4th books and selling them back for a better game on some more 40k models that I can use for Dark Heresy. Oh yea and I used some of that cash for Dark heresy books, which is in my opinion a far better game and system than anything in 4th.

juraigamer wrote:it's damn similar and there are quite a few who agree.

The more people that are wrong doesn't make something right. It just makes more people wrong. it is amazing that the main complaints come from 3/3.5 apologists. This is all we get from you.




We are just recycling the same points over and over. Someone likes X, someone who like Y gets all hurt and sarcastic, someone calls for reason and that all gaming is equally valid, and then a few days pass and someone else comes in and starts the whole thing over again. It is the thread that won't die and yet also not make any progress.

As Ahtman didn't bother to say, because it was covered earlier in the thread, the similarities between 4th and WoW are trivial beside their differences.

Kingofthepeeps-
WotC was a company owned and run by passionate gamers, who, thanks to Magic: The Gathering, had enough money to purchase TSR and save D&D, which TSR had been running into the ground for several years. They succeeded. The D20 license, SRD, and OGL are all big elements of that.

WotC then agreed to a purchase by Hasbro, which was supposed to see the main people in WotC have financial security while maintaining good control over the handling of D&D. Sadly, they got the former but not the latter. If you want to rant about profit-centered design (which again, is highly ironic on a site devoted to GW), then Hasbro is the better target. WotC started out and acquired D&D as a company by gamers and for gamers, and changed into one also for its owners.

Check out the article linked below, and particularly Rick Marshall's several excellent detailed comments about the history at WotC, which he thankfully says he's going to compile onto his own site soon:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/11/thank-you-ryan-dancey.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't mind it in the least. It made things less time consuming and more streamlined. Honestly, who really gave a gak about exploring? That's all verbal anyway. Combat SHOULD be the focus of the game.

This is a matter of taste. A lot of players of the older editions are much more into exploring unusual situations, and prefer streamlined combat rules which allow a fight to be resolved in a few minutes, so combat doesn't dominate the session unless you have a LOT of fights.

3.5 Allowed you to do some spectacular stuff with your character, if you were magic. Now that has been scaled back, players who enjoyed it are bitter. But it was necessary.

Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

How does the warhammer fantasy rpg relate to dark heresy? I know it uses the same system, but am unsure as to how magic works or a few other things. Would you provide some examples why you recommend it? Do "fate points" exist in that system? How is weaponry scaled? Does it use the same experience system as in DH? Thanks!

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

Did you quit twice, then? Around 10 years apart?

Gary Gygax was run out of the company back in the 80s (around '86 or '87, maybe?), forced out by Lorraine Williams and the Blumes. The Blumes first started bankrupting TSR in the early-mid 80s when Gygax went to California to work on the D&D tv show and trying to get a movie together. He tried to get control back and made a strong effort at getting TSR back on his feet (the release of Unearthed Arcana was a strong shot in the arm, cash-wise), but eventually lost the battle and was forced to leave.

Williams and the rest of her terrible management team ran D&D and TSR into the ground from there; D&D was widely looked-down on by gamers in the 90s, most gamers thinking of it as mindless hack & slash, and preferring stuff like GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, etc. TSR's terrible treatment of the fans was another major factor. Anyone who was on the internet & the early web in the 90s remembers the nickname "T$R" and their attempts to shut down fan websites that they should have valued like gold.

WotC quite literally saved D&D. Peter Adkinson, Ryan Dancey, and others on their staff wanted to get it out of the gutter of games and make it effectively immortal; not subject to being destroyed by bad corporate decisions. And they succeeded. No matter how you feel about 4th ed, the things they did with the legal license made it possible for 3E and all the retro-clones of earlier editions to be kept alive and in the hands of the fans in perpetuity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

How does the warhammer fantasy rpg relate to dark heresy? I know it uses the same system, but am unsure as to how magic works or a few other things. Would you provide some examples why you recommend it? Do "fate points" exist in that system? How is weaponry scaled? Does it use the same experience system as in DH? Thanks!

This is totally off-topic and would make a good thread of its own. I recommend starting one.

Mannahnin wrote:No matter how you feel about 4th ed, the things they did with the legal license made it possible for 3E and all the retro-clones of earlier editions to be kept alive and in the hands of the fans in perpetuity.

Let's also not forget that a great deal of 4e was based on player input to the changes they wanted to see. It wasn't just some arbitrary rules change.

If anything, 4E is just the uiltimate expression of trends developed in third. I am totally puzzled by the extreme sentiments: how can someone love 3.5 but hate 4th? My guess is that people don't actually feel this way but I'm sure it makes them feel wise to scream it over and over. TSR was indeed an utterly awful company but there was an upshot inasmuch as gamers went elsewhere and there was some mainstream development outside of D&D. I think the success of 3.5 worked against that development. If there are two halves to RPG, the RP and the G, WotC has always favored the G and I'm sure that contributed to Hasbro's interest in the company. Meanwhile, systems that emphasize RP are increasingly marginalized from the mainstream--by consumers as much as publishers, I'd say.

I completely agree with Kingofthepeeps' post above, all 4th boils down to is "How to rework dnd to maximize profit". Yet at the same time when it came to the later stages of 3rd and 3.5 the money grubbins can be seen.

See M's post. He has a superb grasp of D&D's history. Do a search on the newsgroups in google for TSR and 1st/2nd edition. You'll see the same posts (much as you did here) about the move to 2nd. And guess what, do the same thing for 3rd. Same posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/7a920b30a0742885/6896d0e455ba1501?hl=en&q=TSR+profit+2nd+edition&safe=on
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/51d1391051d13748/52c4768fcda845f5?hl=en&q=TSR+2nd+edition+wow&safe=on
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.miniatures.warhammer/browse_thread/thread/20246e893cf35e83/3af357b4c7359b9e?hl=en&q=3rd+ruined+D%26D&safe=on

Let's play a fun game? What edition are they complaining about?

Guy from 1992 wrote:
As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per month, 2 would do just fine.

Guy from 1992 wrote:
Why produce one or two supoplements when you can spread out the material to three or four? And by using cheap paper covers and glue bindings you not only increase the profit margin per unit sold, you reduce the useful life of the product and limit the secondary (used) market.

jurai from 2010 wrote:
By my current count, there are 3 core books and 15+ some books that you need to add content that equals what should be in 1/4 that amount of books at least.

Creepy.

Guy from 1992 wrote:
>Agreed! Used by itself the 2nd Edition is a piece of crud! Only as a >supplement to the 1st Edition does the 2nd Editon have any merit in my eyes. >Although some would disagree (like I could really care less!) since Gygax >wrote the first edition and did not write the 2nd then it ain't official!!!

Guy from 2001 wrote:
The problems I see with 3rd (couple of these are minor pet peeves): 1) Definitely aimed at a young, videogaming audience from presentation, the emphasis on use of miniatures in combat, the huge precedence combat has in the rules, and the feat system feels like diablo ii skills.

juraigamer in 2010 wrote:4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

Whoa, trippy.

Guy from 2001 wrote:DnD 3E suffers simply because it replaced one set of problems for another. It's mostly d20, but it still uses all sorts of other dice and stuff. It's traded rule complexity and text to become a miniatures wargaming exercise. And the simplified core mechanic simply highlights how fiddly the remaining mechanics are. And balance? Much worse than otherwise, because the GM is rather obliged to run "balanced" encounters.

juraigamer 2010 wrote:
I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

I'm just weirded out now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

WOW is based on the same things D&D and other RPGs are, the wealth of common property and concepts that make up the fantasy genre.

The concept of 'cooldowns', 'mana', etc are not new. In 1st, 2nd and 3rd you had powers that you could use all the time, sometime and rarely. Vancian spell system is based around a set number of spells that you can use in a day. Some classes also had 'all the time' abilities, some had a set number of uses and some had ones that could only be used in separate encounters. This is nothing new.

The concept of Mana to cast spells goes back to the 60's and has been used in systems since the start of RPGs. Rage as a mechanic was used in 2nd and 1st edition D&D for berserkers in different forms.

I think what you are seeing is a convergence of ideas and not one game copying the other.

I have yet to see anyone prove there is no similarity to 4th and Wow, so until then

Of course there is similarity. They are both Fantasy RPGs. I bet I could make a similarly exhaustive list of things similar between Pathfinder or 3rd Edition D&D and WOW. Doesn't mean that they are copied from it, just that they have a similar genres and draw from the same rich history of RPGs.

I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

I see you feel strongly about it. That's your right. But...
- 3rd and 3.5 were much more min-max friendly than 4E. Go to Wizards.com and check out the old 3.5 Char Opt forums versus the 4E ones. Big difference.
- What rules were there for events and scenarios in 3rd, 2nd, 1st ed that are not present in 4th ed? A few additional skills that have been rolled into new 4th ed skills... Other than that ...
What rules are in 4th ed for events and scenarios that weren't in 3rd/2nd/1st? Oh yeah, Skill Challenges.

The combat system was deliberately designed to make miniatures mandatory for any combat situation.

This is just my opinion, but if you're not playing with Minis or Tokens or Slips of Paper with names on it, you're missing out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow! I just noticed that the guy from 2001 was John Hwang. I wonder if it was our JH... Hey, it is! Bottom of the page!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.miniatures.warhammer/browse_thread/thread/20246e893cf35e83/3af357b4c7359b9e?hl=en&q=3rd+ruined+D%26D&safe=on

JohnHwangDD from 2001 wrote:Disappointing, actually. It's rushed, very, very rushed. Product is very
uneven. Some of the expansion books have serious problems, miniatures line has
major holes.

Rather like GW, really.
...DnD 3E suffers simply because it replaced one set of problems for another.
It's mostly d20, but it still uses all sorts of other dice and stuff. It's
traded rule complexity and text to become a miniatures wargaming exercise.
And the simplified core mechanic simply highlights how fiddly the remaining
mechanics are. And balance? Much worse than otherwise, because the GM is
rather obliged to run "balanced" encounters.

--- John Hwang "J_Hw...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

Manchu wrote:If anything, 4E is just the uiltimate expression of trends developed in third. I am totally puzzled by the extreme sentiments: how can someone love 3.5 but hate 4th? My guess is that people don't actually feel this way but I'm sure it makes them feel wise to scream it over and over. TSR was indeed an utterly awful company but there was an upshot inasmuch as gamers went elsewhere and there was some mainstream development outside of D&D. I think the success of 3.5 worked against that development. If there are two halves to RPG, the RP and the G, WotC has always favored the G and I'm sure that contributed to Hasbro's interest in the company. Meanwhile, systems that emphasize RP are increasingly marginalized from the mainstream--by consumers as much as publishers, I'd say.

I think that 4th edition would have been better received if it had come out from someone other than WotC* without the D&D 'name.' It's a very interesting system, and has some neat ideas, but a lot of these weren't presented properly which turned people off.

It's a neat synthesis of the desire for 'cinematic' play and the desire for 'tactical' play, something I don't know of another game that does. There's a lot of neat cinematic games (Try Feng Shui for one) and some great 'tactical games' (Even Necromunda, if you want) but few games really combine the two. Tactical play tends to, in most, end up being a string of "I attack" in my experience. Sure, the spell-caster might get some fun, but for the fighters it tends to get boring. Some GMs allow more 'cinematic' stuff, but that can cause problems as well: If a GM allows a party to do a trick, then the party will tend to repeat the trick if possible. Cineamtic play can be fun (Feng Shui can be very fun if everyone is in the right mood) but many often don't feel there's enough 'challenge' to it.

4th edition uses a lot of status effects, special movement, and similar to add some cinematic feel. These are limited, but generally everyone has a couple At-Wills that they can choose from even if they're running on empty. It's still very, very tactical, but I much prefer "I push him back, then get to punch one of his buddies. next round, I'll do a charge' over "I attack. I attack. Now I'll attack the next guy."

TSR had some great ideas, and I liked the way the 2nd editionA D&D line was split up... You had tons of weird box set settings (Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape) that were semi-compatible, then weird books like the almost-scholarly faux-leather blue books (As I remember, there was a castle book, a vikings book, etc.) and the funky Compleat books (brown faux-leather) that admittedly had tons of kits (which were generally unbalanced compared to 3.0s prestige classes, and that's saying something.)

An interesting comment about 4.0 is that it (by default) removes the 'roll' from 'role playing' by making the two elements almost completely separate. I know the 'Skill Challenge' rolls have been errated several times, but as-written it seems like the GM should just handle the two separately... or, as I've advocated, let the role-playing commence, then give bonuses to skill checks for doing something interesting over just 'I use Diplomacy!'

* Note that few companies could probably have matched WotC's price points and production values, admittedly.

Masterful post, pretre.

That does sound like our John. If we ever see him again (I hope so!) he could confirm/deny . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Balance: don't forget the spell compendia!

One more thought on the '4th edition = WoW' concept.

I can see the thought behind this, as everything has (by the default flavor text) a lot of 'shinies.' When my group started playing 4.0 I was playing a Paladin and the stock flavor text (I.E. the text you can disregard at your whim) really makes it sound like every power needs to include some fancy particle effects and light sourcing that make the video card manufacturers happy. This, in feel, is somewhat like WoW.

However, that's the trappings and as I said easily changed. The combat doesn't feel much like WoW... In fact, I almost wish a game like WoW used 4.0 style combat. When 4.0 combat is working as-designed, it's surprisingly fluid. Status effects are constantly being thrown around, shook off, or dispelled. Characters get moved around, and that means environmental effect have some meaning. The GM is encouraged to hold fights in burning buildings, inside clanking factories, or similar. I don't play WoW, but from what I've seen combat is more about timing powers and managing aggro, which is a very small part of 4th edition combat.