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.

Good points. As part of the cinematic feel you mention, the 4E combat system really helps to build a sense of interdependence that I felt was not at all encouraged (maybe even discouraged at high levels) in Third. The "shininess," strangely enough, is supposed to support your imagination as your role play but I've rarely seen it analyzed from that perspective--maybe an inevitable result of the market having been exposed to the effects you mention--and I mean in Diablo and Dungeon Siege just as much as WoW. But "Never let the obvious facts stand in the way of angry criticisms" is like Rule No. 3 in the Hater's Handbook (4th edition).

Balance wrote:
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.

I think this a basicaly true statment by some of my older OLD SCHOOL players.
90% of the changes from 1-3 to 4e are simmilar to the house rules our oldest [1979] GM had come up with. They adressed most of the Issues that had come up, but not the way Old timerrs would have done it.
I don't know how they could have done the release better as far as the New Blood, but for the Old timers most of the miss thier Helms of Brillance and Bottles of Air

Manchu wrote: The "shininess," strangely enough, is supposed to support your imagination as your role play but I've rarely seen it analyzed from that perspective--maybe an inevitable result of the market having been exposed to the effects you mention--and I mean in Diablo and Dungeon Siege just as much as WoW. But "Never let the obvious facts stand in the way of angry criticisms" is like Rule No. 3 in the Hater's Handbook (4th edition).

I can accept that, but my fantasy worlds tend to be a bit grimier and less flashy, mentally. My group at least references the fact that most dungeon-crawlers should look like they've been dead for a month when they get back, an aspect most versions of D&D ignore. We hand-wave it in that the GM doesn't make us negotiate for or manually deal with 'maintenance' like cleaning and repairing gear, or even worrying about rations, as we don't find that kind of bean-counting fun. Some groups do, of course...

pretre wrote:Old Comments followed by New Comments

Are.. Are you Jon Stewart? One of my favorite things on his show is when he pulls quotes from years ago, then compares them to current quotes. Your post here is just as awesome.

Aduro wrote:

pretre wrote:Old Comments followed by New Comments

Are.. Are you Jon Stewart? One of my favorite things on his show is when he pulls quotes from years ago, then compares them to current quotes. Your post here is just as awesome.

lol no. But yeah, he has a good style. Thanks!

Great posts, guys.

Awesome research, Pretre.

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?

I disagree with that, to some extent. There were definitely some trends in 3rd that found fuller expression in 4th, and late 3.5 obviously had several books which were testbeds for 4E concepts (Book of Nine Swords, Complete Mage). That said, IMO 3E is more directly an ancestor of 1E; both games have a significant Simulationist bent, trying to model realistic activities and outcomes. Long article here:

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

4E embraces being a Game more fully, dropping a lot of Simulationist accuracy in favor of ease of play. For example, movement being almost exclusively measured in Squares as opposed to actual distances, with diagonal movement being no longer than movement along the grid. Also carrying weights/encumbrance. And the handling of light/vision.

Using actual units of measurement in 3.5 was a conceit at best (hold-over would be another good term). "Conceit" is a pretty good word for the "realism" of 3.5, actually. Even in the linked article, the immediate disclaimer undermines much of the following analysis. I also have difficulty understanding how simulation matters in a world where (according to article author) the protagonists become far, far more capable than the most capable people who have ever actually existed pretty soon in their development. But this difficulty probably also occurred to the deisgners: 3.5 seems to me to abandon the simulation model while retaining its language. Movement and ranges are listed in feet in books and played as squares on mats. Wht 4E did is stop worrying about the IRL units of measurment altogether. You might say that Fourth Editionis 3.5 coming out of the closet.

I think it's more a conscious choice to consistently embrace the Game priority, where 3E straddled the worlds between Simulationist and Gamist priorities more evenly, as 1E did. I'll agree that 3.5 was already trending toward the Gamist side.

One thing that seemed weird to myself and a lot of players with 3.0 through 4.0 is that the 'classic' ability scores are, in and of themselves, pretty much meaningless except as numbers to get watch get bigger. With a few exceptions, the useful ability score is the zero-average ability score modifier. In actual play, you pretty much never use the 0-18+ score, but you sue the modifier constantly. It's there as a kind of weird limiter (you need to raise it 2 points to have an effect) and as a base score for HP in some versions, but that is about it.

Balance wrote:One thing that seemed weird to myself and a lot of players with 3.0 through 4.0 is that the 'classic' ability scores are, in and of themselves, pretty much meaningless except as numbers to get watch get bigger. With a few exceptions, the useful ability score is the zero-average ability score modifier. In actual play, you pretty much never use the 0-18+ score, but you sue the modifier constantly. It's there as a kind of weird limiter (you need to raise it 2 points to have an effect) and as a base score for HP in some versions, but that is about it.

This is why I'm expecting 5E to switch to something more like True20 where you do away with the "subtract 10 and divide by 2" that's been around since it was Chainmail.

4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

Mannahnin wrote:I think it's more a conscious choice to consistently embrace the Game priority, where 3E straddled the worlds between Simulationist and Gamist priorities more evenly, as 1E did. I'll agree that 3.5 was already trending toward the Gamist side.

Yeah, I'm looking from 4E backwards, through Saga Edition and 3.5 to AD&D2nd (rather than 1E), when making such statements. I can see how your point emphasizes the reverse perspective looking from 1E, although I don't think my analysis is just retrospective or counter-factual (i.e, I'm not just talking about Book of Nine Swords, Dungeonscape, &etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Balance: Some d20 games (e.g., Blue Moon) just listed your modifier rather than score for abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gr3y wrote:4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

And HP!

Gr3y wrote:
This is why I'm expecting 5E to switch to something more like True20 where you do away with the "subtract 10 and divide by 2" that's been around since it was Chainmail.

I think I saw developer comments in the 3.0 era that the designers wanted to do this, but it was too much of a sacred cow to touch. I'm just glad 3.0 got rid of the annoying look-ups you had to do to see a bunch of vaguely-relevant trivia related to each stat (Like bonus spells, a bunch of lift numbers, etc.).

In a lot of ways, the adherence to stats that don't matter is almost worse than a similar annoyance I have with WH40k, which is that BS is a number that is only useful after fixed math is applied to it. (But if they did the math, besides breaking everything, they'd have one stat that was best if low...)

Gr3y wrote:
4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

There's still Vancian casting, to a point. Wizards swap out dailies, after all. They just made low-level spells a bit more book-keeping free by making them Encounter and At-Will spells.

Removing memorization per-se for rituals was probably a good thing for keeping the game flowing. Having to pause, return to town, and rest up because a certain utility spell is needed is not fun. Then again, the 4.0 design philosophy seems to be to minimize places where you'd need that fly spell to get around by providing an alternative (I.E. you can either fly, or walk across a narrow beam, etc.) as well as discouraging spell-casters using magic to minimize the role of other characters. "Hey, why have a thief? I can open a half-dozen doors remotely each day, and even pick a couple locks, at a minimal loss of combat effectiveness!" was very possible in 2.0-3.5, while in 4.0 using rituals to do thief-stuff is generally not the best bet as far as return-on-investment...

Out of curiosity, what to you mean by 4.0 having gotten rid of 'class as identity'? If anything, the classes seem a bit more focused between the highly individual power sets and the 'roles' but that may just be my opinion. For example, I'm playing a Druid character that was rebuilt from 3.0 and it's a little weird not being half-a-cleric anymore.

You know, I had this whole Big long post set up here rephrasing the stuff I said before because i realized it was kind of ham-fisted and awkward in making the point i wanted to, but i accidentally closed my tab, so I'll condense it for you.

D&D = AWESOME! - What Gygax and Arneson did for Gaming was outstanding, and even if the original two additions were a bit clunky and arduous, we as gamers, can respect them for their role in mainstream gaming history.
Wizards; yes, they're money grubbers, but every corp. is. As corporations grow they inevitably become more profit centric.
4'th edition; not as bad as all the crap it got right out the gate from the 'old guard', but really, i hate to say it, it's more a turn based strategic combat game than it is a roleplaying game.
TSR; Yes, they were the evil bastards of the RPG community before the Wizards took them, but the wizards are getting there in my opinion, but i don't begrudge there decision, they were a corporation, making money was their goal.
Gaming In General; As gaming has become more mainstream, companies have had to start catering to a wider audience, that means diluting the rules, making them 'easier' for less 'hard-core' gamers to run and play. Again, I hate them for it, but i don't begrudge them their right to, i wouldn't for a second ask them to Alienate the larger half of their Consumer base in deference to older more established consumers.
3.5; In my opinion, The Best edition of D&D in my opinion, The core rules and books (PHB, MM, And GMG) were a fantastic rules set that worked for both roleplaying and combat, but then the wave of supplements followed the core rules, and in my opinion, destroyed the tentative balance and system that 3.5 established, the only thing i'd keep if they took back all the supplements was the prestige classes, and for what did they do this? Profit.

Okay, I think that might make my point a little better, though not nearly as well as the original version of this post.

Manchu wrote:
And HP!

Hey now! Let's not get crazy. HP is fine, they just need to stress that it has nothing to do with actual physical damage you've sustained.

Balance wrote:Out of curiosity, what to you mean by 4.0 having gotten rid of 'class as identity'? If anything, the classes seem a bit more focused between the highly individual power sets and the 'roles' but that may just be my opinion. For example, I'm playing a Druid character that was rebuilt from 3.0 and it's a little weird not being half-a-cleric anymore.

Unlike previous versions 4e took a "top down" approach to class creation. Let's look at the Druid:
Power Source: Primal, so we have access to elemental damage types and the ability to change forms.
Role: Controller, so you focus on managing the flow of battle and herding enemies into positon through area or status effects.

Now, if we gut all the lines of fluff from your power cards we have someone who does elemental damage, changes shape, and focuses on board control. Could it be a Druid? Sure. Could it be a Magician who focus on self alteration and the manipulation of the world around them? Why not? Could you be a Paladin of Corellon or some other nature centric deity? Hell yes is could!

"Class as Identity" stems from taking a "bottom up" approach, where you decide that Druids are people who only focus on the preservation of the natural world and granola and baby deer and stuff. You start from that premise and design the class around those ideas. "Top down" design is where you design the class first, then decide what familiar trope best describes it.

Also can someone please show me a game company that's not out to take all of my monies? PP has released 12 books this year, of which I need like... three or four at least along with a grip of new scultps. WotC has brought back one of the all time best campaign settings evar, as well as several books of new options for classes. Paizo wants me to give them $60 for a rule set I already own 90% and have been playing for years.

Show me the company that isn't out for profit. Ever.

Gr3y wrote:Show me the company that isn't out for profit.

I'm trying, but they're not answering their phones--the website is down--the lights are off--no cars in the parking lot. And nobody else has heard from them for a while, either . . .

Gr3y wrote:Power Source: Primal, so we have access to elemental damage types and the ability to change forms.

Barbarians are also Primal and they do axe damage.

But they do get rages and things which can do elemental damage.

Monks can do some elemental damage as well but they are Psionic. More importantly, I was just being silly.

Oh YEAH?! Well WIZARDZ CAN DO ELEMENTAL DAMAGE TOO!!!11! Does that make them Primal TOO???

Or, two can play at that game.

I can’t quite see what has happened here since I skipped from pg 2 to here but I play 4.0 and I like it quite a lot. The only problem I have is we have too many people that just don’t understand what roll-playing means.
Just because you might know that you are up agenst a pack of werewolf’s doesn’t mean that you character knows.

They also have a bad habit of charging into combat by themselves. From what is said about 3.5, they would love that way more.

Ledabot wrote:The only problem I have is we have too many people that just don’t understand what roll-playing means. Just because you might know that you are up agenst a pack of werewolf’s doesn’t mean that you character knows.

By your description, I think they have a firm grip on "roll playing." It's interesting that what you've read here about 3.5 (admittedly, only to page two -- why not read the whole thread?) makes you think it's better suited to your group of violence-craving metagamers than 4E. I agree with you but I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Is it still worth it: yes.

I have played every style of campaign out there, from a Beer and Pretzel campaign based on the MB Hero’s Quest game to Aftermath [27 rolls to determine the effect of a single bullet]

[AD&D] I have played in a campaign where my Ranger tore off his sleeve to make a torch and the DM would not move on until I wrote it down. [that game died quickly]
[AD&D] A low magic game that by the time we made 4th we had one magic sword, 4-5 potions and the mage had not have any 2nd level spells. [That one was actuality fun.]
[AD&D 2nd] I have played in one game were the DM rolled everything behind his screen including our hit his and damages, he also would not tell us how much damage we took, only saying thins like “That one hurt you bad!”, we did not even know how many hit points we even had to start with. [Worst Game Ever]
[D&D 3.5] I ran a game running the characters from 4th to 16th using GG’s Necropolis Book including a “300” Style battle at the end. If it was in a “d20” {including BESM d20} I allowed it. [I am still getting request to return to that part of the campaign]

[WoD] Then there was the WoD game [I am glad I did not make it to] where when ever some one mentioned the town [Denton for the Rocky Horror Picture Show] we were mall required to sing and dance to the theme song or we would not have gotten EXP. [Some of the players still curl up it to a ball wetting themselves every time they here Tim sing]

[Mekton] I played in a Awesome Mekton Game that just ended abruptly when we reached the of the story, without the players know it was going to be a one shot game [this really pissed us all off]

[Shadowrun or Gamaworld 4e] I am currently working on a game based on Left-4-Dead that I am not planning on working about how much ammunition you have with your pistols and giving out lost of ammo for everything else. The only players I have that are not interested are the two that hate Zombie Movies.

The point I am trying to make is Mechanically the game should have nothing to do with you fun; it is the interaction of the DM and the Players.

I'm a bit suspicious of the "rules don't matter" attitude that surfaces every once in a while here (sorry, Anpu, you're not my nemesis here or anything--just most recent example). If this is the case, then why-oh-why do we even bother with rules in the first place? A game is really only fun as long as there is some semblance of fairness and rules (where game designers are the pseudo-present neutral third parties) are the biggest factor in maintaining that. If you have a group that gets along all the time and where everyone goes with the flow on every issue, more power to you. I say again: you vex me, man, you vex me, because I've never seen such a group.

It's not that rules don't metter, it's that no mater how good the rules are the game will suck if you have a bad person running it or bad players playing it. You can also have fun with bad rules (kind of like MST3K) but it's harder and better rules are a better start.

Manchu wrote:

Gr3y wrote:Show me the company that isn't out for profit.

I'm trying, but they're not answering their phones--the website is down--the lights are off--no cars in the parking lot. And nobody else has heard from them for a while, either . . .

I miss Eden Games. The Buffy RPG was fun damn it!

Ledabot wrote:
They also have a bad habit of charging into combat by themselves. From what is said about 3.5, they would love that way more.

3.5 may be slightly more "tactical" than 4e simply because the combination of the god awful CR system and the prevalence of stat damage makes combat... interesting. Anyone who has taken on a golem, a roper, or a hive of stirges at low level knows exactly what I"m talking about. Combat also lasts about two to three times longer per turn then 4e in my experience.

Anpu42 wrote:
The point I am trying to make is Mechanically the game should have nothing to do with you fun; it is the interaction of the DM and the Players.

But if you have a good idea for a game, and a good group to play with, why use a system that isn't good for your concept? I could run a game all about political subterfuge and social maneuvering in 4e, but why? It's a terrible use of the system. Likewise I could run a dungeon busting high adventure romp in Storyteller, but again I definitely wouldn't be playing to the system's strong suit. The rule set is important as it allows conflict resolution in a way that isn't DM fiat. With out it you've gone from playing make believe with dice, to just plain make believe.

Gr3y wrote: a game all about political subterfuge and social maneuvering in 4e

My gaming group could pull this off and it would be glorious. And of course by glorious I mean hilarious.

I am currently in the middle of a 4e DnD campaign, and while its my only real experience with the "pen and paper" type of RPG, it has been quite fun... My wife is a "vet" player, in that she played 3 and 3.5 ed. games. She did not like 4e, until she really played a more drawn out campaign.

Also, if you are hesitant to buy all those books again, you could get a D&Di account, so that you can download the character builder, and Adventure builder programs, which are kept up to date with all of the most current FAQs, errata, and publications so that you can run just about any type of game possible in the DnD world

I have one great example of a “Rules are all Important” “The Rules are Unimportant” game

I have been running off and on a Modern Military/Horror game since 98
I started with Twilight: 2000/Darconspiracy for a while, it had the problem of basic lacking a good “Magic” System.
Then I went to Shadowrun 2nd and then about 3 months later Shadowrun 3rd edition and it worked real well unit some of the group moved, the ones most interested so the game died out.

A few years later some the group had interest. Two of the players did not like Shadowrun, but D20 Modern came out so we started to use it. It worked well until the characters started to hit 10th level. The main problems were actually the Hit Point system.
-The Uber Sniper armed with Single Shot .50 Cal would take 3-5 shots to kill a sentry of any were close to his level.
-Most of the Opposition if made of a level to challenge the team it would take entire clips to kill a guard.
-It would take 3-6 Guards armed with AK-47s to even worry the PCs.
-It quickly turned into a who could throw out the lead the quickest and no one ever used any thing but Automatics, the few fights that we just small arms or knife took 20-30 rounds to run.

Not that we did not have fun, the two missions that are still talked about are the 2 Land Sharks [The 1st things the PCs did when they got back to base was change their underwear] and the Rakshasha [That never had a shot fired].
It was after while mechanically the system broke down for the Horror/Suspense we were going for when the PCs had 100 hit points. We did try the “System Shock Rules”, but when you have 2 players who could not make a Saving Throw to Save their lives [Yes I relies the pun], it only take 2-3 characters failing in one fight to ruin a game.

We then went to back to Shadowrun, this time 4e and every one is happy.

Now with D&D 4e and Gamma-World [And Minions] we may take a look at it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I am currently in the middle of a 4e DnD campaign, and while its my only real experience with the "pen and paper" type of RPG, it has been quite fun... My wife is a "vet" player, in that she played 3 and 3.5 ed. games. She did not like 4e, until she really played a more drawn out campaign.

See here ^

I used to manage a comic shop and I got to hear SO MANY complaints. I played 4th ed. I quickly realized that in practice it felt like I was playing DnD. Play the game, quit griping and/or lying that you've played it. Games are completely subjective and they're only as good as who you get to play with.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:. Games are completely subjective and they're only as good as who you get to play with.

Isn't this the case with ALL games, not just DnD, or warhammer?