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.

Gwar! wrote:No, but during the development of 3.5e after the messup that was 3e, they actually asked Gygax what he would fix, and damn well fixed it

Do you have a source for that? It's not mentioned in his entry on wikipedia (which, admittedly, isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of info!), and I don't remember reading about it at the time (and I was working full-time for Mongoose Publishing as a d20 game designer during the development of 3.5, so I did try to stay pretty well informed -- I actually edited some of Gygax's work for Mongoose around that time, for example).

Gwar! wrote:LOL Bagorats fighter ftw!

Green DM: Why'd you Bring a Bag of Rats?
Me: I drop the bag or rats, and attack, then GREAT CLEAVE my way through the enemy!

Gwar! wrote:<(^^,< ) I only did it once, when I was teaching the DM how to DM and how to deal with Gitz (I'm a experienced DM, so I have to pass the Skillz on!)

I hope he caused your sword to break as you cleaved directly through the first rat into the stone floor....

Cheese Elemental wrote:Yeah, why'd 4th get rid of the awesome alignment system and replace it with a good-to-evil meter instead?

It's a shame Gary Gygax upped and died. I wanted him to sign my Monster Manual.

Gwar! wrote:They raped the Alignment System.
Another Point Against 4e.

Wait, from what I've veen the version he wrote had a very simple single-axis system as well. Good/Evil was a later add-on to Law/Chaos.

I agree removing it seems a bit odd, but Alignment has always been kind of goofy in D&D as it's either a carte-blanch IFF system for the Paladins and such (which means any town with enough Paladins to work the gates should have a ridiculously low level of serious crime, as well as making a lot of 'mystery' plots difficult or unnecessarily convoluted) or a club to use to railroad the PCs. Morale situations are complicated.

Gwar! wrote:
Well, they Killed off the Sorcerer and Monk and bard.
That Alone is enough to hate it.

Ah, Sorcerer: a 3.0 invention. Not very Gygag inspired, as you seem to prefer. Bard is a lot different, too, as a 1st edition AD&D Bard is completely different from a Bard of alter editions. Monk began life as a weird supplement and was only later briefly moved to a core class, removed from core, then re-added, and removed again for 4.0.

Gwar! wrote:
The removed Spell levels...
Seriously, why remove something that has worked for so long and replace it? Why?

It really didn't work that well. Spell levels were an abstract derived number (Essentially, a caster's level divided by 2, +1). The current structure is restrictive as well, but means that spells can become available at every level.

Gwar! wrote:
And the whole "OMG THERE ARE 4 CLASSES LAWL!"....
No thanks, I'll stay to the edition that Gygax actually Inspired and helped refine, not some crappy WoW clone.

So that means you only actually use the AD&D 1st edition and thereabouts? As he left before AD&D 2nd edition was released...

Gwar! wrote:
I think it is safe to to say you are one of the 0.00089% of 3.5e players who move to 4e. 4e will otherwise only be played by people new to the game.

As with other games, things change over time and attracting new players is important.

Balance wrote:As with other games, things change over time and Dumbing it down to new players is important.

Fix'd for ya. it happens to everything, yes I know. Doesn't mean I cannot be bitter about it.

Lordhat wrote:

Gwar! wrote:LOL Bagorats fighter ftw!

Green DM: Why'd you Bring a Bag of Rats?
Me: I drop the bag or rats, and attack, then GREAT CLEAVE my way through the enemy!

Gwar! wrote:<(^^,< ) I only did it once, when I was teaching the DM how to DM and how to deal with Gitz (I'm a experienced DM, so I have to pass the Skillz on!)

I hope he caused your sword to break as you cleaved directly through the first rat into the stone floor....

Nah I learnt the first time someone tried that. I always Cleave Sideways now

Gwar! wrote:

Balance wrote:As with other games, things change over time and Dumbing it down to new players is important.

Fix'd for ya. it happens to everything, yes I know. Doesn't mean I cannot be bitter about it.

Lordhat wrote:

Gwar! wrote:LOL Bagorats fighter ftw!

Green DM: Why'd you Bring a Bag of Rats?
Me: I drop the bag or rats, and attack, then GREAT CLEAVE my way through the enemy!

Gwar! wrote:<(^^,< ) I only did it once, when I was teaching the DM how to DM and how to deal with Gitz (I'm a experienced DM, so I have to pass the Skillz on!)

I hope he caused your sword to break as you cleaved directly through the first rat into the stone floor....

Nah I learnt the first time someone tried that. I always Cleave Sideways now

Ah so by leaning over and focusing solely on the rats you expose yourself to a coup de grace from the real enemies.

Lordhat wrote:Ah so by leaning over and focusing solely on the rats you expose yourself to a coup de grace from the real enemies.

Are they Bum Pirates again? One DM was clever like that

Gwar! wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Ah so by leaning over and focusing solely on the rats you expose yourself to a coup de grace from the real enemies.

Are they Bum Pirates again? One DM was clever like that

I'd have made it so that you had accidentally captured one Epic Level rat with 21hd.

Hmm, that's good. I'll steal that one for later use. or perhaps the rat Deity suddenly decided to make it it's avatar.

Tiny Creature with 50 HD and 30 Epic Levels

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, that's good. I'll steal that one for later use. or perhaps the rat Deity suddenly decided to make it it's avatar.

Tiny Creature with 50 HD and 30 Epic Levels

Hahahahaha! Avatar of the Horned Rat!

I played D&D off and on for a couple years. What makes D&D fun is the group if you got a good group its a blast. And when i say group i mean the real people

skullspliter888 wrote:I played D&D off and on for a couple years. What makes D&D fun is the group if you got a good group its a blast. And when i say group i mean the real people

Agreed. It's the players that make the game, but all games are not made the same. Good players can quickly become frustrated with a bad system. We tried 4e for three sessions and voted to go back. From what we could tell, it was very geared for the Dungeoncrawl/Monte Hall sort of campaign, but seems to suffer somewhat if your goal goes beyond kill people and take their stuff.

Clthomps wrote:its going to be about 80%

I've always found that wargamers and roleplayers are quite different crowds - closer to 20%

BaronIveagh wrote:

skullspliter888 wrote:I played D&D off and on for a couple years. What makes D&D fun is the group if you got a good group its a blast. And when i say group i mean the real people

Agreed. It's the players that make the game, but all games are not made the same. Good players can quickly become frustrated with a bad system. We tried 4e for three sessions and voted to go back. From what we could tell, it was very geared for the Dungeoncrawl/Monte Hall sort of campaign, but seems to suffer somewhat if your goal goes beyond kill people and take their stuff.

My experience running a 4e game was, literally, 180 degrees opposite. Again, roleplaying isn't determined by the system, it's determined by the group and GM.

Ogiwan wrote:My experience running a 4e game was, literally, 180 degrees opposite. Again, roleplaying isn't determined by the system, it's determined by the group and GM.

My experience has matched this: 4E has essentially distilled D&D down to what it's always been best at: a pretty decent system for running combat encounters. D&D has NEVER had effective rules for the roleplaying aspects of adventuring, and I've never found a need for such rules beyond "OK, the NPC seems to be responding to the idea, give me a roll and add your CHA mod to see how well it worked". I can certainly understand disliking the combat system, since that's a matter of taste. But disliking D&D because it's not an effective roleplaying system would be disliking a Toyota Prius because it can't handle the Corkscrew: it's simply not built for that.

Even still, the most awesome thing about tabletop gaming is that you can (get this) change things you don't like (I know that's really hard for people on a 40k board to understand, so I'll give it some time to sink in.... OK, here we go). It'd be really easy to, say, run a game using 4E for everything revolving around combat, while tacking on the roleplaying rules from another system. For instance, AD&D (first edition DMG in-hand, yo) has a metric ton of tables for adjusting NPC attitudes, detailing the effects of failed diplomacy, loyalty checks for henchmen, etc. It's fairly trivial in the internet age to track down a copy of those rules (I got mine for $20 at my FLGS's former used game rack), and they are even totally compatible with current rules (there's even still a CHA stat!) While they're still not totally wonderful for true roleplaying, they at least give a novice GM somewhere to start with running NPCs.

Meanwhile, 4E did away with some of the last few annoyances of the old D&D system that I hated. Vancian Magic can suck a fat one, for instance, and the alignment system was always a crutch for bad roleplaying. While I appreciated the flexibility that 3E multiclassing allowed, in reality it often ended up with some powergaming player taking 27 different prestige classes (plus 1 level of fighter) to exploit some obscure combo. Even one of my better players suffered from that compulsion and would often whip out something that even HE didn't fully understand, making my life miserable when he either blew everything up or was completely useless due to a miscalculation.

Magc8Ball wrote:

Meanwhile, 4E did away with some of the last few annoyances of the old D&D system that I hated. Vancian Magic can suck a fat one, for instance, and the alignment system was always a crutch for bad roleplaying. While I appreciated the flexibility that 3E multiclassing allowed, in reality it often ended up with some powergaming player taking 27 different prestige classes (plus 1 level of fighter) to exploit some obscure combo. Even one of my better players suffered from that compulsion and would often whip out something that even HE didn't fully understand, making my life miserable when he either blew everything up or was completely useless due to a miscalculation.

In all honesty you could do simuliar to this 2nd, especially with the Skills and Powers ruleset. Especially with a DM like I was... I allowed pretty much any humaniod race as long as you had a valid reason for being away from you "normal" are/skills. I also took the time to create my own world, with political strutures, variation on normal themes (Psychic elves, not magical), hell I even detailed the wether patterns that would have been accurate. Filled up 20 something notebooks, and 10 or so folders with the world. It ws great...
I can't see that happening with 4e though.

Havoc13 wrote:I also took the time to create my own world, with political strutures, variation on normal themes (Psychic elves, not magical), hell I even detailed the wether patterns that would have been accurate. Filled up 20 something notebooks, and 10 or so folders with the world. It ws great...
I can't see that happening with 4e though.

No reason it wouldn't work with 4E as it stands. I'm currently doing the same thing with a world that I've been sketching out for a couple years now. I started designing the background before I even knew 4E was coming, and while I had to make a couple adjustments to the way magic works, rules-wise, I didn't really have to do all that much to migrate. A good setting is entirely rules-neutral (beyond rough genre classifications like "high fantasy", "hard medieval realism" "sci-fi", or whatever).

Magc8Ball wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:My experience running a 4e game was, literally, 180 degrees opposite. Again, roleplaying isn't determined by the system, it's determined by the group and GM.

My experience has matched this: 4E has essentially distilled D&D down to what it's always been best at: a pretty decent system for running combat encounters. D&D has NEVER had effective rules for the roleplaying aspects of adventuring, and I've never found a need for such rules beyond "OK, the NPC seems to be responding to the idea, give me a roll and add your CHA mod to see how well it worked". I can certainly understand disliking the combat system, since that's a matter of taste. But disliking D&D because it's not an effective roleplaying system would be disliking a Toyota Prius because it can't handle the Corkscrew: it's simply not built for that.

Even still, the most awesome thing about tabletop gaming is that you can (get this) change things you don't like (I know that's really hard for people on a 40k board to understand, so I'll give it some time to sink in.... OK, here we go). It'd be really easy to, say, run a game using 4E for everything revolving around combat, while tacking on the roleplaying rules from another system. For instance, AD&D (first edition DMG in-hand, yo) has a metric ton of tables for adjusting NPC attitudes, detailing the effects of failed diplomacy, loyalty checks for henchmen, etc. It's fairly trivial in the internet age to track down a copy of those rules (I got mine for $20 at my FLGS's former used game rack), and they are even totally compatible with current rules (there's even still a CHA stat!) While they're still not totally wonderful for true roleplaying, they at least give a novice GM somewhere to start with running NPCs.

Meanwhile, 4E did away with some of the last few annoyances of the old D&D system that I hated. Vancian Magic can suck a fat one, for instance, and the alignment system was always a crutch for bad roleplaying. While I appreciated the flexibility that 3E multiclassing allowed, in reality it often ended up with some powergaming player taking 27 different prestige classes (plus 1 level of fighter) to exploit some obscure combo. Even one of my better players suffered from that compulsion and would often whip out something that even HE didn't fully understand, making my life miserable when he either blew everything up or was completely useless due to a miscalculation.

Quoted for utter truth.

Balance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
And the whole "OMG THERE ARE 4 CLASSES LAWL!"....
No thanks, I'll stay to the edition that Gygax actually Inspired and helped refine, not some crappy WoW clone.

So that means you only actually use the AD&D 1st edition and thereabouts? As he left before AD&D 2nd edition was released...

To be fair, 2nd edition wasn't a true "edition." It was, simply, first edition, streamlined and altered.
It really was more like 1.5 Edition with more classes.

Had you said "*2nd* edition and earlier", I'd agree.


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skullspliter888 wrote:I played D&D off and on for a couple years. What makes D&D fun is the group if you got a good group its a blast. And when i say group i mean the real people

Thread.
Win.
You.


Eric

Loved D&D. Played in the 80's.

What a ride it's been since then...

$$$ per hour entertainment, nothing beats it.

MagickalMemories wrote:
So that means you only actually use the AD&D 1st edition and thereabouts? As he left before AD&D 2nd edition was released...

To be fair, 2nd edition wasn't a true "edition." It was, simply, first edition, streamlined and altered.
It really was more like 1.5 Edition with more classes.

Had you said "*2nd* edition and earlier", I'd agree.

Balance wrote:
That seems like the beginning of a very hair-splitting discussion about the meaning of 'version.' I'd agree that there was less 'change' from 1 -> 2 as from 2 -> 3, but I'd consider it a new version as the writers pretty much hit the reset button. A lot of optional bits were made standard, some well-liked elements were lost (No more assassins or cavaliers), and some simplification.

And you know what?

People complained then, too. I don't remember hearing as much, but then again that was before I had access to the internet and such. I still remember some people complaining, and some of the friends I game with would much rather game with 1st edition AD&D than 2nd, despite favoring 4.0 currently. Me, I'd really hate not having access to at least the rudimentary skill system of 2nd or have to deal with combat chart lookups (or memorization).

I think it would be splitting hairs.
: )

I agree that it was a new edition, in it's most basic form... but I just can't agree on it being a "reset button." Third ed. was definitely a reset button. If you knew how to play first edition, then you already knew the basics of 2e. It was just built on the existing foundation of 1e.
Some stuff was lost. It's true. Not a lot, in the long run... Pretty much every lost class was turned into a kit. The bard was simplified. Psionics were made far more understandable (eventually lol). I really liked it.
I'm not surprised that you heard complaints. As has been said, some people complain about change, regardless. Nobody I knew complained, though. We loved the fact that it was, at its' core, a streamlined version of the game we already knew.

Later,
Eric

Mainly play 2nd edition + a few houserules. Mainly as that's what I've got a $%^&ton of books/supplements for.

Of late been running a d20 Star Wars campaign, which has been working out pretty well, and I also run an online Dark heresy game.

Vaguely at topic...how awesome is this !

I'd love to play in a room like that.

Started playing D&D in 1978, never stopped. Started playing Warhammer 40k in 1999. Stopped for about a month after I sold my army, then missed it and started a new army.

Sticking with the D&D 3.5 rules. As long as the rule system isn't broken you'll have fun no matter which version you play. 3.5 isn't perfect but it's not broken. Plus I spent too much money on 3.5 books to change quickly to 4th Ed.

Wish I could Vote on the Poll, but alas.
I've been playing for about 11 years now, and I love D&D. Period. I don't care whether I'm playing 4th or 3rd/3.5 (never got to play 2nd or earlier, sadly) I've been DMing that entire time (Yay on being the only guy willing to read the DMG and MM!), and have only recently (in college) been able to find groups in which I could just play the game. IN fact, D&D got me into 40k. (That's slightly inaccurate. D&D made me friends, who played the first Dawn of War game, which lead to Dark Heresy, which lead to 40k.(And people wonder why I picked Daemonhunters. "Finally, Perils of the Warp can never hurt me again!" )

As to the whole, "4th versus 3rd" argument, here's my stance:
I started on third, so that's what I know best. But the thing had gotten clunky. My players couldn't suggest a concept without me knowing 6 ways to get there, springing from sourcebook to sourcebook. And remembering where all that info was later was a giant pain. On the other side, it allowed me to have characters with just enough oddities to build character. ("Why do you have 2 ranks in Profession(Shepard)?")

4th, on the other hand, is clean. I have to say, personally, that I like 4th edition. I think of it as "D&D, Cinematic Style". Your characters heal quickly, everyone is pulling their weight, (I'm looking at you, full casters from 3rd. Let the fighter have his fun.) and it's ridiculously easy to explain.

Having done both, I can't help but laugh at people who say that 4th sucked out the RP that 3rd provided. Or accuse it of number crunching. 3rd had far more numbers and weird stuff going on.

A comparison: 4th level wizard
3rd: Skill ranks, how did he distribute them, what level spells can this guy cast, what's his effective caster level (feats might have changed it) Based on his intelligence modifier, how many bonus spells does he get?

4th: If's he's 4th level, he can cast these spells, once per day/fight/time he feels like it. He is trained in this many skills. What's half his level plus ability modifier?

I got a guy to make a character, and play 4th, in 15 minutes. And he understood everything on his character sheet. In third, that would have taken at least twice as long.

4th even lets you RP out because it gives you an easy and simple system for rolls the system didn't cover. 4th gave you a PAGE per race, telling you what they were like.

Now, it may seem like I'm singing the praises of 4th edition, but that's just because I love playing Devil's Advocate. I still love 3rd edition, but some many people are stomping on something that has the chance to be just as good.

(Oh, and Gwar? If I had been offered bards half as cool in 3rd ed as they are in 4th, I'd have sold body parts for them.)

It's funny how imp[ortant 'version' numbers are to RP'ers.

Myself and friends have played RPG's since..

D&D Basic Edition..Red Cover...

D&D Expert-"Blue cover for Extra toughness"!!. Got the Dice in the Box still..

When Advanced D&D came out, we all virtually exploded in Nerdy Extacy!!

Played Taveller, MERP, Runequest, Call of Cthulu, CyberP*nk(Rocks), etc etc..

When it gets down to it, "Role Play" is much more important than "Roll Play".

Rules in this regard are Third to Imagination and Judgement.

Rules/Books change, however good DM's and Players always make the Game.

Typeline wrote:I'm not a geek's geek.

dude, how did you find this website because you obviously don't play warhammer.