Why doesn't anyone play dnd 4e?!?!?!?!?!? [Archive] - Page 2

Matthew

2009-05-27, 06:34 PM

True - much of my AD&D experience came from when I was very young :smallredface:

Anyhow, do you think that adding Spontaneous Casting to AD&D Clerics would harm the AD&D dynamic? Off-hand, I don't think so, but I clearly haven't played it as recently as some have :smallwink:

I often play allowing spontaneous castings of all spells, but with stricter limits on spells known and recovery time. The AD&D supplement Spells & Powers suggested a system where characters could prepare "free magicks", which allowed spontaneous casting for more slots.

Which ultimately comes back to the original point that was being debated.

IIRC, the initial suggestion was that "earlier edition X" was better than 4e because it didn't require mixed party composition. The consensus of the the forumites that have played "earlier edition X" seems to be that it does require mixed party composition unless the DM fudged heavily.

Of course, the problem with that result when compared to the original suggestion is that 4e doesn't require mixed party composition either if the DM is willing to fudge heavily.

So, without taking it a step further and suggesting that 4e is better, I think it's fairly clear that 4e is at least no worse.

Better and worse are so subjective it is hard to say anything definitively. My observation of D20/4e is that it is designed for smaller parties than AD&D, so I think a party of 3 same class D20/4e characters are much more likely to survive and overcome than 3 same class AD&D characters, given the same approximate magnitude of threat. Could six first level thieves make a go of T1 The Temple of Elemental Evil? Maybe, but they would probably be better off as a mixed group.

Maybe a better example would be the D20/4e adventure the Treasure at Talon Pass. I have no doubt that a party of five D20/4e rogues could handle that adventure. Would they be better off in a mixed group? More than likely, but the degree would probably be less.

That said "hero level" in AD&D is about 4th level, whilst hero level in D20/4e is 1st level, so we might be comparing apples and oranges a bit.

I don't expect a party of 3 thieves to do much of anything outside of a customized city adventure. :) Those can be fun, but it IS stretching the rules to make it work.

I think four thieves would be hard put to take on an adventure designed for a fighter, thief, cleric and magician. However, you are making me curious to see how a group of six thieves would fare against the Orcs' Nest fastplay module I wrote for OSRIC (which I designed for a mix of classes). The aim is to infiltrate an orc stronghold and recover a missing object, which could possibly be well suited to an all thief party.

The only thing about 1st ed. thieves that really bothered me was the fatal nature of failure in their main role. Slow Poison isn't much of a help. I had to give up on bringing a thief through The Temple of Elemental Evil. It just didn't work well. You're important and needed, but poisons were harsh. And so was getting coated with green slime. And whatever other horrible things happened to me until I just ended up with a druid. Relying on knock, find traps, et al, we advanced just as well because the party wasn't searching out another thief. Not to say I didn't have a blast dying in totally spectacular ways, it was starting to get in the way of the module.

Yeah, getting poisoned at low level in AD&D is pretty much a death sentence, and even at high levels it is deadly.

3d6, even if you could place your stats in whatever order you wanted didn't necessarily make for a good dex. And there were no minimum stats for thieves so you could be pretty useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hexpendable.

Are we talking second edition here? In first edition 4d6, drop the lowest and assign as preferred, is method I for character creation. Thieves have minimum attributes of 6|9|6|6|3|6, so about 10-15% will be unplayable. In second edition 3d6 down the line was the default and minimum attributes were maybe 3|9|3|3|3|3.

While it was pretty rewarding if you managed to get a half dozen levels under your belt, getting there became pretty tedious. Far less of a buffer at moderate levels than other classes. But you did have the benefit of being "Poison Y", if you could afford any poison....

That is about the size of it. Level advancement in AD&D is hard, and characters can die easily and often. Definitely better off with a different game if the survivability of the player character is of concern at low levels. I typically give thieves a full hit die (house rule), short bow proficiency (UA/2e), and THAC0 20 (2e), but they remain highly vulnerable.

Kaiser Omnik

2009-05-27, 06:50 PM

Seriously, why don't we let everyone enjoy their prefered system? This is an exercice in futility. It's always the same thing. People who hate both MMOs and D&D 4E will say that they are both the same. Others seem to believe they are better than other players because they stick to the "right" system, the only one made for "true roleplayers", 3.5 (or 2E or Advanced D&D). D&D 4E being made for people with IQ 50-80? Smart people finding it less fun? Nonsense.

Seesh. Such elitists in here... Anyway, this thread should be closed, methinks, it's definitely stepping in Edition Wars territory (or it was there since the beginning).

BTW, I like both 3.x and 4E.

Jayabalard

2009-05-27, 07:09 PM

You'd never get anywhere without a massive fudging of the rules or dice. Did you ever play 1st/2nd ed.? Thieves were frail. They had to be helped along massively in the rules just to make them viable. You could not have a three thief party. They'd be slaughtered by two kobolds.

I love how your responses have been only to insult people.Yes, I played 1e. shadzar is 100% correct that if your DM couldn't handle an all thief group they were a poor DM.

Kylarra

2009-05-27, 07:14 PM

raptor1056

2009-05-27, 07:17 PM

Ok, everybody, stop! The troll is getting fat!

shadzar

2009-05-27, 07:26 PM

As have I. And shadzar can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that a 3 thief party, no matter what training they have, is going to accomplish much that will give them experience in those pre d20 editions. It would take eons to level, unless you're using optional rules for additional XP awards. They certainly won't be getting any XP from fights, and they aren't going to sneak past much of anything to get to treasure while avoiding fights for that XP.

I missed this...so D&D is only about gaining class levels? :smalleek:

I have been doing it wrong for nearly 30 years since I wasn't only playing to get to the next level of the game! :eek:

MickJay

2009-05-27, 07:30 PM

Concerning LE, I don't really see why it was created in the first place. Evil guy who respects/obeys the law when it's convenient for him? It only means he's Evil and sensible, nothing lawful about following laws that actually suit you. Someone's Evil and likes order? Well, great, they want to enjoy the gains from their Evil schemes in peace, again, nothing particularly Lawful in that. They're Evil, but they have some inner code and won't do some particularly nasty deeds? Okay, so maybe they're not at the very end of Evil scale. We're getting back to the early D&D understanding of Lawful, which made more sense and was less convoluted than the later interpretations. Simplification of alignment system was, if anything, a response to the hundreds of arguments about the inconsistencies, faults and weaknesses of the 9-alignment system; it's just a pity that alignments were not scrapped completely (Paladins would still have their Codes, and the rest of classes never really needed alignments anyway).

Colmarr

2009-05-27, 07:43 PM

I missed this...so D&D is only about gaining class levels? :smalleek:

I have been doing it wrong for nearly 30 years since I wasn't only playing to get to the next level of the game! :eek:

Surely I can't be the only poster who is getting annoyed by your constant snarky and sarcastic tone?

GitP prides itself on being a respectful forum. Try to be nice. If you can't make a post without making a snide remark or personal attack, it's best not to post at all.

Edit: To make sure I wan't fussing over nothing, I did a little backtracking:

Did you miss this from over a year ago?

Are we including DDI game table information in that question about 4th? :smallwink:

Why in TSR? Was your DM an arse that didn't know how to play the game?

Sorry Bill, but you did NOT require one of each clas to play the game with a competent DM.

You had poor DMs as well did anyone you talked to if you could not play a party of thieves... Those who were most likely the ones to become the char-ops flunkies, or munchkins of today. The ones that didn't even like D&D, but jsut wanted to play hank'n'slash. Well 4th edition is perfect for you. Break out your DDM and play the little war game with bloated rules after they cancelled the actual skirmish game.:smallwink:

It dumbfounds me how people aren't thinking about what they are saying, rather than just reading off some numebrs in "stat blocks" and say it cannot be done. The funniest part is those same people that told me I didn't have a right to not like 4th editoin after reading it and must play it to know or not and readint he stat blocks wasn't enough to decide.

Pot<-->kettle.

I had to go back 5 posts before I found one of yours that didn’t have something of concern to me in it.

shadzar

2009-05-27, 07:47 PM

MickJay,

Think of it like this.

Good has laws, evil has laws. They don't have to be the same laws, but the idea of order. Evil laws don't have to be the same as the good laws.

"Obey me or die!" That could be an evil aligned law.

A Lawful Evil thing may follow it out of alignment. Chaotic Evil may not care for the law and ignore or follow it. Neutral Evil might follow or ignore it as well.

Some could follow it because it was a law, other due to fear, other could care less.

The only ones that matter in this comparison are the ones that follow it because it is a law that THEY subscribe to. So evil being Evil they could have their own set of Laws.

monty

2009-05-27, 07:55 PM

Being Lawful doesn't necessarily have to do with laws. It's more a matter of personal order. A Lawful Evil person might have a strict code of conduct (an evil one, though), or they might put high value on organization among their minions.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-27, 08:09 PM

What, is this the Consolidated Warz Thread or something? :smalltongue:

IMHO Alignment is easily understood if you actually read the descriptions. Yes, I know that sounds rather aloof, but seriously, the SRD does a good job of explaining them. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)
Lawful Evil, for example, is a combination of these:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
. . .
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
. . .
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So a Lawful Evil person is someone who values hierarchy and personal consistency while being perfectly willing to harm, kill, or oppress others to get what they want. A LE guy will never lie to you, but may neglect to mention important details that can get you killed or worse; he prefers for everyone to be part of a hierarchy - and for him to be the one in control.

I know many folks don't like the Nine Alignments System for various reasons but, regardless of what you think of it, it is pretty clear. The real trick is to realize what an Objective Alignment System means - it means that the world is defined in relations to two axis, each of which has a pole that is defined solely by the text presented.

Berserk Monk

2009-05-27, 08:19 PM

So I'm wondering, WHY DOESN"T ANYONE PLAY 4E ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Not enough booze in the world to liquor people up so the rules start making sense.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-27, 08:21 PM

Not enough booze in the world to liquor people up so the rules start making sense.
I accept your challenge! :smallbiggrin:

shadzar

2009-05-27, 08:23 PM

I had to go back 5 posts before I found one of yours that didn’t have something of concern to me in it.

WEll oin the interest of discusion you need to understand where the other person is coming form.

The MMO link was made by the R&D Manager, PR manager, and Digital Manager several months prior to 4th edition.

Many that don't have cable TV may have missed that video.

Also sticking a square peg int he round hole doesn't prove a square peg is a bad thing. Like playing a party of thieves like they are a party of fighters trying to level 3 times per day in any edition.

IF you create a scenario for something to claim it won't work, it might not in that scenario, but doesn't mean that it doesn't work, jsut you picked the wrong application to try it. Like someone else mentioned Orc'S Nest sounds fun for a party of thieves, and to prove you don't need all of the class type, like that video claims via Bill; Treasure Hunt had 0-level classless PCs.

It really chaps my hide to say something cannot be done because one person wasn't able to do it most likely do to a DM who didn't think about what was being done for ANY edition or game for that matter.

I could do anything in 4th I could in previous editions, but don't like the system in which to do the things. Thus I don't like 4th. Bad system for me. That doesn't mean things can't be done, but they aren't done in a way I would enjoy doing things. That only works with me as a DM or someone that agrees with me.

Like the thief party, it can be done when people look at it from the proper angle, rather than try to fit that square peg into only the round holes, rather than trying to square holes.

I don't want to blame an edition for this, but it seems the most responsible reason this wave of thinking has come about due to poor explanation of the system in regards to the backgrounds of some of the people new to the game, or other reasons.

I prefer to see people approach D&D with an open mind, rather than play the it can only be played one way and any other way is wrong, because there are infinite ways to play, and don't want to see the "one true way" to infect other people's ideas where they feel like closing out their own opinions for the one most voiced from their peers.

:shrug:

If anyone wants ideas to make an all thief party work for a game, create a thread about it. I will answer questions there if any help on the idea is needed....

Colmarr

2009-05-27, 08:30 PM

Stuff

I had no issue with the points you were making. I don't agree with many of them, but that's irrelevant.

My concern was more the manner (and specifically the tone) in which you were making them.

That latest post is a perfectly polite and reasoned reply. Thank you.

Rutskarn

2009-05-27, 08:40 PM

I know I'm a little late, here, but let me say a little something about alignments systems. In this poster's genuinely humble opinion, let me rank them from worst to best.

Alignment System 1, or the "L, N, C" system.

Three nebulously defined alignments, carrying with them the (explicitly stated) assumption that Lawful characters are often good and Chaotic characters are often evil. This doesn't describe characters well at all.

Alignment System 2, or the classic 9-option system.

This is a vast improvement. It codifies archetypes much more freely, allowing for the classification of Lawful characters with Evil tendencies and Chaotic characters with Good tendencies.

Alignment System 3, or the "Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil" system.

This system is good in that it's streamlined, and bad in that it's useless and makes absolutely no goddamn sense. Why? Why are these arbitrary associations made? Why is it more important to identify Chaotic than Lawful Evil? Regular Evil must share the Lawful and Neutral descriptors. I get that there are problems with the 9-option alignment system, but this is not a solution. This is like fixing your car by removing random parts.

And finally, the best alignment system: not using alignments dammit.

Okay. I get that new players sometimes need a guideline for behavior. I get that it facilitates classic black-and-white fantasy a little more easily. But alignments carry with them a mess of problems--pigeonholed archetypes, moralistic bickering among players, disturbing behavior ("It's okay, we can torture him--he's evil, right?"), and spells and abilities that negate drama and necessitate the use of Deus Ex Machina to preserve a healthy amount of suspense.

And for all these problems, it contributes to the average group--what? A conversation topic? Another thing to put on one's character sheet? Another needless codification of behavior? You don't need to slap the labels Lawful Good on a character to have an honorable, altruistic persona, and it avoids a knock-in drag-out argument every time you do somethings slightly morally questionable. I don't ask myself, "Is this Neutral Good," I ask, "Is this something Fergus would do?"*

*All of this boils down to my preference. My loudly-voiced, indignant preference.

The_JJ

2009-05-27, 08:45 PM

@ the above.

Mechanics, unfortunatly. Far to many spells, abilities, classes rely on the 3x3 system.

So buck the system! Freeform LARP! :smalltongue:

shadzar

2009-05-27, 08:52 PM

I had no issue with the points you were making. I don't agree with many of them, but that's irrelevant.

My concern was more the manner (and specifically the tone) in which you were making them.

That latest post is a perfectly polite and reasoned reply. Thank you.

When replying to a post that isn't frustrating, I usually don't get frustrated when posting in return....if that makes ANY sense at all. :smallconfused:

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-27, 08:54 PM

And for all these problems, it contributes to the average group--what? A conversation topic? Another thing to put on one's character sheet? Another needless codification of behavior? You don't need to slap the labels Lawful Good on a character to have an honorable, altruistic persona, and it avoids a knock-in drag-out argument every time you do somethings slightly morally questionable. I don't ask myself, "Is this Neutral Good," I ask, "Is this something Fergus would do?"
So here's what Alignment contributes to a game:

(1) A shorthand for players & the DM to describe some broad motivations for their respective characters
While particularly useful for the DM (how do Goblins usually act? CE or several pages on Goblin sociology?) it can be great for players who may not have already fleshed out their character's personality to the nines. Alignment acts as a stable nucleus that can add consistency to your character's actions; it is a core around which you can construct a more complicated character. Extremely helpful for beginning players, but it can also aid experienced roleplayers who need to react quickly to novel situations, but lack superior method acting skills.

(2) A system for incorporating the Good vs. Evil conflict found in most modern Fantasy writing
Particularly in 1st, the (nearly) dualistic system helped to clearly define whose side people were on. Good characters opposed Evil ones; Neutral characters took flak from both sides. The Nine Alignments System (introduced in 2E, refined in 3E) added some greater depth in this conflict by also allowing lesser conflicts between Law and Chaos. For some classes (Paladins and Rangers) their alignment restrictions reserved those elite classes for champions of a certain side.
IMHO, 4E reduced the Nine Alignments System to a (poorly named) continuum of Good v. Evil largely because WotC heard complaints about the confusing nature of the Nine Alignments System - particularly on the Law/Chaos Axis. Read closely, "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" are really just Exalted and Vile - the most Good and Evil positions on the continuum. "Good" and "Evil" are now reserved for lesser individuals who cannot wholly commit themselves to their cause; "Unaligned" is just what it says it is.

As an interesting thought experiment - is there anyone here who started out playing D&D with TSR Editions who finds the Nine Alignments System confusing? I don't care whether you like it or not; but do you find it difficult to understand as an Objective Morality System?

KnightDisciple

2009-05-27, 08:57 PM

First off, now having (finally!) gotten to play 4th, I love it! I want more! Sadly, I have a feeling it'll be time before I get what I want...
Anyways. I wish they'd just made alignment be: Good, Unaligned, Evil. No mechanics associated.
Leaves enough for people who really like it, but is simple and vague enough to drop for everyone else.

Also: Warlord + Polearm Figther + Swordmage seems to equal win and such.

Druid + Cleric + Artificer + Wizard = Where's my meat shield! :smallwink:

The Glyphstone

2009-05-27, 08:58 PM

Druid + Cleric + Artificer + Wizard = Where's my meat shield! :smallwink:

Where's your meatshield? Your Druid is your meatshield. So's your cleric. So's your Druid's animal companion. So's your Artificer's pet golem. So's your wizard's......ok, got me there.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: Poor guy's the only one in the party who can't contribute to the meatshielding. Unless he casts that Necromancy spell that summons a wall of bodies/arms...then it's a literal meatshield.

Rutskarn

2009-05-27, 09:06 PM

So here's what Alignment contributes to a game:

While particularly useful for the DM (how do Goblins usually act? CE or several pages on Goblin sociology?) it can be great for players who may not have already fleshed out their character's personality to the nines. Alignment acts as a stable nucleus that can add consistency to your character's actions; it is a core around which you can construct a more complicated character. Extremely helpful for beginning players, but it can also aid experienced roleplayers who need to react quickly to novel situations, but lack superior method acting skills.

Honestly, does the heading "Chaotic Evil" really communicate more than even a few sentences of background?

Alignments are like horoscopes. To have a chance of applying to everyone who falls under their umbrella, they have to be massively vague. I learn more from "Goblins are cowardly, sadistic, and anarchic," than I do from, "Goblins: Usually Chaotic Evil."

As far as player characters go: I dunno. I can see needing them to give a foundation for some (although I don't agree that they're useful for developing more nuanced characters; usually, the foundations for those are a bit more personal), but keep in mind that these aren't just helpful suggestions--they're tied strongly into the game itself, in 3.5. Spells, classes, forces--really, is that necessary to maintain what amounts to a set of vague guidelines?

[B]Particularly in 1st, the (nearly) dualistic system helped to clearly define whose side people were on. Good characters opposed Evil ones; Neutral characters took flak from both sides. The Nine Alignments System (introduced in 2E, refined in 3E) added some greater depth in this conflict by also allowing lesser conflicts between Law and Chaos. For some classes (Paladins and Rangers) their alignment restrictions reserved those elite classes for champions of a certain side.

As an interesting thought experiment - is there anyone here who started out playing D&D with TSR Editions who finds the Nine Alignments System confusing? I don't care whether you like it or not; but do you find it difficult to understand as an Objective Moral System?

To the first part: yes, but sometimes it's bad to have distinct "sides". Players stop thinking about what's actually happening.

The classic example is that of adventurers raiding goblin delves, just because they're adventurers and goblins are evil. The players don't think about their actions--they just shrug, saying, "Hey, they're on Team Evil, we're not. I think it's pretty self-explanatory."

This is objectivist nonsense. I mean, even if the existence of objective evil did allow for genocide, what about the goblins that didn't fit under "usually", but are trying to defend their families and homes?

Now, of course, not everyone wants a campaign this nuanced. Some people don't want to worry about the morality of their actions, they just want to hack up some gobbos.

So why do these people even care if an alignment system exists?

To the second part: I don't find it hard to understand, per se, but I definitely think it's hard to define. Two people can have two very different interpretations of Lawful Good.

Volkov

2009-05-27, 09:11 PM

Kylarra

2009-05-27, 09:13 PM

Where's your meatshield? Your Druid is your meatshield. So's your cleric. So's your Druid's animal companion. So's your Artificer's pet golem. So's your wizard's......ok, got me there.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: Poor guy's the only one in the party who can't contribute to the meatshielding. Unless he casts that Necromancy spell that summons a wall of bodies/arms...then it's a literal meatshield.
Have you learned nothing from the Lightning warrior (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-868384.html)? The familiar is a beast of unstoppable might. Losing it should give the wizard d20 hp.

Yahzi

2009-05-27, 09:20 PM

it does little to explain how high-leveled non-combat NPCs came into existence.
My campaign setting has an answer for this: XP is tangible. It explains how both PCs and NPCs gain levels, and why Shadows don't overrun the world, and why people do sidequests, and why magic users sell magic items, and why the PCs can't push the local Baron around, and... all sorts of stuff.

Check out my sig for more.

As an interesting thought experiment - is there anyone here who started out playing D&D with TSR Editions who finds the Nine Alignments System confusing?
Infinitely. Which is why I replaced it with my six-alignment system, complete with an explanation for why the gods care. :smallbiggrin:

TheEmerged

2009-05-27, 09:25 PM

RE: Alignments in 4e. I dislike the 'reduction', but like the way it's no longer something detectable by spells and such.

Personally I'm from the "no alignment system" preference but it's a fun thing to debate :smallbiggrin:

KnightDisciple

2009-05-27, 09:33 PM

Where's your meatshield? Your Druid is your meatshield. So's your cleric. So's your Druid's animal companion. So's your Artificer's pet golem. So's your wizard's......ok, got me there.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: Poor guy's the only one in the party who can't contribute to the meatshielding. Unless he casts that Necromancy spell that summons a wall of bodies/arms...then it's a literal meatshield.

I have no idea what build the druid was exactly, but I think she was a caster-y druid. The cleric was okay as a meatshield, but he was better as a healer (dude was juggling actions to heal us for 12 or so a round, plus smiting enemies; it was impressive). The artificer did pull out his little golems occasionally, but again, I'm not sure of his build.
I was a "explode and burn the enemy!" type wizard. :smallbiggrin:

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-27, 09:48 PM

It is? The default setting I see is "Points of Light" Genericville, so chosen because there's room to fit in anything the DM wants. Forgotten Realms got a reboot for 4e, but it's not the default setting of the system.

And that RP issue sounds odd. How did a skill challenge remove your roleplay opportunity?

Well, this may be an RPGA only thing, since I have not picked up the 4.0 DMG, and do not intend too, but in the modules written for the RPGA (or so I have been told by the local DMs), any time skill challenges with multiple avenues are present, you get -one- roll, then you're done. 'To prevent characters from dominating the roleplaying.'

... ... WHAT ROLEPLAYING!?!?!?!?! I get to make a vague statement about a skill, and what my character is trying to accomplish, and roll 1 die. If we go around the table, and the task isn't accomplished, no one gets to try or do anything else.

Roleplaying doesn't matter, and due to the format of the mods, and the time constraints, is squelched as it affects nothing.

Also, yes, the RPGA has FR as the default setting. I have been so dis-satisfied with what I have read and interacted with in 4.0, I feel I generally have MUCH better things to do with my time than go fritter it down a hole of 4th ed wargaming. If I can't roleplay, the War game can kiss my rear, then go jump into a 'will it blend' commercial for all I care. Which is the only place I'd actually WANT to see this bedeviled system.

Yes. My experiences with FR, Greyhawk, and 4th ed have all been heavily colored in a NEGATIVE light by the RPGA.

Interestingly enough, this group also holds the exact same group that judges my current favorite game, the VERY roleplaying heavy Legend of the Five Rings (also owned by a Hasbro subsidiary).

Oh, and yes, for the most part, I only played anything D&D 3.5 in the RPGA when my L5R was not available... so I fully recognize that the RPGA may be one of the largest causes of my dislike for 4th ed. I don't care. It's just about the -only- place I can get an RPG game going on a regular basis, and if L5R is not playing, I see no point in wasting my time on 4th ed, except as a favor to a friend, so that there are enough people to make a table. And then, only if I don't have to play at the same table with a Drow.

Edit: Oh, and another thing. If you're optimized for the roleplaying, and no one even gives it any lip service, of COURSE you should dominate it. Why bother taking skills like diplomacy, and history, and other things that will not increase your effectiveness in combat, if not for out of combat situations?!?!

RTGoodman

2009-05-27, 09:53 PM

Roleplaying doesn't matter, and due to the format of the mods, and the time constraints, is squelched as it affects nothing.

Also, yes, the RPGA has FR as the default setting. I have been so dis-satisfied with what I have read and interacted with in 4.0, I feel I generally have MUCH better things to do with my time than go fritter it down a hole of 4th ed wargaming. If I can't roleplay, the War game can kiss my rear, then go jump into a 'will it blend' commercial for all I care. Which is the only place I'd actually WANT to see this bedeviled system.

I've never played in any RPGA campaign, but from what I've heard from a lot of people, the format doesn't lend itself to as much role-playing as a normal campaign anyway. I don't see that it could - for better or for worse, the RPGA is sort of about standardizing the game, and that's much easier to do than just publishing part of a module (since that's all you run anyway) that just says "You're on your own since we can't know what every player is going to do. Thanks for playing!"

I'd suggest talking to some folks at an RPGA event, tell them you're looking for a more role-play-oriented group, and see if they want to form a non-RPGA group on another evening.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-27, 10:02 PM

I have, until they started turning to dungeon delve mega-modules for the time saving it offered, and doing everything RPGA style.

I have some leads on a non-RPGA 3.5 group, and am going to follow up on it.

And I have made my own online 3.5 campaign.

And if I need to make a live action campaign and DM it, once I know where I'll be living for the next 3-4 months with relative certainty... I will, and it will also be 3.5.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-27, 10:10 PM

Oh, as a note, our local RPGA club has 2 game days a month. Every game day offers 4th ed RPGA D&D for 'everyone'. A large number of the judges, and some of the more long standing club members prefer other games. We have 2. L5R, and Witchunter. Modules for these are alternated between the two game days per month. Very few people play them, comparitively, but many of those that do come -only- for those modules. Many of our judges prefer them, and at least one of them has started putting (redacted) foot down and saying that unless (redacted) gets to play at least ONE module of (redacted) favored game on the ONE day a month it's offered, (redacted) will not judge 4th ed, for the demanding relatively new players. Especially since if the Secondary game doesn't make, some people that drove in from out of town have nothing they are even remotely inclined to play.

I was needed to make a table 2 times, and 2 times only. One of those times the game was called off on account of time to create characters. The other time, I played. Ever since, when my game of choice has not made, I have asked if I am needed to help make a table. If not, I leave.

One of the 4th ed players, who enjoyed my roleplaying in 3.5 keeps trying to get me to join in at the 4th ed tables. "You can play it Josh! You can do it!" "Yes, I can. I just don't want too. I have other things I'd rather do with my time than play that game." Which, unfortunately, he seems to take as a personal affront.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-27, 10:20 PM

Erm... I was just wondering, since this thread seems to have alot of people who know about both 3.x and 4e, which would be better for someone who has had very little experience playing either, but would like to get into playing tabletop RPG's? Like... me?

Also, is there a thread around here that gets newbies started?

That depends. Do you want to play a war game with more emersion and less pieces than, say, warhammer? Or do you want to play a game centered on roleplaying? Do you have a local (or online) group of experienced gamers to help you start out with your first game? Or will you need to go to an RPGA event (if there is even one in the area?)

If you want roleplaying, I would personally recommend 3.5. You could likely find a group of nice players online (such as possibly here) and get started in a Play by post game. This would be slower paced, which would actually likely be better for a beginner, as you have more time to consider your actions, and PM the DM about them (or even chat with them on an IM client). Or you could play with a local game group.

Either way, I'd suggest a game that starts at level 1, and playing a relatively simple character like Fighter, or Ranger. Possibly Barbarian. This would make starting out a lot easier on you with your earlier characters. You could

The core rules (and some more on top of that) are online for at http://www.d20srd.org/
You can find expanded rules at http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php

If you want to play something that's more of a war game, or more like a Computer RPG, I'd recommend 4th edition. If you feel you must play face to face, and all you have is the RPGA, you're pretty much stuck with 4th ed.

You can find the fast start rules online for free at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/dndtestdrive

Thurbane

2009-05-27, 10:29 PM

If you go to www.wizards.com (the current owners of d&d) you'll find plenty of 4e people in the forums. But that's only because they screwed up the 2nd & 3rd edition forums so badly that people started going elsewhere. A lot of 3e people went here and to Enworld, though both forums still have some 4e.
I personally vacated the WotC forums before the advent of 4E - it just wasn't a forum I was enjoying. The oftimes overly strict moderation and the high percentage of asinine posters made it just plain unfun and not that useful.

I migrated to Enworld, and when the 3E traffic there slowed down I popped on over here, even though I still pop into Enworld pretty regularly.

Anyway, back on topic...

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-27, 10:39 PM

Honestly, does the heading "Chaotic Evil" really communicate more than even a few sentences of background?
Perhaps not, save that it communicates a paragraph of information in two words.
The easiest way to see this is to think about the Classic Paladin. Now, anyone can look at the various sourcebooks (Complete Book of Paladins or BoED depending on edition) and find entire chapters describing the nuances of the Paladin's code and working through the moral questions they face. But, anyone can figure out how a Paladin is supposed to act by looking at their alignment and seeing "Always LG."

Alignments quickly and cleanly provide broad outlines for characterization. As you said, alignments are vague - but they do have definitions.

Take your genocidal adventurers for example. If they walk into a goblin cave and start killing goblins "because they are evil" then they are acting not-Good. How do I know?

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings
The fact that players fail to think about the reasons behind their actions is a fault of the players, not the Nine Alignments System - it clearly says what it means to be Good and what it means to be Evil.

As far as player characters go: I dunno. I can see needing them to give a foundation for some (although I don't agree that they're useful for developing more nuanced characters; usually, the foundations for those are a bit more personal), but keep in mind that these aren't just helpful suggestions--they're tied strongly into the game itself, in 3.5. Spells, classes, forces--really, is that necessary to maintain what amounts to a set of vague guidelines?
Here you are mixing two features of alignment - they're roleplaying aspect and their mechanical aspect.
Alignment as a roleplaying aid "is not a straitjacket for restricting your character;" a player is supposed to choose their alignment to best fit the character they want to play. Alignment as a mechanism is tied into The Battle Between Good and Evil; Good and Evil are palpable substances that can be assessed objectively and used as weapons. The terms Good and Evil lose all meaning if they are not tied to some sort of ethical code; a Classic Paladin is not a "Paladin" if it does not uphold the LG alignment - the Classic Paladin is supposed to be a crusader for the side of Good, after all.

I will agree that 3E took the alignment effects a bit far (Bards must be non-Lawful - WTF?) but the principle behind alignment restricted classes and effects is tied to there being a mechanism to depict the Battle Between Good and Evil, not alignment as a roleplaying tool.

To the second part: I don't find it hard to understand, per se, but I definitely think it's hard to define. Two people can have two very different interpretations of Lawful Good.
This, I think, is where most people get tripped up. The Nine Alignments System is designed to allow for a wide range of characters to be built up around any given alignment - it says so right on the tin:

Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other.However, this range of interpretations is bounded by the simple guidelines listed in the SRD. No LG character can routinely ignore innocents in peril nor lie like a rug; nor can any CE character habitually follow externally imposed rules or refuse to kill innocents when it is simply the easiest way to proceed. Obviously there is a lot of gray areas within alignments - that is rather the point.
The problem is that people seem to think the Nine Alignments System is a straightjacket - that, in every situation, there is only one alignment-correct way to go. Viewed this way, Alignments are a terrible idea; they restrict characterization to nine basic archetypes with no room for development. Personally, I think this stems from people looking at the Classic Paladin; with such stiff penalties for "deviation" from a narrow interpretation of LG I have no doubt that they have had a traumatic experience either at the hands of their DM or of a Classic Paladin due to Alignment arguments.

Still, those sorts of experiences are the exception, not the rule; plus they usually result from an overly rigid or jerkish player or DM who believes that Alignment Requirements are a stick to force people to do what you want them to do.

Svethnika

2009-05-27, 10:42 PM

Wow, this thread is less than two days old and already at ten pages, go figure.

I used to play a lot of 3.5 with my group but now we all prefer 4.0 more or less. The system is simpler and the gameplay is faster. I don't really sense any loss of flavour, but maybe that is because my group is made up of chronic min-maxers who apparently left the role playing for the role playing over half a decade before i joined the buggers:smallwink: lol.I liked 3.5 but I enjoy the efficiencies of 4.0, like how it handles skills and ac and such. I suppose in a way it is a gentler more accessible game.

monty

2009-05-27, 10:50 PM

But, anyone can figure out how a Paladin is supposed to act by looking at their alignment and seeing "Always LG."

Except when they can't, as the numerous alignment threads that pop up here on a daily basis prove. The problem with alignment is that it needlessly restricts a character, and still doesn't always tell you what to do in a given situation.

I've played games without alignment before. I still made interesting characters, and the roleplaying still worked out fine.

graymachine

2009-05-27, 10:55 PM

RTGoodman

2009-05-27, 10:57 PM

Late to the thread, admittedly, but mostly because I could get at least 6 months of membership out of WoW for the price of the core books and have the same experience. Economics, you know, tough times. :smallbiggrin:

But... wouldn't make MORE sense, economically speaking, to buy the books? I mean, they'll last practically forever. (Or, at least, until those devils at WotC come and take your old edition books when a new one comes out, as so many people seemed to think would happen when 4E debuted). :smallwink:

monty

2009-05-27, 10:58 PM

Late to the thread, admittedly, but mostly because I could get at least 6 months of membership out of WoW for the price of the core books and have the same experience. Economics, you know, tough times. :smallbiggrin:

And then after those 6 months? You're still paying for WoW, but you have the books forever. That's one problem I have with online games - I like a more permanent investment.

Rutskarn

2009-05-27, 11:01 PM

Perhaps not, save that it communicates a paragraph of information in two words.

Vague communication, in my most humblest of opinions. As you yourself say, alignments are intentionally amorphous.

The easiest way to see this is to think about the Classic Paladin. Now, anyone can look at the various sourcebooks (Complete Book of Paladins or BoED depending on edition) and find entire chapters describing the nuances of the Paladin's code and working through the moral questions they face. But, anyone can figure out how a Paladin is supposed to act by looking at their alignment and seeing "Always LG."

I didn't want to bring this up much, but a major problem is that people can't just by looking at "Always LG". Just look at what happens when you go to a D&D forum and start a thread about acceptable paladin behavior--everyone has a different definition of LG.

Take your genocidal adventurers for example. If they walk into a goblin cave and start killing goblins "because they are evil" then they are acting not-Good.

Problem is, that's what you get when you've got "sides". Why have forces of Good and Evil if it's not to generalize your opponent?

I suppose you could argue that the "usually" means that goblins are not technically forces of evil, but try explaining this to most players.

Here you are mixing two features of alignment - they're roleplaying aspect and their mechanical aspect.

As I see it, the problem is that the rules themselves do so. In their attempt to define the "sides" in the Battle of Good and Evil, the player is limited mechanically.

The problem is that people seem to think the Nine Alignments System is a straightjacket - that, in every situation, there is only one alignment-correct way to go. Viewed this way, Alignments are a terrible idea; they restrict characterization to nine basic archetypes with no room for development. Personally, I think this stems from people looking at the Classic Paladin; with such stiff penalties for "deviation" from a narrow interpretation of LG I have no doubt that they have had a traumatic experience either at the hands of their DM or of a Classic Paladin due to Alignment arguments.

Still, those sorts of experiences are the exception, not the rule; plus they usually result from an overly rigid or jerkish player or DM who believes that Alignment Requirements are a stick to force people to do what you want them to do.

I will certainly concede that most groups have the sense to use it as a tool, not as a shackle. Still, (and I want to make it clear that I can't speak for all groups), it seems that the friction caused by the mechanical and logistical implementation of an alignment system is grounds for dismissing the system, little as I feel it contributes.

MickJay

2009-05-27, 11:22 PM

Consider "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, then think about the objective nature of Good and Evil in D&D. It's very easy to come to conclusion that in such system, the altruism, respect etc. are limited to the Good and (likely) Neutral beings, precisely because of the objective nature of the alignments. By wiping out a Goblin village you objectively lessen the amount of Evil in the world, and thus shift the overall balance in the direction of Good. Sure, you might want to convert Goblins to the cause of Good, but that's simply inefficient. With objective alignment you can often (truthfully) argue that the end justifies the means; statements to the contrary that can be found in sourcebooks serve to exemplify how the whole system only seems to hold together (until you start examining it in closer detail).

Colmarr

2009-05-27, 11:33 PM

Well, this may be an RPGA only thing, since I have not picked up the 4.0 DMG, and do not intend too, but in the modules written for the RPGA (or so I have been told by the local DMs)...

So after saying that, you then go on to say:

That depends. Do you want to play a war game with more emersion and less pieces than, say, warhammer? Or do you want to play a game centered on roleplaying?

I'm sorry, but I call BS. Characterising a game on the basis of your limited experience of one method of presenting it is like damning v3.5e because "this one DM I had was hopeless".

I am yet to hear a convincing argument that 4e is less conducive to roleplaying than 3.Xe, and you certainly haven't provided it.

Mystic Muse

2009-05-27, 11:39 PM

about the alignment argument. I have a solution.

first limit it to good, neutral and evil. it's a lot simpler to define three alignments and saying "I'm more chaotic" "I'm more neutral" or "I'm more lawful" than try to define all three possibilities of the alignment.

how does this solve the problem you ask? well it makes the alignments a bit easier to define at the very least. however the easiest way to know what acts are which is this. ask your DM

your DM is the one who rules things as good, neutral or evil anyway. why not ask them outright what they consider what and give them some examples so you get the gist of it and give counter examples if you don't agree.

oh and I play 4th edition. I prefer it currently because things are easier to keep track of than in my 3.5 game and the classes are more balanced in a lot of respects although wizards seem rather weak according to the PHB compared to others. also it seems warlocks got screwed. but I don't receive dragon magazine and won't unless it's a free subscription like Lego magazine.

a game with no alignments could work but some players are schlect worts*

*not a curse word. look it up in a German dictionary. it's just more fun to say things in a different language:smalltongue:

sonofzeal

2009-05-27, 11:41 PM

I am yet to hear a convincing argument that 4e is less conducive to roleplaying than 3.Xe, and you certainly haven't provided it.
Enjoy! (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05b.html#20080514b)

Sir Homeslice

2009-05-27, 11:45 PM

Enjoy! (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05b.html#20080514b)

He was asking for a convincing argument.

The New Bruceski

2009-05-27, 11:45 PM

Josh, those are certainly valid reasons to be disillusioned, but try to point the hatred where it belongs.

--Organized formal gaming is set in Forgotten Realms, because it requires a fully-fleshed out world so that every DM is consistent with each other one. The idea behind it is you can take a character from any of the games into any other game and it's fully kosher. That doesn't mean it's the default for 4e in general.

--Skill Challenges are very badly implemented in most prewritten adventures, because they try to use a limited set of outcomes, and thus force the players into those outcomes. When used free-form the best things I've seen for social aspects are:
--Roll the ability and then RP that roll.
--Assign situational modifiers based on how it's played.
Others have just done RP (no roll) effectively, but I've seen powergamers abuse that maxing physical stats and relying on their own wit for mental stats. That makes me wary of it.

--Since RPGA D&D games (as you noted, it's set up differently in other gaming systems) are made to be streamlined and universal they are heavy on roll-playing, because ad hoc modifiers would vary between DMs. This isn't a matter of the 4e literature, it's in the guidelines for running a RPGA-legal game (my friend looked into it before getting fed up with the structure).

Conclusion: those are definite faults, but it's not a fault of the system, it's one of the Organization standardizing the system. While your venom is reasonable, it would be better to caution people about the RPGA rather than 4e in general. I've seen similar issues with the RPGA's 3rd-edition games.

sonofzeal

2009-05-27, 11:46 PM

He was asking for a convincing argument.
I was convinced. And, unlike many in this thread, I've actually played and enjoyed 4e.

Sir Homeslice

2009-05-27, 11:53 PM

I was convinced. And, unlike many in this thread, I've actually played and enjoyed 4e.

I was unconvinced because The Alexandrian is a fat blowhard grognard spewing buzzwords and drinks large amounts of missing the point completely. He has no idea what he's talking about, for the most part.

Colmarr

2009-05-27, 11:53 PM

Enjoy! (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05b.html#20080514b)

Much of that page (which I've read and been referred to a number of times) is about why 4e is badwrongfun, not about how it is not conducive to roleplaying.

His roleplaying argument is effectively based on the assertion that because 4e includes dissociated mechanics, it "disengages the player from the role they're playing".

I don't accept that premise.

Just because I don't know how or why one mark replaces another, doesn't mean that I am any less roleplaying.

My character knows it. It's a fundamental universal fact in his reality. So as long as he reacts appropriately to a mark, I am roleplaying just as well as anyone ever did in v3.5.

By way of comparison:

I don't know why vampires die in sunlight or how they gain sustenance from blood, but that wouldn't stop me roleplaying as a vampire.
I don't know why a spell disappears from a 3e' wizard's memory after they cast it. That doesn't stop me playing a wizard.
I don't know how my level 9 rogue suddenly gained 10ft/round of speed by taking a level in the barbarian class.
I don't know how a bit of bat guano can be turned into a fireball, but that doesn't stop my fighter from knowing that it's bad news.
I don't know why dual-classing from rogue in earlier editions of D&D temporarily stopped me from advancing in the rogue class, no matter how many locks or pockets I picked.
I don't know how a 1-tonne lizard can fly, but that doesn't stop me playing a character in a world where they can.

Players don't need to know why something happens to roleplay around it. They just need to know that it does happen.

Mystic Muse

2009-05-28, 12:06 AM

huh. I sort of enjoyed reading that and although I don't agree with some of the author's points in some cases I do agree in others. for example.
I agree that a paladin marking a creature should not make the knight's effect go away and will probably actually use that in my campaign.
there will also be times when certain marks will not be able to stack.(two knight marks are able to stack but the paladin's divine challenge won't. I have my reasons for this.)
I also agree the skill system is messed up. you shouldn't be able to just do other things in order to increase your chance of doing something else.

however I don't really agree with the complaint about the powers being unable to be explained logically. D&D doesn't necessarily conform to logic and complaining that certain powers are not logical is IMHO pointless. it's not a logical game. otherwise there would only be humans in it and no magic items would exist.

and I also agree that 4th edition,while combat-centric, should NOT only be about the combat. some of the skills are pointless then.

and I agree with the points of the above poster.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-28, 12:09 AM

So after saying that, you then go on to say:

I'm sorry, but I call BS. Characterising a game on the basis of your limited experience of one method of presenting it is like damning v3.5e because "this one DM I had was hopeless".

I am yet to hear a convincing argument that 4e is less conducive to roleplaying than 3.Xe, and you certainly haven't provided it.

No need to apologize so long as you call it like you see it, and try not to be nasty in how you call it.

I can only give advice on which system to try based on my own experiences and understanding of each system. I have admitted (in other posts close to the one I gave the advice in) that my experience and knowledge of 4th ed is limited, in much the same way, and for much the same reason that I didn't bother watching the play (or movie) Grease past the opening 2 minutes, haven't enjoyed either production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" I've seen part of, and turned off "Monster's Ball" about 25 seconds in.

I was asked for advice and, given what I know, I gave it. I know that -I- dislike 4th ed, and that -I- have found it to be a poor place to try to find actual roleplaying. Further, the feeling that I have from the hours that I have spent reading and discussing content in the 4th ed PHB is that the game is more of a war game than a role playing game. I have skimmed posts on the subject, and had discussions with other gamers in cars. All in all, 4th ed seems to me to be a poor place to RP in. And I stated such. I'm not trying to convince you, or any other 4th ed player not to like it.

sonofzeal

2009-05-28, 12:12 AM

Here's how I understand things...

Roleplaying in games usually comes down to a combination of two activities - speaking for your character in dialogue with others (and the occasional monologue), and narrating your character's actions in interesting and flavourful ways.

Saying "I attack the orc again... oh look, I got a 27, and rolled 12 for damage" is not roleplaying. It's inherently meta, entirely focused on the mechanic, and doesn't add anything to the immersion. Saying "I jab my rapier under the orc's guard, catching him square in the sternum" is roleplaying. It ignores the meta, helps build the narrative, and adds to the immersion.

Now, 3e was not perfect for this. There were a few things characters could do where you couldn't help but deal exclusively with the meta, because they don't really have any good parallel. Fortunately, these are fairly few and far between; even ToB, the bane of combat realism, is pretty good about giving sample explanations as to what your character is actually doing, that you can base your own descriptions on. In 4e, the gaps in narrative are a lot more common. Not ubiquitous, and creative players can still work their way through, but they're there and they're hard to fully escape.

Can you still roleplay in 4e? Of course! Nothing will ever prevent you from doing dialogue (or monologue) for your character. And there will still be character actions that you can describe in immersive and compelling ways. But there's less, and those breaks are going to bring the players back to reality for a bit. You can fudge over it and keep on going, but you're still reducing opportunities for dynamic and fun roleplay.

(edit - I should follow this up by saying that I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I think D&D's a game, and games should be fun before they're realistic. I enjoyed playing 4e, and will play it again if I get the chance. I just think it's the less immersive of the two systems)

Oblivious

2009-05-28, 12:15 AM

Erm... I was just wondering, since this thread seems to have alot of people who know about both 3.x and 4e, which would be better for someone who has had very little experience playing either, but would like to get into playing tabletop RPG's? Like... me?

Also, is there a thread around here that gets newbies started?

4e is specifically designed to be approachable to people who haven't role-played before. On the other hand, 3.5 has a very good free online ruleset (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm). If you have an experienced DM to guide you through things, I'd recommend 3.5 if only because you could get a lot of exposure with very low investment. If you need to wade through all the rules yourself, 4e might be a better fit.

As for the thread discussion, I have personally been dissuaded from 4e because of the class/powers system and the lack of non-combat mechanics. When people compare 4e to an MMO, I think it's clear that they're referring to the character progression and combat system. Every build decision and action you make is just an amendment to a spreadsheet document. This ignores the fundamental advantage that pnp rpgs have over video games.

To tell the truth, I think a better comparison would be to strategy rpgs like Final Fantasy Tactics (or really, anything that ends in "Tactics"). The grid-based combat, class/power system, and shallow non-combat gameplay almost makes 4e a board game adaptation of the "tactics" sub-genre of computer srpgs. If this is what you're looking for, 4e is well designed for it. If you've ever tried to play a turn-based srpg on a computer with friends, you know that it can be cumbersome so I can understand the demand for this sort of thing. I like deep character progression, coming up with outside-the-box solutions, and free-form magic systems so 4e is not for me.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 12:15 AM

No need to apologize so long as you call it like you see it, and try not to be nasty in how you call it...

the feeling that I have from the hours that I have spent reading and discussing content in the 4th ed PHB is that the game is more of a war game than a role playing game.

Fair enough.

Just be aware that the #1 thing that will get 4e supporter's backs up is alleging that the system doesn't allow/support something because "my experience" suggests that's the case.

I've read the 3e, 3.5e and 4e player's handbooks. They're all terrible at promoting roleplaying. That's just the way D&D books are written (rules-heavy, not fluff-heavy). I've also played in campaigns under each system. Each has been roughly on par when it comes to roleplaying.

Which is not to say that my experience is of any more value than yours, but when discussing the system, it's best to stick to discussing the system, not how some people you know implemented it. :smallwink:

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 12:19 AM

In 4e, the gaps in narrative are a lot more common. Not ubiquitous, and creative players can still work their way through, but they're there and they're hard to fully escape.

I'm interested in where you see these gaps.

For example, every power in 4e that I can think of has a fluff blurb attached, which is more than can be said for base and full attacks in 3.Xe (which made up the vast majority of attacks made by melee characters).

Edit: This isn't sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in what you consider the narrative gaps in 4e that didn't exist (or didn't have parallels) in 3.Xe.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-28, 12:25 AM

Josh, those are certainly valid reasons to be disillusioned, but try to point the hatred where it belongs.

Not hatred. Strong dislike. There are very few things that I actually hate in this world, and that feeling is usually transitory. Current things I out right hate: 0.

Many things disappoint me. Many things make me sad. Many things I feel strongly against. Actually hate? None that I can think of. (Example: The killing in Darfur makes me sad, disappoints me, and makes me want to work to make the world a better place.)

--Organized formal gaming is set in Forgotten Realms, because it requires a fully-fleshed out world so that every DM is consistent with each other one. The idea behind it is you can take a character from any of the games into any other game and it's fully kosher. That doesn't mean it's the default for 4e in general.

I incorrectly remembered Drow being in the 4th ed PHB. I admit the mistake on FR being the default setting.

--Skill Challenges are very badly implemented in most prewritten adventures, because they try to use a limited set of outcomes, and thus force the players into those outcomes. When used free-form the best things I've seen for social aspects are:
--Roll the ability and then RP that roll.
--Assign situational modifiers based on how it's played.
Others have just done RP (no roll) effectively, but I've seen powergamers abuse that maxing physical stats and relying on their own wit for mental stats. That makes me wary of it.

Well, I will admit I am not fully versed in this. What is the primary difference between skill challenges in 4th ed, and challenges that you over came through roleplaying and skills in 3.5?

--Since RPGA D&D games (as you noted, it's set up differently in other gaming systems) are made to be streamlined and universal they are heavy on roll-playing, because ad hoc modifiers would vary between DMs. This isn't a matter of the 4e literature, it's in the guidelines for running a RPGA-legal game (my friend looked into it before getting fed up with the structure).

Conclusion: those are definite faults, but it's not a fault of the system, it's one of the Organization standardizing the system. While your venom is reasonable, it would be better to caution people about the RPGA rather than 4e in general. I've seen similar issues with the RPGA's 3rd-edition games.

I have discussed my dislike for the RPGA and Organzied play at several points, and generally advocate for home games built either from the ground up, or using single-session length modules that can be dropped in at convenient points where it makes sense for the campaign, rather than longer 'campaign arc' modules like the Red hand. I nearly panicked a DM when he didn't fully explain his vision for a campaign based on some orc-tribe campaign arc module, and my character pretty much said 'pass' on the plot hook. This was also the DM that decided it was always a good idea to have the NPC org be 'cooler' than even mid-high level PCs.

One of the big reasons that I do not play 4th ed (other than those I listed earlier in the thread) is that I like 3.5, as do all of the good roleplayers I have ever managed to hook up with. The only time I feel any real pressure to use 4th ed is if I feel a strong need to RP, and the only RP available is currently RPGA D&D. Thus, I am forced not only to deal with module driven play, where the entire... *calming breath* sub-par module experience is exaserbated by a system I am none-to fond of in the first place.

If I like the world, and like the system, I can put up with modules.

If I dislike the world (FR) and dislike the system (4th ed) even a little, being rail-roaded through mods makes it an experience... ... not worth my time, except as a favor to someone else.

Generally speaking, if someone gave me 100 bucks to play a 4th ed mod, I'd sit down, and my first act in character, would be to ignore the plot hook.

I only -actually play- as a favor to someone else... and then my roleplaying in the game is not for my enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of others. I just try to eek out as much enjoyment for myself while I can. Our local RPGA group is short on Warlords, and people keep saying more warlords would be nice. So I made an Inspiring Dragonborn Warlord with tactical powers (move-people-around tactical powers, forget their names). That way I can let people move more (to do what they want to do sooner) and heal them (to keep them doing what they want to do). I basically intend to take 'options it's good to have, but others don't want to take' as my skill set, and try to have some fun playing them. I've got a breath weapon, and a flaming sword.

I haven't even bothered to pick a name. If forced, I will name him Bobby Mc4th-ed-is-stupid-shorts. Or George. George is a good name.

Edit:
In case anyone can't tell, the last half of the post is mostly non-serious. I didn't pick a name, because we were in a hurry, and even though I had already built the character before, I had forgotten my sheet, and had to re-build him. I tried to roleplay. I had a charismatic "Proud Warrior Race" guy trained in diplomacy. We happened upon a panicked crowd, and I declared that I was going to try to calm the crowd, to make sure they didn't hurt themselves, or the crime scene. That was all I got to do for the entire half hour. I was basically told, by the module "You wasted your one action, go sit on your hands'." Oh, and I was one of the few at the table that had any trained skills that might have helped. Maybe 10 sentences occurred IC the entire game.

And the reason I only play it "as a favor"? The RPGA demands a minimum number of players for one table, and sets a maximum as well. If a group of people come a bit late, have already played the main mod being formed, or there are just the exact wrong number of people present, it becomes near impossible to get everyone seated. So sometimes if I offer to "make table", someone gets to play, who WANTS to BADLY, who otherwise wouldn't.

Otherwise? Not worth my time.

monty

2009-05-28, 12:25 AM

I don't know why a spell disappears from a 3e' wizard's memory after they cast it. That doesn't stop me playing a wizard.

I'll skip over the others, but I don't get your argument with this one. It's magic. It doesn't have to make sense, because it's supposed to break the way things normally work.

On the other hand, after a fighter hits someone really hard in 4E, why can't they do it again until tomorrow?

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 12:40 AM

The reason 4e is not conducive to roleplaying is because you cannot play a massive number of character types that are totally worth playing.

You can't play a guy that constructs buildings with his awesome magic, or travels the planes like a super star, or never sets foot on the ground, or regularly teleports around.

There are also all sorts of things you can't do without the whole party playing along, and certain amount of ignoring the obvious similarities. Like claiming your warlock is a demon who channels his inherent power. (First you have to pretend that your race is demon when it isn't, or you have to pretend your pact is demonic when it isn't, because Tieflings don't sync with the right pact, thanks WotC.) You regularly run into questions like, hey, how come There are so many other people who can do exactly what your demonry allows you to do without being a demon? And the unified power structure means you then further have to explain why you can unleash exactly as much of exactly as powerful abilities each day as the book learning guy, the praying guy, and even the punching people in the face guy.

Not a very convincing demon act. Of course, in 3.5, you can actually be a Demon, teleport anywhere you've ever been at will, and use a smaller number of abilities more times (including infinite use of things more powerful then other people can use that way). Being a Demon actually plays entirely different then being a Wizard. And that's nice to have.

On the other hand, 4e provides options like guy who fights with a weapon in each hand, but doesn't go for the weak spot. Or guy who uses tactics in combat to help allies (okay, maybe White Raven Crusader/Warblade).

Ultimately it's a question of what you want to roleplay, because contrary to what lots of people like to say, what your character can do, and what other people's characters can do changes what you can roleplay.

So one or the other game is going to not be conducive to roleplaying, depending on what it is you want to roleplay.

--Assign situational modifiers based on how it's played.
Others have just done RP (no roll) effectively, but I've seen powergamers abuse that maxing physical stats and relying on their own wit for mental stats. That makes me wary of it.

What edition is this? In 3e powergamers don't play character who rely on physical stats. In 4e everyone wants either Wis or Cha, and lots of people want Int or Wis/Cha for something anyway.

Also, as a side note, in my experience powergamers are the least likely to max physical stats and rely on themselves for mental stats because powergamers are the type of people who think that your characters actual stats mean something and really reflect how it should be played. I've seen more true roleplayers who loved their roleplay so much they couldn't play a character as having 10 Cha if their life depended on it, but they still dumped it when they needed to just like everyone else.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 12:44 AM

I was convinced. And, unlike many in this thread, I've actually played and enjoyed 4e.
I have major problems with the Alexandrian's article, and I think it centers around the fact that he conflates mechanics with fluff.

Take this quotation here.

Of course the argument can be made that such explanations can be trivially made up: A ruby beam of light shoots out of the war devil's head and strikes their target, afflicting them with a black blight. The war devil shouts horrific commands in demonic tongues to his allies, unnaturally spurring them into a frenzied bloodlust. The war devil utters a primeval curse.

These all sound pretty awesome, so what's the problem? The problem is that every single one of these is a house rule. If it's a ruby beam of light, can it be blocked by a pane of glass or a transparent wall of force? If it's a shouted command, shouldn't it be prevented by a silence spell? If it's a curse, can it be affected by a remove curse spell?

And even if you manage to craft an explanation which doesn't run afoul of mechanical questions like these, there are still logical questions to be answered in the game world. For example, is it an ability that the war devil can use without the target becoming aware of them? If the target does become aware of them, can they pinpoint the war devil's location based on its use of the ability? Do the war devil's allies need to be aware of the war devil in order to gain the bonus?
One problem with this article is that came out before much of the mechanical rules were released. The 4E mechanics explicitly address the following:
- Line of Effect: rules for determining whether a pane of glass would affect a given effect.
- Remove Curse/Silence: irrelevant, as their Rituals just wouldn't apply
- Stealth Rules: If you attack, you lose Hiding; if invisible, you reveal your position.
- Knowledge: Monsters & PCs know the effects they are operating under.

4E is unique among the D&D incarnations in providing a comprehensive system that can answer these sort of hypotheticals. If your DM decides to make the fluff have mechanical effects, they can be easily adjudicated under the rules.

Deciding how an attack looks has never been considered a "home rule;" its the sort of atmospheric effect you use to flavor a campaign world. Heck, even 3E said that wizards could alter the way their spells appeared so long as they didn't change the mechanical effects.

IMHO, his arguments are based around the high-minded phrase "disassociated mechanics;" a phrase that sounds formal and serious but, when dissected, means nothing more than "the game has mechanics that simplify complicated real world situations." This is true of every WotC D&D game; when was the last time you worried about your clothing burning away when caught by a fireball, or worried about where you went when Evasion allowed you to completely dodge a fireball that filled a room? All of these are "disassociated mechanics" in that they provide for results which would make no sense IRL. That is, after all, his definition of the term:

There's a fundamental disconnect between what the mechanics are supposed to be modeling (the rogue's skill with a blade or a bow) and what the mechanics are actually doing.
If the mechanics are supposed to be modeling being placed in the middle of a sphere of fire, and they allow you to avoid any and all damage without resorting to magic, then they don't model being incinerated very well, do they?
In short, The Alexandrian is just picking and choosing among features of game systems that he is willing to Suspend his Disbelief. Fundamentally, any RPG is going to be disassociated at some level; complaining that rules are "disassociated" is as bad as complaining that water is wet.

...crap, I was ninja'd! Well, I think my analysis is sufficiently awesome to post anyhow :smalltongue:

Now, back to Alignment :smallbiggrin:

I will certainly concede that most groups have the sense to use it as a tool, not as a shackle. Still, (and I want to make it clear that I can't speak for all groups), it seems that the friction caused by the mechanical and logistical implementation of an alignment system is grounds for dismissing the system, little as I feel it contributes.
Ultimately, this comes down to "it seems to cause trouble, so we should ditch it." Now, I don't know about your particular experiences (what have your experiences with Alignment been like?) but, as I said before, just because some people out there have trouble with something doesn't make it a bad system.
It seems our major point of contention is the degree of vagueness in the alignment descriptions; you say it is too vague to be intelligible as an Objective Morality System while I say it is just vague enough to give characters some room to develop outside of the base archetypes.

To test this hypothesis, consider the following text:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
This is the Nine Alignments System definition of Good, Neutral and Evil. Can you phrase a situation which cannot be filtered through this text? To put it another way, look here:
SCENARIO: You are in a marketplace and you witness a healthy young boy in worn clothing steal a purse from a wealthy-looking adult. Nobody else is around - what do you do?

Good: Regardless of your feelings about law or chaos, you are likely to pursue the boy. If he is truly needy, then he needs to find a better way to survive than risking his life by committing crimes. If he just likes to steal, then you should catch him to return the ill-gotten goods to the innocent merchant. In any case, returning the purse to the merchant is the correct thing to do, even if that means you have to donate some gold to help out the child - if he is truly distressed.

Neutral: Nothing. After all, what is the behavior of strangers to you? If you are Lawful, then you might catch him to uphold the law; if you are Chaotic you might "accidentally" trip up any guards that pursue him - damn the man and all that.

Evil: Sneak after the boy and, once he is alone, take the purse - even if it means killing him. The merchant's purse is likely filled with valuables and you can almost certainly overpower the boy; plus, if you are questioned about the purse you can say you noticed the theft and were looking for the owner to return it - for a reward, of course. The perfect cover and easy money.
What I have described is a general course of action in reaction to a scenario depending on one axis of alignment; you can see that there is plenty of room for variation depending on your personality. A Good but passive character might not go after the child himself, but he would try to get the purse back to the innocent merchant; an Evil character might pass up the easy mark if he was more concerned with some other matter at the time. And, of course, any character may act against their nature under times of great stress - but Good characters should never kill casually, and Evil characters should never show particular care for the welfare of strangers.

For me, this sort of analysis is simple; you refer to the text and think about what it means in terms of action. Some actions are clearly forbidden and many are suggested - some more than others - but once that first approximation if complete, there is plenty of room for an individual character to add nuance to their response.

Is there some area here that causes you difficulty - or, more likely, a situation that came up where alignment caused other players (or the DM & a player) to rough up the game? In the latter case, I would refer to the following text:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
In a very real sense, using alignment correctly is just the same as using any mechanic correctly - you just have to read the rules and follow them.
That, anyhow, is where I am coming from.

Now, the question as to whether alignment adds anything to D&D is wholly separate from why some people have trouble using it. In my experience, alignment is a distinctive quirk of D&D which adds essential flavor to the experience; working within its moral framework colors all of the storytelling that goes on within a game. It is by no means essential - you could excise it and still use the system largely without difficulty - but it would be like getting rid of Humanity in a game of oWoD Vampire. Or Shadow-slang from Shadowrun.

At least, in my humble opinion :smallsmile:
EDIT:

As for the thread discussion, I have personally been dissuaded from 4e because of the class/powers system and the lack of non-combat mechanics. When people compare 4e to an MMO, I think it's clear that they're referring to the character progression and combat system. Every build decision and action you make is just an amendment to a spreadsheet document. This ignores the fundamental advantage that pnp rpgs have over video games.
Could you elaborate a bit on this?

To begin with "the lack of non-combat mechanics" strikes me as odd, as 4E has a fully fleshed out non-combat encounter mechanic (Skill Challenges) and a flexible enough catch-all ruleset (DMG 42) to adjudicate any freeform action you care to do - inside or outside of combat.

Secondly, how is "every build decision and action [being] an amendment to a spreadsheet document" different from 3E? If I were to draw a line on this point, it would be the TSR/WotC changeover - in TSR D&D very little of what went on in an adventure referred to your character sheet.

Kylarra

2009-05-28, 12:45 AM

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 12:50 AM

Minor nitpick. With the Tenser's Floating Disc ritual and an upkeep of 10g/day, you could be flying around all the time.

1) Does Tensers still have the issue of guidance?

2) I would argue that someone who floats a foot off the ground standing on a disk is a very different character then someone who actually flies all the time. I have a character who's response to some halfling pickpockets run the other day was to float up 15ft into the air. That represents my character a lot better then threatening them if they tried to get on my floating disk.

Sir Homeslice

2009-05-28, 12:53 AM

monty

2009-05-28, 12:53 AM

Minor nitpick. With the Tenser's Floating Disc ritual and an upkeep of 10g/day, you could be flying around all the time.

Yeah, but that just looks stupid. What if I want to play the guy who floats two inches off the ground, his toes brushing the weeds he passes over? That's much more awesome, and can be done in 3.X with pretty much any long-term magical flight.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 12:56 AM

1) Does Tensers still have the issue of guidance?

2) I would argue that someone who floats a foot off the ground standing on a disk is a very different character then someone who actually flies all the time. I have a character who's response to some halfling pickpockets run the other day was to float up 15ft into the air. That represents my character a lot better then threatening them if they tried to get on my floating disk.
Major nitpick - 3E prevents me from playing an arbitrarily large variety of characters as well :smalltongue:

Seriously though - why is it that having certain powers or abilities is central to a "character?" Shouldn't the personality and backstory be more important?

Hell, I'd argue that the Eladrin's ability to Teleport 25' pretty much all day is enough to simulate that kind of elusiveness, no? If the actual ability to fly is so important, then ask the DM to homebrew it in. Or play a system which allows you to play flying people; its why I play Shadowrun when I want to play a Troll with a minigun :smallcool:

@Monty: The same to you, but it's even less of a problem there; if that hovering is just flavor, then your DM should say "OK, go for it." If you are using it to gain some sort of concrete mechanical benefit, then I have far less sympathy.

sonofzeal

2009-05-28, 12:58 AM

I'm interested in where you see these gaps.

For example, every power in 4e that I can think of has a fluff blurb attached, which is more than can be said for base and full attacks in 3.Xe (which made up the vast majority of attacks made by melee characters).

Edit: This isn't sarcastic or rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in what you consider the narrative gaps in 4e that didn't exist (or didn't have parallels) in 3.Xe.
The Alexandrian article I linked did a pretty good job of covering a number of the bases. Daily martial powers and "marking" are two of the more obvious ones.

Let's see from personal experience though. I'll be honest, my 4e experience is highly limited right now, but... my Eladrin Wizard could shunt an ally with a Scorching Burst, using Fey Step and a special feat (I think it was a feat, my friend made the character), without that ally's knowledge or permission, but couldn't do the same for an enemy. I don't really have the books, so maybe you could tell me whether that would work with an unconscious ally, or an unconscious enemy. Either way, in 3e this would be handled with a "Will negates (harmless)", but I didn't see any such mechanic in 4e. From my understanding it works for allies and doesn't work for enemies, regardless of their wishes or consent in the matter. If I've got it right, this is something that's handled straightforwardly and explainably in 3e (effectively attaching a secondary spell effect to the spell in question, which tries to pull the target through the astral plain or feywild or wherever to a new position, and the target can either go or try to resist), but doesn't make as much sense with the 4e mechanics.

Now, that's a pretty minor thing, but that's just the one that jumped out at me during a quick one-off where only the DM had any experience with the rules and one player kept falling asleep every five minutes. There was also the fact that Grease can't target walls (gotta be a horizontal area), Grease Attacks only trigger when they enter the area and not when they move within the grease-covered zone (may have been a poor DM call), and a lot of the Warlord's actions seemed to make no sense whatsoever. In 3.5e, Grease just covers an area and can be used on walls or to lubricate ropes; Grease very specifically triggers on every turn the creature tries to move when it's in the area; and action-granting powers are rare and fairly specific.

Again, I don't think any of that prevents roleplaying. Some of it can even be fodder for it, inventing flavourful explanations to try to weave implausible things into the narrative. But it still generally discourages it and damages immersion. Immersion is not the be-all and end-all of gaming fun, and I can have great fun without any immersion at all. But for roleplaying, I think it's hard to argue that it isn't a very good thing to have.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 01:01 AM

Let's see from personal experience though. I'll be honest, my 4e experience is highly limited right now, but... my Eladrin Wizard could shunt an ally with a Scorching Burst, using Fey Step and a special feat (I think it was a feat, my friend made the character), without that ally's knowledge or permission, but couldn't do the same for an enemy.
Wait - what? That isn't RAW, or even close. Every attack requires you to roll to hit, and any non-attack power requires the target to be willing.

Honest. It's all there in the books.

EDIT:
To elaborate.

If you want to attack an "ally" with an "enemy only" power, then you just have to designate them as an "enemy" for that power. You could also swap enemies to allies equally freely. I honestly have to say this sounds like weird DM action more than anything.

...and what Grease effect are you talking about? And why did you want to Grease a wall?

The New Bruceski

2009-05-28, 01:06 AM

Well, I will admit I am not fully versed in this. What is the primary difference between skill challenges in 4th ed, and challenges that you over came through roleplaying and skills in 3.5?

First, as far as FR stuff, the MM had Drow, but it also had Warforged. Both races were expanded later. They tried to have enough to tide players of specific settings over until more info got out.

And for the difference in skill challenges: not much. Skill challenges are an attempt to put more structure on it (though nuances have been rewritten repeatedly), Taking a particular player level and giving the DM guidelines on DCs and how many successes/failures to look at. Some people take the structure to one extreme of absolute rigidity, some throw it out the window entirely and just play things by ear.

I will say the best places I've found to use skill challenges are in non-combat situations with many routes to one (general) goal. Challenges that are "you need to succeed on Thievery 3 times before failing 3 times to disarm the trap" or "roll Endurance checks in a 5/3 DC18 skill challenge to see if they catch the guy" are boring as hell. On the other hand, talking a bandit leader down until you can come to an agreement can be a mismash of Dimplomacy, Perception (figure out how badly you're outnumbered), Insight (help prod out tacks of negotiation), and could use all sorts of other skills in various ways. In this case a Skill Challenge format can help guide the DM into figuring out how things go, and when to continue. It's definitely not perfect, and has been rewritten multiple times to reflect that.

The New Bruceski

2009-05-28, 01:09 AM

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 01:15 AM

Major nitpick - 3E prevents me from playing an arbitrarily large variety of characters as well

You might want to try reading my first post. The one were I explicitly said that.

Seriously though - why is it that having certain powers or abilities is central to a "character?" Shouldn't the personality and backstory be more important?

More important? No. If you want to play a demon, and you look like a bunch of normal people, and you can't do anything different then anyone else, you are a very different character then a 30ft monstrosity that teleports around and uses powerful innate magic that makes other people see you as actually different, instead of doing basically what they do, but maybe slightly different.

If you want to play someone who single handedly constructs obscure dungeons, then you need to be able to do that. And if you can't, then you are a different person then the guy who can.

Superman would not be Superman if he were a normal guy. He would have very different problems, and very different challenges, and very different responses to life.

Hell, I'd argue that the Eladrin's ability to Teleport 25' pretty much all day is enough to simulate that kind of elusiveness, no? If the actual ability to fly is so important, then ask the DM to homebrew it in.

There is nothing elusive about it. He flies all the time because he considers mundane effort of all kinds unworthy of him. It was not elusive to avoid the halflings, it was disdainful to float out of reach, with no visible effort and demonstrate his superiority.

The actual ability to fly is important in that it is something lots of fantasy characters can do, and do much better then any 4e character can. To ask for a homebrew of that is silly, because a) It is something that 4e very specifically didn't allow. Because it doesn't fit in 4e. b) It's silly to demand a homebrew of every thing that doesn't fit in 4e, because at that point, 4e isn't worth anything.

Or play a system which allows you to play flying people; its why I play Shadowrun when I want to play a Troll with a minigun

See, exactly my point. I do play in a system that allows for flying people. It's called 3.5, and all of D&D for a long time. D&D is about High Magic, City destroying power, and immortal beings, crazy monsters, and the normies who overcome them by being becoming as powerful as them and more so.

That's what it's always been about for me. And that is why I play 3.5 to play that game.

I also play 4e to play a very different game.

But you'll notice I never make stupid claims that 4e includes powerful magicians completely separate in their concerns then the people of a city, and will never claim that 3e features tough gritty heroes, who through strength of arms struggle forward to victory. (You actually can play that in 3e for about 5 levels if you ban half the classes.)

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 01:20 AM

And for the difference in skill challenges: not much. Skill challenges are an attempt to put more structure on it (though nuances have been rewritten repeatedly), Taking a particular player level and giving the DM guidelines on DCs and how many successes/failures to look at. Some people take the structure to one extreme of absolute rigidity, some throw it out the window entirely and just play things by ear.
Important note - DMG 42 makes a huge difference.

4E provides dynamic DCs that are tied to certain bands of levels; each band has an "Easy" a "Moderate" and a "Hard" column. Now, rather than fudging the DC for a given roll (or just going the "more is better" route) you can listen to a player's plan and decide whether it should be succeed more often than not (e.g. offering a substantial bribe to a corrupt bureaucrat) or less often than not (e.g. offering a substantial bribe to a rigorously honest bureaucrat) and put the appropriate DC to it at a glance.

For me, this is huge. The Dynamic DCs work great for social challenges and do allow for really skilled characters to do much better than inept ones. As an example, our CHA-adin is easily able to ace even Hard Diplomacy checks while our mumbling Tactical Warlord almost always flubs his. As the DM, I was tempted to shift the DCs for the Cha-adin but having the DCs there kept me from arbitrarily reducing a PC's well-earned advantage.

To be honest, DMG 42 is a bigger improvement to non-combat encounters than the base Skill Challenge system; the modified Complexity ratings are certainly nice, but WotC flubbed the implementation in the original DMG text. Still, I really appreciate having a framework to work with rather than having to just eyeball everything.

EDIT:

See, exactly my point. I do play in a system that allows for flying people. It's called 3.5, and all of D&D for a long time. D&D is about High Magic, City destroying power, and immortal beings, crazy monsters, and the normies who overcome them by being becoming as powerful as them and more so.)
First, apologies for the misinterpretation, but I must also comment on this.

No D&D before or after 3E had that sort of High Magic mentality; in TSR D&D magic was a rare and risky thing - no PC had access to the simplest tricks that a high-level 3E Wizard can use. You did not fight gods and win without access to unique and powerful artifacts - artifacts that more often than not shattered your mind when using them.

Now, it may have been a off-handed comment, but I must say - and I think Matthew will back me up - the sort of game you're talking about is not TSR D&D; not by RAW anyhow. It sounds more like Exalted or even oWoD Mage, to be honest.

That said - more power to you for finding the game you like to play.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 01:20 AM

That's not roleplaying, that's a gimmick. That says nothing about who the character is, just what they do.

Yes, and the fact that I'm a lawyer says nothing about who I am, just what I do. Kobe Bryant just plays basketball in a certain way, that says nothing about who he is.

No, I didn't explain the entire story of the immortal demon who spent his time on the Prime Material building elaborate dungeons and inhabiting them with various monsters and then directing adventurers into the traps in various ways, usually getting them to wear simple black stone rings that were made of Thamuiamum and sucked in their souls when they died (which he then showed up and ate).

But that's because it's a lot more work then it's worth. But the point that this character can't exist in 4e still remains true. And he can't exist in 4e precisely because of what he cannot mechanically do.

Because what you can do really does determine who you are.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 01:34 AM

Yes, and the fact that I'm a lawyer says nothing about who I am, just what I do. Kobe Bryant just plays basketball in a certain way, that says nothing about who he is.
. . .
Because what you can do really does determine who you are.
No.

I mean, no.

What you can do only determines what you can do; the sort of person you are is determined by life experience and innate personality traits.

Yes, it is true that an immortal demon with reality-warping powers might have a unique perspective on life - but what perspective? Does he think he is a Living God? An abstract philosopher who alters reality to make for thought experiments? Or does he do his best to shield his monstrous form and lead a "normal life" despite it? The fact that he is a demon with reality-warping powers tells you nothing about his personality; you know more about the personality of a church-going peasant.

Kobe Bryant became a great basketball player because of passions and drives that existed before he was a basketball player. As a basketball player, his personality has been molded by the events that occurred because of his position, but not because he's good at basketball.

Any character that is defined solely (or even largely) by what he can do is, by definition, a shallow character; he is "the guy who is good at basketball" not "Kobe Bryant."

I am trying not to make this sound like a Stop Having Fun Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) argument, but I fear I am failing. I guess I'm just profoundly shocked by the quoted statement...

All I can say is that I used to think that a guy with a spear for a hand would be a neat character; now I think that the orphan who was raised by a madame to be a bouncer at her brothel makes for a character with more developmental potential.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 01:36 AM

The Alexandrian article I linked did a pretty good job of covering a number of the bases. Daily martial powers and "marking" are two of the more obvious ones.

Ah, ok. You're referring to what I would call gaps in the "logic", rather than gaps in the "narrative". Now I grok you.

My position on how/whether such gaps affect roleplaying has already been outlined in the post to which you replied.

The reason 4e is not conducive to roleplaying is because you cannot play a massive number of character types that are totally worth playing.

You can't play a guy that constructs buildings with his awesome magic, or travels the planes like a super star, or never sets foot on the ground, or regularly teleports around.

All of which is fine and a perfectly valid reason for preferring 3.5e to 4e, but it has nothing to do with roleplaying, which was the topic in reference to which you raised it.

Let's be clear what we're discussing here. Someone alleged that 4e was not conducive to roleplaying. I (and others I hope) disagreed.

So far, the arguments in support of that proposition are (1) the game system does not use a physical reality/logic I am willing to accept, and (2) it doesn't allow me to have the abilities I want.

Neither of those in fact support the proposition in relation to which they were advanced.

Edit: It's only fair to mention this from one of your earlier posts:

On the other hand, 4e provides options like guy who fights with a weapon in each hand, but doesn't go for the weak spot. Or guy who uses tactics in combat to help allies (okay, maybe White Raven Crusader/Warblade).

Ultimately it's a question of what you want to roleplay, because contrary to what lots of people like to say, what your character can do, and what other people's characters can do changes what you can roleplay.

So one or the other game is going to not be conducive to roleplaying, depending on what it is you want to roleplay.

Obviously you are referring to the ability of the system to facilitate a certain type of character, whether that be a flier, a demon or Oracle_Hunter's troll with a shotgun.

I don't think that's the same definition of roleplaying that others are using. It's certainly not the one I'm using.

I would define "roleplaying" as "representing the knowledge, attitude and goals on my current character".

Your definition appears to add the words "choosing a character and" to the start of my definition. While building a character is an important part of a roleplaying game, I don't actually think it's relevant to a discussion of whether a certain system is conducive to roleplaying as a general proposition. Once you add that character creation clause, it simply becomes a comparison of system size.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 01:53 AM

Yes, it is true that an immortal demon with reality-warping powers might have a unique perspective on life - but what perspective? Does he think he is a Living God? An abstract philosopher who alters reality to make for thought experiments? Or does he do his best to shield his monstrous form and lead a "normal life" despite it?

And none of those are possible without first being an immortal demon with reality warping powers.

The fact that he is a demon with reality-warping powers tells you nothing about his personality; you know more about the personality of a church-going peasant.

But the game telling you "No you can't play an Immortal Demon with reality warping powers." Does tell you something. It tells you that their are a whole host of character concepts that you can't play in that game.

And that's fine. Because you also can't play a Church Going Peasant in either version of D&D either.

Yet it is being claimed that D&D 4e can totally support every possible character concept ever. Including ones that can only exist given certain powers that you can't have in the game. I am being told I am wrong for wanting to roleplay the effects of immortal superpowerdom on a character that has those characteristics, and that instead I should just pretend to have those things I don't have.

There is a huge difference between Clark Kent the normal guy who's never had any super powers, but is mostly a nice guy who cares and doesn't ever want to hurt anyone, and Superman, the guy who lives life in a fragile world where he could accidentally kill people by destroying the entire building with his crazy Strength.

That difference is entirely the function of the abilities they have. Because if you took Kobe Bryant, and cloned him, but removed all the athleticism from the DNA somehow first, and raised him exactly the same, you'd get an entirely different person.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 01:57 AM

All of which is fine and a perfectly valid reason for preferring 3.5e to 4e, but it has nothing to do with roleplaying, which was the topic in reference to which you raised it.

Let's be clear what we're discussing here. Someone alleged that 4e was not conducive to roleplaying. I (and others I hope) disagreed.

So far, the arguments in support of that proposition are (1) the game system does not use a physical reality/logic I am willing to accept, and (2) it doesn't allow me to have the abilities I want.

Neither of those in fact support the proposition in relation to which they were advanced.

Perhaps it would serve you to actually read my first post. I very clearly explained that when someone says, "It is not conducive to roleplaying." They mean that it does not allow them to play the character they want to play. If you can't play Superman, then you sure as heck can't roleplay him.

That is why the very last paragraph of my first post said, "Which edition is not conducive to roleplaying is entirely dependent on what you want to roleplay."

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 02:04 AM

Yet it is being claimed that D&D 4e can totally support every possible character concept ever. Including ones that can only exist given certain powers that you can't have in the game. I am being told I am wrong for wanting to roleplay the effects of immortal superpowerdom on a character that has those characteristics, and that instead I should just pretend to have those things I don't have.

Actually, I don't think anyone actually claimed that.

No system that I can think of can support every possible character concept ever. The ones that come closest are the ones that exist primarily as skeletons over which someone drapes a frame (such as GURPS).

Perhaps it would serve you to actually read my first post. I very clearly explained that when someone says, "It is not conducive to roleplaying." They mean that it does not allow them to play the character they want to play. If you can't play Superman, then you sure as heck can't roleplay him.

That is why the very last paragraph of my first post said, "Which edition is not conducive to roleplaying is entirely dependent on what you want to roleplay."

I did read it. In fact I quoted it (admittedly the post has been edited since you probably started your reply, so you might need to go back and read it again), but the fact remains that we disagree on what constitutes "conducive to roleplaying".

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 02:07 AM

@Dark Scary

The type of game you described is essentially epic tier play in 4E. You can even literally fly or teleport everywhere, using magic items:

Zephyr Boots: Gain a fly speed equal to your speed while wearing light or no armor. (Level 24)
Boots of Teleportation: Power: (At-Will, Teleportation) Teleport your speed as a move action.

Kylarra

2009-05-28, 02:08 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 02:08 AM

@Dark_Scary
So... is your point that 4E can't model every set of powers and abilities imaginable? Because I will freely admit that. Neither can any system - not even GURPS (IIRC - can you be a Vancian Caster in GURPS?).

There is a form of roleplaying that can do that though - it's called freeform roleplaying. Because without rules, you can be anything you want :smalltongue:

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 02:08 AM

Actually, I don't think anyone actually claimed that.

I made the statement in my first post that the reason people say it isn't conducive to roleplaying is that it isn't conducive to roleplaying the character they want to roleplay.

This was followed by many people, amongst them you, informing me that in fact 4e is conducive to roleplaying the characters.

Since these characters are characters with abilities outside the scope of 4e, these statements make no sense whatsoever.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 02:15 AM

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 02:17 AM

The type of game you described is essentially epic tier play in 4E. You can even literally fly or teleport everywhere, using magic items:

No it isn't.

Boots of Teleportation: Power: (At-Will, Teleportation) Teleport your speed as a move action.

Teleporting 50ft =/= teleporting anywhere in the world.

And that's a basic power, not even getting into leveling cities, possession, shapechanging, killing waves of people in an instant, ect.

Okay, I'm curious where "conducive to roleplay" is now set to mean "every single thing I can think of is possible within this criteria". Or whoever said that in the first place, but I'll totally disagree with them too.

So uh... what's the point?

No I'm absolutely serious here. What was the point of this page-long tangent? That 4e can't handle certain things within its rules? Okay. Established.

@Dark_Scary
So... is your point that 4E can't model every set of powers and abilities imaginable? Because I will freely admit that. Neither can any system - not even GURPS (IIRC - can you be a Vancian Caster in GURPS?).

There is a form of roleplaying that can do that though - it's called freeform roleplaying. Because without rules, you can be anything you want :smalltongue:

So the point was, that this thread asks, "Why do you play 3.5 instead of 4e." The answer some people gave is, "It is not conducive to roleplaying."
I attempted to clarify to multiple people arguing against this and/or asking what this means.

It means that 3.5 allows them to play the characters they want to play, and 4e does not.

It can certainly be phrased better then "conducive to roleplay" but judging by the complete unwillingness to understand the point, I doubt a better phrasing would have been met any better.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 02:18 AM

I made the statement in my first post that the reason people say it isn't conducive to roleplaying is that it isn't conducive to roleplaying the character they want to roleplay.

This was followed by many people, amongst them you, informing me that in fact 4e is conducive to roleplaying the characters.

Since these characters are characters with abilities outside the scope of 4e, these statements make no sense whatsoever.
So... when most people say "conducive to roleplaying" they mean "encourages people to pretend to be people aside from themselves."

Figuring out whether Wrothgar the Bold is going to pick up the chick at the bar is roleplaying.

Rolling to hit the orc with a sword is not.

In general, people do not mean "have specific mechanical abilities" when they say "roleplaying." That would be called "creating a specific character" not "roleplaying."

Now, when I say "generally" you have to take this with a grain of salt - as I clearly have no proof - but the fact that everyone was so confused by your meaning to have posted over a page on it may point to the fact that you are using an unusual definition of the term.

EDIT:
The proper phrasing of your point is the uncontroversial "4E does not allow you to design a character with any powers you would like."

Hey, Roleplaying has a Wikipedia Article! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplay)

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 02:20 AM

Now that you know that others disagree with the relevance of character creation in that regard, can we eliminate that issue and agree that for the character builds that it supports, 4e is just as conducive to roleplaying as 3.Xe?

I never claimed otherwise. That was my sole and complete point. I was attempting to explain why that statement was made and what specifically was meant by it.

Now, when I say "generally" you have to take this with a grain of salt - as I clearly have no proof - but the fact that everyone was so confused by your meaning to have posted over a page on it may point to the fact that you are using an unusual definition of the term.

Once again. Not my definition. I am explaining what others meant by the term when they said it. To those that do not understand what they meant.

I do not disagree that it is an unhelpful way of phrasing the issue.

The proper phrasing of your point is the uncontroversial "4E does not allow you to design a character with any powers you would like."

No, the proper and controversial way of phrasing my point is "4e does not allow me to play the characters I would like."

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 02:23 AM

Teleporting 50ft =/= teleporting anywhere in the world.

And that's a basic power, not even getting into leveling cities, possession, shapechanging, killing waves of people in an instant, ect.

Listen, D&D is about Dungeons and Dragons. Not being a bloody Mary Sue. There needs to be a challenge to overcome if the game itself is going to be any fun.

What fun is it attacking an enemy army if you can say "Oh, wait, no, I killed them all with my thoughts". Sure, you could role-play that... but is it fun?
Not to mention the poor fighter, who's been preparing himself for hours, and is ready to charge out and start cleaving his way through the army. What's he gonna say when your prospective uber-character just kills them all? If it were me, I'd just leave and get a party member who needs a party.

And of course, the DM wouldn't want to DM your games, because you're too powerful for anything to challenge. So, in the end, you get to play "Uberness and Insane power levels: 1st editon" all by yourself, because nobody likes playing with an uber character showing them up all the time.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 02:23 AM

It can certainly be phrased better then "conducive to roleplay"

On this we agree, and our debate ends. I freely admit that 4e does not yet offer the same number of race/class/ability combos that 3.Xe does.

but judging by the complete unwillingness to understand the point, I doubt a better phrasing would have been met any better.

Au contraire. If you (or whomever else you're acting as proxy/representative for)* has simply said "there are more character options in 4e", I suspect this discussion would have been much shorter.:smallsmile:

* This isn't an accusation. I'm simply reflecting a comment you made earlier that someone said 4e was less conducive to roleplaying.

Kylarra

2009-05-28, 02:28 AM

So the point was, that this thread asks, "Why do you play 3.5 instead of 4e." The answer some people gave is, "It is not conducive to roleplaying."
I attempted to clarify to multiple people arguing against this and/or asking what this means.

It means that 3.5 allows them to play the characters they want to play, and 4e does not.That's a [more than] slightly different issue than what "conducive to roleplay" would generally imply, but I'll agree with you there. As of yet, 4e does not have anywhere near the number of options that several thousand dollars worth of splatbooks provide for 3.X.

It can certainly be phrased better then "conducive to roleplay" but judging by the complete unwillingness to understand the point, I doubt a better phrasing would have been met any better.
Phrasing is everything in internet debates. :smallwink:

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 02:37 AM

@Dark Scary

Well, there's also an item that allows you to teleport a few miles once a day as well, but if you're talking about literally being anywhere you want to be at any time instantly and at a thought, you're talking about what amounts to omnipresence, which isn't possible in any edition of DnD. (Well, at high enough epic levels of 3.5 this might become possible, but at that point the game basically becomes freeform)

Also, I looked at your first post, and it didn't say anything like what you just said it did. As far as I can tell you were arguing that DnD 4E wasn't conductive to roleplaying because you can't teleport across planes at will, fly everywhere, and build huge structures in the blink of an eye. (presumably as examples) As well, while people have said that they don't think 4E is conductive to RPing, each of them has either not stated their reasons for thinking so, or stated they thought that way because of bad experiences. Who exactly has stated they don't think 4E is good for RPing because of the reasons you listed, other than you? :smallconfused:

And we're not unwilling to understand the argument that 4E is not conductive to roleplaying, but unable. As in, it doesn't make any sense.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 02:37 AM

Listen, D&D is about Dungeons and Dragons. Not being a bloody Mary Sue. There needs to be a challenge to overcome if the game itself is going to be any fun.

What fun is it attacking an enemy army if you can say "Oh, wait, no, I killed them all with my thoughts". Sure, you could role-play that... but is it fun?
Not to mention the poor fighter, who's been preparing himself for hours, and is ready to charge out and start cleaving his way through the army. What's he gonna say when your prospective uber-character just kills them all? If it were me, I'd just leave and get a party member who needs a party.

And of course, the DM wouldn't want to DM your games, because you're too powerful for anything to challenge. So, in the end, you get to play "Uberness and Insane power levels: 1st editon" all by yourself, because nobody likes playing with an uber character showing them up all the time.

Ever played Exalted?

This isn't about being too powerful. It's about being more powerful then 4e. This is the actual power level of level 10-20 characters in 3.5. And it works. It works because other things are are as awesome as you. Superman can fight Darkside, and level 20 Wizards can fight powerful spellcasting Dragons and Angels and Demons and Devils oh my!

The fact that you can kill off whole other armies is just one of the things that shows you are playing High Fantasy, and not Heroic Fantasy. Just like hacking the Matrix tells you that you are playing a Sci-Fi whatever genre Shadowrun is game.

On this we agree, and our debate ends. I freely admit that 4e does not yet offer the same number of race/class/ability combos that 3.Xe does.

It is not a question of race class combinations. It is a question of Genre. 4e is never going to be the same genre as 3.5. There are lots of people who play 3.5 from level 1-6. Most of them would actually be just fine in 4e.

But the point is that 4e represents a smaller subset of games then 3.5. And that means it represents that subset that it focuses on better. But that also means it will never ever have characters who can do what level 10 casters can do in 3.5.

Au contraire. If you (or whomever else you're acting as proxy/representative for)* has simply said "there are more character options in 4e", I suspect this discussion would have been much shorter.:smallsmile:

* This isn't an accusation. I'm simply reflecting a comment you made earlier that someone said 4e was less conducive to roleplaying.

1) You mean 'less character options' or 'character options not available in 4e' right?

2) I was speaking for someone else. I was speaking for previous posters who you were asking questions of.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 02:46 AM

Well, there's also an item that allows you to teleport a few miles once a day as well, but if you're talking about literally being anywhere you want to be at any time instantly and at a thought, you're talking about what amounts to omnipresence, which isn't possible in any edition of DnD. (Well, at high enough epic levels of 3.5 this might become possible, but at that point the game basically becomes freeform)

It's called Greater Teleport at will. It's really not that hard to get.

Also, I looked at your first post, and it didn't say anything like what you just said it did.

Me=direct quote since you made me look it up.
"Ultimately it's a question of what you want to roleplay, because contrary to what lots of people like to say, what your character can do, and what other people's characters can do changes what you can roleplay.

So one or the other game is going to not be conducive to roleplaying, depending on what it is you want to roleplay."

As well, while people have said that they don't think 4E is conductive to RPing, each of them has either not stated their reasons for thinking so, or stated they thought that way because of bad experiences. Who exactly has stated they don't think 4E is good for RPing because of the reasons you listed, other than you?

Maybe I'm bestest friends with sonofzeal and can read his mind. Or maybe I'm just extrapolating from what I know of him and others. He's welcome to tell me I'm wrong.

And we're not unwilling to understand the argument that 4E is not conductive to roleplaying, but unable. As in, it doesn't make any sense.

If someone tells you that Peyton Manning sucks at Football, and then you ask what on earth they are smoking, and someone else explains that they might mean a game also called Soccer, at this point it is time to recognize the argument is about how good he is at Soccer, no matter how it was originally phrased.

The fact that you are still quoting Touchdowns and QB rating tells me perhaps you are unwilling to talk about Soccer.

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 02:48 AM

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 02:50 AM

Still seems to me like you're only talking about power levels, not the main parts of any roleplaying game.

1. Fun.
2. Fun for everyone.
3. Ability to roleplay.
4. Fun.
5. Ability to adapt.

Roleplaying games have to have these things, or they really shouldn't be played.

It shouldn't matter if your character can't lift a stack of papers and has the magical strength of a doily, as long as you have fun. If you only have fun by having high-level powers, then why play the game? You should, at most, stick to one-offs with high-level PC's. Playing from low levels would be very boring for you.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 03:02 AM

4E epic tier is essentially what 3.5 high level play was intended to be. Only the botched it, and high level 3.5 (high level being any level above 9 as a wizard) play essentially became rocket tag unless the DM heavily fudged the rules, and most monsters meant to be a challenge for such a party are laughably easy to defeat. (Just look at the Tarrasque) :smalltongue:

1) 3.5 High level game is a better game for me then 4e Epic. It has more of what I want. I want 'Rocket Tag.' Especially the one where everyone had tons of defenses and fights are really interesting.

2) See monsters: Solar/Balor/Nightwing/ect.

Still seems to me like you're only talking about power levels, not the main parts of any roleplaying game.

It shouldn't matter if your character can't lift a stack of papers and has the magical strength of a doily, as long as you have fun. If you only have fun by having high-level powers, then why play the game? You should, at most, stick to one-offs with high-level PC's. Playing from low levels would be very boring for you.

We freakin get it. I'm having BADWRONGFUN. I should not be allowed to play games about Demigods. I should have to play Chicken Farmer who gets eaten by wolves every time I try to play.

It is a terrible travesty that their exist systems for me to play Demigods and Super beings. Because I should not be allowed to play those games.

You've made your point. Now stop.

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 03:12 AM

We freakin get it. I'm having BADWRONGFUN. I should not be allowed to play games about Demigods. I should have to play Chicken Farmer who gets eaten by wolves every time I try to play.

It is a terrible travesty that their exist systems for me to play Demigods and Super beings. Because I should not be allowed to play those games.

You've made your point. Now stop.

You've misunderstood the point. What he's saying isn't that you shouldn't have fun with what you're doing. (you are, so you should be) What he's saying is that your way isn't the only way to have fun, and just because 4E doesn't cater to your way doesn't mean that it's a bad system, or a bad system for roleplaying. :smallwink:

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 03:17 AM

What he's saying is that your way isn't the only way to have fun, and just because 4E doesn't cater to your way doesn't mean that it's a bad system, or a bad system for roleplaying.

If that's what he's saying then he should read what I'm saying. Because never once have I claimed that 4e is a bad system or a bad system for roleplaying.

Nightson

2009-05-28, 03:26 AM

Because never once have I claimed that 4e is a bad system for roleplaying.

"The reason 4e is not conducive to roleplaying..." ~Dark_Scary

That would be the opening line of your first post on the last page.

Satyr

2009-05-28, 03:26 AM

I am quite certain that I cannot expresse an objective opinion in this reagard, nor do I have capacious knowledge of 4th edition, but I share the impression that the lack of interconnection between fluff and crunch is one of the major reasons why I don't like 4th edition.
Let me explain: Every roleplaying game requires a form of abstraction. But, as witheverything, this is not a question of absolutes, but a relative sliding scale; not every game is abstracted to the same degree and in the same areas. Abstraction itself is not bad. It is a sheer necessity for running a game.
That nonewithstanding, Abstraction includes some intrinisc problems. The more a game becomes abstracted, the less interconnection it has with the item it represents, and in a roleplaying game that states immersion as one of the major goals, this is a problem. A player is expected to suspend his or her disbelief, but this ability is not unlimited, and the more this is enforced, the more obvious the glitches in the system becomes. And here lies the problem of 4th edition: It requires a very strong suspension of disbelief for the system alone, without even including the setting. Mostly, because it combines a high degree of abstraction of how the things work with very specific actions, and the form the resolution leaves to the weird situation that you have a very concrete task at hand, according to the description, and a mechanical implementation which doesn't correspond at all with the expections and experiences of the player. This is basically roleplaying schizophrenia.

Yes, I know, the problem are not basically the rules in itself but the players and there feeling of detachement that basically disappear if you stop to tthink about. But I strongly belief that every game that only work if you refuse to think about it on a superficial level, isn't worth a flyblow. But I am a bibliophiliac who idolizes intellectuality.

I also have the same problems with 4th edition I have with D&D in general, and none of those were solved at all with third edition, but at least one - the rather hidebound and stereotypicalized character creation and development actually got worse than in the prior edition.

BTW:

So... is your point that 4E can't model every set of powers and abilities imaginable? Because I will freely admit that. Neither can any system - not even GURPS (IIRC - can you be a Vancian Caster in GURPS?).

An unlimmited variabilty is impossible, and not even desirable, as the limitations of the setting clearly establish rigid limitations for the potential choices and characters. But, like everything, this is not a question of absolutes, but of relativeness. More flexible (and therefore Imho superior) systems adapt to a desired playing style, less flexible ones enforce you to adapt to their playing style. D&D in general tends to the latter category, but it slided more in this direction with the 4th edition, at least in my impression.

And yes, you can build Vancian casters with Gurps with ease. I am away from my books right now, but I think the Modular Ability advantage with a few of the offered modifiers make it possible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it worked much better than in D&D as well, but I admit I haven't tested it.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 03:37 AM

"The reason 4e is not conducive to roleplaying..." ~Dark_Scary

That would be the opening line of your first post on the last page.

Congratulations on your inability to read any of my post.

... is that it does not allow them to play the character they want, in the genre they want.

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 03:58 AM

Congratulations on your inability to read any of my post.

... is that it does not allow them to play the character they want, in the genre they want.

That's not misquoted. Either you messed up explaining yourself clearly, or you've been arguing that the system isn't good for RPing. If you haven't, then I really have no clue what you're trying to get across.

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 04:25 AM

That's not misquoted. Either you messed up explaining yourself clearly, or you've been arguing that the system isn't good for RPing. If you haven't, then I really have no clue what you're trying to get across.

Yes, the whole ellipses thing to avoid the entire rest of my post which clarifies that the statement applies equally to all games when you want to play a different genre. That's called being a dillhole for no reason.

potatocubed

2009-05-28, 05:32 AM

I have major problems with the Alexandrian's article, and I think it centers around the fact that he conflates mechanics with fluff. ... If your DM decides to make the fluff have mechanical effects, they can be easily adjudicated under the rules.

The thing is, fluff is mechanics. The RAW mechanics do not answer several questions which could plausibly come up in-game (like the Alexandrian's "Why can you only do that once per day?") so you have to look to the fluff to find the answers. Consider the eyebite warlock spell. (Non-4e people: It does a little damage and means the target can't see you until the end of your next turn.)

I can't remember the official fluff description, but let's say that you've fluffed it to resemble the old 2e/3.x eyebite gaze attack. Well, first of all you can't trace line of effect through a pane of glass. Why do my gaze attacks not work through a pane of glass? Can I avoid the damage from eyebite by readying an action to close my eyes at the right time? If I do, do I have to follow the rules for readying a standard action? Why is closing my eyes for a second or two a standard action? A minor action at most, surely? Does it work on skeletons, which have no eyes but 'see' in the normal sense?

Even if I've got the fluff wrong, whatever is written in the PHB will raise similar questions. Can you use diabolic grasp to fling someone into the air? Can you use mage hand to grab an enemy by the balls? If not, why not?

Further:

Deciding how an attack looks has never been considered a "home rule;" its the sort of atmospheric effect you use to flavor a campaign world.

So let's say there's a second warlock with eyebite in the group, except his is a mystic ray that leaves people headachy and confused, so that they overlook the guy who cast the spell. Now we have the same power, but this one definitely affects people with their eyes closed and won't penetrate glass because of the physical component of the ray. On the other hand, if the ray has a physical component can I use it to break that glass? Even though it does psychic damage, which objects are specifically immune to? Since this power is using invisibility to represent a form of confusion, would it work on creatures with, say, tremorsense, who would normally not be affected by the selective blindness effect? The fluff of the power affects the way it interacts with the rest of the game.

This gets even worse with the monster powers, most of which have no fluff whatsoever. A hidden gnome which targets you with an attack and misses remains hidden. How? You somehow don't notice a pint-sized maniac hacking at you with a battleaxe until he successfully connects? Even though his attacks are clanging away on your plate mail the whole time? (I think this is hilarious, personally, but it's not exactly conducive to immersion in the game world.)

Anyway, my point is that mechanics have to represent fluff to a certain extent, even as they abstract and simplify. 4e as written tries its best to sever that connection, and the RAW game world becomes extremely wacky as a result. Of course, the players and GM can fill in the gaps ("Yes, you can use lightning lasso to fetch your beer from fifteen feet away. No, it's not very gentle. Roll an attack to avoid hitting yourself in the face with a flying tankard.") but now we're into Rule 0 territory.

Nightson

2009-05-28, 06:08 AM

The thing is, fluff is mechanics.

No, not in any way shape or form. Fluff used to be mechanics. Fluff is no longer mechanics.

You can't change fluff to get a mechanical benefit, nor does choosing a certain fluff come with penalties.

What a power does is determined by the rules text and the combat rules, not the flavor text.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:23 AM

You mean 'less character options' or 'character options not available in 4e' right?

Correct. Sorry for the confusion.

I think you, I and the other zillion posters addressing the issue have taken it as far as it can be taken. You are correct within your definition of "conducive to roleplaying". I/we are correct within our definition.

I don't really think anyone is going to have much luck convincing anyone else to change their definitions, so why don't we all leave it at that?

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:30 AM

Anyway, my point is that mechanics have to represent fluff to a certain extent, even as they abstract and simplify. 4e as written tries its best to sever that connection, and the RAW game world becomes extremely wacky as a result. Of course, the players and GM can fill in the gaps ("Yes, you can use lightning lasso to fetch your beer from fifteen feet away. No, it's not very gentle. Roll an attack to avoid hitting yourself in the face with a flying tankard.") but now we're into Rule 0 territory.

(My underlining)

This is where we disagree. As even the Alexandrian himself points out, there are systems where there are no connection between fluff and mechanics (did he call it Wushu?).

We ultimately come back to what I call the "logic" of the system. Some gamers strongly desire that element in their roleplaying system of choice. Others (including me) don't.

potatocubed

2009-05-28, 06:32 AM

You can't change fluff to get a mechanical benefit, nor does choosing a certain fluff come with penalties.

What a power does is determined by the rules text and the combat rules, not the flavor text.

Really? What happens when you use a 4e fireball underwater? How about pillar of lightning? If you use commander's strike on an ally, can they choose not to make the attack?

Sure, the rules give you an answer, but it's an answer that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the game world. To work out something sensible, you have to turn to the power fluff.

EDIT:

[The extent to which mechanics need to reflect fluff] is where we disagree. As even the Alexandrian himself points out, there are systems where there are no connection between fluff and mechanics (did he call it Wushu?).

Yup, that's Wushu. The reason it works (or fails to work) is because there are no mechanics to speak of. Consider: In a Wushu game I want to use my lightning bolt to electrocute a man standing in an ornamental fishpond. I describe it, it happens. In 4e D&D, if I want to use my lightning bolt to electrocute a man standing in a fishpond, I just can't. (Assume I can't throw the bolt directly at him for some reason.) Because the rules don't say anything about how lightning damage interacts with water.

Now, I'm cool with a certain level of absurdity in my games - I play for laughs a lot of the time - but the point at which water stops conducting electricity because the rules don't say it does is a point just a bit beyond my tolerance.

Volkov

2009-05-28, 06:36 AM

Also, the fluff for 4e is just plain idiotic, sure I can make up my own, but every time I open up a 4e sourcebook I have to look at that horrible fluff.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:40 AM

Sure, the rules give you an answer, but it's an answer that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the game world. To work out something sensible, you have to turn to the power fluff.

Why? Why can't Fireball be effective underwater, creating a blast of superheated or boiling water? As for pillar of lightning, the spell already corrals an "element" that is known for it's unpredictability, so why is it so hard to accept that the spell somehow keeps it bound even underwater.

As for Commander's Strike, the answer is yes (they can refuse). The term "ally" assumes a willing target (PHB57).

I know it's not terribly productive to counter specific examples, but the same comment relates to making examples in the first place. :smallwink:

Satyr

2009-05-28, 06:46 AM

You can't change fluff to get a mechanical benefit, nor does choosing a certain fluff come with penalties.

What a power does is determined by the rules text and the combat rules, not the flavor text.

And this approach is partially responsible why I think that 4th edition is a giant step back from its progenitor. Seriously, Mutants and Masterminds is an innovative evolved form of D&D, 4th edition is... something else. The system got it all backwards. For me, it's the fluff that makes games go, and the mechanics are only there to support the action, not vice versa. Because of this shift of priorities, I felt that 4th edition focuses on the less interesting parts to a degree that the actually relevant elements become mostly arbitrary and irrelevant in the run of the game. And therefore I see no reason why I should play it.

And yes, fluff and mechanics must necessarily correlate.The only reason for mechanics is to find a medium to applicate the desitred actions in the fluff. Mechanics in a roleplaying game exists solely to create a framework of refernces for how and why the fluff works or does not work. They have no other purpose, and the overemphasis on this comparatively minor element of roleplaying gamesmay is an atavism.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:52 AM

For me, it's the fluff that makes games go, and the mechanics are only there to support the action, not vice versa.

That's an interesting point, and one that has some substance to it.

However, that approach has risks. For it to be successful, you need a cohesive playing group with clearly understood ambitions and goals for the game. If you take a fluff-heavy system with a low focus on game balance and introduce it to gamers with distinctly different goals and expectations, you'll almost certainly get conflict.

3.Xe was, from a design standpoint, much less about "balance" than 4e, and it's no coincidence that it was the system that gave birth to Pun Pun, the Hulking Hurler and the ubercharger.

potatocubed

2009-05-28, 06:54 AM

As for pillar of lightning, the spell already corrals an "element" that is known for it's unpredictability, so why is it so hard to accept that the spell somehow keeps it bound even underwater?

Because that spell specifically electrocutes everyone who comes near it, thus suggesting some sort of transfer of zappage from the pillar to the environment. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I take your point about specific examples. I stand by my general premise, though: if mechanics do not reflect fluff, you may find yourself facing problematic questions.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:56 AM

Now, I'm cool with a certain level of absurdity in my games - I play for laughs a lot of the time - but the point at which water stops conducting electricity because the rules don't say it does is a point just a bit beyond my tolerance.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the 3.Xe rules ever said that water conducts electricity either. They simply said what happens when an electrical spell was cast in water.

The 4e rules do exactly the same thing. Specifically, they tell you what is a valid target for your spell. In this case, it's probably the man. The fact that you can't target the pond with the spell is a mechanical artifact, which may or may not be fluff negative.

potatocubed

2009-05-28, 07:00 AM

The fact that you can't target the pond with the spell is a mechanical artifact, which may or may not be fluff negative.

I don't think I want to play any sort of game where I am arbitrarily unable to target a pond.

I mean, seriously, how difficult is that going to make taking a bath? You'd have to throw the soap at somebody standing in the bath and hope you miss. :smalltongue:

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 07:19 AM

*Raises hand* Uh, adventurers don't bathe. Everyone knows that.

Also, the mechanics in D&D 4e always seem to assume Dungeon environment. If you want to zap someone with a lightning bolt in a dungeon, you just shoot it at them.

However, if you really want to zap it through water first, tell your DM that you do that. If he says "No, you don't" or "It does nothing", then tell him to read the DMG. (Unless there's a reason for it...)

In 4e, asking to do something is halfway to doing it. The other half is rolling and seeing if it works. (In this case, an attack)

In the case of the water conductivity, I'd have it act as an ordinary attack that affects all creatures in the water, but does -2 damage per die rolled. But that's just me. Your DM might come up with something different...

Anyway, all you really need is a DM who remembers the intent behind the game, and read the DMG properly.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-28, 08:54 AM

*Raises hand* Uh, adventurers don't bathe. Everyone knows that.

First of all, you've obviously never seen Ranma 1/2, or Inu Yasha. :P

Secondly: Most eastern themed characters -should- bathe.

Third: If your male warrior type adventurer doesn't eventually spend some coin to go to a brothel, take a nice hot bath, and then get oiled up by several beautiful ladies rubbing oil into his muscles... well then you're just DOING IT wrong.

Even the Paladin can get a nice platonic massage once in a while.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 08:57 AM

And then after those 6 months? You're still paying for WoW, but you have the books forever. That's one problem I have with online games - I like a more permanent investment.

Probably someone already said this, but I haven't read past this post yet....

6 months of an online game (WoW,EQ,etc) vs a tabletop RPG....

We will say the cost is about the same for the core books and the subscript to the online game.

You can maybe get to gether once a week to game for 4 hours time if you are lucky.

26 weeks in 6 months depending on which months, but half a years worth of weeks for fairness to TTRPGs.

Let's say you can get online for Wow/whatever for two hours per day on average. Roughly 180 days to average and still give advantage to TTRPG.

104 hours of play for TTRPG
360 hours of play for MMO

That is just light MMO play mind you. Plus it cost nothing for travel to get to your TTRPG game, and for the internet you probably already have it anyway so isn't really extra cost for the MMO.

When you cost it out unless you have bandwidth caps or metering the MMO comes out cheaper in the long-run for more substantial time you can use it. It may not last as long, but the odds are still there that you can get more use out of it over the same time for the casual gamer.

I agree that having something to show for your money from books are better, and MMOs you end up with not being able to play after your hard work, and can't do anything with the software when it is no longer subscribed. That Is why I quit playing EQ years ago.

But other MMO players may look at TTRPGs and not even 4th can present the sheer amount of time that an MMO can. People coming form MMO or other video game backgrounds do look at hours of play from a game when they buy them, and for replayability. 4th edition still doesn't ofer enough to draw away large crowds.

Even for $120 for the core books average play for a 6 month period, you could get 2 good 100+ hour stand-alone console games that have replayability. This will still beat that hour-of-play in 6 months time frame.

The math to explain it is there, even if we prefer more permanent investments. :smallsmile:

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 09:00 AM

I meant real adventurers. Not your namby-pamby bath-taking sort. I mean the kind that'll wade through neck-high ooze/sewerage for three hours, then just brush it off and leave it at that. The kind that'll be eaten[/i[ by a dragon, then burst their way out, covered in guts and blood, and will just continue with the adventure.

Besides, who takes a bath at a brothel? That's a waste of time [i]and money. The oil... well, that's half the point of going there. (Alright, maybe 1/3...)

*Note: None of the above applies to real female adventurers. They need to be attractive as possible so all the nerds around the table fall for her.

*Another note: This whole post is pretty much a joke...

shadzar

2009-05-28, 09:13 AM

That's not roleplaying, that's a gimmick. That says nothing about who the character is, just what they do.

Personality traits are EXACTLY what a character is all about. Name me a wizard spell in 4th that isn't about combat?

I remind you that even though WotC states all books are core, only PHBI, DMGI, AND MMI are needed to play so keep results limited to those books not supplemental products.

The system for 4th edition doesn't allow for things outside of combat for a wizard to do, or reasons for them to exist. Even saying one makes money by making magic items is flawed because Wizards are a PC only thing and they would only get 20% of what it cost to make the item.

There is nothing in 4th edition to inspire one to make a classed type character to do anything other than combat.

4th edition Combatants and Merchants....that is the name they should have given it.

What in 4th edition inspires you to have any character or allows for them when the system disallows most possible character ideas outside of combatants?

I guess you can have bands of wizard thieves using their streetwise and thievery skills to make a living? How many people will want to do that?

The powers system removed any chance for character development outside of combat or inspiration for such.

Everybody is a wizard because they can cast rituals and have Vancian powers. :smallconfused:

The rituals are not replacements for the old wizard utility spells that did things outside of combat, and there isn't a single wizard power (they don't even have spells anymore!) that isn't oriented around the combat system of the game.

Nothing inspiring for making characters, only for making PCs.

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 09:18 AM

Personality traits are EXACTLY what a character is all about. Name me a wizard spell in 4th that isn't about combat?

I remind you that even though WotC states all books are core, only PHBI, DMGI, AND MMI are needed to play so keep results limited to those books not supplemental products.

Well, I don't have it in front of me, but one example is in the Players Handbook. Level 2 Wizard Utility power (I think). "Jump". Do you know what applications this simple power can have? Of course, you have to think up the applications, but isn't that kind of the point of role-playing?

Matthew

2009-05-28, 09:18 AM

No D&D before or after 3E had that sort of High Magic mentality; in TSR D&D magic was a rare and risky thing - no PC had access to the simplest tricks that a high-level 3E Wizard can use. You did not fight gods and win without access to unique and powerful artifacts - artifacts that more often than not shattered your mind when using them.

Now, it may have been a off-handed comment, but I must say - and I think Matthew will back me up - the sort of game you're talking about is not TSR D&D; not by RAW anyhow. It sounds more like Exalted or even oWoD Mage, to be honest.

Another interesting point of discussion. There were two main lines for TSR D&D, which were AD&D and D&D. In the latter system you could go up to 36th level and effectively become a deity (or rather, an "immortal"), and there were some crazy adventures written for the Immortals boxed set. However, generally speaking, the magic rich environment that seems predominant in D20/3e was outside the usual experience, not least because of the difficulty of reaching high levels (Gygax assumed around 14th level characters would retire, only being occasionally brought out for high powered adventures, which means spell levels 7-9 were not intended for regular play. nonetheless, spell progression charts are provided in the PHB for up to level 29).

Often, a high powered age of magic was assumed to have taken place in the past but fallen prey to a terrifying cataclysm, as in Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms (not to mention Dark Sun, Dragon Lance, and probably others I am forgetting). This had the double advantage of meaning there were tons of ruins to explore and that magical items could be found without necessarily being possible to manufacture.

Obviously, if you take things to their natural conclusion, the lifetime career of an adventurer might coincide with the restitution of a magic rich society of some sort, and this is where the Rules Cyclopedia (D&D) takes a line of thought more familiar to D20/3e. Having never owned this book prior to 2000 I was surprised to discover detailed magic item creation rules therein. It really is amazing how much of D20/3e is taken from D&D and AD&D, homogenised, and given its own spin. In many ways it is a very impressive achievement.

The message that came down from TSR via Dragon was typically that magic items were not available for sale and "super heroics" were not the meat and drink of the D&D/AD&D game systems. Sometimes this was supported by the rules (such as in numerous passages of the AD&D/2e DMG), other times the boundaries were broken in order to provide a different play experience and expand the horizons of the game [e.g. Planescape].

On the whole, though, it is fair to say that D20/3e subscribes to a higher level of power than AD&D or D&D ever did. The difference between in power level between a level 1 and level 20 character in the former is much greater than in the latter. Interestingly, D20/4e appears to have combated this by raising the power level of first level characters [i.e. the "why don't you just start at fourth level?" syndrome].

shadzar

2009-05-28, 09:42 AM

No, not in any way shape or form. Fluff used to be mechanics. Fluff is no longer mechanics.

You can't change fluff to get a mechanical benefit, nor does choosing a certain fluff come with penalties.

What a power does is determined by the rules text and the combat rules, not the flavor text.
Have you read the flavor text of any of the powers? Just like magic cards flavor text is written after everything else. With 4th edition powers though this flavor text describes EXACTLY what the power is doing.

What you visualize is this flavor text.

Before powers when someone hit someone upside the head, it wasn't a Dizzying Blow power they were using, just a lucky connection with the weapon. So hitting your foe in the head always causes them to be immobilized now. Everything in 4th has a weak skull/glass jaw, so why not only target the heads of enemies?

Flavor text is for card games not RPGs. That is why it is so small to fit on the cards even from the bit present in the books.

So since the fluff was created JUST for the mechanics, it is exactly the mechanics and nothing else. :smallyuk:

sonofzeal

2009-05-28, 09:43 AM

Wait - what? That isn't RAW, or even close. Every attack requires you to roll to hit, and any non-attack power requires the target to be willing.

Honest. It's all there in the books.

EDIT:
To elaborate.

If you want to attack an "ally" with an "enemy only" power, then you just have to designate them as an "enemy" for that power. You could also swap enemies to allies equally freely. I honestly have to say this sounds like weird DM action more than anything.

...and what Grease effect are you talking about? And why did you want to Grease a wall?
It's not attacking an ally with an "enemy only" power. It's attacking an enemy with an "ally only" power, one that doesn't have an attack roll or associated defense, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, with my limited knowledge of 4e I've been unable to track down the feat in question. Weird. Anyway, I still don't see why an unconscious ally can be shunted when an unconscious enemy can't.

Grease - my level 2 Eladrin Wizard sample character, built by a friend of mine, had a daily power called "Grease". It filled up a large (HORIZONTAL ONLY) area with a radius of 2 or 3, and let me use Grease Attacks against anything that entered the area; success means prone, failure means slide two.

So, in this module thing we were running, we're deep underground and climbing up this mine shaft thing, when this white dragon down below decides he doesn't like up and starts climbing up after us, and we're a lot slower than it is. I wanted to cast grease on the walls below us, so that when it got there it might slip and fall all the way down. The spell area was more than large enough to hit all the walls of the shaft. But because it specifically says it covers a horizontal area, I can't target walls with it - or if I did, I'd create a hair-thin band of grease. That's something that we could grok as players, but we couldn't explain in a way that made sense to us as characters. Even just calling it "magic" seems unsatisfactory.

Ah, ok. You're referring to what I would call gaps in the "logic", rather than gaps in the "narrative". Now I grok you.

My position on how/whether such gaps affect roleplaying has already been outlined in the post to which you replied.
Even using your terms - I still thing gaps in "logic" hurt immersion. Yes, 3e has them too (Evasion rules being a chief offender), but my limited experience is that 4e is more concerned about balance and fun than about internally consistent logic. And again, that's not a bad thing, it's just a different thing.

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 09:49 AM

It's not attacking an ally with an "enemy only" power. It's attacking an enemy with an "ally only" power, one that doesn't have an attack roll or associated defense, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, with my limited knowledge of 4e I've been unable to track down the feat in question. Weird. Anyway, I still don't see why an unconscious ally can be shunted when an unconscious enemy can't.

Generally speaking, enemies aren't unconcious a lot. They're dead.
Still, talk to your DM. If they're unconcious, and therefore non-hostile, then you can probably push them... (But I don't know what effect pushes allies... it usually shifts them, A.K.A. allows them to shift.)

shadzar

2009-05-28, 09:53 AM

Well, I don't have it in front of me, but one example is in the Players Handbook. Level 2 Wizard Utility power (I think). "Jump". Do you know what applications this simple power can have? Of course, you have to think up the applications, but isn't that kind of the point of role-playing?

Looks like a ranged attack to me. Actually looks like a feat since it gives a bonus to the former Jump skill.

Also not it is a Move Action. The only time you need those is during combat. Otherwise you don't need to worry about what type of action it is.

To top it off Jump is an encounter power.....something used during combat.

You have the ability to move from one square on the grid to another while remaining on the same plane.

Does it provoke an attack of opportunity if you jump over a creature wishing to attack you?

Everything in that power is written solely for combat, and thus looks only like a combat power like all the rest.

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 09:58 AM

Looks like a ranged attack to me. Actually looks like a feat since it gives a bonus to the former Jump skill.

Also not it is a Move Action. The only time you need those is during combat. Otherwise you don't need to worry about what type of action it is.

To top it off Jump is an encounter power.....something used during combat.

You have the ability to move from one square on the grid to another while remaining on the same plane.

Does it provoke an attack of opportunity if you jump over a creature wishing to attack you?

Everything in that power is written solely for combat, and thus looks only like a combat power like all the rest.

Written soley for combat? When are you gonna need a +10 to a non-combat roll when in combat if you're not being inventive and looking at what the rules allow, not what they specify?

I'll put it this way. Powers are what you can do, and how often. If they didn't include that it was a Move Action, people would say "Hey, I want to use this in combat, but I can't! *Whine*", because that's what people do. By covering this, they ensure that people know what they can do with the power. Wanna use it outside combat? Go for it. A lot of Utility powers are useful outside combat. Don't confuse covering the basics with not allowing anything but the basics.

Kaiser Omnik

2009-05-28, 10:23 AM

People are making a whole lot of assumptions and trying to impose their views of roleplaying on others. Ok, maybe you feel like you aren't able to play all the characters you want with D&D 4E because of the way the system is designed. You may be right. You may just lack imagination. What do we care?

Nobody will be able to convince others to play another system. The only way to know for sure if we like a game is to play it. People are smart enough to know what's good for them. Then, it is futile to try to decide which is the system that allows the most roleplaying. People will simply roleplay with their prefered system. Why is that so hard to understand?

I have nothing against people pointing out flaws in a system to make it better. I've seen good arguments in here. But this thread is really about edition wars. Please, if you want to discuss one aspect of the game, make a new thread for it. :smallwink:

shadzar

2009-05-28, 10:38 AM

I'll put it this way. Powers are what you can do, and how often. If they didn't include that it was a Move Action, people would say "Hey, I want to use this in combat, but I can't! *Whine*", because that's what people do.

That is where I not only find fault with the WotC editions, but the people now trying to play D&D because of them.

They need a babysitter to tell them how to think. Either the DM or the books.

Walk is not listed as a power so I guess you cannot do that in combat either, nor can you Run. That is just being stupid or so bound to finite rules telling you everything you can or cannot do, as to not be able to think for yourself. Having to have everything codified is the sign of a poor player.

If Jump wasn't meant just for use in combat, then it would be a ritual. Notice how you probably shouldn't be enchanting items in combat? Cause that is a ritual....

You can buff people, and should just ask Vaarsuvius; prior to combat.

People's inability to think on something as simple as :smalleek: "I have no rule that says I CAN jump in combat so I can't" as being silly probably don't have any reason playing. You have to have a bit of common sense to do most things in this world after all.

It is insulting to say you cannot jump in combat because there isn't a rule that says you can. Rules are mostly lists of things you cannot do, not things you can...

Pools Rules:
*No running
*No jumping
*No swimming after dark
*No swimming without a lifeguard on duty
*etc

People are thinking bass ackwards these days it seems.

:smallconfused:

That or just so many bad DMs that have totally screwed up the games you have to have a rule for each thing allowed because people are afraid to think for themselves because of the closed-minded DMs recent editions have created. :smallfrown:

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 10:43 AM

Artanis

2009-05-28, 11:09 AM

Name me a wizard spell in 4th that isn't about combat?
Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, Jump, Levitate, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, Mordguy's Mansion, Shape Magic, Moonglow, Synostodweomer, Daunting Presence, Float, Emerald Eye, Summon Hammerfist Crusher, True Seeing, Phantom Mask, Phase Shift, Summon Diamond Falcon, Sabotage Trap, Golden Mean, Magister's Key

Also, Wizards are the best ritual-users, and all rituals are effectively unusable during combat.

Lamech

2009-05-28, 11:15 AM

Really? What happens when you use a 4e fireball underwater? How about pillar of lightning? If you use commander's strike on an ally, can they choose not to make the attack?

Sure, the rules give you an answer, but it's an answer that makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the game world. To work out something sensible, you have to turn to the power fluff.

EDIT:

Yup, that's Wushu. The reason it works (or fails to work) is because there are no mechanics to speak of. Consider: In a Wushu game I want to use my lightning bolt to electrocute a man standing in an ornamental fishpond. I describe it, it happens. In 4e D&D, if I want to use my lightning bolt to electrocute a man standing in a fishpond, I just can't. (Assume I can't throw the bolt directly at him for some reason.) Because the rules don't say anything about how lightning damage interacts with water.

Now, I'm cool with a certain level of absurdity in my games - I play for laughs a lot of the time - but the point at which water stops conducting electricity because the rules don't say it does is a point just a bit beyond my tolerance.If the waters counductuive (salt water) wouldn't the lighting just ground out? Why would it go out of its way to electrocute people? And if it is the less-conductive (pure water) kind all the energy would be wasted boiling the water; maybe really close people would get shocked and burned. Is there a physics person running around?

And a fireball underwater? Why wouldn't that work? Unless fireballs consume oxygen in your world I can't really see a reason. And since they don't consume any sort of fuel I don't see them consuming oxygen.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 11:30 AM

Exactly. It's not the systems fault, it's the players, the DMs, and the...

Well, I can't think of anyone else, so yeah.

Think of it this way (at least in relation to 4e):

You can do anything you think you should be able to do, provided you roll well enough.

Note: This is not true with a lousy DM, or a DM that doesn't get it. Be wary.

And sadly the system had to be designed around those lousy players rather than just getting rid of them. :smallfurious:

I would rather the system had sent them back to pre-school playing Candyland than force them into everyone else's games.

That is a fault of the system for catering to them. Rather than trying to solve the problem, it tries to bend to those unable to play the game, or those disliking the game but dead-set on playing it anyway, so it had to be changed to let those who didn't like it be able to play it. :smallconfused:

This ain't Wednesday, but in the words of Whoppi: "What the hell!?"

And a fireball underwater? Why wouldn't that work? Unless fireballs consume oxygen in your world I can't really see a reason. And since they don't consume any sort of fuel I don't see them consuming oxygen.

Since many people are interested in RAW I will explain it with that rather than personal subjective opinion....

Spells That Are Ineffective Underwater

The following spells cannot be cast or will not function underwater.

3rd Level
fireball

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Lamech

2009-05-28, 11:45 AM

Since many people are interested in RAW I will explain it with that rather than personal subjective opinion....
I was answering a complaint about 4th. So referencing third edition? Doesn't do anything. Also I got the impression fireball could be used underwater in fourth, so... your saying 4th makes more sense than third?

Artanis

2009-05-28, 11:47 AM

And sadly the system had to be designed around those lousy players rather than just getting rid of them. :smallfurious:

So you would rather see the brand die than see it grow and thrive?

KIDS

2009-05-28, 11:55 AM

shadzar please, there are some limits even when 3e/4e is concerned. Suggesting anything about "lousy players" and "unable to play the game" is downright offensive, even more than the usual powergamer/munchkin generalizations.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 12:04 PM

I was answering a complaint about 4th. So referencing third edition? Doesn't do anything. Also I got the impression fireball could be used underwater in fourth, so... your saying 4th makes more sense than third?

I was just answering about fireballs underwater and why some may not seem them to work when using RAW. Sorry, don't know squat about 4th, that was 2nd edition Complete Wizards handbook on spells in strange environments.

It could have carried over into the mentality used for 3rd maybe?

There seem to be no rules for combat outside of flat ground in 4th though. So probably the spell couldn't be used underwater, because there is no rules to allow for doing anything underwater in 4th.

So you would rather see the brand die than see it grow and thrive?

Yes. I don't care for "brands".

Had animals not posed a problem to people in this day any age guns wouldn't be so popular for defending against them. It isn't the guns fault for existing that people abuse them.

I am NOT a member of the NRA, just using the first example that came to mind.

So making the game for people that didn't like it seems to go against any reason to make anything.

I surely wouldn't try to please people that don't like my product by changing it just for them to buy a "brand" that is popular.

If it died with integrity, then fine. Just means no new product, but plenty of people have the old product to play, and the PDF versions will keep those editions alive longer than dead-stock rotting away with age, so the game does die even if the "brand" did.

Putting a "brand" of D&D on something does not make it the game D&D.

See Lorraine Williams and all the D&D "franchise" merchandise like quilts etc.

See Spaceballs where Yogurt has his merchandising telling you the name is all about the money right there. "Brands" exist for making money, not for playing.

You cannot play with the D&D logo. There is nothing to play with unless you print it out and make origami with the paper it is printed on.

So yes, let all brands die, and instead make quality products for those that enjoy those products. Those that don't like the product shouldn't have any say, and can go troll elsewhere rather than force a product to be made for them.

They can make their own product they enjoy better or at all, or find another product.

I don't dirnk beer and think people drink too much. Does that give me any right to tell people not to make strawberry flavored beer? No because I already won't like it either way. MY opinion is not of a consumer so shouldn't matter in the process of making any beer.

This goes the same for D&D, or any other product.

Let it die, rather than turn it into just the next fad with no value or integrity.

4th isn't even D&D, it just caries the name, and some names of other things taken from D&D. It is in and of itself a whole new game just carrying that name which has turned into a marketing "brand".

V'icternus

2009-05-28, 12:27 PM

But then what is D&D? Is it only first edition? Does AD&D count? Where do you draw the line?

shadzar

2009-05-28, 12:46 PM

But then what is D&D? Is it only first edition? Does AD&D count? Where do you draw the line?

D&D was/is:red box/ blue box. BESMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc....

AD&D was/is: 1st edition, 1.5, 2nd edition, 2.5:smallyuk:, 3.0 :smallyuk::smallyuk:, 3.5 :smallyuk::smallyuk::smallyuk:

3.x Just screwed with the name to try to combine the absence of the word "Advanced" which they couldn't justify a reason to be called that since most never understood it, and the minimum games Name to incorporate anything with D&D in the title belongs to WotC.

I accept 3.x not because of the name, but the common similarity in the SYSTEM.

They changed a lot, but most of the systems were still there just in reversed forms and such.

I don't like 3.x, but acknowledge it as AN edtion still related to D&D.

4th on the other hand just took the name McDonald's and slapped it on all new fast foods like pizza, beer and pretzels with the catchy "Mc"Peperroni style names of old.

Is 4th an RPG? Of sorts yes.

Is 4th a game? Yes.

Is 4th anything still related to the others that carried the "brand"(:smallyuk:)? No.

Again if people didn't like the D&D system they should have found something else to play rather than change the system to something it had never been to appease those who didn't like it.

Would 4th edition sell as well with a name other than D&D? Probably not, and that is where the "branding" comes into play rather than maintaining the games integrity and the brand instantly lost all meaning other than generic fantasy RPG made by the latest owners of the D&D trademark.

This is a major fault many have with 4th. They wouldn't be so offended and more open to it and actually enjoy it IF it wasn't bastardizing the name D&D to masquerade it as that instead of a wholly new game.

WotC may have created the best system so far, but they added baggage to it with the D&D name.

This baggage seems to be what is causing 4th edition and WotC so many problems because people are not receptive of the name D&D being placed on it, from the failure of Gleemax, DDI and its lost tools, etc that people do not think something deserving of the D&D name is being offered under it now.

So it may have been a slower start to call it something else to get people to play, and discontinue the D&D game, but when people learned it and started liking it it would have picked up like D&D did from the very beginning.

WotC have the gonads to alter the game so much, but were afraid to think they couldn't sell it without calling it a name of something popular.

So to pre-emptively answer. No I do not consider d20 modern D&D just best 3.x and it uses the same system, likewise I did not consider Marvel Superheroes to be AD&D because they both used the 1st edition system.

It takes both the system and common foundation for things in it. Changing "core" races and classes over every edition of (A)D&D has been a problem with it as well to never allow to narrow it down for people that don't understand without fully written rule-by-rule dissertations on what is and isn't enough to make something D&D or not.

Remember 1st edition AD&D was supposed to be the end of the line before Gary started work on 2nd to answer some problems (book organization for one), and then it was taken from him and altered even more heavily. Likewise 3rd edition was started at TSR and then taken over by WotC and changed more than what TSR had intended.

So each edition D&D was being divorced from its own namesake, and the only natural conclusion was when someone made a new edition that completely divorced it from any resembled to its own heritage. :smallfrown:

It is sad really because there is a lot of good things in 4th that would make it a great game in an of itself, if it didn't carry all the baggage of the name D&D. :smallfrown: I might have even played it if it didn't carry the D&D name.

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 12:52 PM

shadzar

2009-05-28, 12:55 PM

Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is D&D. Just like all the other editions previous.

Adventuring? Check.
Classes? Check.
Dragons? Check.
Dungeons? Check.
Self-important nerds sitting at home saying "stop having fun guys!" and just generally being an unpleasable fan base? Check.

Yep. Looks like D&D to me. :smallamused:

Meeting those criteria are the following:
LotR novels
Harry Potter Novels
Rifts
GURPS
VtM (well I read about a dragon in it)
Star Wars

All RPGs having those things does NOT make all RPGs D&D.

Your criterion are too few. If that is all someone needs to enjoy the game, then why did it need to be changed, when there are/were so many games out there now offering those same things that people weren't required to play D&D?

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 01:00 PM

Dark_Scary

2009-05-28, 01:03 PM

Fireball under water:

2ed: Can't be cast.
3.5 and probably 3.0: "Fire

Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect."

So DC 23 spellcraft check.

4e: Works just fine, assumably by doing the steam thing as above.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 01:12 PM

Things that every edition has had:

The 4 "classic" classes: fighter, cleric, mage/wizard, thief/rogue. Tank, Healer, Blaster, Stabby.

Traps. Magic items. Multiple planes. Elves. Dwarves. Elves (different subrace). Gnomes. Halflings. Angels (or equivalent names). Demons/Devils (or equivalent names). Half-(insert race).

Chromatic dragons. Metallic dragons.

Beholders.

Munchkins. :smallamused:

Beyond that, quite frankly, you're also in this minority with "suffer not the brand to live!". You don't like 4th? Fine. Other do, we want to buy it and play it. Stop wishing doom on the brand or whatnot. Seriously.

Fallacy.

It is ok for new players to want to play something and forsake older player, but not ok for older player to want to play what they liked and have support for it.

Sorry, Bill, but no not all D&D had your MMO style "roles". Never make assumptions that everyone does everything the same way you do. You can prove nothing that way, other than you do not understand human beings and the fact they differ.

I was asked a question and answered it. Just because you like to buy Nike because it says Nike on it, or any other brand fad you wish to follow, doesn't mean everyone is a lemming that follows a brand name just because of the name.

To me actions have always spoken louder than words. WotC actions have proven them to NOT be able to make games for gamers, but make products for marketing.

I am not interested in playing Magic the Advertising, I want an RPG that I can enjoy; and don't need everyone else in the world to enjoy it so that I can.

Brands are meaningless to anyone but the brand license holder. I prefer to be a smart consumer than a blind brand buyer.

Still your list of "every edition had" does not include things that are only for D&D, but every other RPG and many other types of games and things. That does NOT define D&D.

My bathtub is not a pool because it is a vessel for holding water that a body can fit in.

All quills are feathers used for writing. True
All feathers are quills because quills are made from feathers. False.

You are trying to state the second one there as true.

Jack Zander

2009-05-28, 01:20 PM

ODnD had: A Rulebook.

4th Edition has: A Rulebook.

Yup, they look like they're the same to me! :smalltongue:

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 01:26 PM

Fallacy.
*Rolls eyes*

It is ok for new players to want to play something and forsake older player, but not ok for older player to want to play what they liked and have support for it.
...Yes. That's exactly...not what I said at all.
How much more support for 3.5 do you want?
Or older games? Do you just want them to never change the game, and keep adding supplements?

Sorry, Bill, but no not all D&D had your MMO style "roles". Never make assumptions that everyone does everything the same way you do. You can prove nothing that way, other than you do not understand human beings and the fact they differ.
...The hell you say?
First, the name's not "Bill". I'm not putting my real name down, but you can say "KnightDisciple", "Knight", or "KD" if you feel like adressing me by name, shadzar.
Second, the very first D&D had exactly 4 classes, no? The fighter, the cleric, the wizard, and the theif, yes?
Third, having played 4th, and played WoW (you know, the ebil MMORPG!), I can say that things are only as similar as previous editions were similar. In fact, clerics don't have to be healbots like they might have had to previously. Wizards can, if they do it right, mix it up in a stand up fight. And so on.

I was asked a question and answered it. Just because you like to buy Nike because it says Nike on it, or any other brand fad you wish to follow, doesn't mean everyone is a lemming that follows a brand name just because of the name.
...And now you've called me a lemming. Ad hominem much?
I never said "Oh, I love the D&D brand, and only love 4th because it says D&D on the books!"
I like 4th for itself. The D&D brand is a plus.

To me actions have always spoken louder than words. WotC actions have proven them to NOT be able to make games for gamers, but make products for marketing.
Well, I consider myself a gamer, and this game is fun to me. So they do make games for gamers. Just not all gamers (which is really inevitable; not everyone has the same tastes).
Unless you're defining "gamers" as "people who like the same things as shadzar", which is just silly.

I am not interested in playing Magic the Advertising, I want an RPG that I can enjoy; and don't need everyone else in the world to enjoy it so that I can.
...I feel the same way! I don't need everyone to like 4th ed. to enjoy playing it! :smalltongue:

Brands are meaningless to anyone but the brand license holder. I prefer to be a smart consumer than a blind brand buyer.
....And here, ladies and gentlemen, he implies once more that I'm a "blind brand buyer".
If 4th had come about in a form/mechanics that I didn't like, I wouldn't enjoy it, or plan on buying merchandise for it.
But I did enjoy it, and do plan on buying merchandise for it.

Still your list of "every edition had" does not include things that are only for D&D, but every other RPG and many other types of games and things. That does NOT define D&D.
What does? One exact combination of rules?
The game has changed over the years.
You can freely state "I don't really consider 4th ed to be D&D, not like how I remember it" or some such.
Straight up saying "4th ed isn't D&D" is silly, and is in fact a blind brand following all its own. In this case, the brand is "the way it used to be".

shadzar

2009-05-28, 01:36 PM

How much more support for 3.5 do you want?

So you are one of THOSE people.

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree as I don't like 3.x all that much and don't care if it gets support or not. If others want it that is their choice, and shouldn't be denied to them just to satisfy the urge to play D&D by those who never liked it in previous editions and required the "simpler" rules of 4th edition to even play D&D in the first place.

:smallwink:

I am just sick of people that throw things away that still work because they need flashy shiny new looking things, when the older thing works just fine. That goes for both gamers and companies.

The quickest way for a company to sell something to mindless shoppers is to slap a big "NEW & IMPROVED" label on it without actually improving anything other than their own bottom line.

Second, the very first D&D had exactly 4 classes, no? The fighter, the cleric, the wizard, and the theif, yes?

No.

Fighting-men
Magic-users
Clerics

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 01:39 PM

So you are one of THOSE people.

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree as I don't like 3.x all that much and don't care if it gets support or not. If others want it that is their choice, and shouldn't be denied to them just to satisfy the urge to play D&D by those who never liked it in previous editions and required the "simpler" rules of 4th edition to even play D&D in the first place.

:smallwink:
Right, so, which edition didnt' have "enough" support, and what format would you like that support to take?

Seriously though, 3.5 was pretty much saturated with books.

And nice little implication about people who like 4th being stupider ("required" the "simpler" rules).

How about you just step on out and stop insulting large swathes of people who dare have different tastes than you? :smallannoyed:

Mystic Muse

2009-05-28, 01:45 PM

shadzar

2009-05-28, 01:45 PM

Mystic Muse

2009-05-28, 01:47 PM

yeah competing with yourself is pointless.

diet coke commercials anyone?

The Glyphstone

2009-05-28, 01:48 PM

don't turn this thread into an edition war. all you should do is offer why you do or don't play. if you want reasons why the person doesn't you should PM them instead. or IM since it's so much easier.

It's way too late for that....there's already enough strife in this thread to feed a troll for months.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 01:52 PM

yeah competing with yourself is pointless.

diet coke commercials anyone?

Call me crazy/greedy but if I had one product with 50% market share and could have 2 products with 33% each market share for a total of 66% market share, I would happily compete with myself for the greater market share.

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 02:07 PM

Volkov

2009-05-28, 02:12 PM

Also we feel a bit betrayed that 3.X had so little time. Compare it's lifespan to that of 2nd and 1st edition. 2nd edition had far and away the longest lifespan of any edition. Unlike the previous editions, 3.X didn't even get a decade to live. I would have been much happier if 3.X was given a decade or two to be around.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 02:16 PM

You know, I thought about it, and I can think of several RPGs from multiple companies that *gasp* use editions.

GURPS. (4)
Exalted. (2)
World of Darkness. (2)
Shadowrun. (4)
Hero (releasing 6th this year)
Palladium (2)
Savage World (3)

And how popular are those editions across the player base for each of those games?

How about the various Star Wars RPG editions/games?

Star Wars tells you up from it is just a different game using the same universe, but "D&D" 4th edition...."ze game has changed but it vill remain ze same! It vill remain ze same!"

Matthew

2009-05-28, 02:17 PM

Seriously folks, this is getting a bit crazy now. The moderators will probably be descending on this thread once people start reporting posts or trading insults (or even identifying insults as such, I have been down that road before...)

So, what are the main points that are being made here and to what end? I am finding things a bit dizzying at this juncture.

Also we feel a bit betrayed that 3.X had so little time. Compare it's lifespan to that of 2nd and 1st edition. 2nd edition had far and away the longest lifespan of any edition. Unlike the previous editions, 3.X didn't even get a decade to live. I would have been much happier if 3.X was given a decade or two to be around.

Actually first edition lasted from 1979-1989 and second edition from 1989-1999, so approximately the same. Technically, the first AD&D product was released in 1977, but the three hard backed books were not in circulation until 1979. Third edition lasted 2000-2008 (more or less), so not too bad if you are counting both 3.0 and 3.5.

Jayabalard

2009-05-28, 02:20 PM

LotR novels
GURPSThe LoTR novel doesn't have classes, though the RPGs based on it does.

There are no classes in GURPS.

Yuki Akuma

2009-05-28, 02:22 PM

The LoTR novel doesn't have classes, though the RPGs based on it does.

There are no classes in GURPS.

GURPS has "profession templates" that it pretends aren't classes but, really, they kinda are.

But yeah they're not mandatory.

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 02:22 PM

And how popular are those editions across the player base for each of those games?

How about the various Star Wars RPG editions/games?

Star Wars tells you up from it is just a different game using the same universe, but "D&D" 4th edition...."ze game has changed but it vill remain ze same! It vill remain ze same!"

And fundamentally, it did (remain the same). For all the talk of the "sweeping" changes, the core mechanic (roll d20, add modifiers, check against target number, apply affects as necessary) did indeed remain the same. Some things changed, but other things stayed the same, in essence if not exact details.

As for other games, being that I'm not a member of the player base community, I don't know.
I know the WoD edition shift caused some mutterings at the least.

The problem here is that you and I could argue about merits one way or another until we're blue in the face and get nowhere.

I'm not asking you to like 4th. I'm not necessarily asking you to like every decision WotC, or TSR, or anyone, has made.

I am asking you to stop insulting people who like the new edition.
I am asking you to stop stating subjective opinion (such as whether a particular edition "is D&D") as objective fact.

Matthew

2009-05-28, 02:27 PM

I am asking you to stop insulting people who like the new edition.
I am asking you to stop stating subjective opinion (such as whether a particular edition "is D&D") as objective fact.

Indeed. It was annoying when that is the form of discussion about AD&D, and it is annoying to see it happening with D20. The internet and fixed text often conveys subjective opinion as objective fact, so it really helps in these debates when people are clear about what is their opinion and what is something they expect everyone to recognise as true.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 02:27 PM

The LoTR novel doesn't have classes, though the RPGs based on it does.

Gandalf the wizard
Sarumon the wizard
Aragorn the ranger
Boromir the fighter
Gimlee the fighter
Tom Bombadil the bard
Bilbo the burglar

Would you like me to continue listing?

EDIT: There will never be an objective opinion to what is D&D, so anything is subjective. Currently it is so skewed it should die, and people start something next time with better naming conventions and goals to maintain product integrity other than "kick down the door, kill chit, and takes its stuff".

Jayabalard

2009-05-28, 02:28 PM

You know, I thought about it, and I can think of several RPGs from multiple companies that *gasp* use editions.

GURPS. (4)GURPS is a bad comparison; it's editions are VERY compatible. You can use 1st ed, 2ed and 3rd ed stuff together with no conversion, and mix in 4e with some VERY minor conversions.

D&D doesn't even come close to that, and hasn't been since the switch over from 1e/2e AD&D; There were some fairly fundamental changes to the game between editions.

Gandalf the wizard
Sarumon the wizard
Aragorn the ranger
Boromir the fighter
Gimlee the fighter
Tom Bombadil the bard
Bilbo the burglar

Would you like me to continue listing?Those are not classes; certainly, LOTR uses archtypes, but that's not the same thing at all.

And Bombadil was not a bard.

I'd make the same argument against the Harry potter novels but they unarguably do have classes (divination, potions, Defense against the dark arts, etc)...

Yuki Akuma

2009-05-28, 02:29 PM

Gandalf the wizard
Sarumon the wizard
Aragorn the ranger
Boromir the fighter
Gimlee the fighter
Tom Bombadil the bard
Bilbo the burglar

Would you like me to continue listing?

Tom Bombadil the bard?

Okay sure he sung verse a lot but c'mon that's just Tolkein's style.

Tom Bombadil was a force of nature more than anything else.

(Also those aren't classes, those are character archetypes.)

Volkov

2009-05-28, 02:31 PM

Seriously folks, this is getting a bit crazy now. The moderators will probably be descending on this thread once people start reporting posts or trading insults (or even identifying insults as such, I have been down that road before...)

So, what are the main points that are being made here and to what end? I am finding things a bit dizzying at this juncture.

Actually first edition lasted from 1979-1989 and second edition from 1989-1999, so approximately the same. Technically, the first AD&D product was released in 1977, but the three hard backed books were not in circulation until 1979. Third edition lasted 2000-2008 (more or less), so not too bad if you are counting both 3.0 and 3.5.
Ah so it was first edition that technically lasted longest. I remembered that one edition technically lasted 15 or so years. Also 2nd edition lasted until 2000, die vecna die, the last module ever released for 2nd E, was released in 2000.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 02:31 PM

Tom Bombadil the bard?

Okay sure he sung verse a lot but c'mon that's just Tolkein's style.

Tom Bombadil was a force of nature more than anything else.

(Also those aren't classes, those are character archetypes.)

But those are where the classes come form is those archetypes is it not?

So how do you define a class?

We must have common ground of definitions for discussion to work.

How will we defines what makes a class different from a character archetype?

DM Raven

2009-05-28, 02:37 PM

Ah so it was first edition that technically lasted longest. I remembered that one edition technically lasted 15 or so years. Also 2nd edition lasted until 2000, die vecna die, the last module ever released for 2nd E, was released in 2000.

I think that's more because no one really picked up the D&D license and tried to run with it until third and now fourth edition.

And what do you mean no one plays 4th edition? A lot of people play and really like fourth edition (myself included).

Jayabalard

2009-05-28, 02:38 PM

But those are where the classes come form is those archetypes is it not?irrelevant.

And fundamentally, it did (remain the same). For all the talk of the "sweeping" changes, the core mechanic (roll d20, add modifiers, check against target number, apply affects as necessary) did indeed remain the same.That's only really true of attack rolls; other sorts of rolls changed dice (as not everything used d20 for resolution), and some things changed whether you needed to roll under a target number to needing to roll over a target number

and even with attack rolls there were some pretty big changes: moving from a table in 1e, to THAC0 in 2e and then to flipping the AC axis in 3e.

I think that's more because no one really picked up the D&D license and tried to run with it until third and now fourth edition.I don't really have any idea what you're trying to say with this.

Matthew

2009-05-28, 02:40 PM

Ah so it was first edition that technically lasted longest. I remembered that one edition technically lasted 15 or so years. Also 2nd edition lasted until 2000, die vecna die, the last module ever released for 2nd E, was released in 2000.

Oh yeah, 2000. So 12 years versus 11 years. The only way first edition could have lasted 15 is if you include original D&D (1974), but those are definitely different editions. The longest running edition was possibly "Classic" D&D, which ran from 1983 to 2000, sort of (really they stopped supporting it around 1994, but there was no new edition, and occasional products).

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 02:45 PM

That's only really true of attack rolls; other sorts of rolls changed dice (as not everything used d20 for resolution), and some things changed whether you needed to roll under a target number to needing to roll over a target number

I was mostly looking at the most recent change. I wasn't really in gaming when the other editions were around. :smallwink:

DM Raven

2009-05-28, 02:48 PM

Mystic Muse

2009-05-28, 02:50 PM

All editions prior to 4th don't have enough support.

You don't see games from just about anywhere else end support unless they end the entire game line.

"D&D" goes on, but without support for it?

Of course the same can be said of GW games, but they are both just fighting each other for 3 decades trying to be the best of the gaming world with one being TRPG and the other being a miniature wargame.

They are fighting a battle where none exists, and one only for money. :smallconfused:

Pretty stupid fight if you ask me.

WotC is the only one with D&D that canceled support for editions older than its current product.

D&D and AD&D both had support in dragon magazine and years after AD&D came out and adventurers ended they even did something crazy! They reprinted a compilation of the D&D rules (BESMI) in one book! :smalleek:

How dare they compete with themselves! :smallfurious:

How about those people having different tastes and never liking the game to begin with stop trying to change it so they can like it and find something else to do rather than harrass people that do like something that they don't want to like, but want to change it to make it more to their tastes.

You prefer Burger King over McDonald's doesn't give you any right to try to shut down McDonald's just don't eat their.

You don't like D&D...this may shock some people....you don't have ot play it. :smalleek: Doesn't give you the right to want it changed to where the people that do like it no longer want to play it.

:smallwink:

this isn't a case of you trying to shut down mcdonalds it's more a case of mcdonalds trying to change their menu.

there's no reason to complain about 4th edition. it's a different version of the game and it's simpler. that's one of the reasons I play it. I'm usually lost in 3.5 because I'm a noob and it's hard for me to learn it as easily as I did 4th edition. I will learn it eventually and might still prefer 4th edition. it's a matter of taste and people complaining 4th edition is bad is like me saying megaman zero is more fun than playing with barbie dolls with the exception of blowing them to smithereens.

3.5 definitely had enough support. as has been said before it's "absolutely saturated with books" what do you mean when you want more support for it? there are already enough books and rules mods so what more do you want? you want MORE classes and rules mods? are you saying 4th edition has more support when it has no more than 10 books? if you're saying wizards is supporting it instead of the other games well that's because it's new. they're going to support it so they can make more money which is what companies do. probably the reason they won't make any more 3.5 books if they don't is that many are content with the books they already have and don't need yet another book of classes or rules modifications.

please stop the fighting. don't turn this board into yet another front for the edition wars.

AgentPaper

2009-05-28, 03:00 PM

No.

Fighting-men
Magic-users
Clerics

Oh hey look! Tank, DPS, and Healer! Somehow this seems familiar...:smallamused:

Also, I find it funny that you have repeatedly stated that 1) You don't care about brands, and 2) You hate 4E only because it has the DnD brand. Surely you see the hypocrisy here, yes? :smallsigh:

Totally Guy

2009-05-28, 03:13 PM

I'm usually lost in 3.5 because I'm a noob and it's hard for me to learn it as easily as I did 4th edition. I will learn it eventually and might still prefer 4th edition.

In 4th I get to be the DM!

They all thought it would be stupid and terrible because I was doing it but it turned out really well!

I understand most of 3.5 but I think I'd struggle with the balance between fluid gameplay and a fluid narrative.

The biggest problem I've had with 4th edition is when a player decides that they'll max out a stat other than the class ones and then they lament ineffectiveness. I think they see the recommended build options and decide that they'll "outsmart" the book and do something completely different.

The New Bruceski

2009-05-28, 03:16 PM

<Snark>
Clearly McDonald's committed an utter travesty by removing the McRib from its menu. I don't care if they put a bunch of tasty new items up, without the McRib it's no longer McDonald's, it's just using the brand to make money!

"But Bruceski," you ask, "what about before McDonald's had the McRib?" Well that was still McDonald's, I'll agree. But once they introduced the McRib it became the sole definer of a proper McDonald's, and No True Connoisseur can disagree with me!
</Snark>

Matthew

2009-05-28, 03:16 PM

For a long time D&D was sitting out in limbo. No one was working on new content or trying to improve the rules or balance gameplay. Second Edition had rule additions and some content, but it wasn't until third edition that they tried to fix and improve the rules (3.5) based on gameplay and feedback from the fans. And now with fourth edition, content and rule changed are fairly regular. In fact, they even have playtest material and user feedback that they use to shape and improve the rule system.

Actually, it is interesting to note just how much of third edition is based on the optional rules that appeared in the mid nineties for second edition. The 3e combat system is basically ripped from the Combat & Tactics supplement wholesale. You are absolutely on track about customer feedback, though, D20 was produced with a mandate to please the widest audience possible and brilliantly succeeded. TSR in the period 1989-1999 seems to have had very little interest in surveying its customer base.

The money troubles D&D faced in the period 1995-2000 were what ultimately sank it, a giant straw man set ablaze by the fire of Magic the Gathering.

<Snark>
Clearly McDonald's committed an utter travesty by removing the McRib from its menu. I don't care if they put a bunch of tasty new items up, without the McRib it's no longer McDonald's, it's just using the brand to make money!

"But Bruceski," you ask, "what about before McDonald's had the McRib?" Well that was still McDonald's, I'll agree. But once they introduced the McRib it became the sole definer of a proper McDonald's, and No True Connoisseur can disagree with me!
</Snark>

I dunno, I think you could make the analogy that it's like a good restaurant turning into McDonalds or whatever (or the other way around, depending on taste). In any case the analogy sucks. It is certainly possible to argue that D20 is farther away from any earlier incarnation of D&D than they were from one another, so it is possible to argue that it is not "D&D as we knew it", and that D20/4e has taken a similar leap of magnitude. Compared to the edition changes in Call of Cthulu, Role Master, Ars Magicka, and Rune Quest, etcetera, the changes have been pretty significant.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 03:25 PM

I think that's more because no one really picked up the D&D license and tried to run with it until third and now fourth edition.

Probably because it wasn't for sale, and the only reason anyone got any kind of license to make (A)D&D in some form was due to WotC buying TSR and having to pay a settlement for making Dragon Magazine Archive in which it used articles without permission to print them and thus Hackmaster was born.

It isn't that nobody wanted D&D when AD&D was around, but nobody wanted someone else to have it.

For a long time D&D was sitting out in limbo. No one was working on new content or trying to improve the rules or balance gameplay.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It wasn't in limbo, just those who didn't like D&D didn't like D&D, so found other things to do rather than trying to force people to play D&D other than the way it was played.

There is not one way to play D&D, but some cannot accept that even today, and the bigger problem coming from that is more of a one-true-way-to-play attitude brought on by the RPGA "core" concept.

D&D is not a game made for tournaments.

@theburningfield:

3.5 still has support through the OGL.

@AgentPaper:

No I hate WotC for trying to turn anything into and make only "brands" rather than trying to make a good game.

See MtG and type 2 or Standard tournaments where you must buy a complete new game every few months. That is all WotC knows how to do, make more products, and not quality ones.

It was done prior to 4th when they dropped the "Advanced" off 3rd edition, because there was already a 3rd edition of D&D. It came before BESMI as just the Basic/Expert set.

Don't blame me for the WotC not understanding their games timeline or history. If they didn't screw up so bad in the past and now they wouldn't have so many problems.

Ask David Noonan, Jonathan Tweet, Randy Beuhlar, Jennifer 'Solace' Page, Mike 'GamerZer0' Lescault, Linae 'Lurking Lidda' Foster, etc how good WotC is doing with maintaining quality products.

The D&D department is currently being run by someone that never liked D&D and was part of the reason he had Alternity created.

4th edition was made for ole Bill Slavisek to be able to finally understand the game. :smalleek:

EDIT:

Actually, it is interesting to note just how much of third edition is based on the optional rules that appeared in the mid nineties for second edition. The 3e combat system is basically ripped from the Combat & Tactics supplement wholesale.

Sadly so true. Look at the saves now with the expanded Player's options skills. Notice Reflex, Will, and Fortitude staring at you.

And for those that didn't like the Player's Options (2.5e) then the change was enough to drive them away form D&D.

kc0bbq

2009-05-28, 03:49 PM

4th edition was made for ole Bill Slavisek to be able to finally understand the game. :smalleek:

Please raise the tone of your posts. Please please please.

Please.

DM Raven

2009-05-28, 03:59 PM

Probably because it wasn't for sale, and the only reason anyone got any kind of license to make (A)D&D in some form was due to WotC buying TSR and having to pay a settlement for making Dragon Magazine Archive in which it used articles without permission to print them and thus Hackmaster was born.

It isn't that nobody wanted D&D when AD&D was around, but nobody wanted someone else to have it.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I more meant that those who owned D&D didn't do much to try to expand or improve it.

As for the second comment, I would say that trying to improve on an idea or system is always good. D&D isn't a story or movie, it's a game system. A game system can/should be improved to balance gameplay and make things run smoother. I've been playing D&D since early 2.0 and each new edition has greatly improved the game. There are small things I dislike in each system, but as a whole D&D improves each attempt.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 04:05 PM

I more meant that those who owned D&D didn't do much to try to expand or improve it.

As for the second comment, I would say that trying to improve on an idea or system is always good. D&D isn't a story or movie, it's a game system. A game system can/should be improved to balance gameplay and make things run smoother. I've been playing D&D since early 2.0 and each new edition has greatly improved the game. There are small things I dislike in each system, but as a whole D&D improves each attempt.

:smallconfused: The company that owned it or the players that owned it? I am missing something here.

Each to his own for whether it has improved. Gameplay may be better for recent editions, but quality of players I have found has greatly diminished due to recent editions because everybody gets to be the cool kid and play D&D, whether they disrupt the game or not....

Such as it is when you only have a game store to play at for enough room and have to play with anyone that may walk in as payment for using the space.

I don't care if it offends anyone, but everyone shouldn't be allowed to play D&D with everyone else. Sadly it doesn't work with reason and often you have to jsut play with anyone or do without playing. I prefer doing without a game than playing in a bad one.

DM Raven

2009-05-28, 04:17 PM

The company, TSR.

Well, everyone's D&D game experience is unique. Some people play it for the gaming aspect, some for the storytelling, some for the social, some for the rule/wargame type feel. I think everyone can and should enjoy D&D in their own way. But like you said, agree to disagree. :smallsmile:

shadzar

2009-05-28, 04:37 PM

The company, TSR.

Yeah, Gary wrote AD&D for whatever reason, and probably had to move away from D&D for legal reasons probably revolving around his late partner in creating TSR, with problems with Dave about things between them, and many other things.

D&D has always had a dark past.

Then I can't explain RC bringing BESMI+ into one book and why that did not go further. Maybe having to do with Gary gone already for 6 years form TSR, and other people deciding to just not do anything else with it. LW was a disaster for the game.

Oddly when people learned that D&D and AD&D were two different games there was little problem. But someone probably felt that it would be confusing or a waste of time to make more than one game.

I can only guess, but it seems the same idea with 3.x and 4th. Make only one game, and hope people buy it with nothing to fall back on.

Also most of the D&D writers had probably long left for other things, so there wasn't interest within the company to support D&D anymore.

Again, all guesses.

Also note that LW didn't even like D&D or gamers.....might explain lots of things.

The Tygre

2009-05-28, 05:30 PM

chiasaur11

2009-05-28, 05:37 PM

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 05:37 PM

I appear to have mutant the power of liking more than one thing without the fanaticism that normal human beings normally reserve for arguments about abortion.

:furious: DIE MUTIE DIE! :furious:

:smalltongue:

KnightDisciple

2009-05-28, 05:56 PM

shadzar

2009-05-28, 06:42 PM

...

Yeah, I bought 4th edition. And I know this is going to shock some of you, I mean really just freak the living Hell out of a couple of people here, but I like it -and- 3.5/Pathfinder. Shocking, I know. I appear to have mutant the power of liking more than one thing

I think it more to the point with such expensive things most people aren't rich enough to buy 400 of the same thing, and must pick the one they like best due to economic reasons.

Whether a want to like more exists, an ability to spend more (money, time, etc) on more than one does not exist.

So you group 3.5 with Pathfinder, rather than pathfinder as 3.75?

I just call it Pathfinder, but wonder is it really that different from 3.5 or close so that 3.5 can still exist for those who prefer it to 4th/etc?

I can't seem to recall where my Beta is and haven't really got anything to go on other than reading to tell how different or similar they are from an outside to 3.5.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 06:54 PM

Yeah, Gary wrote AD&D for whatever reason, and probably had to move away from D&D for legal reasons probably revolving around his late partner in creating TSR, with problems with Dave about things between them, and many other things.

D&D has always had a dark past.

Then I can't explain RC bringing BESMI+ into one book and why that did not go further. Maybe having to do with Gary gone already for 6 years form TSR, and other people deciding to just not do anything else with it. LW was a disaster for the game.

Oddly when people learned that D&D and AD&D were two different games there was little problem. But someone probably felt that it would be confusing or a waste of time to make more than one game.

I can only guess, but it seems the same idea with 3.x and 4th. Make only one game, and hope people buy it with nothing to fall back on.

Also most of the D&D writers had probably long left for other things, so there wasn't interest within the company to support D&D anymore.

Again, all guesses.

Also note that LW didn't even like D&D or gamers.....might explain lots of things.

When you need to qualify a post with 7 hedges, it's generally better not to post it at all.

Jayabalard

2009-05-28, 07:04 PM

When you need to qualify a post with 7 hedges, it's generally better not to post it at all.8 actually ("might" in the last line) but really, there's no reason for people to avoid posting speculations...

Just imo, you're better off arguing people's points than trying to find polite (or not so polite) ways of telling people to shut up and stop posting.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 07:06 PM

When you need to qualify a post with 7 hedges, it's generally better not to post it at all.

Well tough cookies, that the issues revolving any internal court rulings for TSR were more than likely sealed or just not released to the public, and both member that would know about some of them now for fact have passed on.

The facts are as presented with the best info available to piece it all together.

Feel free to present other facts if you have them or anything to contribute other than a post basically telling me to shut up.

You don't like the partial facts, then look it up yourself if you can find more info after all these years as to why D&D was never developed further by TSR.

:smallfurious:

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 07:18 PM

8 actually ("might" in the last line) but really, there's no reason for people to avoid posting speculations...

Just imo, you're better off arguing people's points than trying to find polite (or not so polite) ways of telling people to shut up and stop posting.

Generally, I agree.

However, in this instance, as far as I can tell there was no point, and to the extent that there was, the only way to argue it is the manner in which I did.

Namely, to point out that the argument had no provable basis in readily ascertainable fact.

Well tough cookies, that the issues revolving any internal court rulings for TSR were more than likely sealed or just not released to the public, and both member that would know about some of them now for fact have passed on...

You don't like the partial facts, then look it up yourself if you can find more info after all these years as to why D&D was never developed further by TSR.

:smallfurious:

(My bolding)

Firstly, you're doing it again/still.

Secondly, please calm down. As I mentioned a number of pages ago, this is generally a respectful forum. Getting angry doesn't achieve anything.

I think you're arguing the why of DM Raven's point, rather than the what. As far as I can tell, you're shadowboxing. No one else really knows or (for present purposes) cares why TSR didn't run with D&D more than it did. So why prolong the debate?

EarFall

2009-05-28, 07:22 PM

*Rolls eyes*

Second, the very first D&D had exactly 4 classes, no? The fighter, the cleric, the wizard, and the theif, yes?
.

Nope, it only had cleric, fighter and mage. And it was better... ;)

Of course, it also had elf and dwarf as classes.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-28, 07:26 PM

Gandalf the wizard
Sarumon the wizard
Aragorn the ranger
Boromir the fighter
Gimlee the fighter
Tom Bombadil the bard
Bilbo the burglar

Would you like me to continue listing?

Don't forget all those folks with Elf and Dwarf class levels!

Jayabalard

2009-05-28, 07:34 PM

I more meant that those who owned D&D didn't do much to try to expand or improve it. I'm not really sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. Books were published regularly through from late 70s through the 80s for Basic D&D and AD&D; averaging about 2 books/year (15 AD&D books + 5 sets in the Basic D&D series in 12 years or so).

AD&D 2e continued publishing through 90s, and it didn't have a shortage of books by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus two magazines, and loads of modules worth of support.

Firstly, you're doing it again/still.Likewise.

Colmarr

2009-05-28, 07:46 PM

Likewise.

Touche :smallsmile:

Having said that - and as was clearly demonstrated by the whole "conducive to roleplaying debacle a few pages back - it's impossible to properly address someone's argument without first address the facts upon which it is based.

If you disagree with the validity of those facts, there's rarely common ground to argue from.

Matthew

2009-05-28, 07:48 PM

Nope, it only had cleric, fighter and mage. And it was better... ;)

Of course, it also had elf and dwarf as classes.

I think you are confusing Classic D&D (1981+) and Original D&D (1974). In Original D&D there were three classes, and elves and dwarves could only belong to particular ones. In Classic D&D thieves were included, but elves and dwarves were their own class.[/relatively pointless nitpicking...] :smallbiggrin:

I'm not really sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. Books were published regularly through from late 70s through the 80s for Basic D&D and AD&D; averaging about 2 books/year (15 AD&D books + 5 sets in the Basic D&D series in 12 years or so).

AD&D 2e continued publishing through 90s, and it didn't have a shortage of books by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus two magazines, and loads of modules worth of support.

There was a dearth of products for a few months between the point where TSR went up for sale and WotC bought them. Probably that is what DM Raven is thinking of.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 07:52 PM

Don't forget all those folks with Elf and Dwarf class levels!

Not really wanting to confuse people with Basic set. :smallwink:

But yes there was extended class list which made 7 classes

Human classes:
Cleric
Fighter
Magic-user
Thief

Demi-human classes:
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling

So Bilbo was then multi-classed halfling/thief
Gimlee multi-classed dwarf/fighter
Legolas multi-classed elf/fighter

:smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter

2009-05-28, 07:56 PM

I think you are confusing Classic D&D (1981+) and Original D&D (1974). In Original D&D there were three classes, and elves and dwarves could only belong to particular ones. In Classic D&D thieves were included, but elves and dwarves were their own class.[/relatively pointless nitpicking...] :smallbiggrin:
Has anyone called for a Grognard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard) In The Playground?

Because you have my vote :smalltongue:

The Tygre

2009-05-28, 08:05 PM

So you group 3.5 with Pathfinder, rather than pathfinder as 3.75?

I just call it Pathfinder, but wonder is it really that different from 3.5 or close so that 3.5 can still exist for those who prefer it to 4th/etc?

I can't seem to recall where my Beta is and haven't really got anything to go on other than reading to tell how different or similar they are from an outside to 3.5.

I generally group them together, but I can see the logic in calling 'Pathfinder' just 'Pathfinder' in order to avoid the 'D&D and AD&D' confusion that arose. However, I can't help but feel there's some kind of silent understanding that third edition will always be third edition among gamers, regardless of actual progression. Still, I see your point about money, but that's always been a universal constant problem in RPGs. As for me, I don't have my print copy of Pathfinder at all. I ordered it nine...months...ago...

I do have one beef with Pathfinder. I think Pathfinder needs some more campaign settings to work with, and fast. Not necessarily new multiverses, but maybe some new settings on the new planets. Otherwise, if there's nothing new... I fear for the worst for Pathfinder and Paizo.

shadzar

2009-05-28, 08:10 PM

I generally group them together, but I can see the logic in calling 'Pathfinder' just 'Pathfinder' in order to avoid the 'D&D and AD&D' confusion that arose. However, I can't help but feel there's some kind of silent understanding that third edition will always be third edition among gamers, regardless of actual progression. Still, I see your point about money, but that's always been a universal constant problem in RPGs. As for me, I don't have my print copy of Pathfinder at all. I ordered it nine...months...ago...

I do have one beef with Pathfinder. I think Pathfinder needs some more campaign settings to work with, and fast. Not necessarily new multiverses, but maybe some new settings on the new planets. Otherwise, if there's nothing new... I fear for the worst for Pathfinder and Paizo.

Since 4th edition has a not so forgiving GSL that came out too slowly for people to join causing Pathfinder to begin with, you really fear Pahtfinder in trouble over 4th?

4th has FR and maybe soon Eberron as settings, and whatever the GSL brings out.

Can't support form Pathfinder be found in the OGL?

Does it not already work with all the former 3.5 settings?

Not to mention an advantage I think Pathfinder has over 4th is that you need but one book to play, right? Like Rules Cyclopedia for BESMI.

So if nothing else it has a lower price for the whole game, and a larger support base until Paizo can get working on other parts.

Matthew

2009-05-28, 08:56 PM

Has anyone called for a Grognard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard) In The Playground?

Because you have my vote :smalltongue:

I assure you I am too young and not nearly enough of a grumbler to qualify for that somewhat dubious honour, nor have I played enough war games, but thanks for your vote. :smallbiggrin:

I generally group them together, but I can see the logic in calling 'Pathfinder' just 'Pathfinder' in order to avoid the 'D&D and AD&D' confusion that arose. However, I can't help but feel there's some kind of silent understanding that third edition will always be third edition among gamers, regardless of actual progression. Still, I see your point about money, but that's always been a universal constant problem in RPGs. As for me, I don't have my print copy of Pathfinder at all. I ordered it nine...months...ago...

I do have one beef with Pathfinder. I think Pathfinder needs some more campaign settings to work with, and fast. Not necessarily new multiverses, but maybe some new settings on the new planets. Otherwise, if there's nothing new... I fear for the worst for Pathfinder and Paizo.

The use of Pathfinder is pure branding, I think, and born of a desire to avoid having to try and acquire "Third Edition" as a trademark. As things currently stand:

Swords & Wizardry = Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974-1977)
OSRIC = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1977-1989)
Labyrinth Lord = Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1981-1983)
Pathfinder = Third Edition/D20 Dungeons & Dragons (2000-2008)

Pretty good going really. Second Edition (1989-2000) is unrepresented because OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry pretty much cover it with only minor differences, and Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1983-2000), often referred to as BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal), is also unrepresented for similar reasons. Occasionally there are rumblings about simulacrums of those games, as well as the Holmes edition of Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1977-1981), but we are past the point of need now, in my opinion.

Yahzi

2009-05-28, 10:38 PM

I assure you I am too young and not nearly enough of a grumbler to qualify for that somewhat dubious honour, nor have I played enough war games, but thanks for your vote.
OOooh! Pick me!

I'm old and grumpy. I remember playing Traveller, and Melee and Wizard!

:smallbiggrin:

Kemper Boyd

2009-05-29, 12:35 AM

I have to say that most of the stupid things I disliked in 3rd ed nicely went away with 4e (retarded multiclassing to 7 different classes, prestige classes, overpowered feats, a skill system that was way too complex for its purpose and so on), and in the last 5 years, 4E has been the nicest game I've played, simply because its more streamlined and the overall tone of the game is nicer towards the players.

3rd Edition might have been a step to the right direction, but it didnt go far enough.

Also dumping the old generic fantasy worlds that were bland and making Eberron the default setting was a masterstroke.

shadzar

2009-05-29, 01:30 AM

Also dumping the old generic fantasy worlds that were bland and making Eberron the default setting was a masterstroke.

Yeah cause it always makes the most since to dump fantasy from a fantasy game to turn it into steam-punk trash.

How about "I didn't like the old settings and am thankful to see some new world material being used."

You would still be an idiot in many peoples minds for calling all the previous settings old and generic, but at least you would have said it more politely.

@Colmarr:

That more the tone you wish I should use? :smallsmile:

Colmarr

2009-05-29, 01:38 AM

Yeah cause it always makes the most since to dump fantasy from a fantasy game to turn it into steam-punk trash.

How about "I didn't like the old settings and am thankful to see some new world material being used."

You would still be an idiot in many peoples minds for calling all the previous settings old and generic, but at least you would have said it more politely.

@Colmarr:

That more the tone you wish I should use? :smallsmile:

Hmm. Let's see. Sarcasm? Tick. Subjective evaluation presented as objective fact? Tick. Insults? Tick.

No. No, not really. :smallsmile:

This is more what I had in mind:

The introduction of steampunk elements into D&D is a radical shift from the genre that the game has always occupied, and it's far from agreed that it was a good decision.

But hey, I'm not the forum police, and I don't want to harp on about this.

Edit: Check out this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1), particularly the section on "Flaming" for guidance on what can get you into trouble around here.

Kemper Boyd

2009-05-29, 06:34 AM

You would still be an idiot in many peoples minds for calling all the previous settings old and generic, but at least you would have said it more politely.

Why should I have a polite opinion about RPG settings? It's not like Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax is posting in this thread.

Boring faux-Tolkien fantasy has been the standard for over 30 years, I think it's time to move beyond that. You might not agree with me but I feel my point of view is perfectly valid.

Matthew

2009-05-29, 07:07 AM

Why should I have a polite opinion about RPG settings? It's not like Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax is posting in this thread.

Politeness is a much overlooked art; on the internet you are typically in the company of numerous strangers, as these are public and not private forums. That said, it is up to you how you choose to express yourself, but my experience is that the less rude you are the more likely a useful dialogue will develop (the reverse is also true, as we have seen in this thread).

Boring faux-Tolkien fantasy has been the standard for over 30 years, I think it's time to move beyond that. You might not agree with me but I feel my point of view is perfectly valid.

Veh? There have been many attempts to "break the mould". Just about every campaign setting aside from Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance attempts to be different from generic fantasy, the problem is that people keep coming back.

Jayabalard

2009-05-29, 08:23 AM

There was a dearth of products for a few months between the point where TSR went up for sale and WotC bought them. Probably that is what DM Raven is thinking of.hmm... well, looking at the publish date of this guy's list (http://www.robsworld.org/dndbooks.html), there were ~25 years of support from TSR. Just at a glance there looks like there is as much stuff on that list for 2.0 as there is for 3.0 and 3.5 combined... so I don't really see how anyone can make a valid claim that TSR didn't support D&D.

So Bilbo was then multi-classed halfling/thief
Gimlee multi-classed dwarf/fighter
Legolas multi-classed elf/fighter
There was no multiclassing in that edition

and since Legolas didn't cast spells he probably can't be an classified as an elf.

Matthew

2009-05-29, 08:33 AM

hmm... well, looking at the publish date of this guy's list (http://www.robsworld.org/dndbooks.html), there were ~25 years of support from TSR. Just at a glance there looks like there is as much stuff on that list for 2.0 as there is for 3.0 and 3.5 combined... so I don't really see how anyone can make a valid claim that TSR didn't support D&D.

Nice list! There appear to have been about 16 products in the period 1997-1999, which combined is equal to the number of products that went out the door in 1996. I guess that qualifies as a relative dearth, but the details of this period are not clear to me. I understand that many TSR staff were working for very reduced payment for a while before it was sold off.

shadzar

2009-05-29, 09:10 AM

There was no multiclassing in that edition

and since Legolas didn't cast spells he probably can't be an classified as an elf.

Thus why I didn't want to use demihumans as classes for the example.

Josh the Aspie

2009-05-29, 09:17 AM

and since Legolas didn't cast spells he probably can't be an classified as an elf.

Sure he did. He clearly cast a Tolkien Elf style divination.

"The sun rises read today. There was a battle." - Paraphrasing

shadzar

2009-05-29, 09:47 AM

Nice list! There appear to have been about 16 products in the period 1997-1999, which combined is equal to the number of products that went out the door in 1996. I guess that qualifies as a relative dearth, but the details of this period are not clear to me. I understand that many TSR staff were working for very reduced payment for a while before it was sold off.

Well TSR couldn't probably support anything D&D after 1997 since WotC owned it, so you would have to question WotC about why they didn't support the games better, but my guess would be because they were about to trash it all.

Like how they stopped all support full stop for 3.x when 4th came out, they ended support for previous when 3.0 came out. Check the Dragon magazines at the time about what they had to to with content.

WotC is known for not supporting anything over 2 years old. Look at their card games and how MrG is forced into repetitive buying patterns with its type 2 (Standard) tournament environment.

You have to buy new cards every 2 years just to play, and many people have been suckered into this idea so you cannot really find many people to play with outside of this tournament mindset.

Likewise for D&D. Most of the newer people follow this fad buying style, so anyone that doesn't doesn't get included in the group that is allowed to play.

Many people not buying into the buy more cards every month to have the newest set plays at home, and then soon find other things to do and stop playing the game all together.

WotC is not really known for its level of support because it doesn't want you to use the older products once it has a new one. If you aren't buying the new then you aren't and weren't ever their customer.

Sadly people got a short end of the stick with 3.5 that didn't really hit with 2nd.

2nd production values dropped of prior to 3rd being heavily worked on. So they already knew quality was reducing before WotC even came in control.

3.5 sadly had product support still, but the quality dropped while still acting like nothing was going on. Then slam with 4th edition, and WotC itself saying how much 3.x sucks. Which pretty much shows they didn't give decent support to 3.5 in its end days.

So if after 1997 support is what you were looking for for D&D, that would never happen under WotC practices.

Rules Cyclopedia was probably stalled for any further development in the downward spiral TSR was taking to be revisited another time, but that never got a chance with a complete edition change that tossed out all the previous.

There was a shift in TSR to move away from D&D to AD&D. They tried to get back to D&D for a bit, but the efforts were not without problems.

3.5 will have support until the end of time, and it is affecting 4th edition. Thankfully in all this mess at least SOME people have a choice which game to play so long as it is a WotC edition, and other things are in the process to make available even older editions for people.

Artanis

2009-05-29, 09:51 AM

Sure he did. He clearly cast a Tolkien Elf style divination.

"The sun rises read today. There was a battle." - Paraphrasing
There was also the thing with walking on top of the snow while everybody else was wading through it.

Yuki Akuma

2009-05-29, 10:07 AM

There was also the thing with walking on top of the snow while everybody else was wading through it.

That's just because elves are really light. Or something. All elves can do that, even the almost-completely-mortal wood elves.

KnightDisciple

2009-05-29, 10:17 AM

That's just because elves are really light. Or something. All elves can do that, even the almost-completely-mortal wood elves.

Yeah. It's a super-high balance check or some such.

Also, the "red sun rising" bit it less of a spell, and more of a "knowledge:omens". :smallwink:

Matthew

2009-05-29, 10:29 AM

Well TSR couldn't probably support anything D&D after 1997 since WotC owned it, so you would have to question WotC about why they didn't support the games better, but my guess would be because they were about to trash it all.

Not quite. TSR did produce AD&D product during the period 1997-1999, even when owned by WotC. Some of the products would have been completed before April 1997, others would have been abandoned.

Like how they stopped all support full stop for 3.x when 4th came out, they ended support for previous when 3.0 came out. Check the Dragon magazines at the time about what they had to to with content.

D20/3e came out in 2000, but WotC conducted a huge reorganisation and reallocation of resources to D20/3e development in that period. A third edition of AD&D was already planned by TSR and in development; however, the involvement of WotC resulted in a more radical departure.

WotC is known for not supporting anything over 2 years old. Look at their card games and how MrG is forced into repetitive buying patterns with its type 2 (Standard) tournament environment.

I do not think you can equate WotC's card game strategy with its RPG strategy. A revised third edition was planned from the start (but intended to have all new art). However, by 2003 a lot had changed; Peter Adkinson had retired as president of WotC in 2001 and the development staff had largely left or been reassigned.

You have to buy new cards every 2 years just to play, and many people have been suckered into this idea so you cannot really find many people to play with outside of this tournament mindset.

Yes, collectable card games suck.

Likewise for D&D. Most of the newer people follow this fad buying style, so anyone that doesn't doesn't get included in the group that is allowed to play.

This is confusing the tournament scene with the campaigns scene. If you want to be involved competitively in tournaments you have to be up to date with every release. The tournament scene was not much better under TSR.

Many people not buying into the buy more cards every month to have the newest set plays at home, and then soon find other things to do and stop playing the game all together.

Correct, this is because WotC target a specific demographic. Once you are outside that demographic you are no longer their main audience.

WotC is not really known for its level of support because it doesn't want you to use the older products once it has a new one. If you aren't buying the new then you aren't and weren't ever their customer.

Right, but they do not expect many folks past the age band of about 21 to be buying into their stuff. So they aim it at new gamers. It is really a clever strategy because it means they are always tapping into the emerging market, and never relying on an audience that already has their product. Getting anyone outside of their target demographic to buy the new stuff is a nice side effect. However, there is an alternative idea whereby it is supposed that WotC should be treating D&D like Monopoly and not paying people to develop new rules and supplements, just repackaging the old game for a new audience. for whatever reasons, WotC have not adopted this strategy.

Sadly people got a short end of the stick with 3.5 that didn't really hit with 2nd.

I do not agree with this. What they got was exactly what they wanted, as shown by the ridiculously good boom of the post 2000 RPG environment.

2nd production values dropped of prior to 3rd being heavily worked on. So they already knew quality was reducing before WotC even came in control.

TSR was losing money hand over fist throughout the reign of second edition. Production values dropped because the company was failing.

3.5 sadly had product support still, but the quality dropped while still acting like nothing was going on. Then slam with 4th edition, and WotC itself saying how much 3.x sucks. Which pretty much shows they didn't give decent support to 3.5 in its end days.

A different situation by far. The period 2007-2008 was very short compared to the period 1997-2000, and WotC remained profitable and able to produce good quality material (even if the brand was under performing with regard to expectations).

So if after 1997 support is what you were looking for for D&D, that would never happen under WotC practices.

I am not, but there was support, just less than in the period 1989-1997.

Rules Cyclopedia was probably stalled for any further development in the downward spiral TSR was taking to be revisited another time, but that never got a chance with a complete edition change that tossed out all the previous.

The Classic line was discontinued in the mid nineties with the release of Mystara for AD&D (which promptly fell flat). No further development for Classic was likely.

There was a shift in TSR to move away from D&D to AD&D. They tried to get back to D&D for a bit, but the efforts were not without problems.

There was no return, but there were some silver anniversary adventures and a few experimental products in the late nineties which were likely aimed at smoothing the transition between AD&D and D20.

3.5 will have support until the end of time, and it is affecting 4th edition. Thankfully in all this mess at least SOME people have a choice which game to play so long as it is a WotC edition, and other things are in the process to make available even older editions for people.

We all have a choice now with such excellent simulacrums as OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry. There is tons of new product available for the Original Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and Classic Dungeons & Dragons rules systems, much of it in game shops and through big online vendors.

Knaight

2009-05-29, 11:11 AM

Agreed. Plus 3.5 still has the SRD up, 2.0 the book of feats up, and a lot of other resources for 3.x are avaliable. Then there are those things known as other systems, its not as if you have to choose between the current supported edition of D&D and an older, not supported edition of D&D. You could go play GURPS, or Burning Wheel, or The Shadow of Yesterday(not recommended. It has a few brilliant mechanics, but overall is a mediocre game), or Savage Worlds, or QAGS, YAGS, and you can even branch out into the totally free games with support such as Fudge, Fate, and Spirit of the Century.

Jayabalard

2009-05-29, 11:49 AM

Well TSR couldn't probably support anything D&D after 1997 since WotC owned it, so you would have to question WotC about why they didn't support the games better, but my guess would be because they were about to trash it all.TSR published stuff for 2nd ed AD&D all the way until 2000, with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Priest's Spell Compendium – Volume Three being the last book/accessory that they published as far as I have been able to determine.

There was a shift in TSR to move away from D&D to AD&D. They tried to get back to D&D for a bit, but the efforts were not without problems.I don't think that you're representing the way that TSR handled those games very well; TSR published a bunch of different games, and while they shared some people from team to team, each game was mostly designed by a very different group of different people. So it isn't so much that they switched focus between D&D and AD&D... different people were developing each game, and AD&D by far had more resources.

shadzar

2009-05-29, 12:33 PM

Not quite. TSR did produce AD&D product during the period 1997-1999, even when owned by WotC. Some of the products would have been completed before April 1997, others would have been abandoned.

They printed things that already existed and things that were already made to have a revenue stream. It doesn't mean much work was done to things thing to make any effort to continue them as you see 3rd came out and all of that stopped. No more AD&D. WotC decision as they owned it. Even some of the later products removed TSR logo and only had WotC logo like my spare copies of Complete book of Humanoids and Drow of the Underdark.

They had no interst in continuing to support AD&D, nor D&D, just to get money coming in after the buyout to start working on 3rd their way.

D20/3e came out in 2000, but WotC conducted a huge reorganisation and reallocation of resources to D20/3e development in that period. A third edition of AD&D was already planned by TSR and in development; however, the involvement of WotC resulted in a more radical departure.

Exactly. No more support for AD&D, but a switch to something well beyond Player's Options and returning to the name of another game entirely. Meaning they weren't interest in supporting anything and only capitalizing on a name, since they created more confusion with the name change than having both D&D and AD&D at the same time. "Advanced" was less confusing to explain to people than how 3rd was D&D and not AD&D, because it was a product derived form AD&D, not D&D; as D&D and AD&D were different games. Such as 4th is a different game, just cashing in on the D&D name. :smallfrown:

I do not think you can equate WotC's card game strategy with its RPG strategy. A revised third edition was planned from the start (but intended to have all new art). However, by 2003 a lot had changed; Peter Adkinson had retired as president of WotC in 2001 and the development staff had largely left or been reassigned.

All the more reason why the change in game selling strategy. Look at what all the people say about how you have to buy and buy with 4th to get what you had in 3rd. The purposefully left stuff out of book in order to sell more books and use balance as an excuse when they could have waited to release the final product when they had it figured out and Mike Mearls has recently stated (see critical hits.com) that some things just didn't work right.

Yet they didn't take this approach with DDI and went forward as well and in both 4th edition has failed to give many people what they feel is a full game and are still waiting a year later to play.

Yes I know every race cannot appear in the first books, but they could have done more to make things better cohesively between the switch rather than just throw in never before things. They chose to add Eladrin and Tieflings and Dragonborn, where they could have easily given people their Gnomes and Half-orcs....

Looks pretty much the buy something new every few months strategy to have the whole game as the card games. Core 4th is always changing, and you get a new core MtG set about every 18 months. So D&D now rewrites the game quicker than MtG.

Likewise in 3rd with the whole PHB-II concept. There should be only 1 PHB. Player's Handbook, Not Player's Encyclopedia Volume One~Twenty. :smallconfused:

Yes, collectable card games suck.

They wouldn't so bad if they didn't use such forcible planned obsolescence. :smallfrown:

This is confusing the tournament scene with the campaigns scene. If you want to be involved competitively in tournaments you have to be up to date with every release. The tournament scene was not much better under TSR.

D&D shouldn't have tournaments. It is not a competitive game. That is the problem with the RPGA approach since the beginning. They tried to keep the wargames circuit for conventions and never realized that you aren't competing, but working together that makes D&D work. And it was right there in the books telling you to do so.

The RPGA even further confuses the tournament scene with settings because it defines the tournaments WITH settings.

Living Greyhawk...must be made for RPGA solely in mind since it is used for that, and must function best for it.

Living Forgotten Realms...same thing. Sadly all of 4th edition is made solely for the RPGA.

I got a better fix. Dismantle the RPGA. Create something that works to getting people to play the game, but understands that people will play it different and you can still go from game to game to learn or for continuous play.

Adventure a month thing or something. Start us an RPGA thread, and we can discus that more there than here.

Correct, this is because WotC target a specific demographic. Once you are outside that demographic you are no longer their main audience.

The problem is the demographic should be the players of the game, rather than males 13-35.

Does Pepsi make only drinks with diabetics in mind? So no sugar for any of their drinks? No, they made something JUST for those people in mind, but didn't try to force this into an all-inclusive product of one-size-fits-all.

That is how you properly use demographics. The age range only works for parts of what you are doing, and the rest you need to focus on why you are doing it, not just an age range.

Why make an RPG for people that don't like RPGs? So you have to make sure you even aim your demographic at the proper target audience. Look at the recent WotC polls and people on all sides saying how biased and flawed they were are choosing the information. :smallfrown:

Right, but they do not expect many folks past the age band of about 21 to be buying into their stuff. So they aim it at new gamers. It is really a clever strategy because it means they are always tapping into the emerging market, and never relying on an audience that already has their product. Getting anyone outside of their target demographic to buy the new stuff is a nice side effect. However, there is an alternative idea whereby it is supposed that WotC should be treating D&D like Monopoly and not paying people to develop new rules and supplements, just repackaging the old game for a new audience. for whatever reasons, WotC have not adopted this strategy.

Again, that is the problem with aiming at ages. Maybe it is Hasbro influence or forced attitude within WotC. As noted by MANY over the years D&D doesn't have a demographic.

Blacks (don't keep up with PC terms so all are just as is simple terms for the sake of a term.)
Asians
Hispanics
Males
Females
Parents
Caucasians
Irish
Jewish
Christians
Young
Middle-aged
Old
etc, etc, etc

How can you make a demographic based on any of these when all of these play the game?

Narrowing your "demographic" also narrows your player-base and limits it to likely to on have consumers of that demographic and lose the others.

Your demographic again should be your consumers, not everyone else.

Want to make something for everyone else, then make something specifically for them.

While Monopoly is a good example, it should be done kind of like that. In that I mean they should still sell the old material as well to get those people, but again they are more focused on not-competing with themselves. Which has caused them and many others problems such as...edition wars.

If everyone still had support like we are talking about, then you would find less warring going on because people would have more to talk about with their own peers for the edition they play.

Edition warring also happens in Warhammer, for some of the same reason. Look at the squats players.

The demographic has become like with MtG. Those willing to throw good money after bad every few months to buy the patches to the games and newest expansions and update, or a complete new game.

This make D&D for players who want less replayability and less hours of play to use some video game centric terms.

And that is what they wanted and what they are getting. Sadly tabletop games have a different demographic, and there isn't the same one for wargames and RPGs. You can't just target range X, you have to look at who is buying and using your product. That is your demographic. The people supporting you, are the ones you should support, not the people who don't want your product anyway.

I do not agree with this. What they got was exactly what they wanted, as shown by the ridiculously good boom of the post 2000 RPG environment.

I mean 3.5 had all the good developers working on 4th instead and the devs admit to falling quality and not even doing quality check while working on Project Orcus, aka 4th editions.

So the quality control was not in effect with the newest material for 3.5 prior to the switch.

While 2nd stuff was mostly done and waiting to be printed, or printed and waiting to be released and sold as the full warehouse in the Dancey report reveals.

So 3.5 people got shafted with poorer quality products through a conscious decision rather than being caught up in a company merger and management change/etc.

TSR was losing money hand over fist throughout the reign of second edition. Production values dropped because the company was failing.

No they dropped because of LW and the Blumes caring only about money and not quality products and tried to stick the D&D name on anything for a quick buck. Trying to turn it into a brand and franchise rather than a quality product line. They were losing money because LW and the Blumes gave themselves raises for nothing and LW having TSR pay for making games that nobody wanted and licenses for her family things (Buck Rogers) and enver getting any money back for them but going to her pocket only and the company was left out to dry.

A different situation by far. The period 2007-2008 was very short compared to the period 1997-2000, and WotC remained profitable and able to produce good quality material (even if the brand was under performing with regard to expectations).

But 1997-1999 (there was nothing made in 2000 for AD&D.) was a switch in companies with plenty of stuff already in the works. There was no excuse that after working on 3.x for nearly 8 years, they had so little to offer for 3.x in the end. Other than devoted all resources to 4th and forsaking 3.x at the early stages, starting in 2005.

I am not, but there was support, just less than in the period 1989-1997.

Right because the new company was already trying to get rid of 1989-1997. Thus why no D&D came out after Rules Cyclopedia with any real strength to it. Until 3rd rewrite the name of player's Options AD&D to D&D of course that is....

The Classic line was discontinued in the mid nineties with the release of Mystara for AD&D (which promptly fell flat). No further development for Classic was likely.

I thought that was what we were mostly always talking about? Mystara didn't fall that flat. First Quest and others like that got a lot of people new to the game and helped them get into it where they just didn't get it any other way and needed the examples from others through those audio adventures.

Again the mid-90's are a decade after Gary was kicked out of TSR.

There was no return, but there were some silver anniversary adventures and a few experimental products in the late nineties which were likely aimed at smoothing the transition between AD&D and D20.

Or a quick cash in. You can see about the PDFs and how people feel about them when they were released to begin with to get older material. If they still did that today with something like Rules Cyclopedia AD&D, and print the book, I bet you would see people buy it like the one for D&D.

People still want the old stuff, and don't want to buy a collectible RPG manual form eBay.

We all have a choice now with such excellent simulacrums as OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry. There is tons of new product available for the Original Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and Classic Dungeons & Dragons rules systems, much of it in game shops and through big online vendors.

Yes we do, but WotC forsaked those editoins and are now the ones that have to suffer with it, but the question is have they learned anything over this past decade of owning D&D?

I would bet not as they are still making the same mistakes, and losing a percentage of players to other things, and not gaining back enough substantial people to replace them.

The 3rd edition era died out with the edition wars. Each new product for 4th seems to inflate them even more now, as many who were on the 4th side to begin with are feeling sorry for the actions they took in the beginning defending it.

Likewise people that were waiting are still waiting, or new one come in when FINALLY the race or class they were expecting comes out to hopefully perform they way they want to.

It is too much of a mess and should have been handled better throughout the entire time for the sake of all.

Sadly it is too late now to mend any of those bridges burned by TSR post-Gary and by WotC.

The damage has been done, and D&D has lost its focus and reason in the process. :smallfrown:

I would be writing/publishing adventures for AD&D is there was anyhting like the OGL for it, that didn't require the d20 system left and right.

The support issue is coming form the company itself not providing it. It shouldn't for Ford's job to support people with GM cars after GM goes bankrupt. They can support them with Ford cars , but don't have any responsibility to support them with GM parts.

DM Raven

2009-05-29, 01:12 PM

I'm not really sure where you're drawing that conclusion from. Books were published regularly through from late 70s through the 80s for Basic D&D and AD&D; averaging about 2 books/year (15 AD&D books + 5 sets in the Basic D&D series in 12 years or so).

AD&D 2e continued publishing through 90s, and it didn't have a shortage of books by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus two magazines, and loads of modules worth of support.

Likewise.

I don't count modules. I'm more talking about actual rule updates and fixes based on fan feedback. Also, the books that did come out didn't do much to change rules or balance problems in the system, they more just added rules to what was already there. I guess to each their own, I prefer the constant updates and attempts to balance rules and I enjoy all the new content that comes out on a fairly regular basis.

Jayabalard

2009-05-29, 01:32 PM

I don't count modules. I'm more talking about actual rule updates and fixes based on fan feedback. Also, the books that did come out didn't do much to change rules or balance problems in the system, they more just added rules to what was already there. I guess to each their own, I prefer the constant updates and attempts to balance rules and I enjoy all the new content that comes out on a fairly regular basis.By modules, you mean adventure modules yes? I really wasn't talking about those... just books and accessories. Both 1e and 2e regularly put out new rules and content in those.

Fhaolan

2009-05-29, 02:04 PM

Has anyone called for a Grognard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard) In The Playground?

Because you have my vote :smalltongue:

Yeah, he's not really old enough yet. Give him another ten years, though. :smallsmile:

No, for a real Grognard, find the person who knows the *original* publisher of D&D (Nope, it wasn't TSR). Even better, find someone who remembers Jeff Perren, or even more extreme, who got the first copy of Strategy & Tactics back in 1966 before SPI came into being. (And no, I'm not valid for this. I'm a couple of years too young myself. I do *know* a couple of people who qualify, but I don't.)

Volkov

2009-05-29, 02:10 PM

We should have had 3.X until 2011. Why did it's lifespan have to be half that of preceding editions?

Matthew

2009-05-29, 02:11 PM

They printed things that already existed and things that were already made to have a revenue stream. It doesn't mean much work was done to things thing to make any effort to continue them as you see 3rd came out and all of that stopped. No more AD&D. WotC decision as they owned it. Even some of the later products removed TSR logo and only had WotC logo like my spare copies of Complete book of Humanoids and Drow of the Underdark.

They had no interest in continuing to support AD&D, nor D&D, just to get money coming in after the buyout to start working on 3rd their way.

WotC didn't need a revenue stream from D&D in the period 1997-2000. Regardless of that, the stuff being produced in the period 1989-1997 was little better. They certainly produced new material in this period, but they were preparing the ground for third edition, that does not mean they were not supporting second edition in that period.

Exactly. No more support for AD&D, but a switch to something well beyond Player's Options and returning to the name of another game entirely. Meaning they weren't interest in supporting anything and only capitalizing on a name, since they created more confusion with the name change than having both D&D and AD&D at the same time. "Advanced" was less confusing to explain to people than how 3rd was D&D and not AD&D, because it was a product derived form AD&D, not D&D; as D&D and AD&D were different games. Such as 4th is a different game, just cashing in on the D&D name. :smallfrown:

D20/3e is certainly a different game, not just a new edition, but that is what people wanted in that period of time. Dumping the AD&D name was a good move in that regard. The mandate of WotC was to reinvent D&D in order to make it profitable again.

All the more reason why the change in game selling strategy. Look at what all the people say about how you have to buy and buy with 4th to get what you had in 3rd. The purposefully left stuff out of book in order to sell more books and use balance as an excuse when they could have waited to release the final product when they had it figured out and Mike Mearls has recently stated (see critical hits.com) that some things just didn't work right.

Yet they didn't take this approach with DDI and went forward as well and in both 4th edition has failed to give many people what they feel is a full game and are still waiting a year later to play.

Yes I know every race cannot appear in the first books, but they could have done more to make things better cohesively between the switch rather than just throw in never before things. They chose to add Eladrin and Tieflings and Dragonborn, where they could have easily given people their Gnomes and Half-orcs....

Looks pretty much the buy something new every few months strategy to have the whole game as the card games. Core 4th is always changing, and you get a new core MtG set about every 18 months. So D&D now rewrites the game quicker than MtG.

Likewise in 3rd with the whole PHB-II concept. There should be only 1 PHB. Player's Handbook, Not Player's Encyclopedia Volume One~Twenty. :smallconfused:

Right, which was also exactly TSR's strategy during the second edition period, and not something particular to WotC.

D&D shouldn't have tournaments. It is not a competitive game. That is the problem with the RPGA approach since the beginning. They tried to keep the wargames circuit for conventions and never realized that you aren't competing, but working together that makes D&D work. And it was right there in the books telling you to do so.

The RPGA even further confuses the tournament scene with settings because it defines the tournaments WITH settings.

Living Greyhawk...must be made for RPGA solely in mind since it is used for that, and must function best for it.

Living Forgotten Realms...same thing. Sadly all of 4th edition is made solely for the RPGA.

I got a better fix. Dismantle the RPGA. Create something that works to getting people to play the game, but understands that people will play it different and you can still go from game to game to learn or for continuous play.

Adventure a month thing or something. Start us an RPGA thread, and we can discuss that more there than here.

Right, but you only need to keep up with the times if you are planning on buying more product [e.g. in order to keep up with the tournament scene], so it is a moot point that WotC keep selling more and more expansions to their game (much like Zombies, or Ticket to Ride, and AD&D before them).

The problem is the demographic should be the players of the game, rather than males 13-35.

Does Pepsi make only drinks with diabetics in mind? So no sugar for any of their drinks? No, they made something JUST for those people in mind, but didn't try to force this into an all-inclusive product of one-size-fits-all.

That is how you properly use demographics. The age range only works for parts of what you are doing, and the rest you need to focus on why you are doing it, not just an age range.

Why make an RPG for people that don't like RPGs? So you have to make sure you even aim your demographic at the proper target audience. Look at the recent WotC polls and people on all sides saying how biased and flawed they were are choosing the information. :smallfrown:

WotC is a business, TSR was a business. If TSR could have done what WotC did with D&D and enjoyed the same level of success, they would have. The D&D demographic is more like 12-21. Most folks leave for other RPGs before that age, or else take a leave of absence. You are right that this means they no longer cater to a narrow audience of hobbyists, but that is perfectly fine. D20 is D&D for people who (as the saying goes) didn't really like D&D.

Again, that is the problem with aiming at ages. Maybe it is Hasbro influence or forced attitude within WotC. As noted by MANY over the years D&D doesn't have a demographic.

How can you make a demographic based on any of these when all of these play the game?

Narrowing your "demographic" also narrows your player-base and limits it to likely to on have consumers of that demographic and lose the others.

Your demographic again should be your consumers, not everyone else.

Want to make something for everyone else, then make something specifically for them.

While Monopoly is a good example, it should be done kind of like that. In that I mean they should still sell the old material as well to get those people, but again they are more focused on not-competing with themselves. Which has caused them and many others problems such as...edition wars.

If everyone still had support like we are talking about, then you would find less warring going on because people would have more to talk about with their own peers for the edition they play.

Edition warring also happens in Warhammer, for some of the same reason. Look at the squats players.

The demographic has become like with MtG. Those willing to throw good money after bad every few months to buy the patches to the games and newest expansions and update, or a complete new game.

This make D&D for players who want less replayability and less hours of play to use some video game centric terms.

And that is what they wanted and what they are getting. Sadly tabletop games have a different demographic, and there isn't the same one for wargames and RPGs. You can't just target range X, you have to look at who is buying and using your product. That is your demographic. The people supporting you, are the ones you should support, not the people who don't want your product anyway.

D&D does have a majority demographic, which is young white males. That is just the way it is, it is the majority audience. Pretending that it is otherwise is just to fly in the face of the evidence. What WotC did was make it appeal to more white young males.

I mean 3.5 had all the good developers working on 4th instead and the devs admit to falling quality and not even doing quality check while working on Project Orcus, aka 4th editions.

So the quality control was not in effect with the newest material for 3.5 prior to the switch.

While 2nd stuff was mostly done and waiting to be printed, or printed and waiting to be released and sold as the full warehouse in the Dancey report reveals.

So 3.5 people got shafted with poorer quality products through a conscious decision rather than being caught up in a company merger and management change/etc.

WotC have always been spotty at best with regards to releasing good quality new stuff. The in house teams working on D20/4e made not a lick of difference to the quality being churned out in 2007-2008, in fact some of the books many consider the best were released in the run up to D20/4e.

No they dropped because of LW and the Blumes caring only about money and not quality products and tried to stick the D&D name on anything for a quick buck. Trying to turn it into a brand and franchise rather than a quality product line. They were losing money because LW and the Blumes gave themselves raises for nothing and LW having TSR pay for making games that nobody wanted and licenses for her family things (Buck Rogers) and enver getting any money back for them but going to her pocket only and the company was left out to dry.

You appear to be confusing time lines here. Lorraine Williams did the company in from 1985 onwards and kept on going until 1997. The company was in slow decline and by the mid nineties the quality of product being released was absolutely awful (some would say long before).

But 1997-1999 (there was nothing made in 2000 for AD&D.) was a switch in companies with plenty of stuff already in the works. There was no excuse that after working on 3.x for nearly 8 years, they had so little to offer for 3.x in the end. Other than devoted all resources to 4th and forsaking 3.x at the early stages, starting in 2005.

Plenty of stuff that was not selling, which was a huge problem, and not one that could be solved by a cash injection. WotC do not seem to have been prepared for the revolution they started in 2000, White Wolf even got a monster book out before the Monster Manual! They reassessed their business plan in 2003 and kept the business profitable with a revised edition.

Right because the new company was already trying to get rid of 1989-1997. Thus why no D&D came out after Rules Cyclopedia with any real strength to it. Until 3rd rewrite the name of player's Options AD&D to D&D of course that is....

The Rules Cyclopedia came out in 1991. It was unsupported by TSR form 1994(ish), WotC had nothing to do with the destruction of that line.

I thought that was what we were mostly always talking about? Mystara didn't fall that flat. First Quest and others like that got a lot of people new to the game and helped them get into it where they just didn't get it any other way and needed the examples from others through those audio adventures.

It fell flat on its face. It did not even manage as many supplements as Birthright. Sales were nowhere near what was hoped.

Again the mid-90's are a decade after Gary was kicked out of TSR.

Okay, so to be clear are you arguing that Gygaxian TSR was good, and everything that came after was a downward spiral, or that TSR was good, and WotC led them on a downward spiral? Because from what you have been saying in this thread the impression I get is that you are demonising WotC and whitewashing TSR. Whether you are arguing the former or latter case, it really is just a matter of preferences, so what is there to say?

Or a quick cash in. You can see about the PDFs and how people feel about them when they were released to begin with to get older material. If they still did that today with something like Rules Cyclopedia AD&D, and print the book, I bet you would see people buy it like the one for D&D.

People still want the old stuff, and don't want to buy a collectible RPG manual form eBay.

People do still want it, but it is not enough of a revenue generator to support the company (even if they had the original prints to produce a run).

Yes we do, but WotC forsook those editions and are now the ones that have to suffer with it, but the question is have they learned anything over this past decade of owning D&D?

I would bet not as they are still making the same mistakes, and losing a percentage of players to other things, and not gaining back enough substantial people to replace them.

The 3rd edition era died out with the edition wars. Each new product for 4th seems to inflate them even more now, as many who were on the 4th side to begin with are feeling sorry for the actions they took in the beginning defending it.

Likewise people that were waiting are still waiting, or new one come in when FINALLY the race or class they were expecting comes out to hopefully perform they way they want to.

It is too much of a mess and should have been handled better throughout the entire time for the sake of all.

Sadly it is too late now to mend any of those bridges burned by TSR post-Gary and by WotC.

The damage has been done, and D&D has lost its focus and reason in the process. :smallfrown:

Loads of people play D20 and love it. Yes, those of us who like AD&D have been given the push, but so what? Do I really want WotC producing AD&D material? Hell, no! They'd **** it up, because they are a business interested in money, not hobbyists interested in catering to my preference.

I would be writing/publishing adventures for AD&D is there was anything like the OGL for it, that didn't require the d20 system left and right.

Just use OSRIC, that is exactly what it is there for and does not require any knowledge of the D20 system at all. The only things you cannot make use of are a few monsters that WotC claim as IP.

The support issue is coming form the company itself not providing it. It shouldn't for Ford's job to support people with GM cars after GM goes bankrupt. They can support them with Ford cars, but don't have any responsibility to support them with GM parts.

All companies diversify. their job is to make money for the owners or shareholders, not cater to us. We are resources to be exploited. WotC is in no way obligated to produce material for AD&D.