PDA

View Full Version : [4.0] Insults intelligence.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 08:32 AM
Okay, I've read several complaints about 4ed 'insulting their intelligence'.

Please explain. I've not read any inflammatory language in the books, so I really don't understand where this is coming from.

So, I'd like to hear from folks who feel they've been insulted by the books as to why. Not looking to argue, I just want to understand your point of view. I may not agree with you, but I am interested in understanding.

Also, not looking to turn this into edition war, so let's keep discussion to the specific question.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-05, 08:41 AM
This refers to the paragraph on page 218 of the Player's Handbook, which explicitly states, "Hey, that intelligence of yours? He fights like a dairy farmer".

Also, chocolate.

V'icternus
2009-06-05, 08:43 AM
I beleive those people beleive that the simplification that took place from 3.5 to 4.0 suggests that the players are stupid or something. They seem to hold the opinion that because WoTC made the game simpler and easier to understand, it must have been dumbed down so a less intelligent audience could get involved with the game.

(And I've probably been ninja'd)

Master_Rahl22
2009-06-05, 08:44 AM
I would bet this is a reference to how much they simplified skills and made all classes mechanically the same (meaning you level up, you pick powers or get feats just like every other character class). Personally, I think that the clearer party roles and interesting power selections lead to more teamwork and greater opportunities for synergies between characters, and that takes planning and intelligence.

BobVosh
2009-06-05, 08:57 AM
This refers to the paragraph on page 218 of the Player's Handbook, which explicitly states, "Hey, that intelligence of yours? He fights like a dairy farmer".

Also, chocolate.

How appropiate; WotC edits like a cow.

Basically it is the same arguement that 3rd ed dumbed down THAC0. Bit more extreme in my opinion, but I'm not getting dragged into another edition war, this weeks anger thread is the monk one.

woodenbandman
2009-06-05, 09:00 AM
How appropiate; WotC edits like a cow.

Basically it is the same arguement that 3rd ed dumbed down THAC0. Bit more extreme in my opinion, but I'm not getting dragged into another edition war, this weeks anger thread is the monk one.


Wait, people thought ThAC0 was simple? I still hate it for being so complicated!

wadledo
2009-06-05, 09:03 AM
Wait, people thought ThAC0 was simple? I still hate it for being so complicated!

Huh?
No, he's saying that some people thought 3e was worse for making ThAC0 simpler.

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 09:03 AM
No, seriously, don't want edition war!

I'd like earnest opinions, preferrably with concrete examples. I'm not looking to say who's wrong or right, I'm just trying to figure out what these folks are talking about specifically. I don't even want to give rebuttal in this thread, because I want some open friendly discussion (for a change).

Once I've got some of the above, I'll make my decision on how I feel.

Truthfully, I'm tired of arguing about games, but folks seem to have a real beef with this one, and I wonder if there's something to this.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 09:04 AM
Wait, people thought THAC0 was simple? I still hate it for being so complicated!

Yes, lots of people consider THAC0 to be simple. There is really no substantive difference between "here is your target number, roll 1D20 and add your opponent's armour class" or "Your target number is your THAC0 minus your opponent's armour class" and "your target number is your opponent's armour class, roll 1d20 and add your bonus to hit".

The problem is that some people find subtraction harder than addition, but it really is not a big deal either way.



No, seriously, don't want edition war!

I'd like earnest opinions, preferably with concrete examples. I'm not looking to say who's wrong or right, I'm just trying to figure out what these folks are talking about specifically. I don't even want to give rebuttal in this thread, because I want some open friendly discussion (for a change).

Once I've got some of the above, I'll make my decision on how I feel.

Truthfully, I'm tired of arguing about games, but folks seem to have a real beef with this one, and I wonder if there's something to this.

D0/4e is considered to be less complex than D20/3e, since this was a design aim, it is hardly surprising. Some folks consider it therefore to be written for less intelligent people, mainly because they liked the complex (or fiddly) elements of D20/3e. That is really all there is to it.

Person_Man
2009-06-05, 09:08 AM
Read 3.5 spells, psionics, and similar abilities (Incarnum, Tome of Battle, etc). 3.5 is vast in its scope, and pretty much allows you to do anything you can imagine (and many things you hadn't ever thought of). It's also ludicrously complex, difficult to learn, and time consuming to prepare for and play.

Read 4E powers. 90% of 4E powers are "you deal [X]W damage + Stat + minor effect" or something very similar. Sometimes there's a "Save Ends" which always succeeds on a 10 or higher. And that kind of simple (some would say elegant, some would say simplistic) design permeates the entire game. But it's also quite easy to learn and fun to play, although it gets quite repetitive, much like the WoW and Diablo like video games it was somewhat modeled after.

So there you go. Play the game and make your own determination.

V'icternus
2009-06-05, 09:09 AM
No, seriously, don't want edition war!

I'd like earnest opinions, preferrably with concrete examples. I'm not looking to say who's wrong or right, I'm just trying to figure out what these folks are talking about specifically. I don't even want to give rebuttal in this thread, because I want some open friendly discussion (for a change).

Once I've got some of the above, I'll make my decision on how I feel.

Truthfully, I'm tired of arguing about games, but folks seem to have a real beef with this one, and I wonder if there's something to this.

Their issue is with the fact that they don't like the feeling they get from playing a game that's been simplified that much from the previous edition. They feel that it's insulting to them, because it's as if WoTC assumes the players aren't intelligent enough for the game to be complicated.

Personally, I disagree. A lot of people called out for "balance" and "a more simple system" when 3.5 was around, and now it's been provided.

Also, it opens up the game to todays audience, some of whom are not giant nerds who crunch numbers in their spare time.

So that's pretty much the issue. In comparison, 3.5 requires more thought. Hope that cleared thing sup.

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 09:10 AM
Wait, people thought ThAC0 was simple? I still hate it for being so complicated!

Amen to that.


No, seriously, don't want edition war!

I'd like earnest opinions, preferrably with concrete examples. I'm not looking to say who's wrong or right, I'm just trying to figure out what these folks are talking about specifically. I don't even want to give rebuttal in this thread, because I want some open friendly discussion (for a change).

Once I've got some of the above, I'll make my decision on how I feel.

Truthfully, I'm tired of arguing about games, but folks seem to have a real beef with this one, and I wonder if there's something to this.

It would help if you could provide a source for the "4e insults our intelligence!" statement.

J.Gellert
2009-06-05, 09:11 AM
I recall mirror image simply giving a bonus to Armor Class...

valadil
2009-06-05, 09:13 AM
The problem is that some people find subtraction harder than addition, but it really is not a big deal either way.

The math involved in THAC0 is simple. I think the problem with THAC0 was that it was the only part of the game that worked that way so it became counterintuitive.

Anyway, 4e is easier to play than 3e. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Whether or not 3e needed simplification seems to be what's up for debate. Personally I enjoy 4e. I don't think that simpler rules mean that you have easier choices to make. The game ends up using just as many of my brain cycles as 3e (okay, maybe not during character creation), but they're spent on figuring out when to use my daily instead of interpretting how a vaguely written rule works.

mostlyharmful
2009-06-05, 09:14 AM
3.5 is a massively modularized system in which building a character can take days or even weeks, you CAN take just base classes and feats out of the handbook or you can turn it into an artform. Maybe 4th will turn into that but at the moment its - you take a class, you level that class up with a choice of very very similar effects as powers, you take one of a small number of preplanned career paths. Oh, and magic and items are now much much much less unpredictable, wacky, individualized, etc... sure 3.5 had stat boosters and cloaks of resistence, but it also had about a bajillion pieces of junk you ccould hand out for fun - rod of wonder anybody? :smallsmile:

The Mentalist
2009-06-05, 09:15 AM
4E insults our intelligence because it hates us. It would build a Concentration Camp with mortar mixed from it's own blood that's how much it hates us.

kamikasei
2009-06-05, 09:18 AM
The problem is that some people find subtraction harder than addition, but it really is not a big deal either way.

In fairness, in my exposure to THAC0 (via Planescape: Torment), it wasn't "subtraction is hard!" but "wait, so is having a +x weapon/armor desireable, or not?". It's weird to have a mechanic where you want to get a +2 sword to lower your THAC0, or where it's a bad thing if the enemy's defense stat is much lower than you expected.

Granted, part of the confusion was due to the game not having a proper explanation of the underlying rules handy. If I hadn't had to go on Google to find out how THAC0 and AC worked, it might have seemed less pointlessly weird.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 09:21 AM
The math involved in THAC0 is simple. I think the problem with THAC0 was that it was the only part of the game that worked that way so it became counter intuitive.

I dunno, the difference is pretty small, I don't think it has much to do with intuition, just "streamlining". It is all just probability in the end. You have to roll high on saving throws and attack rolls, low when checking a probability (such as a thief skill, attribute checks, system shock rolls, etcetera).

Of course, the reason THAC0 works the way it does is so that modifiers are always the same whether applied to armour class or to hit rolls. A cursed sword is either −1 to hit or −1 to the opponent's effective armour class, whilst in D20 it is −1 to hit or +1 to the opponent's effective armour class.



In fairness, in my exposure to THAC0 (via Planescape: Torment), it wasn't "subtraction is hard!" but "wait, so is having a +x weapon/armor desireable, or not?". It's weird to have a mechanic where you want to get a +2 sword to lower your THAC0, or where it's a bad thing if the enemy's defense stat is much lower than you expected.

Granted, part of the confusion was due to the game not having a proper explanation of the underlying rules handy. If I hadn't had to go on Google to find out how THAC0 and AC worked, it might have seemed less pointlessly weird.

Yeah, that is the game's fault for not explaining the whys and wherefores. THAC0 was originally a shorthand in 1e that became prominent in 2e. Prior to that it was just as usual to talk about "fighting ability", which was a number equal to fighter levels.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-05, 09:35 AM
The math involved in THAC0 is simple. I think the problem with THAC0 was that it was the only part of the game that worked that way so it became counterintuitive.

Precisely.

It's not that any particular part of 2E was hard for anyone; it's that several parts worked in different fashions for no discernible reason. Thus, for any given roll, you had to remember whether it was "1d20 roll high" (attack rolls), or "1d20 roll low" (skill checks), or on occasion "1d6 roll high" (surprise and secret door detection) or "1d10 roll low" (initiative) or "1d100 roll low" (thief skills).

For comparison, in 3E and 4E, everything is "1d20 roll high", just like in GURPS, everything is "3d6 roll low" and in White Wolf, everything is "bunch of d10 roll high". Consistency is less confusing.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 09:45 AM
"1d6 roll high" (surprise and secret door detection)

Those are both roll low. Everything in 2e is roll low except for attack rolls and saving throws (and maybe reaction rolls, but the game master rolls those on a chart). In 1e, however, initiative is roll high.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-06-05, 09:49 AM
I believe that the problem is that many people look at edition 3.x with rose-colored glasses. Just like some do with earlier editions. Do anything you can imagine with 3rd edition characters? Not with fighters/monks/etc. you don't!

Kurald Galain
2009-06-05, 09:50 AM
Those are both roll low. Everything in 2e is roll low except for attack rolls and saving throws

Well, and damage rolls... and ability generation... and random psionic power generation charts... and the wild surge table... confused yet? :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 09:51 AM
Well, and damage rolls... and ability generation... and random psionic power generation charts... and the wild surge table... confused yet? :smallbiggrin:

It... you... what?

*Curls up in the corner with his character sheet and starts sucking his thumb*

Matthew
2009-06-05, 09:52 AM
I believe that the problem is that many people look at edition 3.x with rose-colored glasses. Just like some do with earlier editions. Do anything you can imagine with 3rd edition characters? Not with fighters/monks/etc. you don't!

Ha, ha. Much the same could be said about D20/4e, or maybe you are looking at with beer goggles or blinded by your neophilism. Seriously, that is a very poor argument to make when people are actually playing the each of the games in question.



Well, and damage rolls... and ability generation... and random psionic power generation charts... and the wild surge table... confused yet? :smallbiggrin:

Attribute generation and damage I'll give you, but random generation charts? Come on, that's pushing it! The random spell charts in D20 are no better... "Come on 44, Forbiddence is the spell I'm after!" :smallwink:

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 09:55 AM
It would help if you could provide a source for the "4e insults our intelligence!" statement.

Gladly.


I really don't think that simplicity is that much of a negative criterium. I would even say, that a complex system necessarily require a simple and streamlined core mechanism, or else it becomes mostly convoluted. The problem I have with D&D 4 is not that it is simple. The problem I have is that it treats the potential players like morons who need to be taken by the hand and treated as if they were unable to cope with things like options and an interconnection between crunch and fluff. But that's just me, and certainly not a majority position.
I like games that respect my intelligence.

My bold added for illustration of discussion point.

Now, Satyr is not the first person I've read who feels this way, he's just the most recent. I am in no way trying to single him out (I initially didn't want to quote anyone to avoid singling folks out), his quote was just the most recent one I've read, and possibly one of the more frustrated ones.

The problems I have with his comments are that
1. I've never felt like a moron reading the 4.0 books, so I can't empathize.
2. There are only a handful of books out there, so by definition there aren't many options to choose from (in fact, I suspect that there are more options in the 4.0 PHB when you add up the combinations of powers and feats and class abilities than in the 3.5 PHB).
3. It is a continuous argument on this board that Cruch and Fluff aren't interrelated most of the time (I hate speaking in absolutes).
4. I look at games as a way to socialize and pass time with my friends, not as a validation/verification of my self worth or intelligence. So it's hard for me to empathize on this point.

No one would complain about the rules of Apples to Apples being simple or moronic, yet there is definitely an element of intelligence involved in playing that game. Why is D&D different?

Again, I'm not looking for edition wars, just some concrete (page numbers please?) examples of how the game 'treats players like morons'. No offense to those who have responded, I appreciate the input, and suspect you are correct. But I would also like to hear from folks who actually feel this way.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-06-05, 09:57 AM
Ha, ha. Much the same could be said about D20/4e, or maybe you are looking at with beer goggles or blinded by your neophilism. Seriously, that is a very poor argument to make when people are actually playing the each of the games in question.


Attribute generation and damage I'll give you, but random generation charts? Come on, that's pushing it!

Blinded by neophilism? Bunch of elitist crap.

Were did I say that 4E was better? I was playing long before the release of 4E, I even played some 2E. I was simply saying that people view earlier editions with rose-colored glasses because of nostalgia. Some people will always prefer their first edition. But I'm well aware that's it's not the case for everyone. You are free to try all systems and decide which is better for yourselves. But there are misconceptions about every edition, and you can't deny that.

EDIT: Saying that a game insults intelligence is stupid. People feel too strongly about rpgs and their edition of choice... Anyway, you will never be able to close the debate, just like you can't have people stop claiming that "4th edition is a MMORPG!".

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:01 AM
Blinded by neophilism? Bunch of elitist crap.

Were did I say that 4E was better? I was playing long before the release of 4E, I even played some 2E. I was simply saying that people view earlier editions with rose-colored glasses because of nostalgia. Some people will always prefer their first edition. But I'm well aware that's it's not the case for everyone. You are free to try all systems and decide which is better for yourselves. But there are misconceptions about every edition, and you can't deny that.

Mate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement. It's ridiculous to tell people that they are wearing "rose coloured glasses" if they like previous editions of a game that has fundamentally changed. Frankly, it is insulting, because you suggest that their judgement is clouded. Your simple statement may be true for some people and not for others. Putting it in absolute terms is a schoolboy error, and one that makes you sound elitist. It's as true as saying people like D20/4e because they are neophytes [i.e. maybe some people do]. Did I say one version was better than another? No, of course not.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-06-05, 10:06 AM
Mate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement. It's ridiculous to tell people that they are wearing "rose coloured glasses" if they like previous editions of a game that has fundamentally changed. Your simple statement may be true for some people and not for others. Putting it in absolute terms is a schoolboy error, and one that makes you sound elitist.


many people look at edition 3.x with rose-colored glasses

1) Many people =/ absolute terms.

2) I never wrote what you claim I wrote. I didn't say that there is no reason to like earlier editions and that everyone who did were stupid. I was simply stating that the reason some people think 4e insults their intelligence is because they strongly feel for their favorite edition. Comments such as "in 3E you could do everything you can imagine, in 4E it's all the same!" are inspired by such thinking.

But since it seems you are deliberately misreading my comment, no point in discussing with you.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:08 AM
1) Many people =/ absolute terms.

2) I never wrote what you claim I wrote. I didn't say that there is no reason to like earlier editions and that everyone who did were stupid. I was simply stating that the reason some people think 4e insults their intelligence is because they strongly feel for their favorite edition. Comments such as "in 3E you could do everything you can imagine, in 4E it's all the same!" are inspired by such thinking.

But since it seems you are deliberately misreading my comment, no point in discussing with you.

Ha, ha. Are you serious? Yeah, "I believe that the problem is that many people look at edition 3.x with rose-colored glasses" doesn't at all sound like "people who prefer 3.x look at it with rose coloured glasses." Please. I shall assume that since you didn't mean it that way that you have offered a clarification and not just jumped off the deep end.

kamikasei
2009-06-05, 10:08 AM
*snipped*

Actually, screw it, the question would probably just fan the flames. Odd that an edition thread has managed to become so heated over something quite separate.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:11 AM
Out of morbid curiosity: where are you seeing the elitism here?

Presumably, the idea is that I am saying everyone who likes D20/4e is a neophyte and people who prefer previous editions are sensible people with unclouded judgement. Basically, missing the point.



*snipped*

Actually, screw it, the question would probably just fan the flames.

Too late!



Odd that an edition thread has managed to become so heated over something quite separate.

Not really, the question was pretty simple and answered pretty more or less straight away. Now we're just riding the train off the tracks! :smallbiggrin:

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-05, 10:19 AM
I thought D&D was always about insulting my intelligence. Classes and levels? Give me a break. The older the edition, the worse it was - only thieves (or halflings) can hide and sneak, etc. 3.X tried to mitigate it, but ended up being awkwardly torn between facilitating choice and organic development with skills, feats, and kinda-easy multiclassing, and retaining the class-and-level core.

Fun game? Sure. Intelligent system? Hah, right.

4E's no worse, generally. It's great for what D&D is best for - dungeon-crawling hack-and-slash. I have some D&D campaign ideas left I want to run, and I don't think I'll be updating them to 4E (mostly because it'd be a pain to update everything to 4E, and the ideas are very much Faerûn 1372 DR -specific), but separate of specific campaigns, I find the system much better for typical D&D. If I want something more complex, I'll go with other systems (and updating settings for Unisystem).

bosssmiley
2009-06-05, 10:19 AM
Okay, I've read several complaints about 4ed 'insulting their intelligence'.

Reasons people may have felt 4E insults their intelligence (non-trollish edition):

The simplicity and clarity of the writing style in the 4E manuals, especially when compared to the exquisitely overrefined legalese of 3E. Something of a "Huh? Don't talk down to me. I'm not 12!" moment.
The tight focus upon encounters, encounters, encounters (rather than more general dungeoneering or adventure paths) in the initial 4E core books. This lead to the "Huh? Where's the rest of the game?" factor.
Moving away from the established traditions of D&D (7/9 spell levels, one AC and saves vs. 'defences', the tiefling goatboy debacle, etc) and the accompanying proclamations from the marketing machine that "No, this is how D&D is meant to be."
The "affect_terrain_0" aftertaste left by the PHB1 rituals.
The unintended consequences of wonky system maths (see the unerrataed skill challenge mechanics).
A move away from monsters of myth and legend in favour of IP-building neophilia (dragonborn, "(adjective)ing (noun)(verber)")
The dungeonpunk++ and/or magic = glow artistic aesthetic
The GSL
Bear lore. Just bear lore (http://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png).

I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people broccoli dog the new edition.

---

THAC0? Your modified roll + their AC >= 20. How is hard pls?


Were did I say that 4E was better? I was playing long before the release of 4E, I even played some 2E. I was simply saying that people view earlier editions with rose-colored glasses because of nostalgia.

It ain't nostalgia if you're enjoying it now. (http://www.philotomy.com/#glasses) :smallwink:

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:22 AM
The older the edition, the worse it was - only thieves (or halflings) can hide and sneak, etc. 3.X tried to mitigate it, but ended up being awkwardly torn between facilitating choice and organic development with skills, feats, and kinda-easy multiclassing, and retaining the class-and-level core.

No, no. Only thieves can hide in shadows or move silently, not the same thing as mundane sneaking or hiding (halflings and elves have that whole Tolkien ability that rangers also get); pick pockets is a much better choice if you are going to rag on this element, though The Mummy defence is a good one.

valadil
2009-06-05, 10:25 AM
I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people broccoli dog the new edition.


Broccoli dog?

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:29 AM
Broccoli dog?
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b0/Broccolioriginal.jpg

Oslecamo
2009-06-05, 10:35 AM
Reasons people may have felt 4E insults their intelligence (non-trollish edition):...


You're forgeting one very important factor.

In 4e intelegence is pretty much a dump stat unless your class tells you "Yes, you need int for this cool ability". So 4e is basically telling you that the best adventurers are as stupid as a troll (and they're not worst only because there aren't racial stat penalties anymore).

I don't see how it could be more insulting to intelegence. The system penalyzes you for trying to make a smart character.:smalltongue:

valadil
2009-06-05, 10:35 AM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b0/Broccolioriginal.jpg

Yeah, I saw the picture. I'm stuck trying to parse it as a verb. On the bright side, this has bewildered me to the point where I no longer care if 4.0 is oversimplified.

qcbtnsrm
2009-06-05, 10:37 AM
Well here is a different take on the OP. And one of the things I first noticed when I got the 4.0 rules.

Price:
3.5 was $30 a book. $90 total.
4.0 is $40 a book. $120 total.
A 33% increase in price.


Content:
3.5 was 969,987 words long including all three books.
4.0 is 537,300 words long including all three books.
A 45% reduction in content.

This can be clearly seen when you look at the Monster Manual. Look at the set of appropriate encounters for a first level character (in this case we will use 1-3 ECL monsters, but it really doesn't matter exactly where you draw the line).
3.5 has 205 beings 1-3 ECL.
4.0 has 57 beings 1-3 ECL.
Again this is only comparing the core Monster Manual I for each version.

Material:
This is a bit more subjective. The 4.0 books are made of a lower quality paper and ink. Even a full year after I purchased my books the ink still smuges easily. This was a problem I never had with 3.5. Also within my group within 1 month of play we had three broken bindings between about 15 books total. That excedes the 3.5 binding problems for 5+ years for the same group.


So yeah in all I thought 4.0 insulted my intelligence. Not because of the rules, but because it charged 33% more for 45% less content on a crappy paperstock.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-05, 10:40 AM
No, seriously, don't want edition war!
Well, sorry, but that's what your question directly brings about. 4e is insulting to the intelligence because when designing it they assumed their audience was too stupid to understand 3e, and designed accordingly. The difference between editions directly brings about the complaint you ask about; there's no way to talk about it without bringing in the previous edition.

valadil
2009-06-05, 10:43 AM
Price:
3.5 was $30 a book. $90 total.
4.0 is $40 a book. $120 total.
A 33% increase in price.


Prices went up during all of third edition. 3.0 was just $20 a book. As WotC pushed more and more monthly content, their fonts got bigger and spacing got wider. I don't appreciate WotC trying to sell us less, but this isn't a matter of edition. 2009 WotC books would be like this even if they were still being sold as part of 3.5.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I saw the picture. I'm stuck trying to parse it as a verb. On the bright side, this has bewildered me to the point where I no longer care if 4.0 is oversimplified.

"Broccoli dog" is probably "not like" in Bossmiley's sentence, I think:

"I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people not like new edition." Not the best grammatical construction, but there you go.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-05, 10:45 AM
Insult Intelligence - forumite attack 3
You make it clear to the people you are talking to that they are far too dumb for you to be talking to.
Encounter * Forum, Keyboard, Taunt
Standard Action Thread 1
Target: one poster
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 2d6 + Charisma modifier taunt damage, and the target is dazed until the end of his next thread.
Effect: You are smug (save ends).

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 10:48 AM
"Broccoli dog" is probably "not like" in Bossmiley's sentence, I think:

"I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people broccoli not like new edition." Not the best grammatical construction, but there you go.

Specifically it means "do not want," the caption of that infamous image.


*Broccoli dog image*

I would not link that site here, not even for innocent pictures. Surely broccoli dog is hosted elsewhere.

jseah
2009-06-05, 10:49 AM
Again, I'm not looking for edition wars, just some concrete (page numbers please?) examples of how the game 'treats players like morons'. No offense to those who have responded, I appreciate the input, and suspect you are correct. But I would also like to hear from folks who actually feel this way.
It's not so much the simplicity of 4E that gets me. I LIKE the [keyword] system they use. Makes adjudicating things so much easier.
"It's immune to mind-affecting? Well, the spell doesn't have the psychic keyword, too bad. "

I don't have page numbers, but the things I dislike about 4E are missing in 4E. So yeah, the only page numbers are "not present".

I also like the new focus on warrior powers although I kinda hate they way they give warriors strange abilities without giving them magic. IMO, it would have been better to give everyone flashy abilities and wave it away as... I don't know, martial magic or something.
why ever in a world can a fighter mark someone and give THEM a -2 to attack, the guy can just ignore you so it really makes no sense
Plus oozes aren't immune to prone (?!)
Plus undead/constructs aren't immune to psychic (some are but not all)
Plus etc.

The things I dislike most are the lack of options. No interesting combat tactics (everything is efficiency in combat...) and that combat is way way non-lethal.
It does take brainpower to play the combat efficiently. It's like chess, spend more brain power and you do better. I prefer to think of out-of-the-box solutions rather than resort to combat.

I do like a simulationist-type game however and 4E just doesn't cut it. That might colour my view.
- How is a GM to handle sundering or disarming in 4E? I dislike having to houserule something but I'll probably make something up.
- Also, what is the definition of encounter?
- wtf is a minion and why does it have 1 hp? (no, I understand what they are, it's just... weird to have anything die in 1 hit but not die from half-damage)
- And lastly, why are the creation rules for monsters and players different? Aren't the players also creatures in the world?


So yeah, my main gripes are that they threw away believability and options for balance. Which can be a good thing depending on the genre of the game.
The problem is that the game is now a straight dungeon crawl or combat adventure. While 3.5E was much more.

qcbtnsrm
2009-06-05, 10:55 AM
Prices went up during all of third edition. 3.0 was just $20 a book. As WotC pushed more and more monthly content, their fonts got bigger and spacing got wider. I don't appreciate WotC trying to sell us less, but this isn't a matter of edition. 2009 WotC books would be like this even if they were still being sold as part of 3.5.

True. And the price increase alone would have been anoying but acceptable. I believe that the common wisdom is that WotC was selling 3.0 for a loss. So the rationalization for the 3.0 to 3.5 hike was reasonable. This one has less justification behind it. I highly doubt that publishing costs increased 33% between 2003 and 2008.

And you may be right, this may be where WotC was going anyway. But my complaint would still be basically the same. WotC is charging me a lot more for a lot less content.

kamikasei
2009-06-05, 11:06 AM
Content:
3.5 was 969,987 words long including all three books.
4.0 is 537,300 words long including all three books.
A 45% reduction in content.

This can be clearly seen when you look at the Monster Manual. Look at the set of appropriate encounters for a first level character (in this case we will use 1-3 ECL monsters, but it really doesn't matter exactly where you draw the line).

To play devil's advocate here a bit: You're not buying these books to read as novels. The difference in length does not necessarily mean a difference in useful content, if the longer work is more padded out with exceptions and careful wording while the shorter is more elegantly structured and needs less verbiage to describe the same basic things.

Similarly, having fewer monsters described does not mean having fewer to fight if they've designed a simple and streamlined system for modifying monsters for use in your own game, such that many creatures (say, animals) don't even need stat blocks of their own any more, while others (say, all the types of Animated Object / Elemental / Monstrous Vermin X ranging from Tiny to Colossal) just require one entry and a general rule in place of a dozen different stat blocks. Indeed, if the expectation is that they'll give you a well-designed toolkit and you'll use it to build your own creatures tailored to your needs, that sounds like they're giving your intelligence more credit, not less.

Now, I'll not assert that these defenses are true here. Is the 4e monster system really so much more elegant and flexible as to justify the reduction in unique monster descriptions? Is the PHB content so much clearer and more streamlined? Maybe, maybe not; I honestly don't have an opinion. My point is just that a direct comparison on word count or number of entries is a terrible metric to use. Take my word for it as a coder: an assertion that some piece of software is better than another because it has more lines of source code, or that a dozen individual explicit descriptions is better than a single framework for generating them all from five-word attribute lists or whatever, is laughable. I think that can be generalized to RPG design: I'm not paying for a number of words or pages or monsters, I'm paying for a well-designed system with creative content.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 11:11 AM
Specifically it means "do not want," the caption of that infamous image.

Right, but I didn't think that made as good sense in Bossmiley's sentence.



I would not link that site here, not even for innocent pictures. Surely broccoli dog is hosted elsewhere.

Looking back to see what you are talking about, I must assume that you are referring to one of the adverts on the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page. Frankly, I didn't notice it, and don't really care (of course, now that you have mentioned it more people will go to look at it, if only to see what on earth you are talking about; so to avoid that, I will just state plainly that there is currently a "145px × 145px" advert for sex on the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page).

Twilight Jack
2009-06-05, 11:20 AM
True. And the price increase alone would have been anoying but acceptable. I believe that the common wisdom is that WotC was selling 3.0 for a loss. So the rationalization for the 3.0 to 3.5 hike was reasonable. This one has less justification behind it. I highly doubt that publishing costs increased 33% between 2003 and 2008.

And you may be right, this may be where WotC was going anyway. But my complaint would still be basically the same. WotC is charging me a lot more for a lot less content.

It's the less content that gets me more than the higher price. When the new edition hit the shelves, I dutifully gave it a looking over in my local book store. I was an avid AD&D player who actually liked the changes that 3.0 brought to the table, so I thought it possible that I might be pleasantly suprised once again.

The first thing I noticed about the Player's Handbook is that they added about 2 points to the font and that the illustrations seemed to be taking up a substantial bit of real estate. The whole thing had the feel of a teaser preview of D&D, big font with big pictures to grab attention, when you've only got a 30 second window to sell your product.

Only the whole book was like that. Each page seemed to carry about half the information of it's 3.5 counterpart.

I checked the page count . . . exactly the same as 3.5 at 320 pages.

That's where my optimism about the new edition took its first serious hit.

And the hits kept coming.

I might be convinced to run or play a 4E game for a one-night, beer-drinking pickup (Hell, I think it'd be fun. Tactically interesting and dynamic combat seems to be the edition's strongest suit), but I've no interest in using it to run any kind of long-term or in-depth campaign.

Grey Paladin
2009-06-05, 11:25 AM
That and gratuitous chocobo porn, but focus on whatever you like. :smalltongue:
The minds of the innocent are not built for the lurking horrors of /b/.

Yora
2009-06-05, 11:25 AM
My major complaint is, that 4th Ed. insults my imagination. When I "put my helmet in my head slot", instead of wearing it on my head, I really don't want to read on.
It's like playing a computer game, but you have an excel sheet instead of a graphic engine.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 11:27 AM
That and gratuitous chocobo porn, but focus on whatever you like. :smalltongue:
The minds of the innocent are not built for the lurking horrors of /b/.

Wuh? I ain't seeing that! Some t-shirt adverts, but that's about it! Is that what those links lead to? Weird internet (and why do you guys know this? Yikes!).

Grey Paladin
2009-06-05, 11:30 AM
Are you sure you want a direction? EDIT: It IS a wiki, so there are many pages.

Yora
2009-06-05, 11:30 AM
What has been seen can not be unseen. ^^

Matthew
2009-06-05, 11:32 AM
Are you sure you want a direction? EDIT: It IS a wiki, so there are many pages.

Hell no, I don't even want to know what you guys are talking about (least of all what a chocobo is supposed to be), or why the image was followed to its source in the first place.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-05, 11:32 AM
My major complaint is, that 4th Ed. insults my imagination. When I "put my helmet in my head slot", instead of wearing it on my head, I really don't want to read on.
It's like playing a computer game, but you have an excel sheet instead of a graphic engine.

Magic item slots are from 3.X, and all that means is you can't wear multiple "head slot" items - it's the same deal in both editions.

ghost_warlock
2009-06-05, 11:37 AM
Hell no, I don't even want to know what you guys are talking about (least of all what a chocobo is supposed to be), or why the image was followed to its source in the first place.

A chocobo looks like a giant chicken crossed with some sort of lizard. They come in a variety of colors, which correspond to what they taste like. The sometimes say things like "kupo" when agitated.

So now you know. :smallsmile:

Whether or not you wanted to is irrelevant.

Lord_Gareth
2009-06-05, 11:39 AM
Personally, I got fed up with 4e when I heard the designer statement that, "Combat is where the game really happens. Aside from that, encounters in 4e are incredibly predictable - you know how it's going to end after the first round, if you didn't already know when combat began. Simplification wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but 4e way oversimplified, and that angers a lotta people.

Also, they made Tieflings into the Emo Empire. This cannot be forgiven.

Mando Knight
2009-06-05, 11:41 AM
I also like the new focus on warrior powers although I kinda hate they way they give warriors strange abilities without giving them magic. IMO, it would have been better to give everyone flashy abilities and wave it away as... I don't know, martial magic or something.
why ever in a world can a fighter mark someone and give THEM a -2 to attack, the guy can just ignore you so it really makes no sense
Ah, it kinda was. Martial powers are basically "You're so badass that you can fire more arrows than they can they can see" or "The Paladin needs Moradin to help him slap you, but all I need is this friggin' huge axe."

The Fighter's mark is essentially a challenge on the monster to fight him rather than to stab the rogue pointing his dagger at its kidney. He's harrying the monster constantly, keeping it from moving away or fight anyone but himself.


The things I dislike most are the lack of options. No interesting combat tactics (everything is efficiency in combat...) and that combat is way way non-lethal.
It does take brainpower to play the combat efficiently. It's like chess, spend more brain power and you do better. I prefer to think of out-of-the-box solutions rather than resort to combat.
That's what the powers are for. Should the Warlord use his Commander's Strike to let the Fighter bring his axe on the dragon's head again, or should he use Wolf Pack Tactics to get the Rogue into position to Sneak Attack? Should the Wizard use Scorching Burst to blast through a wave of enemies, or should he use Ray of Frost to slow down that big guy's advance?


- wtf is a minion and why does it have 1 hp? (no, I understand what they are, it's just... weird to have anything die in 1 hit but not die from half-damage)
Minions made sense to me: they're the mooks. The stormtroopers. They're the guys following Darth Vader around everywhere and make the situation seem scarier but fall down as soon as your heroes shoot them. They're meant to be used in large groups, so they go down in one hit to keep the bookkeeping to a minimum, especially with the HP inflation of the other monsters.

Yora
2009-06-05, 11:42 AM
Minions are one of the few ideas I really like! Sending a horde of goblins who can't possibly threaten the PCs are a real pain to manage, and they aren't really meant to be anthing but a dramatical effect. I totaly like the idea of not caring how many hit point each of them have and to check if a damage roll of 5 takes that one out or if it has still 2 hp left.
The PCs roll for attack and if they hit, it's instantly dead. I let them roll for damage anyway, but its so much more fun for the gm.

Magic item slots are from 3.X, and all that means is you can't wear multiple "head slot" items - it's the same deal in both editions.
But 3rd Edition says that you wear items on your body. 4th all the time uses words like puting into a slot.
Spell descriptions are the same thing. No description what you do and how it looks like, just a table of numbers how many damage dice of what type it deals.
Maybe it's just me, but if I constantly have to read such things, my imagination just shuts down and I only think in numbers. Which may be okay for some people who like to play a very elaborate game of chess, but it completely kills imagination and fantasy.

Morty
2009-06-05, 11:42 AM
I don't really think 4ed rulebooks insults my intelligence, despite my griping here on the forums. I just don't like it. The pre-release materials though, were incredibly patronizing - and also just plain silly - many times.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 11:44 AM
A chocobo looks like a giant chicken crossed with some sort of lizard. They come in a variety of colors, which correspond to what they taste like. The sometimes say things like "kupo" when agitated.

So now you know. :smallsmile:

Whether or not you wanted to is irrelevant.

From Final Fantasy or Zelda or something, if I am understanding you? A bit like Yoshi in Super Mario World... well, it's a weird world.

Yora
2009-06-05, 11:46 AM
Yes, those yellow Final Fantasy riding birds.

Xallace
2009-06-05, 11:47 AM
..."Combat is where the game really happens..."

I don't know the context, but that sounds to me like "combat is where we put the rolls." Which, well, they did. Role-playing is pretty free-form, at least in all the 4E I've played.


Aside from that, encounters in 4e are incredibly predictable - you know how it's going to end after the first round, if you didn't already know when combat began.

Really now. You must have better foresight than I, as I can't say the same. I've found 4E combat pretty fun because I don't know who's going to do what next- at least when my players actually try (I wish they'd use their imaginations more).


Also, they made Tieflings into the Emo Empire. This cannot be forgiven.

I don't really like it, but there's a tiefling player in my game who does, so who am I to change it?


"Kupo"

Wark, actually.

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 11:48 AM
Right, but I didn't think that made as good sense in Bossmiley's sentence.

"I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people do not want the new edition."

Seems to fit just fine.


Looking back to see what you are talking about, I must assume that you are referring to one of the adverts on the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page. Frankly, I didn't notice it, and don't really care (of course, now that you have mentioned it more people will go to look at it, if only to see what on earth you are talking about; so to avoid that, I will just state plainly that there is currently a "145px × 145px" advert for sex on the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page).

You haven't actually read that site, have you? ED is basically a glorified archive of 4chan exploits and pornography.

EDIT:


The sometimes say things like "kupo" when agitated.

"Kupo" is the sound Moogles make, not Chocobos.

And that's as close to chocobo porn as I'm going to get in this or any thread.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 11:49 AM
"I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just listing reasons I've seen (generally intelligent and thoughtful) people do not want the new edition."

Seems to fit just fine.

Yes it does, though I didn't think it did, as I said. And, of course, it is still a poorly constructed sentence. Possibly:

"I'm just listing reasons that I have seen people give for why they do not want the new edition."

Thinking about it, I still think "like" would be better than "want", though. So probably a literal translation of the euphemism is not appropriate.



You haven't actually read that site, have you? ED is basically a glorified archive of 4chan exploits and pornography.

Thankfully, no. I just did an image search for "Broccoli Dog" and that was the first that amused me. I then tracked back to the page, looked around for what was supposed to be offensive about it and noticed an advert. It sounds like a weird place, but I don't see the harm in linking a non offensive image from it. People are quite capable of finding their own crap by themselves, and under no compulsion to follow the image link (until you brought it up, of course).

ghost_warlock
2009-06-05, 11:51 AM
Wark, actually.

I thought moogles were the things that went 'wark'; when Mario jumps on their heads. They're the things with the crystals growing out of their heads, right?

Xallace
2009-06-05, 11:53 AM
I thought moogles were the things that went 'wark'; when Mario jumps on their heads. They're the things with the crystals growing out of their heads, right?

Nah, moogles make the "kupo." They're the ones that look like teddy bears with pom-poms growing out of their heads.

V Yeah that.

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 11:54 AM
I thought moogles were the things that went 'wark'; when Mario jumps on their heads. They're the things with the crystals growing out of their heads, right?

Moogles are bipedal pig-cats with pink wings and an antenna-like protrusion on their forehead.

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/andrewingram/2005/03/05/moogle.jpg

Lord_Gareth
2009-06-05, 11:57 AM
I don't know the context, but that sounds to me like "combat is where we put the rolls." Which, well, they did. Role-playing is pretty free-form, at least in all the 4E I've played.

That statement was made in a section of the DMG discussing how the focus should be kept on combat, and how non-combat interaction only detracts from the game. I'm sorry, but isn't that what seperated D&D from the original Chainmail TO BEGIN WITH?


Really now. You must have better foresight than I, as I can't say the same. I've found 4E combat pretty fun because I don't know who's going to do what next- at least when my players actually try (I wish they'd use their imaginations more).

If you start the battle well, you will end it well. If you start poorly, you die. I've yet to see this trend bucked in the many 4e games I've observed; hell, I've got a friend working on a mathematics degree who thinks he can break down 4e encounters to a single algorithm.


I don't really like it, but there's a tiefling player in my game who does, so who am I to change it?

The DM? Someone with respect for the freakin' fluff? If your player wants to be an emo-ling, more power to him, but the whole damn race shouldn't look like it crawled out of a Hot Topic's restroom.

Pramxnim
2009-06-05, 12:02 PM
That's a young chocobo that you're seeing in my avatar. And in Final Fantasy IX, the sound they make is definitely "Kweh!".

Hmm, maybe I should homebrew a chocobo and a Chocobo Knight prestige class into D&D 3.5... :smallsmile:

ghost_warlock
2009-06-05, 12:05 PM
That's a young chocobo that you're seeing in my avatar. And in Final Fantasy IX, the sound they make is definitely "Kweh!".

Hmm, maybe I should a chocobo and a Chocobo Knight prestige class into D&D 3.5... :smallsmile:

Something like this?

http://th01.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/276/f/3/Chocobo_Riding_Moogle_by_lizspit.jpg

Xallace
2009-06-05, 12:09 PM
That statement was made in a section of the DMG discussing how the focus should be kept on combat, and how non-combat interaction only detracts from the game. I'm sorry, but isn't that what seperated D&D from the original Chainmail TO BEGIN WITH?

Well that's... depressing. And a statement I will quietly disregard, like I do with most of the non-crunch. *Thumbs Up*


If you start the battle well, you will end it well. If you start poorly, you die. I've yet to see this trend bucked in the many 4e games I've observed; hell, I've got a friend working on a mathematics degree who thinks he can break down 4e encounters to a single algorithm.

That's rather interesting actually, I guess that makes my games an anomaly. I've seen whole encounters turned around in a single turn before. Pretty awesome when it happens!


The DM? Someone with respect for the freakin' fluff? If your player wants to be an emo-ling, more power to him, but the whole damn race shouldn't look like it crawled out of a Hot Topic's restroom.

Aw, but then we can't have the Shadar-Kai calling them "posers" all the time, can we?

Nah, I kid. I really never figured out what it was I wanted to do with tieflings or dragonborn, so I left their cultures up to the players. I'll have to figure something out eventually (though I do like my dragonborn player's idea for his culture, which he's basing off of the Persian Empire).

Draz74
2009-06-05, 12:12 PM
4e insults Intelligence because it's the natural dump stat for the greatest number of 4e classes!

... oh wait, that's not what you meant.


Again, I'm not looking for edition wars, just some concrete (page numbers please?) examples of how the game 'treats players like morons'. No offense to those who have responded, I appreciate the input, and suspect you are correct. But I would also like to hear from folks who actually feel this way.

I don't own 4e books and so can't give you page numbers, but I think there's some annoyance over these specific issues:

- The 4e books make a lot more assumptions about the PCs' role in the world. (In 3e the PCs were often questing heroes who fought a lot and delved dungeons, but not always; the 4e books are less open towards the possibilities of evil parties, or purely political-intrigue campaigns, or campaigns where the PCs are "regular Joes" instead of established heroes (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=763260), etc.)

- Relating to the above, Alignment in particular seems to draw the "dumbed down" comment about 4e. Still having an objective alignment system, yet shoehorning all views into 5 alignments rather than 9, seems to irk folks.

Twilight Jack
2009-06-05, 12:18 PM
Minions are one of the few ideas I really like! Sending a horde of goblins who can't possibly threaten the PCs are a real pain to manage, and they aren't really meant to be anthing but a dramatical effect. I totaly like the idea of not caring how many hit point each of them have and to check if a damage roll of 5 takes that one out or if it has still 2 hp left.
The PCs roll for attack and if they hit, it's instantly dead. I let them roll for damage anyway, but its so much more fun for the gm.

I was already using the minion rules in 3.5 for 1-2 HD monsters a few years back. Past a certain number, certain monsters aren't really worth anymore XP, so if I want a quick mass melee for the PCs to tear through and feel like badasses, I just announce that the critters are dead if they take any damage at all. Cuts down on die rolling and book keeping, and allows the party to focus its real attention on the NPC cleric and rogue leading the goblins.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-05, 12:19 PM
In before strawberry.

jseah
2009-06-05, 12:54 PM
Ah, it kinda was. Martial powers are basically "You're so badass that you can fire more arrows than they can they can see" or "The Paladin needs Moradin to help him slap you, but all I need is this friggin' huge axe."

The Fighter's mark is essentially a challenge on the monster to fight him rather than to stab the rogue pointing his dagger at its kidney. He's harrying the monster constantly, keeping it from moving away or fight anyone but himself.
Ah, right. I don't recall if it worked that way but in that case, the mark should basically not work at all if the monster stood out of the fighter's reach.


That's what the powers are for. Should the Warlord use his Commander's Strike to let the Fighter bring his axe on the dragon's head again, or should he use Wolf Pack Tactics to get the Rogue into position to Sneak Attack? Should the Wizard use Scorching Burst to blast through a wave of enemies, or should he use Ray of Frost to slow down that big guy's advance?
This is EXACTLY what I meant when combat became a tactical play. It's a complicated version of chess, instead of a struggle of life and death. Which it is supposed to be, since the losers of combat die...

IMO, the system needs more chance and to play up the importance of strategic advantage. As it is, you need a seriously major advantage to get much use other than a few random +2s.

Ambush positions, and terrain advantage, are so weak as to be nearly useless, and if allowed, can be easily traded for firepower and it'll work about just as well.
You need some serious situations before it becomes significant. Like flying archers or harrier with absolute speed advantage. In a believable situation, given equal forces, the ambushing side should win most of the time (barring bad luck) simply through surprise. I'm not seeing that happen in 4E.

Pre-battle positioning, information and general caution is downplayed. =( That's the things I expect from my players and that I expect to do in a game.

The 4E game I played in? My partymates simply kicked down the door and killed everything hostile. I said we were going to get TPKed one day doing that. I stopped caring after we ran into an ambush and got out without a player death (KOs yes, death no)
- And it was no joke, enemies had aura-stun-locks, at-will difficult terrain splash weapons and it was a constricted corridor... I'm not sure how we survived either... =/


Minions made sense to me: they're the mooks. The stormtroopers. They're the guys following Darth Vader around everywhere and make the situation seem scarier but fall down as soon as your heroes shoot them. They're meant to be used in large groups, so they go down in one hit to keep the bookkeeping to a minimum, especially with the HP inflation of the other monsters.
Mmmm. I think I see the difference. I don't like seem, it's either more dangerous or not. If something is made to look scarier than it is, there needs to be an in-game justification for using that strategy. Not an out-of-game one. (a smoke-and-mirrors opponent might use the paper-construct known as the minion to augment the illusion of forces but... well... yeah)

Mooks can hurt, they can kill if they swarm you. But dead in one hit but not on a miss is just... too weird for me. Especially when ANY first level character has more than 10 hp and probably won't die from a non-pimped heroic tier magic missile.

Besides, my DM used NO mooks with more than 10 enemies on the board sometimes. She managed it quite well by writing the hp lost on their coins... =P

And having something in a game just for dramatic purposes... Not the kind of game I'm looking for. And "for dramatic purposes" doesn't encourage players to think creatively. Or plan well to seek an advantage.
- Ok, fine, it does encourage creative thinking, but in a... cinematic sense. I'd write my own fiction if I wanted to do that.


I don't know the context, but that sounds to me like "combat is where we put the rolls." Which, well, they did. Role-playing is pretty free-form, at least in all the 4E I've played.
Players need a sense of what is allowed to happen in the game world before planning anything. Leaving out-of-combat to the GM means uncertainty and a complete sandbox. If they wanted to do that, they should have just gotten rid of diplomacy as a skill altogether.
- Also why I cried *metaphorically* when I saw rituals were completely useless and the utility wizard is gone. Even that last resort for out-of-combat rules is gone.

Let's say I want to launch a brilliant sweeping plan involving political manipulation, undercover work and NPC allies. As a GM, I can just make it happen. As a player? I need more info than what's present. Even 3.5E comes a little short, but at least it tried semi-well.

Talya
2009-06-05, 01:09 PM
Hey, that intelligence of yours? He fights like a dairy farmer.


How appropiate; WotC edits like a cow.


I don't care about any of the rest of this discussion, but the Monkey Island references automatically make you both awesome.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-05, 01:23 PM
Hey, did they start the Edition Warz without me? :smalltongue:

THAC0
Not complex, but needlessly complicated.
It was defined in relation to the inverted scale of Armor Class (10 Max, down to -10 (if not lower), centered around the AC of a guy in Full Plate with a Shield (AC 0); magic weapons were rated in pluses which actually subtracted from your THAC0; magic armors were rated in pluses that subtracted from your AC; penalties to AC raised your AC.

The exact same effect was produced in 3E by giving everyone a Base 10 AC, with armor and bonuses increasing that AC (no limit) and weapons & levels providing straight pluses to your to-hit roll.

One really is more intuitive than the other, but neither actually has more "moving parts." It was like writing 1+1 = 2 as (x^2+2x+1) + (x+1)(x+1) = 2/(x+1)^2 :smalltongue:

DMG
Dunno where the "4E = Combat RAR!" comes from. The closest I found in the DMG is this:

Over the course of a session of D&D, the game shifts in and out of five basic modes—setup, exploration, conversation, encounter, and passing time. The five modes are also five different kinds of tasks or activities the characters engage in during their adventures. Part of the job of running the game as DM is figuring out what mode the game is in based on what the player characters are doing. The shifts are generally smooth and organic, and you might not even notice the change from one to another unless you’re paying attention.
Your role as DM is different depending on which mode the game is in. You interact with the players according to the mode the game is in. You provide the scene, describe and play the NPCs and monsters, and dispense any information the PCs need or gain. You ultimately determine the group’s success or failure based on the players’ choices, the difficulty of the situation, and the luck of the dice.


Encounters are the exciting part of the D&D game. They have tension and urgency about them and a chance of failure. They involve lots of die-rolling (often in the form of attack rolls) and strategic thinking. They give almost every kind of player something to enjoy. The rules of the game are most important in encounters. The rules are all about determining whether you succeed or fail at the tasks you attempt— and thus whether you successfully complete the encounter.
But if someone can find a passage of the DMG that says "roleplaying is for luserz" I'd appreciate having it pointed out.

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 01:28 PM
Well, sorry, but that's what your question directly brings about. . . . .
The difference between editions directly brings about the complaint you ask about; there's no way to talk about it without bringing in the previous edition.

I agree that comparison between the editions may be useful, but not absolutely necessary.

For example, you could say something like:
"I felt that providing examples of how to design a first level character around a particular class feature was somewhat insulting to my intelligence. Given that I can understand a particular class feature, and the elements that make it good, I'm intelligent enough to go and find other powers and feats that provide synergy within my character. The fact that they did that for me makes me feel like the authors think that I can't read or think for myself."

There, a (somewhat) legitimate claim of how 4ed treats it's readers like "morons", without reference to 3.5 (in fact, it doesn't have reference to 4.0 in it either . . . ;-).

Additionally, several people have provided comments that compare 3.x to 4.0 without inflammatory remarks (which is really what I was trying to avoid). I really just wanted to avoid yet another flame war (one of the reasons why I haven't read or posted anything on the forums since 4.0 came out, it was getting tiresome). I figure enough time has passed that folks might have intelligent and less impassioned discourse on the subject.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 01:56 PM
Hey, did they start the Edition Warz without me? :smalltongue:

Just a skirmish. :smallwink:



THAC0
Not complex, but needlessly complicated.
It was defined in relation to the inverted scale of Armor Class (10 Max, down to -10 (if not lower), centered around the AC of a guy in Full Plate with a Shield (AC 0); magic weapons were rated in pluses which actually subtracted from your THAC0; magic armors were rated in pluses that subtracted from your AC; penalties to AC raised your AC.

The exact same effect was produced in 3E by giving everyone a Base 10 AC, with armor and bonuses increasing that AC (no limit) and weapons & levels providing straight pluses to your to-hit roll.

One really is more intuitive than the other, but neither actually has more "moving parts." It was like writing 1+1 = 2 as (x^2+2x+1) + (x+1)(x+1) = 2/(x+1)^2 :smalltongue:



That was what I thought for a long while, but in actual fact 2e created the confusion by presenting THAC0 as a rule instead of as a short hand for an attack matrix. There are actually less moving parts...


THAC0 is the number a first level fighter needs to hit armour class 0. A much easier way of comprehending this is to find a character's "fighting ability" [i.e. his fighter level or equivalent]. You then have a constant target number of 21, and add your fighter level, opponent's armour class, and any modifiers to the die, a hit is scored on a 21 or higher. Modifiers are always the same, whether applied to Fighting Ability or Armour Class.

It is very, very elegant, and very simple indeed.

Totally Guy
2009-06-05, 02:25 PM
I've just spotted something weird...

A gaming system becomes better when more people are playing it. This is because you can just start talking and people can understand what you're saying. A bit like survival of the fittest.

I used to think that gameplay equaled popularity, back before 4th. But you know what does equal popular? Popular. Popular equals Popular. Crazy huh?

Now there's 2 systems occupying the popularity mainstream spot and people don't want to lose out. It's a bit like the Betamax/VHS thing. Except that rather than two systems competing at the same time it's one after the other and beccause it's all low tech pencils and paper there are no "modern grapical upgrade" to distinguish it from a simple console superseding scenario.

The tension on this topic is not about convincing anybody that the system is objectivly better. It's about convincing people that the system is popular.

{table]The Game|Stick with 3.5|Move to 4E
3.5 Remains More Popular|Win|Lose
4E Becomes More Popular|Lose|Win[/table]

Think about this, we've taken the position of choosing a system and we want to encourage the desired outcome because we want to be in the majority. Being in the majority is a good thing because there are more people to talk to about your cool ideas. Point is this set up encourages this same argument for as long as either result is attainable.

I was thinking the other day about American Football and Soccer. And I was trying to puzzle out the cultural differences that result in the difference of their mainstream treatment. But then I thought about it differently. Maybe the sport's content doesn't matter at all, maybe it's just popular because it's popular and people can support it and talk about it with those that matter most to them.

I think it's the same here. The arguments will continue until one side is defined as the niche and one the mainstream, and I don't think it'll happen by the content of the games. I think it will happen by the presence of the fans. Although there may be migration issues to consider, is this a battle for the system's total presence or a battle for forum dominance? I suspect the latter.

Whoa, I think I just broke my brain.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 02:28 PM
Haven't read the rest of the post yet, as they don't matter in regards to my opinion, and not to be tempted to argue with someone else's thinking. But here is a list of some of the reasons I think 4th edition D&D insults peoples intelligence.


Constant lies surrounding the edition. Whether it existed and was being worked on, what the DDI is and will have, WotC actions in regards to 4th edition. (Gamers are smart enough to see the signs of change and should only blidnly trust someone else? :smallconfused:)
The advertising prior that told people they were wrong to be having fun with 3.x because 3.x sucked and nobody liked it. (Glad to know gamers don't have the right to choose what they like themselves and must be told. :smallconfused:)
Vancian Casting removed (This is just a lie because the entire powers system is Vancian. Wizards still cast spells and have the Vancian style mechanic. See the top about the lies.)
Players no longer allowed to use their imagination. (Rather than coming up with your own tactics the power tells fighters exactly what type of movements and actions they can perform. You don't want to push this guy away, then you cannot use this power with push. You are told how to do anything. You cannot just run up on a guy and impale him with your sword, there is no power for it. It isn't built into the system to work without a power for it.)
Roles (Telling people what position/part they must play with any given class and being dictated by that class rather than being able to use your own ability to think and have a flexible playstyle. Now every class is the cleric and MUST be ready to do their job and only that.)
"Don't ever talk to the two guards outside the fort/town/etc because that isn't fun and just skip over it." (Again being told what is fun and what isn't.)
Everything is core and should be allowed because a DM should say YES. (Nothing is without DM decision to be included no matter what company published the book it is contained in. RPGA does not need to invade homes for its wanna-be tournament style play. It is insulting to try to tell people what they have to allow in their home games. This only causes greater problem with the game gaining new players by not telling them upfront that the DM decides for his game, and people leaving RPGA as the first look at D&D and thinking they can just go and use anything in any game. Sorry, D&D doesn't play like that. Each game is different and it is insulting to DMs to try to force that mindset onto them through players that may not know better as well insulting to new players by causing them problems in the first place thinking they can buy book X for $50 and then go to a game and not be able to use it because the only game in their area doesn't allow that race/class/etc because it doesn't fit with the world the DM has designed for the players.)
"Everything is easier for DMing" (That is insulting to both players and DMs. To say DMs were incapable of using any past system* to create a good/quick game just....just...well... And to say that the players then by default must have not had good games because the DMs weren't good enough to run games...? :smallconfused: :smallfurious: Again telling people they were wrong for liking a previous edition and were doing it wrong!) (* Yes I understand the whole WBL, CR/ECL system in 3.x can be a bit stupid and hard to get things going, but that is where computers can help as well as fanbased software to help other fans for those that are having problems. 3.x isn't really that hard a system, just a bit convoluted; and I won't deny it. But to say nobody could use it because it was too hard for everyone is codswallop!)
....There are more, but now is not the time to mention them because I am getting to the point of wanting to slap someone in the face in return for the gauntlet they have laid across mine with just the above list.


3.x, I do not like. I don't think it was really insulting beyond the way people treated THAC0 and its conversion to BAB within the system. I just didn't like it as a game. I have played 3.x a few times and just don't like the stuff that changed, but never really found it insulting, unlike just about everything revolved around 4th form the actions of the company and the direction of the game and attitude it takes with the players. I feel 4th edition have moved back towards the LW era in which the game isn't made for the people who love D&D because the company doesn't care about gamers, just as LW didn't care about gamers.

I just cannot understand the need to change the game for the people that never liked it, to gain them as customers, whilst you toss away the people who did like the game as it was. You make a product, and future iterations of that product for the people who enjoy your product, not for the people who don't like it just to gain those people as customers.

That may be the biggest insulting thing about 4th in relation to people's intelligence, because any competent person would know that you make your product for those who will enjoy your product, and you don't change the only product you offer to remove those who like it from your customer base (target audience), just to gain a different set of customers. That is why you have the option to create a game just for them and have two games that bring in money from both for the company, and all the customer get to enjoy something they like without treating some customers like refuse to be thrown on the side of the road. :smallfrown: It really is sad when you think about it like that as to what 4th has done and how the designers and the company don't see these things as an insult to their fans and the ones that gave them a chance to make a 4th edition in the first place.

Maybe I will return with more direct parts of the rules that are insulting to intelligence later after a tub of ice has been poured over my head. :smallfurious:

kamikasei
2009-06-05, 02:31 PM
There are actually less moving parts...

How do you figure? Just because the attack bonus (the part dependent on your levels rather than gear and other bonuses - is that how it works?) is hidden under THAC0 doesn't mean it's not there. There are exactly as many moving parts so far as I can see, it's just that some run backward while others are inexplicably only referred to indirectly. I don't see anything elegant about this indirection.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 02:40 PM
How do you figure? Just because the attack bonus (the part dependent on your levels rather than gear and other bonuses - is that how it works?) is hidden under THAC0 doesn't mean it's not there. There are exactly as many moving parts so far as I can see, it's just that some run backward while others are inexplicably only referred to indirectly. I don't see anything elegant about this indirection.


THAC0 is actually the problem, in the sense that it creates the idea that you have to convert a +1 bonus to a −1 penalty when applying it to THAC0, when you should not be storing anything under THAC0 at all. It is a misstep that seems simpler in practice, but is actually not. The reason there are less moving parts is because in AD&D many effects are described as imposing a −1 penalty on enemy attack rolls. In D20 you could convert this to +1 AC, in AD&D there is no need to. It is always −1, whether applied to the "to hit" bonus or armour class. Modifying THAC0 makes more work and gives the illusion of more moving parts.

In D20 you might add up a +7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus, to get an overall modifier of −4. In AD&D you would have a −7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus for an overall modifier of −4.

Optimystik
2009-06-05, 02:51 PM
I think it's the same here. The arguments will continue until one side is defined as the niche and one the mainstream, and I don't think it'll happen by the content of the games. I think it will happen by the presence of the fans. Although there may be migration issues to consider, is this a battle for the system's total presence or a battle for forum dominance? I suspect the latter.

Whoa, I think I just broke my brain.

There's two factors your analysis doesn't consider:

1) 3.5 will win the popularity contest for the near future because there is open gaming content based on it.

http://www.d20srd.org

People who want to get into 3.5e have only to visit a simple website; just about everything they need to know about the underlying mechanics, core rules etc. is there for easy reading.

2) 3.5 is represented in many more forms of media.

There are 3.5e video games, 3.5e novels... and perhaps most importantly, 3.5e comics, such as the one we all came to this site to read. 4e will not surpass 3.5e's penetration until it achieves comparable accessibility. How many people have come to this site and said "I've never played D&D in my life!" yet slowly migrated to the roleplay discussion boards to learn more about the references used in the strip?

What does 4e have? The handbooks... yet the kind of people that will buy a 4e handbook are the same people that would buy a 3.5e handbook. At best WotC is achieving parity with their previous edition, not surpassing it.

Don't be surprised if in the future, new D&D video games and OGL content comes out based on 4th edition. It's just that currently we're still in the phase where 4e is attracting the consumers that like to be on the crest of the wave. In marketing circles, those people are called early adopters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter)

Winterwind
2009-06-05, 02:51 PM
*snip*A most excellent post, right there.

While I cannot discern to what degree the edition wars are driven by the wish for popularity, as you postulate, I can testify that the nature of the RPG community seems to allow for only one truly dominant game, and having one's favoured game remain the dominant one is crucial for its players for the very reasons you outlined.

Consider - in most (quite possibly all, I know of no exceptions) anglophone countries, D&D is the most popular RPG, and there are no other RPGs that could challenge its status. Does that mean it's the best RPG on the market? Hardly so, I'd argue - I know of many RPGs I consider superior, but even not accounting for that (as it's just my personal opinion), it seems unlikely that in a such a big field as tabletop RPGs no better alternatives would ever have been developed. But those alternatives never took over, condemned to an existence as mere niche games - because D&D's popularity alone provides it with enough momentum to dominate the scene, and keep dominating it. Hence only a new D&D version can provide any sort of rivalry for D&D.

Now, in Germany, the Dark Eye (DSA) got hold of the fantasy RPG genre, and D&D is but a minor niche game. And in Poland, Warhammer Fantasy RPG has taken hold of that, again displacing D&D into the role of a niche game. Quite different games, all three of them, and I'm sure if people were to argue the superiority of one of them over the other two, the arguments could get just as heated as the ones between D&D editions - only, these people never meet to argue with each other because of these games utter dominance in their respective countries. Hence why I assume that the objective quality of these games plays a very minor role - all that matters is that they totally dominate their respective roleplaying scene.

And it strongly indicates your point is right, too - a German Dark Eye player or a Polish WFRPG player has no interest in asserting their respective game's superiority over an American or English player's D&D, as it does not impact the dominance of their chosen game in their own roleplaying scene.

darkblust
2009-06-05, 02:56 PM
I think there is something that everybody here can agree with,that 4.0 is easy.I personnaly prefer 3.5,beacause of the complexity,and the huge arrayof classes,feats,skills,extra stuffs,and character development things.

...wait one second,their are people who don't crunch numbers in their spare time?

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 03:02 PM
Minions are one of the few ideas I really like!
....
But 3rd Edition says that you wear items on your body. 4th all the time uses words like puting into a slot.
Spell descriptions are the same thing. No description what you do and how it looks like, just a table of numbers how many damage dice of what type it deals.
Maybe it's just me, but if I constantly have to read such things, my imagination just shuts down and I only think in numbers.

I concur with you on Minions. When MnM introduced the idea of Mooks, it was wonderful! Besides, this just shorthands what tends to happen between high level characters and 'typical' low level monsters anyway.

Actually, the back of the 3.5 DMG, under the magic item creation section specifically outlines 'body slots' that really isn't anything new. You may not have been as aware of it, because 4.0 calls it out much more obviously, but it's nothing new.

Every power and spell in 4.0 has a blurb (1-2 lines typically) in italics above all the crunchy stuff that describes the visuals. There's plenty of fluff.

I'm an engineer. .. .I tend to think in numbers anyway, but yeah, I get what you mean. Sometimes I'd really rather play something like Truth and Justice (or any of the other Atomic Sock Monkey products).

Kylarra
2009-06-05, 03:17 PM
You cannot just run up on a guy and impale him with your sword, there is no power for it. It isn't built into the system to work without a power for it.)Charge? :smallconfused:

WalkingTarget
2009-06-05, 03:31 PM
Charge? :smallconfused:

Yeah, that's what Basic Attacks are for, right? When you don't have a Power that fits your situation and you just want to hurt something.

kc0bbq
2009-06-05, 03:35 PM
Charge? :smallconfused:Yeah, and you aren't supposed to talk to anyone ever. Despite the elegant mechanics for doing so.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-06-05, 03:47 PM
Haven't read the thread, but I hardly think that it has anything to do with intelligence.

Just about anyone can understand pre-4e rules with some reading and experience with the game. You don't need to be super smart or anything to get it. Some things take time to understand, sure. But it takes time, not intelligence. If you think playing D&D makes you special or smart, please just..... no.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 03:58 PM
A most excellent post, right there.

While I cannot discern to what degree the edition wars are driven by the wish for popularity, as you postulate, I can testify that the nature of the RPG community seems to allow for only one truly dominant game, and having one's favoured game remain the dominant one is crucial for its players for the very reasons you outlined.

Consider - in most (quite possibly all, I know of no exceptions) anglophone countries, D&D is the most popular RPG, and there are no other RPGs that could challenge its status. Does that mean it's the best RPG on the market? Hardly so, I'd argue - I know of many RPGs I consider superior, but even not accounting for that (as it's just my personal opinion), it seems unlikely that in a such a big field as tabletop RPGs no better alternatives would ever have been developed. But those alternatives never took over, condemned to an existence as mere niche games - because D&D's popularity alone provides it with enough momentum to dominate the scene, and keep dominating it. Hence only a new D&D version can provide any sort of rivalry for D&D.

Now, in Germany, the Dark Eye (DSA) got hold of the fantasy RPG genre, and D&D is but a minor niche game. And in Poland, Warhammer Fantasy RPG has taken hold of that, again displacing D&D into the role of a niche game. Quite different games, all three of them, and I'm sure if people were to argue the superiority of one of them over the other two, the arguments could get just as heated as the ones between D&D editions - only, these people never meet to argue with each other because of these games utter dominance in their respective countries. Hence why I assume that the objective quality of these games plays a very minor role - all that matters is that they totally dominate their respective roleplaying scene.

And it strongly indicates your point is right, too - a German Dark Eye player or a Polish WFRPG player has no interest in asserting their respective game's superiority over an American or English player's D&D, as it does not impact the dominance of their chosen game in their own roleplaying scene.

It is an interesting idea that what adherents covert is popularity. If you think about the AD&D scene this last ten years it has been the story of rebuilding a community, and it is a community highly interested in bringing in new players. Also worth noting is that these are internet communities, which are macrocosms of the following:

International Gaming Associations
National Gaming Associations
Local Games Clubs
Gaming Groups

I have never been involved with gaming much beyond the local level until I started browsing gaming forums on the internet. It is an interesting virtual society to be sure, and I am certainly less involved here at GitP since D20/4e came out because I have only dabbled in the game. Even before that my interest in D20/3e was in decline as we were constantly retreading the same old terrain, occasionally livened up by a new release.

One difference between the move from AD&D/2e → D20/3e is that AD&D had lost considerable popularity and was in deep decline as a gaming system. D20/3e was in no such morass, so D20/3e → D20/4e has been a troubled birth, not helped by being a radically different game. The online community is also more sophisticated now than a few years ago, and people are clearer about what they want in a game system.

Thinking back to before there was a D20/4e I had no idea that it was going to be the game that was released. I really was expecting a spiffed up D20/3e, and I think a lot of people were. The change was unexpected, and has been controversial.

It is true, though, popularity breeds popularity... up to a point.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-05, 04:15 PM
I've just spotted something weird...

A gaming system becomes better when more people are playing it. This is because you can just start talking and people can understand what you're saying. A bit like survival of the fittest.
This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect).

The More You Know :smallcool:

Totally Guy
2009-06-05, 04:23 PM
This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect).

The More You Know :smallcool:

Cool, the idea relates back to reality. And is applicable to all kinds of stuff!

Like...
Money,
Language,
Systems of Measurements,
Console Wars,
Operating Systems.

Yeah.
People have become very wealth by creating a standard that gets stronger with increased use.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 04:23 PM
THAC0 is actually the problem, in the sense that it creates the idea that you have to convert a +1 bonus to a −1 penalty when applying it to THAC0, when you should not be storing anything under THAC0 at all. It is a misstep that seems simpler in practice, but is actually not. The reason there are less moving parts is because in AD&D many effects are described as imposing a −1 penalty on enemy attack rolls. In D20 you could convert this to +1 AC, in AD&D there is no need to. It is always −1, whether applied to the "to hit" bonus or armour class. Modifying THAC0 makes more work and gives the illusion of more moving parts.

In D20 you might add up a +7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus, to get an overall modifier of −4. In AD&D you would have a −7 armour class bonus and a +3 attack bonus for an overall modifier of −4.


Both are simple formulas. The problem with THAC0 is people trying to look at it from a reasoning standpoint and just saying that AC going down rather than up is stupid.

Both can be expressed in simple math formulas. The thing that trips people up is the simple math including the minus sign. It really makes no sense why the minus sign is a problem, but that is where it boils down to.


Charge? :smallconfused:

Isn't that a power though? How many actions does it take and of what types? What are the rules for impaling? Does it push the opponent?

With all the crazy power, to me, it seems like you don't get a choice in how something works. Flavor text is part of the rules. It is insulting to be thus.

So what happens when a power comes out called "impale"? Everyone that does not have the power can no longer perform this activity?

That is what is insulting. I like coming up with my own choreography for battle, so in 4th wouldn't take any powers as a fighter at all, and just use basic attacks. How would that affect the game and the system requiring to take powers? I prefer it where one cannot argue I cannot do something because I don't have the power that includes that flavor text. :smallyuk:

Given time they will have to make these martial powers up or run out of things and move on to 5th edition because they codified everything and removed the ability to have the players choose something without it being defined by a power.

I prefer Stone to Mud over Fireball ANY day of the week for all the things it can do.

So forcing those powers on someone that doesn't want them...insulting. Fighters cant just hit things without screwing the game up for other players because they are not doing their duty for the group. :smallconfused: And not using the powers means you don't like D&D, because there can be only one D&D. :smallyuk:

Powers System in 4th = insulting.

Oslecamo
2009-06-05, 04:28 PM
This phenomenon is known as the Network Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect).

The More You Know :smallcool:

I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definetely be better.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 04:31 PM
I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definitely be better.

The network effect can be positive as well as negative, apparently, so it does work from even the perspective where the product becomes less useful to some people (network congestion). That, I believe, is also often described as the signal to noise ratio. D20/3e used to have a much higher noise factor, now the question is whether the signal has become more or less discernible.

qcbtnsrm
2009-06-05, 04:36 PM
Now, I'll not assert that these defenses are true here. Is the 4e monster system really so much more elegant and flexible as to justify the reduction in unique monster descriptions? Is the PHB content so much clearer and more streamlined? Maybe, maybe not; I honestly don't have an opinion. My point is just that a direct comparison on word count or number of entries is a terrible metric to use. Take my word for it as a coder: an assertion that some piece of software is better than another because it has more lines of source code, or that a dozen individual explicit descriptions is better than a single framework for generating them all from five-word attribute lists or whatever, is laughable. I think that can be generalized to RPG design: I'm not paying for a number of words or pages or monsters, I'm paying for a well-designed system with creative content.

I agree word count isn't the best metric. But it is a simple one. And best of all it is objective. And it was a type of analysis that I don't ever recall having ever seen before.

And I grant that most of the time a simpler style is better. But only a fairly moderate portion of these books are actually rules. Take again the monster manual, the word count on the stat blocks are very close. By and large the description blocks are longer in 3.5, but not by much and that is made up by the existance of what is nothing more than raw padding in 4.0. Here is the already mentioned Bear Lore:

A character knows the following information with a successful Nature check.
DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves. Cave bears are ferocious predators that make their lairs deep underground and are accustomed to darkenss. Dire bears are savage hunters that east umanoids as readily as game animals.
DC 20: Dire bears typically maul prey with their claws or crush them to death with their thick bestial arms.

And that takes up 16% of the text for that page (page 29).

So I think we can say that the text is hardly ultra-refined prose communicating in the clearest and most concise fashion possible. The way they made up the word count difference was to remove content. Familiars? Gone. Animal companions? Gone. Mounts as a class ability or with associated combat options? Gone. There is roughly a 10 to 1 ratio of "animal" type monsters between the two versions. And the same is true of any class of encounters you want to mention. 4.0 has fewer of every type I've examined. Although admitedly animals were cut more heavily than most.

And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0. But 3.5 covered multiple methods to improve the base creatures including adding templates and advancing by hit die. They also had a nice section on how to create your own unique creatures. This is also missing in 4.0.

So while I accept your point that word count is not the best way to express this. The basic point still stands, there is a lot less "there" there in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-05, 04:38 PM
I disagree. D&D has not gotten better by geting more players.

The more people you have, the more swallow the fluff and rules need to be in order to try to apease everybody. At this pace, soon D&D will follow the path of Warhammer and be nothing more than a shiny board wargame where you only roll dices for battle-stuff. And that will not definetely be better.
You're overstating the Network Effect.
In short, a particular system becomes more "valuable" to an individual when other people (aside from himself) adopt the system as well. All RPGs work this way; the more people who adopt a given system, the larger the potential pool of players - which means a better chance of finding a game.

If you are the only person who plays a game, it isn't a very useful game for you to play, is it?
Also: I'm calling the quoted sentiment "the Indie fallacy" - the more popular the subject, the worse it is :smalltongue:

Matthew
2009-06-05, 04:42 PM
I'm calling the quoted sentiment "the Indie fallacy" - the more popular the subject, the worse it is :smalltongue:

Well... in the case of D20/3e and the OGL there is some truth to network congestion, in the sense that far too much chaff was produced relative to wheat in terms of product. When you have a lot of players using the system a certain way the sheer impetus may cause people to do the same, rather than playing it the way it was intended (or other people think it was). So, the network can actually popularise things that are destructive to subsets of the community.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-05, 04:44 PM
4E got me into this hobby, it was the first one I played and it's relatively simple rules allowed be to enjoy myself during my early apprenticeship.
And for that I am grateful. I don't play it myself because my group doesn't. But one thing the players can't complain about is that it's 'just an update'. It's almost a completely different game even though it uses the same dice, and WoTC should be congratulated for taking that risk. It's trying to appeal to a broader audience and is that so wrong? Do we want this fantastic and imaginative hobby to die out just because a bunch of geeks are too cliquey to share?
I have been playing Pathfinder over a year and I still know beyond little of the ins and outs and cracks and hacks to make a well wrought character.
As hard as it may be for some of you to understand, some of you who have probably been playing longer then I have been born, accessibility can be a good thing. It allows those who would be turned off by a mountain of rules to sit down and play. They may not play well, but they can play.
4E, in my opinion is an attempt to do that.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 04:48 PM
4E got me into this hobby, it was the first one I played and it's relatively simple rules allowed be to enjoy myself during my early apprenticeship.
And for that I am grateful. I don't play it myself because my group doesn't. But one thing the players can't complain about is that it's 'just an update'. It's almost a completely different game even though it uses the same dice, and WoTC should be congratulated for taking that risk. It's trying to appeal to a broader audience and is that so wrong? Do we want this fantastic and imaginative hobby to die out just because a bunch of geeks are too cliquey to share?
I have been playing Pathfinder over a year and I still know beyond little of the ins and outs and cracks and hacks to make a well wrought character.
As hard as it may be for some of you to understand, some of you who have probably been playing longer then I have been born, accessibility can be a good thing. It allows those who would be turned off by a mountain of rules to sit down and play. They may not play well, but they can play.
4E, in my opinion is an attempt to do that.

This relates to the holy grail of rules heavy RPGs, the introductory books/set. One of the ways Classic Dungeons & Dragons was marketed followed this same idea - a gradual introduction and build up of rules. It seems as though it only works once per iteration, though. Once the consumer knows that there are more boxed sets to buy, they are no longer inclined to make the initial investment. It is a tough nut to crack.

Arbitrarity
2009-06-05, 05:21 PM
And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0. But 3.5 covered multiple methods to improve the base creatures including adding templates and advancing by hit die. They also had a nice section on how to create your own unique creatures. This is also missing in 4.0.

So while I accept your point that word count is not the best way to express this. The basic point still stands, there is a lot less "there" there in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5.

Very, very, very untrue. DMG "DM's Toolbox" is basically all of those rules, with templates, information on advancing and reducing the challenge of monsters, building monsters from scratch, and the information is much more succinct and balanced than 3.5's recommendations on creating monsters.

Yakk
2009-06-05, 05:28 PM
Yeah, that is the game's fault for not explaining the whys and wherefores. THAC0 was originally a shorthand in 1e that became prominent in 2e. Prior to that it was just as usual to talk about "fighting ability", which was a number equal to fighter levels.Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos. Ie, a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric.

This is all fuzzy at this point, however.

Xallace
2009-06-05, 05:33 PM
That statement was made in a section of the DMG discussing how the focus should be kept on combat, and how non-combat interaction only detracts from the game. I'm sorry, but isn't that what seperated D&D from the original Chainmail TO BEGIN WITH?

OK, I think I found the part you're referencing?


...Don't make the players spend time discussing which character cooks what for dinner (unless the kind of group you are playing with finds this useful for building characters). Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible.

Was that it? I mean, I could see how this could be interpreted as "RP sucks, fight now!" save for the parenthesis there, but I really don't think that was the intention. I think it's really just saying:

"OK, does anyone have anything to do before we attack the bandit camp?"
"No."
"Not Really."
"Alright. *Ahem* Later that night..."

Y'know?

But anyway, if that's not the part you just say so and I'll see if I can find it. I'd like to read this myself before I start making more statements about possible meaning.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 05:35 PM
Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

In AD&D 1e there are four tables.



There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

No, you are misremembering. The distance between each level of fighter is 1, counting down from 20 to 4 at level 17 (where the chart ends in 1e, but it continues in 2e down to 1 at level 20); you can also do it so that fighting ability increases by "2" at every odd level, for much the same result. Never understood why anybody would want to do that, though.

20|19|18|17|16|15|14|13|12|11|10|09|08|07|06|05|04 (THAC0)
01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17 (Fighter Level)
01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17 (Fighting Ability)



You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

The other three tables are for convenience only. They all map onto the fighter table. So, a level 5 thief fights as though a level 1 fighter, whilst a level 1 thief fights as though a level 0 fighter.



And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos [i.e. a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric].

In second edition magicians and thieves were "bumped up" a category, which occasionally resulted in that, but does not make any difference to calculating their fighting ability.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 05:47 PM
Wait a minute. I remember a table that had your class level in various classes along one axis, a collection of ACs along the other axis, and a to-hit number in the middle of the table.

There was some regularity in the table, not that much. The distance between to-hit numbers changing tended to be 1, but not always. Etc.

You could map this over to fighting ability -- using the table for your class, move over and look at the fighter level that corresponded to it.

But I remember classes would read "uses the to-hit table of Clerics", or something along that line.

And that sometimes one class would pass another, or fall behind, for unknown reasons possibly involving typos. Ie, a level 3 cleric would hit more accurately than a level 3 thief, but a level 6 thief would hit more accurately than a level 6 cleric.

This is all fuzzy at this point, however.

Something like these? Table 1 (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/THAC0.htm), Table 2 (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/THAC02.htm)

Matthew
2009-06-05, 05:56 PM
Something like these? Table 1 (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/THAC0.htm), Table 2 (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/THAC02.htm)

Those tables appear to be in error. According to my PHB, Warrior THAC0 goes down to 1 at 20th level in 2e. Are they taken from the Leomund's Tiny Hut articles in Dragon Magazine for 1e?

Asheram
2009-06-05, 06:10 PM
*coughs* About this Thac0 stuff.
Doesn't all this arguing about it warrant the statement that it really is needlessly complicated?

*puts my two cents over the eyelids of this threads original intent*

Matthew
2009-06-05, 06:12 PM
*coughs* About this Thac0 stuff.
Doesn't all this arguing about it warrant the statement that it really is needlessly complicated?

*puts my two cents over the eyelids of this threads original intent*

Have you seen the two weapon fighting iterative attack threads that used to appear around here (and occasionally still do)? Nah, it is not indicative of anything but a lack of familiarity with the system and hazy recollections of bygone days.

Yakk
2009-06-05, 06:19 PM
Note that the table shows that 1 always misses, even as a level 20 warrior with a THAC0 of 1. (!)

Naw, the table was pre-THAC0. Because if I remember right, the pre-THAC0 table was set up so that to-hit numbers would fall off at a non-uniform rate.

The change to THAC0 (or the pre-THAC0 simplified system) made each point of AC change the to-hit number by 1, which was then turned into the THAC0 trick, which was then formalised in the next version of D&D.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

Ie: THAC0 was simple. Pre-THAC0 D&D was more complicated. 3e "d20 system" was simpler than THAC0, because it removed the "+1 weapon lowers your THAC0 by 1" problem (and while the system was mathematically equivalent, the problem was that you had phrases like "-1 bonus" and "+1 bonus" which arguably meant the same thing when applied to THAC0 -- it was a bonus of size 1, that lowered THAC0 by 1 -- the THAC0 'negatives are good' and 'lower AC is good' ended up tripping over the verbiage of the rest of the system where 'positives are good').

And then you had the +1 modifier to your ability to hit something that wasn't qualified with penalty or bonus. Was it a penalty or a bonus? WTF?

This wasn't an inherit problem with using THAC0 -- but rather a problem with copy-editing and writing about THAC0.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 06:22 PM
Those tables appear to be in error. According to my PHB, Warrior THAC0 goes down to 1 at 20th level in 2e. Are they taken from the Leomund's Tiny Hut articles in Dragon Magazine for 1e?

:smallconfused:


Note: These charts are modified for critical hit/fumbles. Meaning any roll of a 1 will automatically miss and a 20 will automatically hit. Modifiers are only taken into account if any number 2 through 19 is rolled.

I wrote them myself with simple math from the THAC0 per class/level and using the critical miss/hit concepts as noted at the bottom of each page.

:smallconfused:

Was my way of making an attack matrix for 2nd as existed for 1st where people didn't like counting their THAC0 each level.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

THAC0 was reducing the 4 tables of attack matrices into a simple formula to print in the books instead, assuming people could do basic algebra to make their own math work rather than looking things up on the tables that were the attack matrices.

:smallconfused:

Matthew
2009-06-05, 06:26 PM
:smallconfused:

I wrote them myself with simple math from the THAC0 per class/level and using the critical miss/hit concepts as noted at the bottom of each page.

:smallconfused:

Was my way of making an attack matrix for 2nd as existed for 1st where people didn't like counting their THAC0 each level.

That will not work if you want to apply any modifiers, that is the problem. For instance, if an opponent has hit you with a curse spell and you have −1 to hit then you will need to adjust for that against AC 0. The natural 20, natural 1 rule should not be combined with THAC0, in my opinion, it just muddies the water.



Note that the table shows that 1 always misses, even as a level 20 warrior with a THAC0 of 1. (!)

Naw, the table was pre-THAC0. Because if I remember right, the pre-THAC0 table was set up so that to-hit numbers would fall off at a non-uniform rate.

The change to THAC0 (or the pre-THAC0 simplified system) made each point of AC change the to-hit number by 1, which was then turned into the THAC0 trick, which was then formalised in the next version of D&D.

THAC0 itself was a massive simplification of what I remember to be a complicated system.

Ie: THAC0 was simple. Pre-THAC0 D&D was more complicated. 3e "d20 system" was simpler than THAC0, because it removed the "+1 weapon lowers your THAC0 by 1" problem (and while the system was mathematically equivalent, the problem was that you had phrases like "-1 bonus" and "+1 bonus" which arguably meant the same thing when applied to THAC0 -- it was a bonus of size 1, that lowered THAC0 by 1 -- the THAC0 'negatives are good' and 'lower AC is good' ended up tripping over the verbiage of the rest of the system where 'positives are good').

Nope, you are mistaken. I am looking at the 1e DMG right now. It's 1:1 all the way along (or 2:1 if you are using 10% increments at odd levels) as I pointed out above. The only table that prefigures THAC0 is the one from Original Dungeons & Dragons (or maybe Classic Dungeons & Dragons, I haven't looked it over), and that is a completely different kettle of fish.



And then you had the +1 modifier to your ability to hit something that wasn't qualified with penalty or bonus. Was it a penalty or a bonus? WTF?

This wasn't an inherit problem with using THAC0 -- but rather a problem with copy-editing and writing about THAC0.

Do not modify THAC0! That is where the problems of verbiage come in. THAC0 is the target number, all modifiers apply to the dice (or armour class of the opponent). Trying to apply your hit bonus to THAC0 in AD&D creates the same problems as trying to apply your hit bonus to your opponent's AC in D20.

Bassetking
2009-06-05, 06:31 PM
Charge? :smallconfused:

Bullrush? Trip? Disarm? Basic Attack?

There are a ton of non-"Power" attacks available to a fighter.

There are also plenty of At-Will's, which are situationally better than those in almost every way.

You get your choice of two abilities from:

1) Hit an enemy, Enemy next to that target takes Str. mod damage.

2) Guaranteed damage on a miss

3) +2 to hit on this attack

4)Hit, knock them back a space, and you can move into the space they were in.

5) Damage + Con mod.

6) Damage, and gain hit points = to your Con mod.

7) Attack with main hand and off hand weapon

8) Hit 'em, move a square, move the enemy into the square you were just occupying.

So, you can choose any two of those. You can also swap that choice out any time you level, if it turns out that it's not being used as much as you thought it would.

Those are just your at will abilities. These are the things that a fighter can do every round of combat over and over.

So, two At-wills, basic attack, trip, disarm, bullrush, charge.

Seven attacks, all performable any time a fighter chooses.

This doesn't include Encounter powers, Utility powers, Daily powers, or path-based abilities.

This is all at FIRST LEVEL.

How is the 4e fighter worse off in terms of options than the 3.5 fighter, again?

He isn't?

Well, then.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 06:32 PM
That will not work if you want to apply any modifiers, that is the problem. For instance, if an opponent has hit you with a curse spell and you have −1 to hit then you will need to adjust for that against AC 0. The natural 20, natural 1 rule should not be combined with THAC0, in my opinion, it just muddies the water.

Then this (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/Thac0_cal.htm) is used.

The lookup tables just give you the flat amount. Like tax tables. Anything you have to adjust be it THAC0, BAB, whatever you still have to be able to adjust the mod in the proper direction.

Meaning the modifier adjust the die roll in all cases. Depending on the system then still all modifiers are applied to the dice roll and you compare the numbers. BAB the number is the AC, THAC0 the dice roll is compared to THAC0. Both you must roll equal/higher than the "target number".

No matter what game or system you are using you must always know what you are rolling for to determine what the "target number" is to know if you succeed or not in the roll.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 06:36 PM
Then this (http://home.roadrunner.com/~shadzar/DnD/Thac0_cal.htm) is used.

The lookup tables just give you the flat amount. Like tax tables. Anything you have to adjust be it THAC0, BAB, whatever you still have to be able to adjust the mod in the proper direction.

Meaning the modifier adjust the die roll in all cases. Depending on the system then still all modifiers are applied to the dice roll and you compare the numbers. BAB the number is the AC, THAC0 the dice roll is compared to THAC0. Both you must roll equal/higher than the "target number".

No matter what game or system you are using you must always know what you are rolling for to determine what the "target number" is to know if you succeed or not in the roll.

I cannot really see the point in the lookup tables if you are using the calculator. :smallconfused:

Shadowbane
2009-06-05, 06:38 PM
This refers to the paragraph on page 218 of the Player's Handbook, which explicitly states, "Hey, that intelligence of yours? He fights like a dairy farmer".

Also, chocolate.

That made me snicker in real life. Kudos.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people seem to think it insults your intelligence. I really don't understand.

Yakk
2009-06-05, 06:45 PM
Do not modify THAC0! That is where the problems of verbiage come in. THAC0 is the target number, all modifiers apply to the dice (or armour class of the opponent). Trying to apply your hit bonus to THAC0 in AD&D creates the same problems as trying to apply your hit bonus to your opponent's AC in D20.
If you didn't motify THAC0 it wasn't that useful.

If you applied your strength modifier to your THAC0 and your magic weapon modifier to your THAC0, you reduce the math required to determine a hit to a single addition (or subtraction) of a single number.

Of course, you could do:
d20 + opponents AC + your to-hit bonuses
and see if it matched your THAC0. But that slowed the hit calculation down. :)

shadzar
2009-06-05, 06:46 PM
I cannot really see the point in the lookup tables if you are using the calculator. :smallconfused:

You mentioned modifiers. The tables do not include any modifiers. You would have to know where to ad modifiers for any system. The tables just replace having to actually work out each level of play for THAC0. I reversed the process from 1st to 2nd by creating the tables, where 2nd reduced the tables to a simple formula.

Take 3.x and make a table for an attack matrix. It would be the same thing. It only tells you the info needed based on BAB and AC. You would still need to know how to add the modifiers to work with the die roll. Penalties takes away from the die roll, and bonuses add to the die roll. Same with 2nd and THAC0, same with 1st and the attack matrices.

It is all the same info, just written differently.

Compare a dice roll to a needed number. Adjust dice roll by any modifiers before comparing.

That is it in each and every system. The difference moving to 3rd+ editions is there is no ceiling to AC. Wherein 2nd and before had a limited AC range for everything.

The calculator just helps you figure out how to adjust the dice roll for your modifiers, and has less modifiers than you would have in 3rd+ editions because of the maximum number of pluses you can get from things.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 06:51 PM
If you didn't motify THAC0 it wasn't that useful.

If you applied your strength modifier to your THAC0 and your magic weapon modifier to your THAC0, you reduce the math required to determine a hit to a single addition (or subtraction) of a single number.

Of course, you could do:
d20 + opponents AC + your to-hit bonuses
and see if it matched your THAC0. But that slowed the hit calculation down. :)

Nah, you apply all modifiers separately to avoid confusion. There is no speed difference in rolling a die and adding a modifier, but it depends how you do the actual in play event. I have heard of people saying stuff like "I hit AC 3", or something along those lines, instead of calling out their roll, in which case the calculation would need to be done before hand.

However, it can also work like this


Target Number = 21 (always)

Player: Rolls Dice, adds fighting ability and any other modifiers
Game Master: Adds armour class of target to the total, if it equals or exceeds 21 it is a hit.

The player can always know what AC he hits this way as well, of course [e.g. "19 isn't a hit? God damn, this thing has better than AC 2!"].

Alternatively, THAC0 eliminates fighting ability and becomes the target number, but all the player needs to do then is:



Target Number = THAC0

Player: Rolls dice and adds modifiers
Game master: Adds armour class of target and checks target number.

There is no difference in the second case, except transparency of the maths for the player [e.g. "15 isn't a hit? Hmmn, what's my THAC0 again? Oh yeah, 13, so it has better than AC −2?"]. However, the game master needs to have the unmodified THAC0 of all combatants written down in addition to their attack roll modifiers.



You mentioned modifiers. The tables do not include any modifiers. You would have to know where to ad modifiers for any system. The tables just replace having to actually work out each level of play for THAC0. I reversed the process from 1st to 2nd by creating the tables, where 2nd reduced the tables to a simple formula.

Take 3.x and make a table for an attack matrix. It would be the same thing. It only tells you the info needed based on BAB and AC. You would still need to know how to add the modifiers to work with the die roll. Penalties takes away from the die roll, and bonuses add to the die roll. Same with 2nd and THAC0, same with 1st and the attack matrices.

It is all the same info, just written differently.

Compare a dice roll to a needed number. Adjust dice roll by any modifiers before comparing.

That is it in each and every system. The difference moving to 3rd+ editions is there is no ceiling to AC. Wherein 2nd and before had a limited AC range for everything.

The calculator just helps you figure out how to adjust the dice roll for your modifiers, and has less modifiers than you would have in 3rd+ editions because of the maximum number of pluses you can get from things.

Right, but your tables are not usable with modifiers, which is why I was confused about what you were doing. I am still not clear on the point of your tables beyond showing the maths for an unmodified attack roll, but since you explained my original confusion, I am not really that worried about it.

shadzar
2009-06-05, 07:03 PM
I am still not clear on the point of your tables beyond showing the maths for an unmodified attack roll

Print the thing out and use it rather than the formula to see the THAC0 for any player all at once.

No need for the player to know the AC, and no need for the DM to look up or count up the THAC0 of each PC when needed. Just level and class group and then let the player add any modifiers to the die roll and look it up on that sheet real quick. :smallwink:

Monster AC = 5, Rogue Level 7 got a modified roll of 12....

Go to Rogue table. Choose AC 5 and Level 7....Rogue hits target! Tell player to roll for damage.

Never again need to work up each PC versus differing monster, just look it up on the table.

That is why I made the tables. :smallsmile:

Decoy Lockbox
2009-06-05, 08:28 PM
Minimus is the simplest game system I have ever played (or seen). The rules fit on 2 sheets of paper. Does Minimus insult my intelligence? No, it provides a system for an ultra rules light gaming experience. I'm playing in a Miminus campaign right now and it is going swimmingly well.

Based on my experience playing all four editions of D&D (1e/2e AD&D, 3e/3.5, 4e), 4th edition is indeed the simplest of all of them (as well as the best balanced, by far). I like my games to a bit rules-heavy, but balanced, and 4e delivers on both of those fronts. It gives me fantasy roleplay experience combined with a balanced, tactical combat resolution system; that's all I ever wanted out of D&D. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Does it insult my intelligence? No.

Thane of Fife
2009-06-05, 09:00 PM
Do not modify THAC0! That is where the problems of verbiage come in. THAC0 is the target number, all modifiers apply to the dice (or armour class of the opponent). Trying to apply your hit bonus to THAC0 in AD&D creates the same problems as trying to apply your hit bonus to your opponent's AC in D20.

There are, in fact, some things which explicitly modify THAC0, such as the Weapons vs Armor Table.

Personally, I've always just used Roll higher than THAC0 - Armor Class, but there are many ways to do it. Really, though, I taught myself to play from a D&D introductory box when I was 5, and it used THAC0, so it certainly isn't anywhere near as incomprehensible as some people make it out to be.

Matthew
2009-06-05, 09:25 PM
There are, in fact, some things which explicitly modify THAC0, such as the Weapons vs Armor Table.

Personally, I've always just used Roll higher than THAC0 - Armor Class, but there are many ways to do it. Really, though, I taught myself to play from a D&D introductory box when I was 5, and it used THAC0, so it certainly isn't anywhere near as incomprehensible as some people make it out to be.

The second edition one? Yeah, I think that optional rule is about the only instance. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the diversity of methods of calculation are in fact what leads people to believe it is "counter intuitive". Indeed, THAC0 could stand for the entire second edition game in that respect.

warrl
2009-06-05, 10:42 PM
Also, it opens up the game to todays audience, some of whom are not giant nerds who crunch numbers in their spare time.
I disagree with this characterization. I'm in a large (typically 10-12 people) D&D3.5 game where the youngest player is probably over 25, and most of the players have been in *this game* for more than four years. In short, they aren't kids or beginners; I'd say all are at least decent players. Two or three of them have to grab a calculator to add a base score and two dice.

warrl
2009-06-05, 11:06 PM
The Fighter's mark is essentially a challenge on the monster to fight him rather than to stab the rogue pointing his dagger at its kidney. He's harrying the monster constantly, keeping it from moving away or fight anyone but himself.
I think that's the idea, but what I immediately saw was the opposite: mark an opposing fighter, then stay away from him and let the rest of the party handle him

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 02:02 AM
I think that's the idea, but what I immediately saw was the opposite: mark an opposing fighter, then stay away from him and let the rest of the party handle him

That doesn't work. A fighter's mark only lasts until the end of the fighter's next turn. Most defender's marks requires the defender to keep focusing on that particular enemy. The only exception is the swordmage.

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 02:12 AM
Well here is a different take on the OP. And one of the things I first noticed when I got the 4.0 rules.

Price:
3.5 was $30 a book. $90 total.
4.0 is $40 a book. $120 total.
A 33% increase in price.
Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa-- That's $35 per book (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217367200) (unless you're Canadian, which judging by your price of 3.5 books, not so). The only 4e books going for $40 are supplements meant for GMs, like the campaign guides, and the Draconomicon.


Content:
3.5 was 969,987 words long including all three books.
4.0 is 537,300 words long including all three books.
A 45% reduction in content.




*snip*
So while I accept your point that word count is not the best way to express this. The basic point still stands, there is a lot less "there" there in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5.

Okay, so we come to my main argument about content. Now MM being kinda sparse on info is a valid point (though as a DM I kinda like it, but that's for another thread). Removing content like familiars? While they were nice, they had issues that needed working (though the majority of mounted combat rules are in the DMG), so it's understandable they weren't in there from the beginning, and being a completely new edition I can't agree that it's a valid point from a content view.

But back to my main argument on content, well here's percentages:
AD&D: 47 out of 126 pages, 45.24%
2nd Ed. AD&D: 105 out of 255 pages, 41.18%
Revised 2nd Ed. AD&D: 122 out of 320 pages, 38.13%
3.5 D&D: 122 out of 319 pages, 38.24%

What are these pages? Pages that detail spells! In every iteration of AD&D before 4e, nearly half the book catered to caster classes. Holy crap. I mean from one standpoint, yes I can understand why this needs to be done, having a loose interpretive magic system doesn't work well with D&D (and was probably a nearly unfathomable idea in the early days of tabletop gaming). Still, that's quite a bit dedicated to only half the classes.

If we compare this to pages devoted to powers, we get about 95 of 319 pages (29.78%). More importantly, these are for all classes, not just casters.


And those rules you want about adapting and modifying the base creatures? They are curiously absent from 4.0.
Someone already pointed this out, but seriously *facepalm*

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 02:14 AM
(Since this addresses players in general, I thought this deserves it's own post).


Material:
This is a bit more subjective. The 4.0 books are made of a lower quality paper and ink. Even a full year after I purchased my books the ink still smuges easily. This was a problem I never had with 3.5. Also within my group within 1 month of play we had three broken bindings between about 15 books total. That excedes the 3.5 binding problems for 5+ years for the same group.

Okay, really, do I like treat my books delicately? 'Cause I've had almost no problems with my books. In fact, I think I only have two ink smudges in my DMG, and I keep my PHB in my backpack at most times and at worst the corners of the covers are worn. And I'd like to say it's just me, but I don't know any other players whose 4e books are falling apart.

Yeah, 3.X books have sturdier pages, but 2nd ed. books were printed on what seems like paper flimsier than 4e pages, so all I can say to everyone is please, please, take better care of your books.

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 02:28 AM
Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa-- That's $35 per book (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217367200) (unless you're Canadian, which judging by your price of 3.5 books, not so). The only 4e books going for $40 are supplements meant for GMs, like the campaign guides, and the Draconomicon.



You guys are crazy. I have no idea where you people are getting your books but Amazon and Indigo sells them for about 25 cdn and you can get the core set of 3 for less than 80 (before tax and shipping).

PHB (http://www.amazon.ca/Players-Handbook-4th-Core-Rulebook/dp/0786948671/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244273270&sr=8-5)

3 book core set (http://www.amazon.ca/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Collection/dp/0786950633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244273270&sr=8-1)

hamishspence
2009-06-06, 03:58 AM
Things being moved out of core 3 books , rather than thrown out entirely, is what I noticed about 4th ed- Martial Power has Animal Companions, Arcane Power has Familars, Illusions, Summoned Monsters, Adventurers Vault has a list of Mounts, and several of the weapons left out of PHB.

Now, this may be irritating if you wanted everything put in the first 3 books, but its not a complete disaster.

There is quite a lot of material for customizing monsters- DMG character classes, templates, etc.

The lack of animal statblocks is a bit more irritating.

The New Bruceski
2009-06-06, 04:11 AM
(Since this addresses players in general, I thought this deserves it's own post).



Okay, really, do I like treat my books delicately? 'Cause I've had almost no problems with my books. In fact, I think I only have two ink smudges in my DMG, and I keep my PHB in my backpack at most times and at worst the corners of the covers are worn. And I'd like to say it's just me, but I don't know any other players whose 4e books are falling apart.

Yeah, 3.X books have sturdier pages, but 2nd ed. books were printed on what seems like paper flimsier than 4e pages, so all I can say to everyone is please, please, take better care of your books.


Seconded. When people started complaining about this I TRIED to smudge my pages, and couldn't do it. And I have oily skin, so it should be easy.

hamishspence
2009-06-06, 04:15 AM
I noticed it first with Keep on the Shadowfell (fingerprints appeared on the cover and back page within moments) so I handled all other books with extreme caution and have had no problems since.

Binding is more my problem (and it goes right back into 3.5) The covers of some books are poorly bound- with pages connecting to spine, in back of book, frequently being loose.

Which again, means handle with extreme caution to avoid loosening it further.

Talic
2009-06-06, 04:36 AM
Reasons THAC0 was nonintuitive.

It was additive, rather than opposing. In other words, you added your opponent's AC to your attack roll. This essentially AC into more or less, a bonus/penalty to hit... And your skill as the goal. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

After all, the Armor Class, your opponent's defenses, are the obstacle. They're what you're trying to overcome. In the Thac0 system, you were trying to overcome your skill.

Contrast to 3.X, where Armor Class isn't a modifier, it's the final goal. In other words, it bases your hit ability around a single Armor Class, which is actually fairly rare. You needed to derive your actual success based on how hard it was to hit that one.

Now add in that armor that improved your AC by four lowered it, even while you added your AC to that attack roll. Magic swords also lowered your THAC0, but, due to the convoluted way it was set up, lowering your Thac0 makes it easier to hit, and lowering your AC makes it harder.

In other words, bonuses to hit modified the final difficulty, not the attack.

It's like saying that the wall is actually physically weaker because a master sniper is shooting at it... In the Thac0 system, you were modifying the target number, not your attack.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 04:42 AM
Reasons THAC0 was nonintuitive.

It was additive, rather than opposing. In other words, you added your opponent's AC to your attack roll. This essentially AC into more or less, a bonus/penalty to hit... And your skill as the goal. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

After all, the Armor Class, your opponent's defenses, are the obstacle. They're what you're trying to overcome. In the Thac0 system, you were trying to overcome your skill.

Not really, it is equally "correct" or logical to think of an opponent's armour class as a modifier to your difficulty to hit.



Contrast to 3.X, where Armor Class isn't a modifier, it's the final goal. In other words, it bases your hit ability around a single Armor Class, which is actually fairly rare. You needed to derive your actual success based on how hard it was to hit that one.

Now add in that armor that improved your AC by four lowered it, even while you added your AC to that attack roll. Magic swords also lowered your THAC0, but, due to the convoluted way it was set up, lowering your Thac0 makes it easier to hit, and lowering your AC makes it harder.

In other words, bonuses to hit modified the final difficulty, not the attack.

It's like saying that the wall is actually physically weaker because a master sniper is shooting at it... In the Thac0 system, you were modifying the target number, not your attack.

You are doing it wrong. :smallwink:

Talic
2009-06-06, 04:47 AM
Not really, it is equally "correct" to think of an opponent's armour class as a modifier to your difficulty to hit.And the Skill as the final goal? No thank you, argue all you like, it's not intuitive to ADD your opponent's AC to your attack. This lends to the notion that it's HELPING you hit.
It would be more intuitive (and complex) if it SUBTRACTED from your attack roll, but an AC that scales positive and negative is inherently more complex than one that starts at 0, and goes up. (or down)

The basic, simple undeniable fact is that subtracting negative numbers is more complex than adding positive ones.


You are doing it wrong. :smallwink:
Thank you. Thank you very much. When I wrote my statement, my entire intent was to solicit a contrary view that was smug, and yet so frustratingly abstract and vague, as to have no practical application.

If you wish to say I'm doing it wrong, the constructive action is to explain how it's being done wrong... what is being done wrong... and what is the correct way.

But just doing as you did? Comes off as "I know something you don't know..."

And thus, I react to the pretentious statement.

Gorbash
2009-06-06, 04:51 AM
Again, I'm not looking for edition wars, just some concrete (page numbers please?) examples of how the game 'treats players like morons'.

I got that impresison when I started reading entries for races where they state something like this (for a tiefling):

If you want to play a dark, brooding character with inner darkness, play a tiefling.

And I know that's just a suggestion, but why is it there in the first place? People can't decide for themselves what characters they want to play? Not to mention, they're using the lamest tiefling stereotype, emo goth boys.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 04:55 AM
okay no offence guys but this is a thread about whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. not how intuitive or otherwise THACO is. however to offer my personal opinion it doesn't make much sense.

now I did not get the feeling 4th edition insulted my intelligence. I got the feeling it was simple and would be much easier to teach to the only people who would be capable of playing D&D with me at the time. my cousins who are all twelve and under.

about the part where it says "say yes." to me what that is saying is don't restrict your campaign. I will still exercise my right to homerule my campaign whether WOTC wants me to or not. I haven't read the entire DMG but I didn't see where they were saying people who played 3.5 were idiots, playing it badly or otherwise. maybe they did in which case they're kind of stupid for a company that's trying to stay in business.

and also I liked how this game was more balanced while 3.0 the wizard will kill you in one round with moves like nail to the sky.

hamishspence
2009-06-06, 04:59 AM
some of the comments in promotional material (Races and Classes, Worlds and Monsters) could be taken as condescending- "when was the last time you used Profession in your game"

But I think it was intended to stress that, in their view, you are supposed to be adventurers first and foremost, not businessmen.

Talic
2009-06-06, 05:01 AM
okay no offence guys but this is a thread about whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. not how intuitive or otherwise THACO is. however to offer my personal opinion it doesn't make much sense.And differences between systems lie at the core of that question. Thus, similar issues that happened in previous edition changes have merit and relevance.


now I did not get the feeling 4th edition insulted my intelligence. I got the feeling it was simple and would be much easier to teach to the only people who would be capable of playing D&D with me at the time. my cousins who are all twelve and under.And Fisher Price takes the same approach to teaching colors and shapes to toddlers. See the comparison?


about the part where it says "say yes." to me what that is saying is don't restrict your campaign. I will still exercise my right to homerule my campaign whether WOTC wants me to or not. I haven't read the entire DMG but I didn't see where they were saying people who played 3.5 were idiots, playing it badly or otherwise. maybe they did in which case they're kind of stupid for a company that's trying to stay in business.There are a lot of companies that aim for one goal (such as simplicity), and end up with another (such as people who read it feel like it's marketed at 9 year olds). And houserule all you want. But houserule isn't what's on discussion here. The books are.


and also I liked how this game was more balanced while 3.0 the wizard will kill you in one round with moves like nail to the sky.You didn't get that particular ability until about 30 splatbooks into 3.x. Give it time.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 05:03 AM
some of the comments in promotional material (Races and Classes, Worlds and Monsters) could be taken as condescending- "when was the last time you used Profession in your game"

But I think it was intended to stress that, in their view, you are supposed to be adventurers first and foremost, not businessmen.

yeah I have noticed that. on the bright side no players ruining social encounters:smallbiggrin: but seriously. no diplomatic encounters? while the point in my opinion shouldn't entirely focus on that not having it at all would be kind of boring. I guess that's what makes people claim it's an MMORPG. and if that's the way you're playing the game I agree. heck I'd rather just play silk road if that's the case. I come to D&D to play D&D not an MMORPG.

Yora
2009-06-06, 05:08 AM
I got that impresison when I started reading entries for races where they state something like this (for a tiefling):

If you want to play a dark, brooding character with inner darkness, play a tiefling.

And I know that's just a suggestion, but why is it there in the first place? People can't decide for themselves what characters they want to play? Not to mention, they're using the lamest tiefling stereotype, emo goth boys.
It's the way they decided to approach their audience.
And it just doesn't appeal to me, and doesn't make me feel like a potential customer for that product.

I think it comes down do that for most people.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 05:10 AM
And differences between systems lie at the core of that question. Thus, similar issues that happened in previous edition changes have merit and relevance.

except you're not comparing it to 4.0 or answering the question. you're in a debate about THACO and ONLY THACO which is not relevant to whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. only about whether THACO is intuitive or not.


And Fisher Price takes the same approach to teaching colors and shapes to toddlers. See the comparison?

yes I can see the comparison. in my humble opinion they're trying to target a larger fanbase. I dare you to try to teach 3.5 to my eight year old cousin Charlie. oh and if you ever insult him during the process believe me. he will go insane and kill you.


There are a lot of companies that aim for one goal (such as simplicity), and end up with another (such as people who read it feel like it's marketed at 9 year olds). And houserule all you want. But houserule isn't what's on discussion here. The books are.

yes and a point earlier on was that the books seemed to discourage houseruling so my point is still valid. and I agree with your first point. however simplicity can tend to do that. you can play monopoly and easily feel like you're playing a game made for eight year olds or you can play monopoly and have fun doing it rather than complaining about the simplicity making you feel like an eight year old.


You didn't get that particular ability until about 30 splatbooks into 3.x. Give it time. the spell itself isn't my point. it's how Wizards have spells that kill every other class as soon as they hit them with said spells.

Talic
2009-06-06, 05:18 AM
the spell itself isn't my point. it's how Wizards have spells that kill every other class as soon as they hit them with spells.

What was that 4.0 Ranger trick that gave them hundreds of attacks?

Yes, it got errata'd, but as long as an increasing number of books come out, there will be imbalances. Touting 4E as more balanced is like saying an infant's soul is more pure than the soul of a 40 year old man.

Maybe, but it hasn't had time do develop, so it's not particularly relevant.

It's easier to balance 5 things, than 5,000.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 05:23 AM
What was that 4.0 Ranger trick that gave them hundreds of attacks?

Yes, it got errata'd, but as long as an increasing number of books come out, there will be imbalances. Touting 4E as more balanced is like saying an infant's soul is more pure than the soul of a 40 year old man.

Maybe, but it hasn't had time do develop, so it's not particularly relevant.

It's easier to balance 5 things, than 5,000.

then don't make 5,000:smallwink::smalltongue:

and I have no clue but there's also a trick that makes demigods unbeatable if they hit with a vorpal weapon and have the "reroll attack" encounter power as their last remaining encounter power. that's why I'm banning that from my eventual campaign.

Talic
2009-06-06, 05:43 AM
then don't make 5,000:smallwink::smalltongue:

and I have no clue but there's also a trick that makes demigods unbeatable if they hit with a vorpal weapon and have the "reroll attack" encounter power as their last remaining encounter power. that's why I'm banning that from my eventual campaign.

Banning imbalances does not mean the game's balanced. If Rule 0 must be invoked to preserve balance, the game isn't.

As for not making new material? I have a feeling that conflicts with WotC's business model. :smallamused::smallwink:

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 05:47 AM
what are these rules people keep mentioning exactly? my google-fu is underdeveloped due to the fact I'm afraid I'll find a porn site by accident.

and sometimes the game is imbalanced because something can be used in a way it wasn't intended ot be used. or most LIKELY wasn't intended to be used.

and I'm aware it conflicts with their business model and that it's impossible to balance two thousand different classes, feats and powers. it is possible to make them REASONABLY balanced though.

and even if 4th isn't COMPLETELY balanced you ahve to admit it's more balanced than 3.5

Yora
2009-06-06, 05:49 AM
In all my years on the net, it happened extremely rarely, that I ended up on a NSFW site by googling. ^^

And balance isn't everything. To me, an interesting game has to be unbalanced! If everyone can do the same things equally well, it's just boring. Being good at widely different things is actually quite important to me.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-06, 05:50 AM
yeah I doubt it will either but people put some STRANGE things up.

and we're getting off track AGAIN so somebody PM me a link to these rules and get back to the topic at hand. whether 4.0 insults our intelligence.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 06:14 AM
And the Skill as the final goal? No thank you, argue all you like, it's not intuitive to ADD your opponent's AC to your attack. This lends to the notion that it's HELPING you hit.

It would be more intuitive (and complex) if it SUBTRACTED from your attack roll, but an AC that scales positive and negative is inherently more complex than one that starts at 0, and goes up. (or down)

The basic, simple undeniable fact is that subtracting negative numbers is more complex than adding positive ones.

Again, you are thinking about it wrong. If you set up your preconceptions so that "armour class is the difficulty" then you are misunderstanding the way it works (and the reason why it works the way it does); armour class modifies a set difficulty, and there is nothing unintuitive about that.



Thank you. Thank you very much. When I wrote my statement, my entire intent was to solicit a contrary view that was smug, and yet so frustratingly abstract and vague, as to have no practical application.

You are welcome; since you apparently paid no attention to the earlier discussion it seemed the appropriate response.



If you wish to say I'm doing it wrong, the constructive action is to explain how it's being done wrong... what is being done wrong... and what is the correct way.

But just doing as you did? Comes off as "I know something you don't know..."

And thus, I react to the pretentious statement.

Do not not modify THAC0. That is why virtually everything is expressed as a modifier to the attack roll and not THAC0. The modifier is always the same [e.g. positive or negative], and that is why THAC0 works the way it does. Trying to modify THAC0 in AD&D is like trying to modify your opponent's armour class by your attack bonus in D20/3e.



Except you're not comparing it to 4.0 or answering the question. you're in a debate about THACO and ONLY THACO which is not relevant to whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. Only about whether THACO is intuitive or not.

Right, and this came up because somebody was using THAC0 as an example of an unintuitive overcomplicated rule that needed to be dropped so that the game was more understandable. Of course, the issue with that is the person did not understand the purpose of THAC0 in the first place, which is our analogue here to D20/4e. That is to say, D20/4e is designed to meet different goals than D20/3e. When people complain that it insults their intelligence (or is more like World of Warcraft or whatever else) they are typically missing (or ignoring) the point of the system. It is one thing to dislike the simplicity of D20/4e, it is another to find it insulting.

Talic
2009-06-06, 06:17 AM
what are these rules people keep mentioning exactly? my google-fu is underdeveloped due to the fact I'm afraid I'll find a porn site by accident.

and sometimes the game is imbalanced because something can be used in a way it wasn't intended ot be used. or most LIKELY wasn't intended to be used.

and I'm aware it conflicts with their business model and that it's impossible to balance two thousand different classes, feats and powers. it is possible to make them REASONABLY balanced though.

and even if 4th isn't COMPLETELY balanced you ahve to admit it's more balanced than 3.5

No. I don't. 4E is so newly developed that it's not a fair comparison. Your argument is akin to saying that a stick figure is better than a feature length animated movie, because the movie has a 100 errors, and the stick only 2. Complexity does that.

When you have 1,000,000 distinct pieces of information, cross referencing them is infinitely more complex than when you have a handful of shoddily made books, at 25% more cost, with 45% less material.

So it's not remotely a fair comparison, on the grounds that it's so much easier to balance a game where every single character does pretty much the same thing in slightly different ways, and each race is pigeonholed into narrow-minded stereotypes on how you should act if you are one.

That's another thing. Their broad-stroke depiction of races such as tiefling basically instructs people to play attitudes based on race. 3.0 kept most of that on the DM-side of the screen, but in 4.0? They're throwing that racial garbage right up into the player's side of the house. No. Tieflings are dark and brooding because of their race, not because of any actual roleplay issues that might actually make a game interest.

So burning creativity to further balance?
Furthering racial profiling over character development and roleplay?

That may be your D&D. It ain't mine.

Talic
2009-06-06, 06:35 AM
Again, you are thinking about it wrong. If you set up your preconceptions so that "armour class is the difficulty" then you are misunderstanding the way it works (and the reason why it works the way it does); armour class modifies a set difficulty, and there is nothing unintuitive about that.No, I'm not. It can be phrased a hundred different ways. But if it's so easy to confuse that it merits explaining 30 times?

THAT MEANS IT IS NOT INTUITIVE.

Why? Because if it was, it would be less complex to follow. 3.x requires very little other than basic math skills.
2e required algebra. Why? Because the AC isn't typically known, so you have to change around the printed formulas to solve for AC. At this point, it ceases to be simple, and ceases to be intuitive... and starts being homework.


Your welcome, since you apparently paid no attention to the earlier discussion it seemed the appropriate response.I'd like to refer you to the forum's posting guidelines. Specifically the section on implying that others didn't read what you wrote. Please and thank you.


Do not not modify THAC0. That's why virtually everything is expressed as a modifier to the attack roll and not THAC0. The modifier is always the same, and that is why THAC0 works the way it does. Trying to modify THAC0 in AD&D is like trying to modify your opponent's armour class by your Attack Bonus in D20/3e.
When Thac0 is the known variable, and AC is not, then you must solve for AC. NOT THAC0. This means the equation must be shifted in such a factor that the final result is the AC that you hit. And Thac0 becomes one more modifier. And it's a modifier that you have to compare to a random roll to figure out exactly what it is. Disagree all you like. But the fact of the matter is, the math level needed to easily calculate what you are saying disagrees with you.

Instead, 3.x designed everything from the get-go to be all centered towards simple, lightweight, no conversion needed, that allowed people that did not know the AC of the target to figure out how well they hit. No muss. No fuss.

Really. If 2e got rid of negative integers, switched AC to a positive number that represented the difficulty to hit a target, and provided ability to attack a target that scaled upward to represent increasing skill, then it would seem intuitive to me.

Odd, I think I just described the 3.x system.

As for 4e? They'll do a lot better with me if they don't tell me how to play my tieflings.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 06:46 AM
No, I'm not. It can be phrased a hundred different ways. But if it's so easy to confuse that it merits explaining 30 times?

THAT MEANS IT IS NOT INTUITIVE.

Why? Because if it was, it would be less complex to follow. 3.x requires very little other than basic math skills.

2e required algebra. Why? Because the AC isn't typically known, so you have to change around the printed formulas to solve for AC. At this point, it ceases to be simple, and ceases to be intuitive... and starts being homework.

There is no algebra involved in THAC0. It works like this:

Roll dice, add modifiers, add armour class of target = THAC0?

What you are describing is the process by which a player works out his opponent's AC, not the process by which a hit is determined.



I'd like to refer you to the forum's posting guidelines. Specifically the section on implying that others didn't read what you wrote. Please and thank you.

If you feel that the forum rules have been broken, report the post. By informing me of the forum rules you are also contravening them (which I am now also doing by informing you; yes it is a vicious circle). As it goes, I was trying to answer your question as to why I did not explain how you were "doing it wrong", that is to say because I had already done so. It was not intended as a rhetorical trick or a veiled insult.

If you in fact did read the explanation and simply disagreed with it, then I cannot fathom why you did not address it when you felt the need to present your analysis. Restating opinions already expressed without reference to their counter arguments is bound to irritate. :smallwink:



When Thac0 is the known variable, and AC is not, then you must solve for AC. NOT THAC0. This means the equation must be shifted in such a factor that the final result is the AC that you hit. And Thac0 becomes one more modifier. And it's a modifier that you have to compare to a random roll to figure out exactly what it is. Disagree all you like. But the fact of the matter is, the math level needed to easily calculate what you are saying disagrees with you.

Instead, 3.x designed everything from the get-go to be all centered towards simple, lightweight, no conversion needed, that allowed people that did not know the AC of the target to figure out how well they hit. No muss. No fuss.

Really. If 2e got rid of negative integers, switched AC to a positive number that represented the difficulty to hit a target, and provided ability to attack a target that scaled upward to represent increasing skill, then it would seem intuitive to me.

Odd, I think I just described the 3.x system.

As for 4e? They'll do a lot better with me if they don't tell me how to play my tieflings.

The AD&D system is set up to use THAC0, and it is perfectly intuitive. For instance, if a character is under the effects of a prayer spell he receives an effective −1 modifier to armour class, which is expressed as a modifier for his opponent to hit him of −1. There is no conversion needed, but if you try to use a rule for a purpose for which it was not designed (such as converting it to +1 to THAC0), then you will of course find it unintuitive.

This is a microcosm of the larger problem in this thread. D20/4e no more insults your intelligence than Monopoly, Zombies! or, indeed, D20/3e. It is simpler. It was designed that way to cut down on preparation time and the amount of investment required to understand the rule set. If you do not like it, that is fine, continue playing D20/3e. If Wizards of the Coast told you that D20/4e is more difficult and involved than D20/3e, then that would be an insult to your intelligence.

bosssmiley
2009-06-06, 07:14 AM
Mid 2009, and they're still arguing over THAC0. :smallamused:

D&D, it really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 07:17 AM
Mid 2009, and they're still arguing over THAC0. :smallamused:

D&D, it really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course. Strangely these arguments almost never come up in AD&D forums (where you would think there would be an interest in adopting a more intuitive rule)... just places where the need is felt to justify the change. :smallbiggrin:

Talic
2009-06-06, 07:40 AM
Roll dice, add modifiers, add armour class of target = THAC0?

What you are describing is the process by which a player works out his opponent's AC, not the process by which a hit is determined. Wrong. I'm describing the process by which a player determines what AC he hit.

1d20 + Modifer(X) +AC(Y) = Z.
Hm. I don't know Y. So, I have to Solve for what AC I hit. Whether that's AC 2 or AC -9 is irrelevant. As is the actual AC of the target. What you are trying to do is be able to tell the DM "I hit AC -3." Because "I rolled a 13" has no meaning. None. Not until you deduce what that 13 MEANS. And, if you have to solve an equation to find out what you hit?

That's Algebra.


If you feel that the forum rules have been broken, report the post. By informing me of the forum rules you are also contravening them (which I am now also doing by informing you; yes it is a vicious circle). As it goes, I was trying to answer your question as to why I did not explain how you were "doing it wrong", that is to say because I had already done so. It was not intended as a rhetorical trick or a veiled insult.Here's a link to the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), again. I'd really rather stay off this topic, if it's all the same to you. I personally find reporting posts distasteful, and prefer to keep things friendly, if at all possible.


If you in fact did read the explanation and simply disagreed with it, then I cannot fathom why you did not address it when you felt the need to present your analysis. Restating opinions already expressed without reference to their counter arguments is bound to irritate.You, perhaps. But if those counterarguments were not stated clearly, were wrong, or made little sense, then I will not speak to their veracity. Make one that is true, and I'll include it.

The AD&D system is set up to use THAC0, and it is perfectly intuitive. For instance, if a character is under the effects of a prayer spell he receives an effective −1 modifier to armour class, which is expressed as a modifier for his opponent to hit him of −1. There is no conversion needed, but if you try to use a rule for a purpose for which it was not designed, then you will of course find it unintuitive.The fact that you've spent more than one page in this debate with more than one person suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you would lead us to believe. The fact that it is very widely viewed as a bulky, unwieldy, counterintuitive system, with only a small following suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you'd like us to believe. If a system that scales from positive to negative, starting at an arbitrary 10, and dealing with negative improvement, that deals less with what you have, and more with what you need; if that seems like it makes sense to you?

Congratulations. But don't suggest that it's intuitive when most of the people that see it need it explained a half a dozen times to grasp it, and are then left scratching their heads as to WHY.


This is a microcosm of the larger problem in this thread. D20/4e no more insults your intelligence than Monopoly, Zombies! or, indeed, D20/3e. It is simpler. It was designed that way to cut down on preparation time and the amount of investment required to understand the rule set. If you do not like it, that is fine, continue playing D20/3e. If Wizards of the Coast told you that D20/4e is more difficult and involved than D20/3e, then that would be an insult to your intelligence.
No, if they said that Tieflings in D20/4e should be played as dark brooding angsty loners, and that all classes should have the exact same mechanics and little ability variation, THAT would be an insult to my intelligence.

Oh wait. They DID do that.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 07:47 AM
Wrong. I'm describing the process by which a player determines what AC he hit.

1d20 + Modifer(X) +AC(Y) = Z.
Hm. I don't know Y. So, I have to Solve for what AC I hit. Whether that's AC 2 or AC -9 is irrelevant. As is the actual AC of the target. What you are trying to do is be able to tell the DM "I hit AC -3." Because "I rolled a 13" has no meaning. None. Not until you deduce what that 13 MEANS. And, if you have to solve an equation to find out what you hit?

That's Algebra.

Right, and that is a difference in process for what THAC0 is designed to do. It is not designed so that the player determines what AC he has hit. It is designed so that the game master knows whether a hit has been scored. This was addressed a few pages back. Metaphorically speaking, you are trying to drive a nail into a wall with a pair of pliers.



It is allowed to direct others to forum rules. It is actually explicitly allowed as the only method to deal with such things. I prefer to not report people, because I like keeping things friendly. You are making that increasingly more difficult, and I'm not sure whether or not that's intentional.

Please feel free to report me, I would rather you did that than feel the need to chastise me over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things.



You, perhaps. But if those counterarguments were not stated clearly, were wrong, or made little sense, then I will not speak to their veracity. Make one that is true, and I'll include it. The fact that you've spent more than one page in this debate with more than one person suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you would lead us to believe. The fact that it is very widely viewed as a bulky, unwieldy, counterintuitive system, with only a small following suggests that it is not nearly as intuitive as you'd like us to believe. If a system that scales from positive to negative, starting at an arbitrary 10, and dealing with negative improvement, that deals less with what you have, and more with what you need; if that seems like it makes sense to you?

Congratulations. But don't suggest that it's intuitive when most of the people that see it need it explained a half a dozen times to grasp it, and are then left scratching their heads as to WHY.

All it suggests is a lack of familiarity with the system in question, and a persistent desire to apply the D20 mode of thought to its comprehension. That is something continually demonstrated in this thread. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink. The intuitive advantages of THAC0 can be demonstrated continually to different individuals, but people will still think what they prefer to think and attempt to misuse it, just human nature.



No, if they said that Tieflings in D20/4e should be played as dark brooding angsty loners, and that all classes should have the exact same mechanics and little ability variation, THAT would be an insult to my intelligence.

Oh wait. They DID do that.

That is not an insult to your intelligence, just Wizards of the Coast presenting an archetype for you to play in the way they designed it to be played.

Talic
2009-06-06, 07:59 AM
Right, and that is a difference in process for what THAC0 is designed to do. It is not designed so that the player determines what AC he has hit. It is designed so that the game master knows.And thus, the game master has to keep track of all the modifiers for everyone. I'd much prefer to spread that accounting out a bit. Players are not infants, to be sheltered from everything. Just as a fighter knows when his aim is true, a fighter should know how accurate he is. Just not always if it's enough. "I hit AC 5" doesn't even let the player know if he HAS hit. If the critter is AC 3? Then he didn't. You're now making excuses.


Please feel free to report me, I would rather you did that than feel the need to "chastise other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things."I AM NOT DOING THAT, AND I AM DONE WITH THIS ASPECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. This does not further the discussion in any way; it actually detracts from the focus. Further comments on this line of reasoning will be summarily ignored.


All it suggests is a lack of familiarity with the system in question, and a persistent desire to apply a different mode of thought to its comprehension. That is something continually demonstrated here. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.I played 2ed for 7 years. Please don't make assumptions to what I have and haven't done. I'm quite capable of determining that, please and thank you.


That is not an insult to your intelligence, just them presenting an archetype for you to play.No, it's saying "If you want this type of character, be this race." (almost verbatim the recommendation for Tiefling) First, it suggests racial similarities in behavior, attitude, and moral outlook (read: Stereotyping). Second, it pigeonholes characters. I personally find both insulting to my intelligence and understanding.

In closing, please, PLEASE, direct comments to the issues at hand, not me personally. I'm not responding to any further posts that reference my unfamiliarity with something, or my blah blah whatever. If you think I'm not familiar with something, by all means, explain your view in a constructive manner; I'm all ears.

But when all I get is "You've got it wrong :smallamused:" and "You don't know what you're talking about", I hope you can at least see why I'm more than a little irritated at your discussion style.

elonin
2009-06-06, 08:06 AM
This is my first post about my dislike of 4e. In a few words that may over generalize 4e has caused us to looose versitility. Perhaps you think the fighter should be nearly as skillful as the rogue, but I like the idea of the fighter having a bunch of feats and the rogue having skill points out the wazoo. I've heard comments to the effect of "everyone ends up maxing out their skills so 4e made that the rule". I like having the abiility to choose that for myself. Since I love playing skill monkeys I'll state that I tend to max about 1/3 to 1/2 of my skills, put 1/2 ranks in some and with others put 5 ranks in. And in 3.5 if you want to increase your number of skills you can assign a higher score to intelligence, whereas in 4th you are stuck wasting a feat. Yup, for me who wants to play effectively the intelligent rogue is a thing of the past cause now intelligence is a dump stat.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 08:11 AM
And thus, the game master has to keep track of all the modifiers for everyone. I'd much prefer to spread that accounting out a bit. Players are not infants, to be sheltered from everything. Just as a fighter knows when his aim is true, a fighter should know how accurate he is. Just not always if it's enough. "I hit AC 5" doesn't even let the player know if he HAS hit. If the critter is AC 3? Then he didn't. You're now making excuses.

No, he doesn't. The players keep track of their own modifiers and call out the number they have scored. You appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the process for which it was designed. All the game master needs to know is what armour class they are targeting.



I AM NOT DOING THAT, AND I AM DONE WITH THIS ASPECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. This does not further the discussion in any way; it actually detracts from the focus. Further comments on this line of reasoning will be summarily ignored.

I would ask you to remain civil and not resort to capitalising your comments.



I played 2ed for 7 years. Please don't make assumptions to what I have and haven't done. I'm quite capable of determining that, please and thank you.
No, it's saying "If you want this type of character, be this race." First, it suggests racial similarities in behavior, attitude, and moral outlook (read: Stereotyping). Second, it pigeonholes characters.

I am not. I made no assumptions about you, except what I can see by your writing. I imagine that it has been some time since you played AD&D, but that is beside the point. You are not using THAC0 in the most intuitive way, which is why it seems unintuitive to you.



In closing, please, PLEASE, direct comments to the issues at hand, not me personally. I'm not responding to any further posts that reference my unfamiliarity with something, or my blah blah whatever. If you think I'm not familiar with something, by all means, explain your view in a constructive manner; I'm all ears.

But when all I get is "You've got it wrong :smallamused:" and "You don't know what you're talking about", I hope you can at least see why I'm more than a little irritated at your discussion style.

Talic, honestly I find your discussion style just as jarring as you seem to find mine, but I would ask you not to direct comments at me personally and then with the other hand ask me not to do so towards you. As I have tried to explain to you, the reason THAC0 is set up as it is, is to allow modifiers to cancel one another out without an extra step of math.

Let's take an example:

A 5th level fighter with 17 strength has +1 to hit. He is also wielding a cursed sword, which is imposing a −1 to hit. In addition, his target is enjoying the effects of a prayer spell, imposing a further −1 to hit.

The player attacks his opponent and rolls a 13, which he modifies by −1 to get 12. The game master checks the armour class of his opponent, which is 5 and adds it to the result to get 17, which is better than his THAC0 of 16. A hit has been scored.

In this instance, the player was told there was a prayer effect in play and asked to modify his attack roll accordingly. If the game master had wanted to keep that secret, then he could have applied the same modifier to the armour class of the target.

elonin
2009-06-06, 08:18 AM
Two comments to the post above. First, I never found THACO to be difficult and I was 8 at the time this system was out. The only clunky thing about it was the lower armor class being better. IE the statement of I hit a -8 (good roll and/or high level) sounds odd.

2nd who got to decide that CAPS=shouting? This rule is clearly arbitrary and I know some people who prefer caps since the letters are easier to read.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 08:22 AM
2nd who got to decide that CAPS=shouting? This rule is clearly arbitrary and I know some people who prefer caps since the letters are easier to read.

Nobody decided it, but it reads as shouting to me to capitalise the words you wish to emphasise, hence my asking Talic not to do so. That strikes me as somewhat different to writing all in capitals as a courtesy to somebody who finds it difficult to read script.

Talic
2009-06-06, 08:29 AM
No, he doesn't. The players keep track of their own modifiers and call out the number they have scored. You appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the process for which it was designed. All the game master needs to know is what armour class they are targeting.No, I'm not. Either the DM needs to know the Thac0 of the players and make all the hit/miss calculations, or the players need to be able to figure out what AC they hit. Even then, it's still algebra.


<snipped>
I am not. I made no assumptions about you, except what I can see by your writing. I imagine that it has been some time since you played AD&D, but that is beside the point. You are not using THAC0 in the most intuitive way, which is why it seems unintuitive to you.
Again, please do not speak about ME. You don't know me. You really don't. I can imagine I've spent 30 more years knowing me than you have. As such, I consider myself eminently more qualified to know what is true. Idle speculation serves nobody.

The topic at hand is 4.0 and ancillary topics. My personal experiences, and your blind, idle assumptions to those, are not part of that. Any further statements directed at me (rather than the subject) will now be summarily ignored.


<snipped>
As I have tried to explain to you, the reason THAC0 is set up as it is, is to allow modifiers to cancel one another out without an extra step of math.And as I have shown you more than once, it creates extra math. If you wish to agree to disagree, fine, but stating that something is crystal clear when it the only thing that's clear is that it's neither crystal, nor clear? No. I'm not gonna agree. The Thac0 system is more math, not less. If you wish to disagree with that, fine.


Let's take an example:

A 5th level fighter with 17 strength has +1 to hit. He is also wielding a cursed sword, which is imposing a −1 to hit. In addition, his target is enjoying the effects of a prayer spell, imposing a further −1 to hit.

The player attacks his opponent and rolls a 13, which he modifies by −1 to get 12. The game master checks the armour class of his opponent, which is 5 and adds it to the result to get 17, which is better than his THAC0 of 16. A hit has been scored.And now the DM is keeping track of Player information. As I said. Last post.

As opposed to the following:
A 5th level fighter with a 17 strength has a +9 to hit. He has a bane effect on him, imposing a -1 to attack rolls. In addition, his target has declared him a dodge target, which increases the target's AC by one.

The fighter rolls, and gets a 13. He looks to the DM, and says "I hit AC 22." (13+9) The DM compares it to the AC of the target (20), adds 1 for the dodge (player doesn't have that knowledge), and declares the hit.

In this way, the DM, as storyteller/mediator, is letting players control player information, and handling privately only the information that players are not privy to. He doesn't need to know the Thac0 of his players. Only the roll, and the modifiers that players are not privy to. Simple.


In this instance, the player was told there was a prayer effect in play and asked to modify his attack roll accordingly. If the game master had wanted to keep that secret, then he could have applied the same modifier to the armour class of the target.
And yet, the DM still has to look at a player sheet, and a monster sheet, to determine the hit. The DM has to process the number and compare to a player number. Whereas, in 3.x, the DM compares the player number only against the privy information. Each player can handle more of the equation, and the DM is left mediating the information that isn't.

When a process is streamlined in such a manner, it's called "simplification".

Talic
2009-06-06, 08:35 AM
Of course. Strangely these arguments almost never come up in AD&D forums (where you would think there would be an interest in adopting a more intuitive rule)... just places where the need is felt to justify the change. :smallbiggrin:

There was.

Which is why the vast, vast majority of D&D players moved to a new edition.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 08:45 AM
No, I'm not. Either the DM needs to know the Thac0 of the players and make all the hit/miss calculations, or the players need to be able to figure out what AC they hit. Even then, it's still algebra.

Of course the game master needs to know the THAC0 of the players, that's how the system is set up!



Again, please do not speak about ME. You don't know me. You really don't. I can imagine I've spent 30 more years knowing me than you have. As such, I consider myself eminently more qualified to know what is true. Idle speculation serves nobody.

The topic at hand is 4.0 and ancillary topics. My personal experiences, and your blind, idle assumptions to those, are not part of that. Any further statements directed at me (rather than the subject) will now be summarily ignored.

Look, I am not having a go at you personally. I speculated on a possibility, which you are now blowing out of proportion seemingly to suit your own rhetorical ends.



And as I have shown you more than once, it creates extra math. If you wish to agree to disagree, fine, but stating that something is crystal clear when it the only thing that's clear is that it's neither crystal, nor clear? No. I'm not gonna agree. The Thac0 system is more math, not less. If you wish to disagree with that, fine.
And now the DM is keeping track of Player information. As I said. Last post.

As I said, I do not agree with you on this issue, there is no extra math involved. Your example is fallacious because it seeks to integrate modifiers with THAC0.



As opposed to the following:
A 5th level fighter with a 17 strength has a +9 to hit. He has a bane effect on him, imposing a -1 to attack rolls. In addition, his target has declared him a dodge target, which increases the target's AC by one.

The fighter rolls, and gets a 13. He looks to the DM, and says "I hit AC 22." (13+9) The DM compares it to the AC of the target (20), adds 1 for the dodge (player doesn't have that knowledge), and declares the hit.

In this way, the DM, as storyteller/mediator, is letting players control player information, and handling privately only the information that players are not privy to. He doesn't need to know the Thac0 of his players. Only the roll, and the modifiers that players are not privy to. Simple.

It's the same process:

Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = THAC0?
Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = Armour Class?

The only difference are that the game master almost always adds a modifier by way of armour class in AD&D, and that in D20 the modifiers are typically much larger. The trade off is that in AD&D negative modifiers are always good for the defender, and positive modifiers always good for the attacker.



And yet, the DM still has to look at a player sheet, and a monster sheet, to determine the hit. The DM has to process the number and compare to a player number. Whereas, in 3.x, the DM compares the player number only against the privy information. Each player can handle more of the equation, and the DM is left mediating the information that isn't.

If the game master needs to look at the player sheet it means he does not have their THAC0 already available, but he should have their THAC0s and that of all the combatants in play available, just like he should have their armour classes available in D20. That is not extra math, it is just like having BAB noted separately from AB.



When a process is streamlined in such a manner, it's called "simplification".
When sentences are constructed in such a manner it is called "patronising." :smalltongue:

charl
2009-06-06, 09:06 AM
I felt a little insulted when I flipped through the 4E monster manual and couldn't find any written explanations of the creatures, just stats and tactics. Either they wanted me to fill it out myself or they assumed I wasn't interested in any fluff and just wanted all the numbers, and it really felt like the latter.

I want monster manuals that have two full page explanations of each monster, and 3/4 of that better be fluff or a short little story about the monster.

Talic
2009-06-06, 09:13 AM
Of course the game master needs to know the THAC0 of the players, that's how the system is set up!Therein lies one problem.


Look, I am not having a go at you personally. I speculated on a possibility, which you are now blowing out of proportion seemingly to suit your own rhetorical ends.Not rhetorical. I asked you to not speculate on me personally. You've not yet obliged that request.

As I said, I do not agree with you on this issue, there is no extra math involved. Your example is fallacious because it seeks to integrate modifiers with THAC0.No more than you used.

It's the same process:

Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = THAC0?
Roll die, player modifiers added, game master modifiers added = Armour Class?
Incorrect. Your analogy only rings true at the most basic level. Otherwise, things get better as the numbers get smaller (counterintuitive). Some numbers add, others subtract (+1 armor subtracts from AC, and a +1 sword adds to rolls... counter-intuitive)


The only difference are that the game master almost always adds a modifier by way of armour class in AD&D, and that in D20 the modifiers are typically much larger. The trade off is that in AD&D negative modifiers are always good for the defender, and positive modifiers always good for the attacker.Well, that in every edition after thac0, bonuses added, and penalties subtracted. Rather than having to remember whether this is a bonus that added to this score, or it was a bonus that subtracted from that one. Counter-intuitive.


If the game master needs to look at the player sheet it means he does not have their THAC0 already available, but he should have their THAC0s and that of all the combatants in play available, just like he should have their armour classes available in D20. That is not extra math, it is just like having BAB noted separately from AB.Or, he has 17 creatures to keep track of already... Why not let the players handle their own bonuses, rather than ensuring that they will always have an unknown modifier in the form of AC... Which would be more easily expressed by making it the target number. That way, in many fights, the PC could handle most of the work. As is, the DM, in AD&D ALWAYS has to add in a modifier before comparing. Always. In 3.x and beyond? If there are no surprises? He can just look at the two numbers. This reduction in variables streamlines combat, and makes things move faster. That's a good thing.

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 09:15 AM
I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

Talic
2009-06-06, 09:25 AM
I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

There's nothing wrong with Rule 0. It just can't be meaningfully discussed in a cross-game evaluation. Everyone uses Rule 0 differently. If I try to say it works perfect with change x or y... Well, not everyone uses that.

Rules are the common denominator.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 09:26 AM
Therein lies one problem.

One man's problem... etcetera



Not rhetorical. I asked you to not speculate on me personally. You've not yet obliged that request.

Since the sum of my speculation is that I doubt you have played much AD&D in the recent past, which you have yet to confirm or deny, I consider this an unfair characterisation.



No more than you used.

?



Incorrect. Your analogy only rings true at the most basic level. Otherwise, things get better as the numbers get smaller (counterintuitive). Some numbers add, others subtract (+1 armor subtracts from AC, and a +1 sword adds to rolls... counter-intuitive)

Yes, magical armour and shields are the only area in which it does not hold true, but that's because they are armour type descriptions with corresponding armour classes.



Well, that in every edition after thac0, bonuses added, and penalties subtracted. Rather than having to remember whether this is a bonus that added to this score, or it was a bonus that subtracted from that one. Counter-intuitive.

Again you misunderstand. You are assuming these terms:

My plusses are good for me
My minuses are bad for me
His pluses are bad for me
His minuses are good for me

In AD&D it is:

Plusses against him are good for me
Minuses against him are good for me
Plusses against me are bad for me
Minuses against me are bad for me

Neither is more intuitive than the other.



Or, he has 17 creatures to keep track of already... Why not let the players handle their own bonuses, rather than ensuring that they will always have an unknown modifier in the form of AC... Which would be more easily expressed by making it the target number. That way, in many fights, the PC could handle most of the work. As is, the DM, in AD&D ALWAYS has to add in a modifier before comparing. Always. In 3.x and beyond? If there are no surprises? He can just look at the two numbers. This reduction in variables streamlines combat, and makes things move faster. That's a good thing.
Not always, of course, not on AC 0. However, I do not really think that you can make the case that there are typically less modifiers in D20 than AD&D.



I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty. As I understand it, older editions were built on a solid foundation of DM Fiat. The rules were there, but a good many situations were based on players interacting with the DM, not the DM reading a list of rules from the book and then voicing NPCs... or maybe I'm misinformed and the "Good old days" were filled with pedantic rule worshipping insanity too..

Generally speaking (and this isn't characterisation particular to Talic) I find that D20 players are much more interested in the maths and explicit rules of the game than in AD&D. That is to say D20 encourages you to learn how the maths work and how to apply them to various common situations, whilst AD&D leaves things more vague. That is usually a playing style difference that often leads to these sorts of "edition skirmishes". The classic example is converting description to modifiers [e.g. "There is a strong wind blowing", "Right that's minus X to my AB with ranged weapons."]

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 09:30 AM
There's nothing wrong with Rule 0. It just can't be meaningfully discussed in a cross-game evaluation. Everyone uses Rule 0 differently. If I try to say it works perfect with change x or y... Well, not everyone uses that.

Rules are the common denominator.

But nobody plays strictly by RAW (and if they do I feel bad for them). So by limiting discussions to RAW only, you're not really discussing the game as people actually play it, which sounds like meta-nerd wank to me, if you're discussing the "perfect" game with the knowledge that nobody plays it that way....

Talic
2009-06-06, 09:36 AM
My plusses are good for me
My minuses are bad for me
His pluses are bad for me
His minuses are good for me

In AD&D it is:

Plusses against him are good for me
Minuses against him are good for me
Plusses against me are bad for me
Minuses against me are bad for me

Neither is more intuitive than the other.Wrong. I assume:
Plusses are good for the roll.
Minuses are bad for the roll.

Plusses increase things.
Minuses decrease things.

AD&D assumes:
Plusses are good for the roll... unless they're to AC, when they're bad for the roll.
Plusses increase things... With the exception of this and that and the other.

Intuitive is when Plusses add, and minuses subtract. Intuitive is when 5 is better than 4.
Intuitive is when the AC system doesn't start with a number as completely arbitrary as whether the MacGuffin is a book or a badger.
Thac0 cheerfully says no to all of these.


Not always, of course, not on AC 0. However, I do not really think that you can make the case that there are typically less modifiers in D20 than AD&D.No, just that the ones that are there are not modifiers. The AC of your foe is the whole goal. That's the resistance you're overcoming. Beat the AC, accomplish the goal.

In football, if you overcome your opponent's defense? It's a touchdown.
In hockey or soccer? Goal.
But in AD&D, there is no overcoming defenses. There's overcoming your Thac0. The sports? Intuitive. The Thac0? NOT.

Yora
2009-06-06, 09:38 AM
Most tips and advice I see on chracter buidling assumes level 20 with all books ever printed at hand and allowed in the game. And I strongly doubt that many people play like that either.
I think thats really a problem about almost all internet discussions.

I've noticed, both here, other places, and when listening to real live edition fights, that a lot of people on the Pro 3.5/Anti 4e side of the fence, (which isn't really a fair metaphor as there's more than two sides "us vs. them") are of the mindset that firmly entrenched in rules is good, which carries with it the unfortunate side effect that a good many such people find Rule Zero (AKA DM Fiat) to be a horrible thing. I find that insulting to my intelligence as a DM, the notion that I should defer to the rulebook because people have turned Rule Zero (or the 4e equivalent Page 42) into something dirty.
Most people who hate D&D told me they hate it exactly because of that. And I always have to tell them, that it's the gaming groups who do that, not the rules system. The rules can be used as much or as less as the group want it to.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 09:43 AM
Wrong. I assume:

Plusses are good for the roll.
Minuses are bad for the roll.

Plusses increase things.
Minuses decrease things.

AD&D assumes:
Plusses are good for the roll... unless they're to AC, when they're bad for the roll.
Plusses increase things... With the exception of this and that and the other.

Intuitive is when Plusses add, and minuses subtract. Intuitive is when 5 is better than 4.
Intuitive is when the AC system doesn't start with a number as completely arbitrary as whether the MacGuffin is a book or a badger.
Thac0 cheerfully says no to all of these.

Pluses to the roll in AD&D are good for the person rolling the die, minuses to the roll are bad for the person rolling the die. Same in D20.



No, just that the ones that are there are not modifiers. The AC of your foe is the whole goal. That's the resistance you're overcoming. Beat the AC, accomplish the goal.

In football, if you overcome your opponent's defense? It's a touchdown.
In hockey or soccer? Goal.
But in AD&D, there is no overcoming defenses. There's overcoming your Thac0. The sports? Intuitive. The Thac0? NOT.

This initial idea that Armour Class is a number to be overcome, rather than a modifier to a roll. That is completely non intuitive, since "armour class" does not denote that at all except by learned exposure. If it were called "defence rating" you might have a point.

oxybe
2009-06-06, 09:49 AM
I want monster manuals that have two full page explanations of each monster, and 3/4 of that better be fluff or a short little story about the monster.

i'm not sure if you're being serious or just yanking someone's chain

the issue i have with this is that there is no default world to take the explanation or story into context with. 4th ed does not have a perceived world and "points of light" is at best a vague proto-setting idea. a short story with no context isn't much help in this situation IMO.

the other issue i have is that having a lot of fluff requires GMs to "deprogram" then "reprogram" players if they veer away from what's in the books. having lots of fluff comes with giving those players preconceived notions on what to expect in ALL games based on the core rules.

as is, the small blurb and knowledge checks are perfect for me.

Yora
2009-06-06, 09:57 AM
That's why players are not supposed to read these books.

It doesn't hurt if they do, but they should be able to handle, that the campaign will not be like it's written in a book with inspirations for GMs, how to possibly fill out their own world.

Some of the people I play with know far too much about the Monster Manual. So I long decided not to use it, at least as written. They pretty soon figure out that the tales they characters have heard about are complete fabrications of people who never meet the creatures first hand.

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 10:00 AM
It doesn't hurt if they do, but they should be able to handle, that the campaign will not be like it's written in a book with inspirations for GMs, how to possibly fill out their own world.

I'm not paying $30 for a game book for it to be filled with stories if it's supposed to be a mutable setting to change as I wish. I'm paying $30 for a game book to be filled with tools to use in my personal setting when I buy a game book for a game where the assumed setting is "make your own."

Talic
2009-06-06, 10:03 AM
This initial idea that Armour Class is a number to be overcome, rather than a modifier to a roll. That is completely non intuitive, since "armour class" does not denote that at all except by learned exposure. If it were called "defence rating" you might have a point.

A rose by any other name. Naming differences aren't the issue here. The fact that Armor Class combines (in all discussed editions):
Bonuses from armor
Bonuses from agility
Bonuses from magic
Miscellaneous other Bonuses

Shows that regardless of what you call it, what it actually IS, is a measure of a character's ability to dodge/block/parry or otherwise avoid being hit.

In other words, whether it's called armor class or defense rating, it IS a rating of the character's defense.

So thank you. I now have a point.

Yora
2009-06-06, 10:05 AM
I think it really helps. I really don't get anything from a stat block. But a generic fluff text is a great start where to beginn with with your own fluff.

The stat block for an aboleth doesn't help me at all how to use an aboleth in my game. Additional information, that they could be horrible creatures who enslave humanoids to serve in their underwater lairs deep in the oceans or deepest caves, and that they have knowledge about ancient times before history is a great start to begin with.
Maybe I scrap the part about oceans and I think it's implausible they reproduce by assexualy producing clones of themselves. But it's much more helpful then getting only the information that they can cast dominate person 3 times per day and have a swim speed of 60 feet.

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 10:08 AM
I think it really helps. I really don't get anything from a stat block. But a generic fluff text is a great start where to beginn with with your own fluff.

The stat block for an aboleth doesn't help me at all how to use an aboleth in my game. Additional information, that they could be horrible creatures who enslave humanoids to serve in their underwater lairs deep in the oceans or deepest caves, and that they have knowledge about ancient times before history is a great start to begin with.

4e's monster lore tends to be about that useful, without being a lembas bread explanation.

oxybe
2009-06-06, 10:16 AM
That's why players are not supposed to read these books.

It doesn't hurt if they do, but they should be able to handle, that the campaign will not be like it's written in a book with inspirations for GMs, how to possibly fill out their own world.

Some of the people I play with know far too much about the Monster Manual. So I long decided not to use it, at least as written. They pretty soon figure out that the tales they characters have heard about are complete fabrications of people who never meet the creatures first hand.

except that the MM has rules for monster races that player might want to use. in 3rd or 4th ed if you want to play a kobold: check the MM. they're not as fleshed out or supported as the PHB races, but they are there.

also, some players might want to try their hand at DMing, so they will naturally check out a MM to get an idea what the monsters are like. they might not in the end, but they need to make the informed decision first.

the other thing, is that they do have books with ecologies, ect... Draconomicon, Open Grave, ect... these are books (which i call monsternomicons) that focus on that particular type of monster and can go in-depth.

monster manuals are just that... manuals. they books full of premade critters for players to interact with as the GM sees fit.

a monsternomicon focuses on a section of those critters and goes further in depth with fluff + extra crunch for people who want it.

that's the reason i bought the 3.5 libris mortis, draconomicon & lords of madness, as well as the 4th ed Open Grave... i sometimes like having some extra fluff to draw inspiration from, but i would rather it all be found in one book, instead of strewn across several and taking up space that could be better used.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 10:38 AM
A rose by any other name. Naming differences aren't the issue here. The fact that Armour Class combines (in all discussed editions):

Bonuses from armour
Bonuses from agility
Bonuses from magic
Miscellaneous other Bonuses

Shows that regardless of what you call it, what it actually IS, is a measure of a character's ability to dodge/block/parry or otherwise avoid being hit.

In other words, whether it's called armor class or defense rating, it IS a rating of the character's defense.

So thank you. I now have a point.

On what basis do you conclude that armour class is a number to be overcome when in fact it only is in D20? That is purely subjective on your part. In Chainmail, for instance, Armour Class is a number cross referenced against Weapon Class to find the probability of a kill on the man to man melee table.

Armour classification is just that, the class of armour. You add it to the attack roll (or deduct it from THAC0 if you prefer). This is the sort of statement that leads me to infer that you are are unfamiliar with the design approach of AD&D, in that you are imposing the conceits of D20 onto the game system and coming to an erroneous conclusion.

The above list of bonuses makes no case at all. These are all modifiers to the attack roll and not bonuses to a number to be overcome.



I think it really helps. I really don't get anything from a stat block. But a generic fluff text is a great start where to beginn with with your own fluff.

The stat block for an aboleth doesn't help me at all how to use an aboleth in my game. Additional information, that they could be horrible creatures who enslave humanoids to serve in their underwater lairs deep in the oceans or deepest caves, and that they have knowledge about ancient times before history is a great start to begin with.

Maybe I scrap the part about oceans and I think it's implausible they reproduce by assexualy producing clones of themselves. But it's much more helpful then getting only the information that they can cast dominate person 3 times per day and have a swim speed of 60 feet.

The "tool box" approach definitely has its merits, and it's one of the reasons that I actually thought that the D20/4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Book was a well put together product. The problem is that this does not match up to the "out of the box" approach, where the game is complete and ready to go. A lot of people prefer D&D to be the latter, rather than the former. It's a kind of play style clash.

Talic
2009-06-06, 10:46 AM
On what basis do you conclude that armour class is a number to be overcome when in fact it only is in D20? That is purely subjective on your part. Armour classification is just that, the class of armour. You add it to the attack roll (or deduct it from THAC0 if you prefer). This is the sort of statement that leads me to infer that you are are unfamiliar with AD&D, in that you are imposing the conceits of D20 onto the game system and coming to an erroneous conclusion.

The above list of bonuses makes no case at all. These are all modifiers to the attack roll and not bonuses to a number to be overcome.

No, they're not.

Let's say I have a suit of armor. It's magical +1.
There's a bonus to AC from armor.
There's a bonus to AC from magic.
Now let's say I have an 18 dexterity.
There's a bonus to AC from agility.

All three of these apply in both 2ed and 3ed (and 4ed).
So NO. Armor Class is not just your class of armor. It also factors in your ability to dodge, at the very least.

So it's more.
In other words, your assertation is incorrect. Because Armor Class is NOT "just that". Because your dexterity is not armor, even though it modifies armor class. Armor Class is an abstract concept, representing how hard you are to hit.

I thank you again, for my point.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 10:50 AM
No, they're not.

Let's say I have a suit of armor. It's magical +1.
There's a bonus to AC from armor.
There's a bonus to AC from magic.
Now let's say I have an 18 dexterity.
There's a bonus to AC from agility.

All three of these apply in both 2ed and 3ed (and 4ed).
So NO. Armor Class is not just your class of armor. It also factors in your ability to dodge, at the very least.

That is actually wrong. Magic and dexterity do not give a bonus to armour class, they impose negative penalties on the attack roll. You can roll them into armour class (which is commonly done), but that is not the actual armour class (which is a number in AD&D used to find bonuses to hit versus weapon type).



So it's more.
In other words, your assertion is incorrect. Because Armor Class is NOT "just that". Because your dexterity is not armor, even though it modifies armor class. Armor Class is an abstract concept, representing how hard you are to hit.

I thank you again, for my point.

Yeah, it is just that. The "modified" armour class is a short handed rolling up of bonuses and penalties to make the game go more quickly, but armour class is literally class of armour.

AstralFire
2009-06-06, 11:00 AM
Wow. Peeps are still argizzling about thisiznit? Word.
I'm not sure why I decided to word my first post on this side of the forums in a half year like that.

Talic
2009-06-06, 11:01 AM
That is actually wrong. Magic and dexterity do not give a bonus to armour class, they impose negative penalties on the attack roll. You can roll them into armour class (which is commonly done), but that is not the actual armour class (which is a number in AD&D used to find bonuses to hit versus weapon type).


Yeah, it is just that. The "modified" armour class is a short handed rolling up of bonuses and penalties to make the game go more quickly, but armour class is literally class of armour.
Incorrect. AGAIN. AC is a number. A Classification of armor? Then why did the AD&D tarrasque (who, as far as I can tell, was not wearing chain greaves) sport a -10?

No. Direct from the owners of the game:

Armor Class

A number representing a creature's ability to avoid being hit in combat.
That's not the Classification of armor. No, Armor class was a derived term, true. But not from AD&D. No. It was from a tactical Civil War naval combat game, when it actually did represent how well armored ships were.

But it means something different. Don't like that? Sorry. But the people who make the game disagree with you.

You're wrong.

Xallace
2009-06-06, 11:08 AM
Wow. Peeps are still argizzling about thisiznit? Word.
I'm not sure why I decided to word my first post on this side of the forums in a half year like that.

Lightened the mood for me at least!


Now on the Monster Manual subject, I do have to say that I really preferred having more fluff with my monsters- I don't mean as detailed as Draconomicon or Libris Mortis, but you know, 3.5 Monster Manual. I usually ended up disregarding it anyway, but it was fun to read and I could take a little inspiration from it if need be.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-06, 11:10 AM
4th edition phane here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b)

3rd edition phane here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Phane)

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that they considered me too dumb to play the second one.

More, as someone say, the arrogance of the preview books is outstandig. My attitude toward the edition went worse and worse page by page.

Great advertisement campaing, Wotc (as always).

About THAC0: I was more or less 9 when I've seen thac0 first time. It occured like 5 minutes to understand. Just to say.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 11:11 AM
Incorrect. AGAIN. AC is a number. A Classification of armor? Then why did the AD&D tarrasque (who, as far as I can tell, was not wearing chain greaves) sport a -10?

No. Direct from the owners of the game:

That's not the Classification of armor. No, Armor class was a derived term, true. But not from AD&D. No. It was from a tactical Civil War naval combat game, when it actually did represent how well armored ships were.

Wrong, I am afraid. Armour Class is right there in Chainmail, but reversed so that higher is better. Arneson is reported to have taken inspiration from the Naval game, but armour class was already part of the Chainmail Combat system. There is a reason that hit charts in OD&D only go down to AC 2 despite the presence of magic items.



But it means something different. Don't like that? Sorry. But the people who make the game disagree with you.

You're wrong.

Nope, the charts were extended in AD&D (and in Greyhawk) for ease of play, but the actual "rolling up" process is not armour class in its primary sense, though "armour class" is used to denote the secondary meaning in almost all short handed instances. The difference is important when you are dealing with the repeating "20" rule or when using weapon type versus armour class.



Wow. Peeps are still argizzling about thisiznit? Word.
I'm not sure why I decided to word my first post on this side of the forums in a half year like that.

Of course! :smallbiggrin:

Talic
2009-06-06, 11:14 AM
Wrong, I am afraid. Armour Class is right there in Chainmail, but reversed so that higher is better. Arneson is reported to have taken inspiration from the Naval game, but armour class was already part of the Chainmail Combat system. There is a reason that hit charts in OD&D only go down to AC 2.


Nope, the charts were extended in AD&D (and in Greyhawk) for ease of play, but the actual "rolling up" process is not armour class in its primary sense, though "armour class" is used to denote the secondary meaning in almost all instances. The difference is important when you are dealing with the repeating "20" rule.
I can't believe it. I show you verbatim word for word, from the owners of the game, text that directly contradicts you... And you STILL refuse to see it!?

Yeah, I'm done here. Have fun with your... Well, with whatever it is you do.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 11:18 AM
I can't believe it. I show you verbatim word for word, from the owners of the game, text that directly contradicts you... And you STILL refuse to see it!?

Yeah, I'm done here. Have fun with your... Well, with whatever it is you do.

Here is the original wording:

Monsters & Treasure, p. 31:


ARMOR: Armor proper subtracts its bonus [Note: here we are talking magical bonus] from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer. If the shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction.

My note for your ease of comprehension.

Talic
2009-06-06, 11:34 AM
That notes armor. Not armor class.

Show me some sort of specific text that states that Armor Class only measures the effectiveness of the armor that is worn, and counts in no other factors, or retract your point.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-06, 12:38 PM
Er...

Maybe could be better a thread about THAC0? The current one seems to me slightly derailed..

Matthew
2009-06-06, 12:40 PM
Er...

Maybe could be better a thread about THAC0? The current one seems to me slightly derailed...

Yeah, if I had known it was going to go on so long, I would have started a new thread. I will ask a moderator if he would mind splitting this discussion off.

Roland St. Jude
2009-06-06, 01:00 PM
Yeah, if I had known it was going to go on so long, I would have started a new thread. I will ask a moderator if he would mind splitting this discussion off.

I took a look at it, but that seems to be more difficult than it initially appears. Please feel free to start a new thread on it and let this thread get back to its prior topic.

Matthew
2009-06-06, 01:01 PM
Okay, thanks Roland. New thread started: Why THAC0? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6231341#post6231341).

oxybe
2009-06-06, 01:30 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that they considered me too dumb to play the second one.


only if you don't consider the fact that the 3.5 version was meant to be a challenge to a full epic level 3rd ed party while the 4th ed is supposed to be equivalent to 2 PCs. the monsters fulfill different roles for different editions.

also note that 3rd ed epic is generally considered much stronger then 4th ed epic, so monsters had to have more abilities, especially if they wanted to try to keep up with the casters.

Artanis
2009-06-06, 01:31 PM
4th edition phane here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b)

3rd edition phane here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Phane)

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that they considered me too dumb to play the second one.

I personally never saw it that way. I can understand why you would feel that way, and respect it. But I'm feeling talkative and am going to explain my point of view anyways :smalltongue:

When I look at the two stat blocks, I don't see the 4e version as being dumbed-down, I see the 3e version as being bloated with redundany and stuff that doesn't apply to 4e.

Taking out all the stuff that can't even be translated to 4e, you already trim it down to:

Size/Type: Large Outsider (Extraplanar)
Health: 612 hp
Initiative: +11 (+7 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 80 ft., fly 120 ft. (perfect)
Armor Class: 50
Attack: Incorporeal +43 (1d6 plus stasis touch) melee
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, stasis touch, chronal blast, time leach, summon past time duplicate
Special Qualities: Abomination traits, null time field, time regression, fast healing 15, DR 15/epic, sonic immunity
Saves (NADs): Fort +31, Ref +29, Will +29
Abilities: Str —, Dex 25, Con 28, Int 24, Wis 16, Cha 33
Skills: Trained in Perception
Feats: Alertness, Dodge, Great fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (incorporeal touch), Epic Toughness (x2), Epic Will, Spell Stowaway (time stop)
Environment: Any land and underground
Organization: Solitary or pair
Challenge Rating: 25
Treasure: None

Spell-Like-
At will—detect magic, greater invisibility (self only);
5/day—slow, greater teleport, tongues, trap the soul, true strike, unholy aura;
2/day—safe time, time duplicate (epic spell);
1/day—time stop.

Stasis Touch : As temporal stasis, except as an at-will

Chronal Blast: As a standard action, the phane can make a ranged attack against any creature within 100 feet. If it succeeds, the subject is targeted by a spasm of space-time flux, dealing 15d6 points of damage.

Time Leach: For every round of apparent time experienced by the phane, it automatically absorbs the “future” from any creature it has successfully encapsulated in static time via its stasis touch (not its null time field), no matter the distance separating victim and phane, and no matter the number of victims. Of course, to the victim no time passes at all, but each apparent round experienced by the phane ages the victim 1d4 years, at the same time healing the phane of 20 hit points of damage. A victim who is not somehow released from static time by a friend who can cast dispel magic, greater dispell magic, or some other likely spell, eventually ages to death. Victims killed in this manner automatically fall out of static time as desiccated husks that disintegrate to a fine dust with even the lightest touch.

Summon Past Time Duplicate: Once per day, a phane can summon a duplicate of one its foes stolen from a parallel alternate past. The stolen time duplicate has the same stats and possessions as the original, but is treated as if having two Energy Drains (which simulates a less experienced version of the original). The past time duplicate, despite having most of the knowledge of the original, serves the phane loyally like any summoned creature. If the past time duplicate is slain, the original is not harmed because the duplicate was pulled from a parallel past. However, the original does not necessarily realize this, and must make a Will save (DC 30) or be shaken for 1d4 rounds after witnessing the death of a duplicate for the first time.

Abomination Traits: Immune to polymorphing, petrification, and other form-altering attacks; not subject to Energy Drain; immune to mind-affecting effects; fire resistance 20; cold resistance 20; nondetection; true seeing at will; blindsight 500 ft.; telepathy out to 1,000 ft.

Null Time Field: Phanes continually generate a 30-foot-radius spread null time field. All creatures and objects in the field, except the phane, must make a Will saving throw (DC 30) each round to take any actions. On a failed save, subjects are stuck in a static time stream until their next round of actions, at which time they must make another saving throw. While a subject is stuck in a static time stream induced by a null time field, the phane can use its static touch on the subject, though in all other ways, the subject is invulnerable to attacks and damage as if in temporal stasis.

Time Regression: If the phane spends an action per round for four rounds, at the end of the 4th round the phane regresses back in time 4 rounds, to the very 1st round it originally began concentrating on time regression. On its second pass through the time stream, it can take completely different actions, based on its knowledge of the future (though if it takes different actions from its first pass through the time stream, the events of the original time stream are also changed).


Now we're on to the redundant stuff. For example, it lists Improved Initiative in two different places. It's ALREADY included in the Phane's init count, so why do we have to know it?

Cutting out utterly pointless c*** further brings the stat block to:


Size/Type: Large Abomination (Extraplanar)
Health: 612 hp
Initiative: +11
Speed: 80 ft., fly 120 ft. (perfect)
Armor Class: 50
Attack: Incorporeal +43 (1d6 plus stasis touch) melee
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: See below
Special Qualities: See below, fast healing 15, DR 15/epic, sonic immunity
Saves (NADs): Fort +31, Ref +29, Will +29
Abilities: Str —, Dex 25, Con 28, Int 24, Wis 16, Cha 33
Skills: Trained in Perception
Feats: Dodge, Spell Stowaway (time stop)
Environment: Any land and underground
Organization: Solitary or pair
Challenge Rating: 25
Treasure: None


Spell-Like-
At will—detect magic, greater invisibility (self only);
5/day—haste, slow, greater teleport, tongues, trap the soul, true strike, unholy aura;
2/day—safe time, time duplicate (epic spell);
1/day—time stop.

Stasis Touch: As temporal stasis, except as an at-will

Chronal Blast: As a standard action, the phane can make a ranged attack against any creature within 100 feet. If it succeeds, the subject is targeted by a spasm of space-time flux, dealing 15d6 points of damage.

Time Leach: For every round of apparent time experienced by the phane, it automatically absorbs the “future” from any creature it has successfully encapsulated in static time via its stasis touch (not its null time field), no matter the distance separating victim and phane, and no matter the number of victims. Of course, to the victim no time passes at all, but each apparent round experienced by the phane ages the victim 1d4 years, at the same time healing the phane of 20 hit points of damage. A victim who is not somehow released from static time by a friend who can cast dispel magic, greater dispell magic, or some other likely spell, eventually ages to death. Victims killed in this manner automatically fall out of static time as desiccated husks that disintegrate to a fine dust with even the lightest touch.

Summon Past Time Duplicate: Once per day, a phane can summon a duplicate of one its foes stolen from a parallel alternate past. The stolen time duplicate has the same stats and possessions as the original, but is treated as if having two Energy Drains (which simulates a less experienced version of the original). The past time duplicate, despite having most of the knowledge of the original, serves the phane loyally like any summoned creature. If the past time duplicate is slain, the original is not harmed because the duplicate was pulled from a parallel past. However, the original does not necessarily realize this, and must make a Will save (DC 30) or be shaken for 1d4 rounds after witnessing the death of a duplicate for the first time.

Abomination Traits: Immune to polymorphing, petrification, and other form-altering attacks; not subject to Energy Drain; immune to mind-affecting effects; fire resistance 20; cold resistance 20; nondetection; true seeing at will; blindsight 500 ft.; telepathy out to 1,000 ft.

Null Time Field: Phanes continually generate a 30-foot-radius spread null time field. All creatures and objects in the field, except the phane, must make a Will saving throw (DC 30) each round to take any actions. While a subject is stuck in a static time stream induced by a null time field, the phane can use its static touch on the subject, though in all other ways, the subject is invulnerable to attacks and damage as if in temporal stasis.

Time Regression: If the phane spends an action per round for four rounds, at the end of the 4th round the phane regresses back in time 4 rounds, to the very 1st round it originally began concentrating on time regression. On its second pass through the time stream, it can take completely different actions, based on its knowledge of the future (though if it takes different actions from its first pass through the time stream, the events of the original time stream are also changed).


Finally, let's move all the fluff out of the stat block. The fluff is still there, it simply isn't cluttering things. If you consider it "dumbing down" to simply rearrange things so that the exact same information is easier to read, there's nothing I can really say. But I, personally, think that the same amount of information being easier to read is far from "dumbing down", it's just making things more convenient. Kinda like putting the descriptions of alignment all in one place instead of in everything that references them.

So, the fluff is still all there, but simply not cluttering up the information that the DM needs to find:


Size/Type: Large Abomination (Extraplanar)
Health: 612 hp
Initiative: +11
Speed: 80 ft., fly 120 ft. (perfect)
Armor Class: 50
Attack: Incorporeal +43 (1d6 plus stasis touch) melee
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: See below
Special Qualities: See below, fast healing 15, DR 15/epic, sonic immunity
Saves (NADs): Fort +31, Ref +29, Will +29
Abilities: Str —, Dex 25, Con 28, Int 24, Wis 16, Cha 33
Skills: Trained in Perception
Feats: Dodge, Blinding Speed, Spell Stowaway (time stop)
Challenge Rating: 25


Spell-Like-
At will—detect magic, greater invisibility (self only);
5/day—haste, slow, greater teleport, tongues, trap the soul, true strike, unholy aura;
2/day—safe time, time duplicate (epic spell);
1/day—time stop.

Stasis Touch: As temporal stasis, except as an at-will

Chronal Blast: As a standard action, the phane can make a ranged attack against any creature within 100 feet. If it succeeds it deals 15d6 damage.

Time Leach: Each creature hit by the Phane's Stasis Touch ages 1d4 years per round, at the same time healing the Phane for 20hp. Victims can be freed by spells such as Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Magic, etc., and suffer the physical (but not mental) effects of aging. Victims who are not freed age to death.

Summon Past Time Duplicate: Once per day, a phane can summon a duplicate of one its foes. The stolen time duplicate has the same stats and possessions as the original, but is treated as if having two Energy Drains. The past time duplicate serves the phane loyally like any summoned creature. If the past time duplicate is slain, the original must make a DC30 Will Save or be shaken for 1d4 rounds, but is otherwise unaffected.

Abomination Traits: Immune to polymorphing, petrification, and other form-altering attacks; not subject to Energy Drain; immune to mind-affecting effects; fire resistance 20; cold resistance 20; nondetection; true seeing at will; blindsight 500 ft.; telepathy out to 1,000 ft.

Null Time Field: Phanes continually generate a 30-foot-radius spread null time field. All creatures and objects in the field, except the phane, must make a Will saving throw (DC 30) each round to take any actions. While a subject is stuck in a static time stream induced by a null time field, the phane can use its static touch on the subject, though in all other ways, the subject is invulnerable to attacks and damage as if in temporal stasis.

Time Regression: If the phane spends an action per round for four rounds, at the end of the 4th round the phane regresses back in time 4 rounds, to the very 1st round it originally began concentrating on time regression. On its second pass through the time stream, it can take completely different actions.


So, we've rearranged and trimmed down irrelevant and redundant stuff. Nothing is dumbed down: every single bit of information that can translate to 4e is still there. Every. Single. Word. So, what would a 4e stat block look like for the 3e version of this creature, using the exact same numbers where possible?


PHANE.................Level 25 Elite Controller
Large Immortal Magical Beast
Initiative +11........Senses: Perception +44; darkvision; Blindsight
HP 612; Bloodied 306
AC 51; Fortitude 41; Reflex 39; Will 39 (Note: 4e's NADs are basically the related save +10)
Immune: mind-affecting, polymorph, petrification, thunder; Resist: insubstantial, variable 20, all 15
Saving Throws +2
Speed 10, fly 10
Action Points 1

POWERS:
Basic Attack: (standard; at-will)
*Reach 2; +43 vs. AC; 1d6 damage, and make a secondary attack
**Secondary attack: +29 vs. FORT; The target is unconscious and immune to all attacks until a Dispel Magic (or similar) ritual is used on it. The Phane heals 20hp per turn for each enemy under this effect.
*Special: Ignores Resist Incorporeal

Chronal Blast: (Standard; at-will)
*Ranged 20; +43 vs. REF; 15d6 damage
*Special: This attack does not provoke opportunity attacks

Summon Past Time Duplicate: (standard; daily) (summoning)
*The Phane summons a duplicate of one target enemy with the enemy's stats, abilities, etc. except that it has -1 to attacks and all defenses and -12 maximum hp. If the duplicate is slain, the Phane may make an attack against the original as a free action:
*+30 vs. Will; Target takes -2 to all attacks, defenses, skill checks, and ability checks for 1d4 rounds

Null Time Field: (free; at-will)
*Close Burst 6; +30 vs. Will; Target is stunned
*Special: the Phane can only use this power once per round

Time Duplicate: (free; 2/day)
*The Phane may take an extra turn after this, but skips its next turn

Time Regression:
...OK, I can't quite figure out how the HELL this power works in 3.5, much less how to translate it, so I'm skipping its translation

True Strike: (Minor; 5/day)
*The Phane's next attack gets a +20 bonus

Unholy Aura: (Standard; 5/day)
*The Phane gets a +4 bonus to all defenses

Slow: (Standard; 5/day)
*Ranged 17; +43 vs Will; target is slowed and dazed
*Effect: make this attack up to 11 more times against targets that are both within range and within 6 of the original target

Greater Invisibility: (Standard; at-will)
*The Phane becomes invisible

Time Stop: (Minor; recharge: somebody else uses Time Stop)
*As the Wizard power


Rituals:
Greater Teleport, Tongues, Detect Magic, Safe Time

Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Str - ( - )......Dex 25 (+19)...Wis 16 (+15)
Con 28 (+21)...Int 24 (+19)...Cha 33 (+23)


So as you can see, the only difference is in the powers list: the 3e version's is longer, but (and this is important) the 4e excerpt version's has stuff that's both more interesting and, in large part, more complicated. Plus there's stuff on the 3e's list that, while technically translatable, would never actually be done (such as True Strike).



Edit: *grumble* stupid formatting :smallfrown:

shadzar
2009-06-06, 01:55 PM
okay no offence guys but this is a thread about whether or not 4.0 insults your intelligence. not how intuitive or otherwise THACO is. however to offer my personal opinion it doesn't make much sense.

Since 4th changed many system, and to some the way the systems changed was insulting you have to look back at the other system to denote why the change is insulting. Even though 4th was not the direct reason for the change of THAC0 to a new system, it is compared along with the 3.x and 4th systems to show that all of those systems are the same math, so there is nothing intuitive about it save for saying, you were too dumb to do math with THAC0, and BAB was too hard for you too, so here is 4th edition way of doing it much simpler! :smallsmile:

:smallconfused: That is the insult.

(See all THAC0 discussing people in the new thread.)

satorian
2009-06-06, 02:11 PM
I won't speak to the rules themselves being dumbed down, though I do tend to side with the complexity-is-good and verisimilitude-is-immersion-is-good camps. For me, the issue is the writing style and content. I started with AD&D at around age 9. I remember very fondly looking up all these new words I was learning (for some reason "bastion" always sticks in my head, as does "penultimate"). I picked up legends and lore, and loved learning bits about real world mythologies. I then followed this by reading the holy books and collected myths I had only learned bits and pieces about. I became obsessed with Sumerian, bablylonian and Egyptian culture, literature, magic beliefs, etc. D&D is largely responsible for my interest in two of my college majors, anthropology and religion. I'm sure it inspired aother to become historians. It wasn't so much that the early editions assumed a greater knowledge base or intelligence in the player, only that it assumed a greater curiosity. D&D taught me. I don't see the new books doing that for this generation. In that sense, it is dumbed down.

kjones
2009-06-06, 02:14 PM
To throw some new fuel on the fire, here's how 4e insults my intelligence: Luke Nounverber (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LukeNounverber).

Opening up my MM to some random page:

Godforged Colossus

Some other random page:

Cacklefiend Hyena

Let's look at kobolds:
Kobold Wyrmpriest, Dragonshield, Slyblade

It just smacks of laziness on their part - right up there with the Shadowdark and the Darkbad.

Artanis
2009-06-06, 02:27 PM
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

oxybe
2009-06-06, 02:30 PM
it should be noted that gygax loved words. he made sure his prose was in his works, be it a rulebook or module. for him (IMO) it was a way to add a personal flair and a certain style to it.

in the end years of 2nd ed and throughout 3rd, there does seem to be a movement by the devs and the editing teams to turn a rulebook into a more cut-and-dry book of rules.

the current 4th ed books that read very much like a manual, is because they want to make it as clear as possible to the reader, so it is admittingly a bit dry.

also: my next dwarf? so going to be Jorgan Von Nounverber, bard and bad fiction writer.

jseah
2009-06-06, 02:37 PM
They also removed all the interesting and cool abilities.

You can't walk through walls, fly or do any of the really fun stuff that 3.5E allowed.

Granted, they were powerful when used properly and made wizards the insanely powerful character it is in 3.5e. The solution is to give access to it to everyone, not take it away... -.-

RTGoodman
2009-06-06, 02:44 PM
They also removed all the interesting and cool abilities.

That's entirely subjective. I think there's plenty of interesting and cool stuff in 4E.



You can't walk through walls, fly or do any of the really fun stuff that 3.5E allowed.

That's not really true. There are ways to fly, both limited (most powers) and unlimited (at least one Epic magic item), and the ability to walk through walls, otherwise known as Phasing in 4E, is, as far as I know, something PCs have access to. I don't know specific examples off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it as a power somewhere or maybe a magic item.



The solution is to give access to it to everyone, not take it away... -.-

Yeah, THAT's a good idea. We already have enough people complaining that everyone in 4E is a Wizard because of the Powers system.

RebelRogue
2009-06-06, 02:44 PM
They also removed all the interesting and cool abilities.

You can't walk through walls, fly or do any of the really fun stuff that 3.5E allowed.
Sure you can, they're just generally available at higher levels than in 3.5. For instance, Fly is a level 16 Wizard Utility Power.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 03:06 PM
Sure you can, they're just generally available at higher levels than in 3.5. For instance, Fly is a level 16 Wizard Utility Power.

Which causes another problem that is insulting in telling people WHEN something is fun to do.

Over halfway into your career before you can fly around? :smallconfused: And you can only do it for short terms equal to the length of part of a fight. :smallconfused:

I don't just want to play a tactical miniature game, but I must have been playing my RPG wrong for nearly 30 years because it was always supposed to be one, and that is why the miniature wargamers that made it was trying to make something new besides a tactical miniature wargame, or a miniature game where you re-enact battles.

I guess we was all just dumb and didn't knows what we was really wanting to play. Ha-yuk.

:yuk:

The did in fact take creativity of the players away because the players couldn't handle their own imagination without breaking the purty little game balance.

There is no excuse for Fly as it is. It is also telling players where they MUST allow certain things in the games. How would you add flight into the game without some silly AV item/ship and not break the entire Fly spell as is? You can't.

Fly is so weak as it is for the level, you couldn't add it at any lower level without making a superior power for a lower level, or a flat out useless power. :smallconfused:

oxybe
2009-06-06, 04:00 PM
how is them telling you "you can fly at level 16" different from "you can fly at level 5" ? either way they're arbitrarily telling you when you can do it, the only difference is in 4th ed you get it half way through your career instead of a quarter of the way.

as for duration it's generally 5 minutes or until end of encounter. as opposed to 1 min./level? unless you were "dungeon-crashing" at a high speed, 1 min/level only mattered at the higher end of the game, otherwise, in my experience, such an effect lasted until the end of encounter or until we finish doing "X".

flight, as a spell, rarely lasted 2 encounters when you get it unless you're in an area where you fight>fight>fight>fight all in a row, repeatedly, without much time for a breather. in 4th ed, this would mean one big encounter. so your flight spell would keep going until the end anyways.

the first really truly powerful 3rd ed flight spell, Overland Flight, is in 4th ed, as an end-paragon ritual that lasts for 10 hours per use. you get overland halfway through your 3rd ed career and 2/3rds of the way in your 4th ed one. a decent int based caster can get a phantom steed via ritual and cranking that arcana skill up isn't too hard to get the flying one through a check of 40+(i know that i can get a 30ish easy at level 10).

although Fly is level 16, but Warlocks have combat flight at level 10 (Shadow Form), Druids and Sorcerers get limited flight at level 6. several items (magic carpet & ebony fly) & mounts also allow it.

extended un-aided flight for prolonged times isn't something i find too often in books or stories, so i guess it doesn't bug me so much

shadzar
2009-06-06, 04:28 PM
how is them telling you "you can fly at level 16" different from "you can fly at level 5" ? either way they're arbitrarily telling you when you can do it, the only difference is in 4th ed you get it half way through your career instead of a quarter of the way.

And look at how that is spread out and the tactical nature of it. By level 5 what do you have to look forward. 75 percent of your career vs 48% of your career.

:smallconfused: You and other can master things much more potent than what a bird does naturally that late in life?

It makes no sense. Some of the first things I would do is duplicate abilities of other things were I a wizard. Telling me I cannot for some silly reason makes no sense at all.

The only reason is because the tactical mini game that is 4th edition combat would make flying have too great an advantage. Then that is a flaw in the design of the system rather than a flaw in the abilities of the players to think what they would want to do when.

We are looking at the level of power required to perform the action, then in no way should it be that level, since power level is what 4th tries to balance. Are players supposed to be stupid and not see this?

For what the spell does comparable to other of that level its power it not equal in level.

Least we not forget you can only Fly once per day as well. :smallconfused: WHAT?

This is the same for Levitate which is level 6.

The idea of a utility spell has always been that it does more than just stuff in combat, but all things now only exist for combat.

Again saying people only want to play the game for tactical miniature combat. Um...NO!

Not to mention you can only use it on yourself to make you fly, or to make you levitate... :smallconfused:

Fly is level 16. You gain speed Fly 8 for up to 5 minutes.

The entire power scale of things are off to make them work for the tactical mini game balance in 4th, not for actual play.

While 5th level seemed arbitrary before, the extreme limitations on such in 4th just limits anything you could do, unless you are doing it in battle.

Why comparatively is it level 16?

You can Raise the dead at level 8 with a ritual but takes twice as many levels to fly than it does to rip a soul from the ether and shove it into a body? :smallconfused:

jseah
2009-06-06, 04:39 PM
This is what I get for playing the game in Heroic tier only. And not bothering to read up before shooting my mouth... er... fingers off.

Oh, but then there's no common flight anymore. =(

The problem with the 4E fly is that it sucks lots of actions just to keep flying. A bit hard to attack effectively while doing that. And is high level.
I kind of liked how I could use fly on NPCs (humans) and not have players complain because well... it's only a 3rd level spell anyone can buy on the market.


Maybe I still haven't gotten over the simplified battlefield. (my players regularly have 4 or more things to control at the same time. Each. And the battlefield is 3D from level 5 on. )

No more specialization on combat as well. I liked the "combat reshuffler" build in 3.5e. All teleport and not much attack. Did things like swap grappled allies with a summoned fire elemental. And moved enemies off the roof.
Even an eladrin feylock has more attack than teleports... =/

And no utility wizard... -.-

TheThan
2009-06-06, 04:39 PM
I never thought that 4E insulted my intelligence, but I did find it’s blatant arrogance that insults me. They take the stance that if you are not playing “their game” then you are wrong and shouldn’t be playing it at all. That’s a terrible attitude to have. Instead of encouraging people to experiment and come up with different ways of using their system, or even different ways of playing the game (like 3E), they take a standoffish, rude and insulting tone. The only time you can be “doing it wrong” is when you are preventing the game from being fun for the other players at the table.

I come from the old school camp where the DM was not only the rules arbiter but also the person with complete authority of what happens in the game. As a result, I dislike it when rulebooks tell me when I’m allowed to do X or to allow Y into my game. Its my game shouldn’t I be the one making that decision.

Artanis
2009-06-06, 04:43 PM
And no utility wizard... -.-

Kurald Galain has a guide to making a 4e Batman

oxybe
2009-06-06, 04:46 PM
And look at how that is spread out and the tactical nature of it. By level 5 what do you have to look forward. 75 percent of your career vs 48% of your career.

:smallconfused: You and other can master things much more potent than what a bird does naturally that late in life?

It makes no sense. Some of the first things I would do is duplicate abilities of other things were I a wizard. Telling me I cannot for some silly reason makes no sense at all.

The only reason is because the tactical mini game that is 4th edition combat would make flying have too great an advantage. Then that is a flaw in the design of the system rather than a flaw in the abilities of the players to think what they would want to do when.

We are looking at the level of power required to perform the action, then in no way should it be that level, since power level is what 4th tries to balance. Are players supposed to be stupid and not see this?

For what the spell does comparable to other of that level its power it not equal in level.

Least we not forget you can only Fly once per day as well. :smallconfused: WHAT?

This is the same for Levitate which is level 6.

The idea of a utility spell has always been that it does more than just stuff in combat, but all things now only exist for combat.

Again saying people only want to play the game for tactical miniature combat. Um...NO!

Not to mention you can only use it on yourself to make you fly, or to make you levitate... :smallconfused:

Fly is level 16. You gain speed Fly 8 for up to 5 minutes.

The entire power scale of things are off to make them work for the tactical mini game balance in 4th, not for actual play.

While 5th level seemed arbitrary before, the extreme limitations on such in 4th just limits anything you could do, unless you are doing it in battle.

Why comparatively is it level 16?

You can Raise the dead at level 8 with a ritual but takes twice as many levels to fly than it does to rip a soul from the ether and shove it into a body? :smallconfused:

as for nearly-perfectly duplicating the abilities of other things, why should that be possible at low levels? why should that be something an simple adept should master in a few years when it took the power of a deity to give that ability to the creature upon it's very creation in the first place?

the wizard should not be the be-all-end-all utility-belt batman-guy-answer-for-everything. he's a caster, no better or worse then the swordmage, the warlock, the sorceror or the bard.

as for the "strength" of fly, it's entirely a YMMV ability. like i said other classes gain a more limited version of flight, "Fly" is the only unaided one that lasts for a prolonged time outside of rituals. the sorceror gets a few powers that allow him flight for a round's time or so but require a short rest between uses.

as to why raise dead before flight? why not? note that you're not ripping a soul from the ether but giving it a chance to come back in it's body that's been repaired but temporarily weakened... there's nothing forceful about it at all. it can just as easily decline and say in paradise.

Oslecamo
2009-06-06, 04:49 PM
Kurald Galain has a guide to making a 4e Batman

Wich would be somewhat relevant if it actually resembled a batman wizard, but instead it's only something wich can't even match a joker monk.

Soniku
2009-06-06, 04:49 PM
I never thought that 4E insulted my intelligence, but I did find it’s blatant arrogance that insults me...

Where does it say all that stuff? I've modified 4th ed for my party a lot and haven't come across one line telling me how I 'should' be doing things.

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 04:52 PM
I got that impresison when I started reading entries for races where they state something like this (for a tiefling):

If you want to play a dark, brooding character with inner darkness, play a tiefling.

And I know that's just a suggestion, but why is it there in the first place? People can't decide for themselves what characters they want to play? Not to mention, they're using the lamest tiefling stereotype, emo goth boys.


It's the way they decided to approach their audience.
And it just doesn't appeal to me, and doesn't make me feel like a potential customer for that product.

I think it comes down do that for most people.

Ugh, you quoted it wrong.



Play a tiefling if you want...

to be a hero who has a dark side to overcome.
to be good at tricking, intimidating, or persuading others to do your will.
to be a member of a race that favors the warlock, warlord, and rogue classes.



Having a "dark side to overcome" might be interpreted as emo, but note the "overcome" part.

More importantly, being good at "tricking, intimidating, or persuading others to do your will" is very much the opposite of being emo. I have to say it: lrn 2 reed. Or 2 remmber.

And like Gorbash said, it's a suggestion. More importantly, it comes right after the racial features and summary, i.e. it helps with skimming through races. A player can look at that and go "Ew, I don't want to be an emo character!" or "Overcoming a dark side? That's sounds kinda cool," or even better "Huh, dark and manipulative? Maybe I can play that up and be an outgoing, enthusiastic tiefling!" or worse "I'm gonna be a happy tiefling, lol."

Honestly, given how other races are played up, I really don't see how this is a bad thing.

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 05:01 PM
To throw some new fuel on the fire, here's how 4e insults my intelligence: Luke Nounverber (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LukeNounverber).

Opening up my MM to some random page:

Godforged Colossus

Some other random page:

Cacklefiend Hyena

Let's look at kobolds:
Kobold Wyrmpriest, Dragonshield, Slyblade

It just smacks of laziness on their part - right up there with the Shadowdark and the Darkbad.

Laziness? What do you want exactly? Bob the Kobold Who Can Cast Divine Magic Granted From an Elder Dragon?

It may sound stupid, but it fulfills it's job quite well: giving memorable names to different monsters.

Actually, now that I go through the MM, I think the "nounverber" is being grossly exaggerated. The majority of monster names are pretty straightforward, like Kobold Slinger, or Hobgoblin Archer, or, y'know, Elder Blue Dragon :smallconfused:

shadzar
2009-06-06, 05:17 PM
Where does it say all that stuff? I've modified 4th ed for my party a lot and haven't come across one line telling me how I 'should' be doing things.

I think some is on DMG pg 42. I just returned the book before dinner, but there is a part saying something along the lines of.....


Just ignore talking to the two guards outside the town because that is boring and isn't fun.

:smalleek: I don't know what is fun anymore? I am not smart enough to make that decision for myself and the all-mighty D&D designers are the only ones that know what I enjoy; even though we have never met or spoke in our lives? :smallconfused:

That is just one example in a poorly written explanation of the game. As people say the 4th edition books read like crap. The reason is they are full of it.

They are trying to define what is fun for all by telling people what is fun, but they are merely representing their own opinions as facts. Something that is commonly laughed at on all forums when anyone posts in such a manner, but the books are riddled with such. :smallconfused:

Like the books telling you you don't know what is fun but th designers do, and hence you should do it this way because contrary to your own belief of doing it another way this is the only way to have fun.

Everyone should be able to heal themselves with healing surges is another defining fun, and telling you how you should be playing, or you are doing it wrong.

What if I want to play the 1st edition fighter that just smacks things and oddly enough relies on the rest of the party to have my back while the wizard makes my abilities nominal in battle while they retain spells? It is a cooperative game right?

Nope, now I must heal myself or I am not playing right, because I am letting the rest of the group down by relying on them to function as a group. :smallconfused:

So glad to finally know in all my life I didn't know what fun was and now there is someone to tell my what I enjoy and like. :smallsmile:

:yuk:

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 05:29 PM
In all my years on the net, it happened extremely rarely, that I ended up on a NSFW site by googling. ^^

And balance isn't everything. To me, an interesting game has to be unbalanced! If everyone can do the same things equally well, it's just boring. Being good at widely different things is actually quite important to me.

Okay, on balance... do we have a mutual understanding of what balance is in 4e? Or better yet, unbalance?

If unbalance to you means characters doing different kinds of things, then I have news for you: classes play out very different in 4e. Not every character does the same things equally well, in fact some outright suck. Oh, I'm sure my invoker gets half her level to all skill checks, but with a Str of 11 it's only a +5 to Athletics right now. That may seem like a lot, but compare this to the party fighter: +5 for half level, with another +5 for training, and on top of that a +6 for a 23 Str, coming out to a +16 for Athletics. That's... a lot. So while my invoker has learned some climbing in her adventures, the fighter is climbing up sheer cliffs like no one's business.

Contrast this with skills like Nature, my character has a +14 to that, compared to the fighter who I'm gonna guess has no more than a +7. So while the fighter has learned to tell a sahuagin from a kuo-toa and what tactics they use, my invoker can compare sahuagin and kuo-toa society from the standpoint of, oh I don't know, economics. Or maybe the fighter knows what kinds of berries and insects are good to eat, but my invoker knows how to collect dew for drinking water and trap small animals.

Or maybe there's something else I'm missing here :smallconfused:

satorian
2009-06-06, 05:45 PM
To me, balance is what 4e does well: every class is about the same power at any given level. I don't like this. In any game I play where there is magic (or the Force or whatever), magic can warp reality. Fighters fight really well (at high levels really REALLY well), but can do absolutely nothing supernatural. I don't like rules made for explicitly gamist reasons (i.e. roles, tagging enemies, per encounter anything, the Pathfinder polymorph nerf, etc.). Balance is inherently gamist. I owuldn't say I dislike balance. I just wouldn't sacrifice any other aspect of a game (verisimilitude, storytelling, the awesomeness of magic) to get more balance.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 05:45 PM
Okay, on balance... do we have a mutual understanding of what balance is in 4e? Or better yet, unbalance?

My understanding of class balance and 4th would be everyone working under the same constraints regardless of class.

Everyone uses the same system, although each class should NOT use the same system as they function differently and exist for different purposes.

A Fighter does not operate as a Wizard or Cleric does, and should not by working under the same system and constraints.

The numbers of paper balance out, but the classes themselves don't function as just the numbers on a page.

The balance should come in terms of PC party vs whatever the DM is throwing at them.

As long as that is balanced, the rest means nothing so long as everyone is playing their part and is working as part of the machine that is the PC group.

That is my understanding of balance in 4th, vs what I think balance should be.

Just questioning if I am following correctly on what you are talking about. :smallconfused:

TheThan
2009-06-06, 05:58 PM
Page seven has a great example. It defines “the DND world” instead of describing what a dnd world could look like they decide to tell you exactly what it is. They don’t even acknowledge that the DM has the power and right to change things to see fit. If you look in the 3.x player’s handbook they don’t make any such statements about their game. They leave it up to the players (DMs) to create worlds.

It might help initiate new players, but by not mentioning that the DM has the right to choose what sort of setting he runs, they are indicating that they only want people to play the way they do, with the same sort of themes and style.

Another example is on page 12 DMG. It defines the DM as a nothing more than a rules arbiter.


Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players.


It goes on to mention campaign styles, but still doesn’t mention anything about how the DM is in really in charge of the world the players are playing in.

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-06, 06:06 PM
I find that 4e does not, in fact insult my intelligence. Mainly because getting insulted by sets of rules in books is incredibly idiotic, and I'm not the type of person to be a condescending ass about perceived sligihts against me by a book, or a company.

satorian
2009-06-06, 06:15 PM
I find that 4e does not, in fact insult my intelligence. Mainly because getting insulted by sets of rules in books is incredibly idiotic, and I'm not the type of person to be a condescending ass about perceived sligihts against me by a book, or a company.

But you are the kind of person to level backhanded insults against anyone who disagrees with you?

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 06:16 PM
Page seven has a great example. It defines “the DND world” instead of describing what a dnd world could look like they decide to tell you exactly what it is. They don’t even acknowledge that the DM has the power and right to change things to see fit.
Ahem....

The Details
Where the core D&D rulebooks talk about the world, they drop names that exemplify the core assumptions— such as the tiefling empire of Bael Turath and the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd. Just as you can alter names in published adventures to suit the flavor of your campaign, you can change the names of these assumed parts of the world. For example, you might decide that the tieflings of your world have a culture reminiscent of medieval Russia, and call their ancient empire Perevolochna. Or, to use the example from Chapter 6, a peasant hero named Al-Rashid might have worn the Invulnerable Coat in ancient days.

Aside from these changeable assumed details, most of the specifics of the world are left to your own invention. Even if you begin your campaign in the town of Fallcrest and lead the characters on to Winterhaven and Hammerfast, eventually the characters will move off the map in Chapter 11 and explore new lands of your own creation.


If you look in the 3.x player’s handbook they don’t make any such statements about their game. They leave it up to the players (DMs) to create worlds.
Are you kidding me? There's entire chapter sections detailing how a town works, and how economies in towns work, and what the churches of the default gods are like, and so much more detail. I mean wow.


It might help initiate new players, but by not mentioning that the DM has the right to choose what sort of setting he runs, they are indicating that they only want people to play the way they do, with the same sort of themes and style.

Another example is on page 12 DMG. It defines the DM as a nothing more than a rules arbiter.


It goes on to mention campaign styles, but still doesn’t mention anything about how the DM is in really in charge of the world the players are playing in.
Again, ahem...

What Does the DM Do?: The Dungeon Master has many hats to wear in the course of a game session. The DM is the rules moderator, the narrator, a player of many different characters, and the primary creator of the game’s world, the campaign, and the adventure.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 06:18 PM
I find that 4e does not, in fact insult my intelligence. Mainly because getting insulted by sets of rules in books is incredibly idiotic, and I'm not the type of person to be a condescending ass about perceived sligihts against me by a book, or a company.

I'm an idiotic condescending ass! :smallsmile:

Idiotic Condescending Ass
(counts as a mount, same stats as Horse mount)

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-06, 06:18 PM
But you are the kind of person to level backhanded insults against anyone who disagrees with you?

Possibly?

My point being; it's a book. A set of rules. Words. Guidelines. How can this in any remote way possibly be insulting to someone's intelligence unless they themselves allow the book to insult them in some ill conceived slight against them?

shadzar
2009-06-06, 06:22 PM
Possibly?

My point being; it's a book. A set of rules. Words. Guidelines. How can this in any remote way possibly be insulting to someone's intelligence unless they themselves allow the book to insult them in some ill conceived slight against them?

It isn't just the books, but how the designers have said things, and how they present things in the books.

James Wyatt for one in his WotC blog uses the same condescending tone to tell people what is and is not fun.

Bill Slaviscek, likewise in videos from cons, G4 interview, etc tells people what is and is not fun.

All those in the "Ze game will remain ze same!" video are telling people what is and is not fun.

Who do they think they are to decide for everyone what fun is, when they argue that the other people should not be doing so?

Hypocritical much?

satorian
2009-06-06, 06:28 PM
I think you may be confused as to what it generally means for something to insult one's intelligence. It's usually meant to imply that a writer/discussant/lecturer/whatever underestimates the intelligence of his or her audience and so speaks or writes at a lower level than he or she should. Example: as an educated non-scientist I find discussions of science in the mass media insulting to my intelligence.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 06:30 PM
I think you may be confused as to what it generally means for something to insult one's intelligence. It's usually meant to imply that a writer/discussant/lecturer/whatever underestimates the intelligence of his or her audience and so speaks or writes at a lower level than he or she should. Example: as an educated non-scientist I find discussions of science in the mass media insulting to my intelligence.

AKA, talking down to people.

Often occurs when one person assumes another knows nothing about what they are talking about and tries to dumb it down for the unwashed masses to understand.

Mando Knight
2009-06-06, 06:32 PM
I'm an idiotic condescending ass! :smallsmile:

Either that, or a True Fan (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/True_fan)! :smalltongue: Because only you can decide when the hobby of millions is ruined FOREVER (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER)!

Tackyhillbillu
2009-06-06, 06:37 PM
I honestly don't mind the changes in 4e. I honestly never liked the notion that PC's could become more powerful then the gods by dropping their levels in Wizard, and just waiting around. Game balence is a good thing in my opinion. Otherwise you end up with the 3.5 Fighter, who kicks ass early on, but is utterly worthless at high levels.

No Class should be completely and totally pointless at any point in the game, and frankly, Wizards make every other core class (with the exception of Clerics, and Druids maybe, don't really want to get into that argument) in 3.5 pointless fairly early on.

I don't really care about WOTC's attitude, and I never have. I use their products, but if their blog annoys you, don't read it. 4.0 is a lot less structured for the roleplay, but honestly, I much prefer it that way. Social Interactions as a product of numbers have never really worked for me. The skills give the DM a basic guideline, and he's allowed complete freedom over that.

Bassetking
2009-06-06, 06:43 PM
To me, balance is what 4e does well: every class is about the same power at any given level.

We agree! Everyone can contribute equitably to the story being told by the players and the GM, without feeling awkwardly shoehorned into situations designed for them to shine, or having to actively hinder their own progression so as to not co-opt too much of the spotlight. Everybody can contribute meaningfully in every aspect of play, be it combat, social, or skill based! How pleasant!


I don't like this.

http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smith.gif


In any game I play where there is magic (or the Force or whatever), magic can warp reality. Fighters fight really well (at high levels really REALLY well), but can do absolutely nothing supernatural.

Ah, all those tales of legend of fighters being able to do absolutely nothing supernatural. Cuchulain, Heracles, Samson, Gilgamesh... Wait...


I don't like rules made for explicitly gamist reasons (i.e. roles, tagging enemies, per encounter anything, the Pathfinder polymorph nerf, etc.). Balance is inherently gamist. I owuldn't say I dislike balance. I just wouldn't sacrifice any other aspect of a game (verisimilitude, storytelling, the awesomeness of magic) to get more balance.

I'm not a big fan of rule sets that support me choosing between whether I power-attack the enemy, or Charge AND Power attack the enemy, while my invisible, flying super-friend's astrally projected simulacrum single-handedly slays two dragons, brokers a lasting peace to the Blood War between the Devils and Demons, while he chills in his private, unreachable Tahitian paradise.

I'm not saying I dislike game-cracking class imbalance to the point of all game interactions being surpassed by a single individual, based on whether a class has access to a specific power-set or not...

I'm just saying I wouldn't sacrifice other portions of gameplay (Balance, Verisimilitude, Storytelling) in order to include it in my game.

Balance isn't an inherently gamist attitude or concept. It's narrative gold.

TheThan
2009-06-06, 07:35 PM
We’ve distilled our knowledge of the D&D® game into the material
that follows. Whether you need to know how to design an adventure, a campaign, or an entire game world, the material in this book can, and will, help you.
You’re a member of a select group. Truly, not everyone has the creativity and the dedication to be a DM. Dungeon Mastering (DMing) can be challenging, but it’s not a chore. You’re the lucky one out of your entire circle of friends who play the game. The real fun is in your hands. As you flip through the Monster Manual or look at published adventures on a store shelf, you get to decide what the player characters (PCs) take on next. You get to build a whole world, as well as design and play all its nonplayer characters (NPCs).
It’s good to be the DM.
The DM defines the game. A good DM results in a good game.
Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands. It’s fun, but it’s a big responsibility. If you’re the sort of person who likes to provide the fun for your friends, or to come up with new ideas, then you’re an ideal candidate for DM.


bolds added for emphasis.

@ Panda-s1
What you just quoted to me is in direct contradiction to the tone and feel of the whole book. Go figure, they can’t keep consistency in their own book. Not only that go read the entirely of page 150.


The rules and story elements in the D&D game are built around a set of core assumptions about the world.
The book then goes on to tell you exactly what encompasses a dnd world. Then they go on to tell you that you can change things in your campaign. I find it odd that they decided to tell you that you are free to change things 136 pages later. Pages 150 and 151 are slightly contradictory, they say “hey this is the game world, but I guess its ok to change it a little.
DnD 3.5 makes no references to what they think the dnd game world should look like. In fact they encourage it. they tell you that you can change things 5 pages in, not 150 pages in, which can indicate that they put greater importance on world generation and Dm Decision making.



Every rule in the Player’s Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn’t mean you can’t change some rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don’t like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting.
Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules. Given the creativity of gamers, almost every campaign will, in time, develop its own house rules.
The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign. Still, changing the way the game does something shouldn’t be taken lightly. If the Player’s Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master’s
Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way they are. Read these explanations carefully, and realize the implications for making changes.


The 3.5 DMG gives you rules for creating consistent (if not realistic) settlements, such as cities and towns. These are found under the chapter on world creation. They are there to be used if you are going to use them. Many DM and players don’t, either they use pre-published material or they use their own method, while others stick to them like glue. It’s a matter of style and desires.

4E basically just says, “oh you can create a towns, here’s some things to consider”. That takes real effort on their part.

I never said I hated 4E, and if I came off like I did, then I apologize I didn’t mean to. There are many things I like about the system. I like the use of powers for all classes (I dislike the at will-encounter-daily setup though), and I like the skill system to name two major things. However I find the tone used throughout the books slightly condescending. Come to think of it I think it stems from the feeling that they wrote this book for people that have never played an RPG before. In fact I think that may be part of the problem, they are making statements about things we as experience DMs and players already know and take for granted.

satorian
2009-06-06, 07:51 PM
Ah, all those tales of legend of fighters being able to do absolutely nothing supernatural. Cuchulain, Heracles, Samson, Gilgamesh... Wait...

Oh, Cuchulain son of two gods (Divine Rank 1, probably), Heracles son of a god (divine rank 0 during the trials, probably), Samson the cleric with DMM holy might (exactly what a Nazarene is mythologically), or Gil "two thirds god and one-third human" gamesh? Yeah, not iconic fighters. Conan, Fafhrd, the Knights of the Round, and Duncan Idaho from Dune are all awesome fighters of literature, myth and legend who were outshone by magic users in terms of power, yet were still worthy of tales.



Balance isn't an inherently gamist attitude or concept. It's narrative gold.

No, balance is inherently gamist. Good stories can be told under gamist systems. That doesn't mean the systems aren't gamist, or that the system is conducive to a good story. OWoD (especially Mage) is the system I've played that is most conducive to storytelling, and ignores balance entirely. That doesn't mean every story I took part in in OWoD was better than every D&D story, but on average the system was more conducive to a good story. Balance isn't narrative gold. Balance is neutral at best.

A little story that proves nothing: In a game of Mage, my friend played an Akashic Brother who was nearly omnipotent in combat. So we let him handle the combat, while lending a hand here or there and protecting him from Mind and Spirit stuff. But the real narrative wasn't about the combat. It was a battle of wills. He was far less suited to the walks in the spirit world resisting madness stuff that was the core of the tale. And so Mr. Awesome was basically a sidekick bodyguard at the table, and the rest of us shone for 80% of the time. When combat isn't the crux of the game, then combat balance just doesn't matter.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 07:59 PM
Either that, or a True Fan (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/True_fan)! :smalltongue: Because only you can decide when the hobby of millions is ruined FOREVER (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER)!

Only in the sense wherein a true fan of D&D would be one that already liked D&D, rather than one who didn't like D&D, but wanted it to be for them so it had to change for them and be damned those who already enjoyed it and were true fans of what it was.

I think, therefore I am; right?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-06, 08:04 PM
What you just quoted to me is in direct contradiction to the tone and feel of the whole book. Go figure, they can’t keep consistency in their own book. Not only that go read the entirely of page 150.

The book then goes on to tell you exactly what encompasses a dnd world. Then they go on to tell you that you can change things in your campaign. I find it odd that they decided to tell you that you are free to change things 136 pages later. Pages 150 and 151 are slightly contradictory, they say “hey this is the game world, but I guess its ok to change it a little.
I think you're misreading those passages.
When someone tells you the "core assumptions" about a game world, they usually are talking about elements of the world that were contemplated by the rules; such as it taking place in a medieval-esque world with magic, ruins, and adventure. As far as assumptions go, I wouldn't find those particularly onerous ones to make - particularly since the actual text in that section is woefully insufficient to constitute a setting of any stripe.

Every edition of D&D (and, in fact, nearly all RPGs) make assumptions about the setting - Shadowrun takes place in a cyberpunk world with wage mages and monofilament whips; Exalted takes place in a world where god-like beings run rampant among the mortals. Even games that don't take place in an explicit setting have these assumptions - AD&D assumes there are Gods that grant powers to their Clerics, and that looting dungeons and killing dragons is a perfectly viable method for someone to make a living.

4E just makes those assumptions transparent to the reader; they don't have to figure out what the designers were thinking about when they made a rule. I, for one, appreciate this type of design philosophy because it makes it easier for any DM to adapt the rules to best suit their needs. In 3E I rarely homebrewed monsters because I had little insight into what makes up a monster of a given CR; had I used trial and error (or read 3rd Party Guides) I probably could have figured it out eventually - but in the meantime I'm screwing up adventures and wasting time that I could be spending on developing stories. In 4E the tools of the designers are given to the DM; the rules for monster creation detail the assumptions made for monsters of a given level and some other general advice for tweaking them. Now I routinely make up monsters whole-cloth, not to mention refluffing monsters to better suit my needs.
In short, 4E provides the reader with the "designer's notes;" the very tools used by the designers to build up the system from a rules foundation are laid out in a clear and concise fashion. IMHO this shows, if anything, that 4E respects the intelligence of its players - it assumes that the players and DM are going to adapt the rules to best suit their tastes rather than relying wholly on published materials.

On an unrelated note: Complicated does not equal complex. Complex games can be built from simple and transparent sets of rules - Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)), for example.

jseah
2009-06-06, 08:17 PM
It's also partly the way both magic and non-magic skills come in nice discrete packets.
Aren't there other ways to do things apart from tossing yet another Icy Terrain?

Also, Fly is relatively simple compared to... healing, say. (speaking from a simulationist viewpoint)
Compare:
- uniform forcefield centered on you pointing upwards
- creating complex matrix of proteins in living flesh (and have it be accurate enough to be the same person)

The weird bit is that forcefields are present in magic missile. And Mage Hand... so why not Fly?

But applying this sort of logic was never meant to happen in D&D of course. =P


Hmm... Perhaps 3.5E was more of a simulationist kind of game. The rules were designed with an idea of how they worked in the physics of the system. They just used linear instead of logarithmic where they should have, causing all sorts of problems.
In 4E, they designed it with an idea of how useful that ability was.


Take for example, dexterity modifiers applying to AC even when unconscious. (it's just a -5 penalty to AC after your bonuses)
Whut? You can dodge while unconscious on the ground? Unconscious people should only have passive defences (like magic or size) adding to AC...
And exactly why is a higher level character harder to hit when tied up and sleeping compared to a lowly kobold?
- IE. even when paralyzed, a level 25 char can't be hit by a level 1. Except on a 20. huh? He has no armour, can't speak (much less move) and you have all the time in the world to line up your hits. And you can't hit him?
I'd prefer not to have to explain that.


If they wanted to preserve balance between fighters and wizards, they could give fighters supernatural abilities. Like jumping over buildings or summon shadow swords or shoot through walls.
Do remember they're supernatural and take it away in an AMF however, no magic = normal human abilities. Which ain't all that great.
It's difficult to explain why you can shoot fire that can knock down buildings but be unable lift things. Well, ok, it's magic. You can't say these rules apply. But intuitively... why not? There's just... no reason beyond, it's too complex or overpowered.


If you want a low magic, gritty style of campaign, then don't. But wizards shouldn't be around in such a campaign anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-06, 08:26 PM
And this is why people think roleplayers are weird...
Why we don't get an official spot in "gamer" culture...
Why I dislike 4e...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-06, 08:39 PM
Why we don't get an official spot in "gamer" culture...

:confused:

Last I checked, tabletop RPGs were one of the pillars of "gamer culture." Did that change?

Mando Knight
2009-06-06, 08:42 PM
And this is why people think roleplayers are weird...
Why we don't get an official spot in "gamer" culture...
Why I dislike 4e...

Why? Because the fans of the games argue over which version is best?
That happens everywhere. Transformers, video game systems, Pokemon, sports, sports teams within the same sport (Chicago Cubs are Completely Useless By September!), etc.

huttj509
2009-06-06, 09:15 PM
:confused:

Last I checked, tabletop RPGs were one of the pillars of "gamer culture." Did that change?


In general the term "Gamer" refers to video games, such as for the ultimate gamer show on Scifi.

The video game culture is different from the tabletop culture, but there is a lot of overlap between the members. Video gamers are portrayed more as slacker types, while tabletop gamers are portrayed as bookish.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 09:25 PM
In general the term "Gamer" refers to video games, such as for the ultimate gamer show on Scifi.

Yup. The term "gamer" was usurped by video games after the PSX and affordable home computers came out. No longer are board gamers or other tabletop (RPG) gamers even considered in gamer culture as anything other than a footnote, because we don't use all that city-fied technology.

Thus why 4th edition needed to have many MMO influences in it because EVERY gamer plays MMOs. :smallconfused:

:yuk:

Innis Cabal
2009-06-06, 09:28 PM
:confused:

Last I checked, tabletop RPGs were one of the pillars of "gamer culture." Did that change?

No, but RP has changed. Which is his point. RP is not the target market anymore, though it hasn't been for years.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-06, 10:06 PM
No, but RP has changed. Which is his point. RP is not the target market anymore, though it hasn't been for years.
That's why I said Pillar, not Center.

Maybe I'm not "hip" to you youngins with your X-Boxes and your datajacks, but "gamer" should encompass all people who devote an inordinate amount of time to non-gambling games. We all get wrapped up in competitive enterprises that don't require a whole lot of walking around, and develop jargon to further isolate ourselves from "the normals."
The way I see it, Gamers today are made up of 5 pillars:
- Computer Gamers
- Console Gamers
- Pen & Paper Gamers
- Board/Tabletop Gamers
- CCG Gamers

For a long time, Pen & Paper types were pretty much the only "gamers" around; computer games were diversions for computer geeks, consoles were just general-purpose entertainments, (US) board games were for kids, and CCGs didn't exist. Nowadays, largely thanks to the Internet, the formerly neglected types of "gamers" can actively create communities and therefore become "sub-cultures;" but that does not mean that there is any one "gamer" sub-culture! If anything, there is now a delightful overlap between these different worlds, where MMO junkies may roll the occasional d20 and Pokemon Masters may play the occasional game of Settler of Catan. In the same way there is no such thing as a "true fan" there is no single "gamer" culture that can kick out a still-active group due to a shift in the focus of marketing.
Long story short - Pen & Paper RPGs may no longer be the only "gamer" culture out there, but that doesn't mean Pen & Paper types are going to be left out in the cold. Despite what marketing might tell you, folks can still have vibrant communities even if they don't have special beverages (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/09/14/) devoted to them.

@huttj509 - I've always referred to myself as a "gamer;" presumably the term hasn't been universally co-opted by the electronic games marketing departments. Heck, I've been a gamer whether I've been referring to Pen & Paper RPGs or Tabletop Wargames.

What did you other old-timers refer to yourselves as?

EDIT: And besides, Pen & Paper RPGs are seeing a renaissance these days! We have people developing new games all the time, trying them out and posting reviews on the Internet; WotC, whatever its flaws, has worked hard to make Pen & Paper games appeal to a broader audience - and done so, I would like to point out, without producing a system so weaksauce that older gamers wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. We can buy sourcebooks at major book retailers, for crying out loud!

shadzar
2009-06-06, 10:13 PM
What did you other old-timers refer to yourselves as?

I walked up hill both ways, two miles, in the burning heat of summer, with 6 feet of snow to play board/card (not CCG)/war/RPG game to call myself a "gamer". :smallsmile:

Mando Knight
2009-06-06, 10:18 PM
card (not CCG)/war/RPG game

What? Not even Magic before it was popular?

Also, @ Oracle: Interesting. I play games from all five of your "pillars."

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-06, 10:32 PM
What? Not even Magic before it was popular?

Also, @ Oracle: Interesting. I play games from all five of your "pillars."
Exactly!

There's still a lot of cross-over amongst the "gamers," which is about the only thing that unifies them. Heck, I'd be willing to be that most folks on these boards have at least dabbled in all five at some point - or plan to in the future.