PDA

View Full Version : What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e?



Akisa
2009-12-04, 03:18 AM
What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e? Since I can't sleep I decided to check my old e-mail and one of my old DMs sent me an invitations. In the e-mail it asks if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot.

Myshlaevsky
2009-12-04, 03:22 AM
What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e? Since I can't sleep I decided to check my old e-mail and one of my old DMs sent me an invitations. In the e-mail it asks if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot.

Could you not just ask your old DM? 4e is the current edition of D&D - some people like playing it, others do not. If someone does like playing it and also likes playing games with you it's fairly natural they would ask you to play it. I really don't see how the playground can give you insight into your question.

MoelVermillion
2009-12-04, 03:23 AM
Maybe your old DM just wants to play with you again but is running 4e so wishes you'd give it another shot so you could play together?

The reason most people want you to convert to their edition is so that they can play, talk about and just generally enjoy their favourite edition with one extra person, seems pretty straight forward to me. Can it be annoying? Yes. Is it meant with ill will? For the most part, no.

Zombimode
2009-12-04, 03:24 AM
Hm, I think there is a difference between "wanting you convert to 4e" (which would be the case, if your normal gaming group wants to swicht systems) and "beeing invited to a 4e game" which is just nice.

averagejoe
2009-12-04, 03:32 AM
Or, really, the idea that one has to "convert" at all to play a certain edition, as if it were some kind of religion, seems a bit extreme. You make it sound like such a big and meaningful step, instead of playing a game which you could bow out of anytime anyways.

To answer your question, maybe it's because people like you and enjoy your company?

Vizzerdrix
2009-12-04, 03:40 AM
IT'S A TRAP! He's been replaced witha brain leech from Neptune run for your liiiife!! :smalleek:

Akisa
2009-12-04, 03:49 AM
IT'S A TRAP! He's been replaced witha brain leech from Neptune run for your liiiife!! :smalleek:

Shouldn't the IT's A TRAP! show a picture of the Admiral?

Anyway, I just have a strong disdain for the 4e, it's combination of "irrational" opinions of the power system mechanics and the belief I could ever get into character immersion.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-04, 03:50 AM
Because your friends like it, and want you to play with them, I guess.

Sliver
2009-12-04, 03:51 AM
People in black suits are always seen around your house, they have an unfashionable hat with 4E all over it and they stalk you at night right? Someone threw a 4 shaped brick through your window. You are blackmailed that if you won't convert to the right way, your affair with 3.5e will be revealed to the public and you will be forced to live in a 3 shaped igloo.. Don't call the police, they are in on it. You are probably going to be hunted by zombies, in packs of 4. Give up!

Jerthanis
2009-12-04, 03:53 AM
Your old DM obviously hates you. You should egg his house.

SparkMandriller
2009-12-04, 03:55 AM
You are probably going to be hunted by zombies, in packs of 4.

Isn't it survivors that come in groups of four?

Livor
2009-12-04, 03:55 AM
Obviously it is impossible to like more than one version of D&D. If you like one, you must violently dislike all others for not being the one true D&D. At least, this is what I gather from reading internet arguments.

The internet may be subject to unnecessary hyperbole and is not to be fully trusted without confirmation from a qualified physician.

tcrudisi
2009-12-04, 03:56 AM
... a strong disdain for the 4e; it's combination of "irrational" opinions power system mechanics and the belief I could ever get into character immersion.

I'll admit that I am currently inebriated. However, as many times as I read this sentence, I can't make heads or tails out of that statement. "It's combination of "irrational" opinions power system mechanics" is very confusing to me. What do you mean by "irrational opinions power system mechanics"?

Myshlaevsky
2009-12-04, 04:27 AM
Shouldn't the IT's A TRAP! show a picture of the Admiral?

Anyway, I just have a strong disdain for the 4e, it's combination of "irrational" opinions of the power system mechanics and the belief I could ever get into character immersion.

Then don't play. Why would you bring this onto the forum?


I'll admit that I am currently inebriated. However, as many times as I read this sentence, I can't make heads or tails out of that statement. "It's combination of "irrational" opinions power system mechanics" is very confusing to me. What do you mean by "irrational opinions power system mechanics"?

It's missing a comma or two, I suspect.

Chaelos
2009-12-04, 04:28 AM
"Come play with us" ≠ convert

I play 4E because my friends like it. I prefer 3.5 in almost every way, but playing 4E hasn't "converted" me--if anything, it's given me a clearer appreciation for just what was great about 3.5. And frankly, I have plenty of fun with my friends no matter what we're playing.

All I can say is this: go into a game with an open mind. The internet has bred so much 4E vs. 3.5E animosity that I don't think people are seeing the real picture clearly. If your friend wants to play with you again, should it really matter what version he wants to use?

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 05:16 AM
Hey, if I had my way, I'd play ADnD all the time, but us old timers have to settle for what's available. I play 4e because it's what everyone around here is playing. Gaming is gaming is gaming. If I found a RIFTS or HARP or GURPS group that I enjoyed hanging out with, I'd learn to play those games. Is it worth giving up a fun gaming group just to "stick to your guns?" IMHO, the answer to that is a loud and resounding NO.

BobVosh
2009-12-04, 06:30 AM
Obviously it is impossible to like more than one version of D&D. If you like one, you must violently dislike all others for not being the one true D&D. At least, this is what I gather from reading internet arguments.

The internet may be subject to unnecessary hyperbole and is not to be fully trusted without confirmation from a qualified physician.

It is allowed to have agreeable nostalgic feelings for older editions, but if so you aren't allowed to play them while supporting your current edition.

Also I'm going with "they probably want to play with you" theory. They don't really care if you dislike 4ed, nor do they really care if you reconnect with the current edition in a very special D&D session, they want to hang with their homey.

Serpentine
2009-12-04, 07:03 AM
In OP's defence: assuming the paraphrasing is reasonably accurate, then what was asked was something approximating "if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot". In other words, if she doesn't like 4e, then she ought to play with them in an attempt to like it. Which does kinda smack of trying to convert her, rather than just wanting to play a game with her.

But... we can't really know, eh?

Sliver
2009-12-04, 07:12 AM
In OP's defence: assuming the paraphrasing is reasonably accurate, then what was asked was something approximating "if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot". In other words, if she doesn't like 4e, then she ought to play with them in an attempt to like it. Which does kinda smack of trying to convert her, rather than just wanting to play a game with her.

But... we can't really know, eh?

To me it sounded more like if she would have liked 4e already, she would have been playing with them already, but she is not, so she should try again...

Zincorium
2009-12-04, 07:17 AM
If you were to go out and buy a D&D book from a major retailer, you'd probably buy 4th edition books.

A few years ago, it would have been 3.x.

Well before that came out, you'd have purchased a number of books that weren't clearly labeled as being any edition whatsoever, all you knew is that AD&D was better than D&D and so you bought it.

And some time before I was born, if you were into wargaming but wanted to put some emphasis on a particular character, well, some dude named Gygax had a product that was right up your alley- if you could find a copy.


Editions are only important insofar as they involve learning a ruleset and being okay with a certain approach to gaming. Everything else- good DMing, players who invest in the game, epic storylines...

...are completely independent of system. Take advantage of that. Someone suggests world of darkness and you end up as a storyteller after only DMing D&D? Grand opportunity! If you're as eclectic as I am, there is no shortage of ideas that either didn't come across right in another game or would have been foolish to attempt, and now is your chance.


On a side note, I'm personally only looking for either 4th or 2nd edition games- 3.x has been played out for right now.

Chrono22
2009-12-04, 07:25 AM
Everything else- good DMing, players who invest in the game, epic storylines...

...are completely independent of system.
I disagree. A system that presents tools and advice to a prospective GM, will make for better gaming than one that says little to nothing about it. So long as the advice is good, anyway.
That isn't to say rules-light systems can't be good... but I wouldn't call the lack of a feature, a defining feature.

bosssmiley
2009-12-04, 08:34 AM
What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e? Since I can't sleep I decided to check my old e-mail and one of my old DMs sent me an invitations. In the e-mail it asks if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot.

Your mates have found a new toy they like, and want to share their happiness. Like all weird little ingroups, they can't quite grasp that someone simply doesn't want to join in with their focus of obsession (Wow/D&D nE/LARP/Roshambo/C&B torture/flying saucer suicide cult).

Don't worry, they're 99% likely not to be evil, old edition-burning stooges of the Dark Empire of WOTC. :smallamused:

Optimystik
2009-12-04, 08:43 AM
Hey, if I had my way, I'd play ADnD all the time, but us old timers have to settle for what's available. I play 4e because it's what everyone around here is playing. Gaming is gaming is gaming. If I found a RIFTS or HARP or GURPS group that I enjoyed hanging out with, I'd learn to play those games. Is it worth giving up a fun gaming group just to "stick to your guns?" IMHO, the answer to that is a loud and resounding NO.

Pretty much this.

Boo-hoo OP, people are inviting you to play a game with them. It must be so horrible knowing someone wants you around and you don't smell awful.

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 08:55 AM
Boo-hoo OP, people are inviting you to play a game with them. It must be so horrible knowing someone wants you around and you don't smell awful.

Thanks, you just made my day better. I literally lol'd.

wormwood
2009-12-04, 08:55 AM
Don't drink the Kool-Aid!
:smalleek:

oxybe
2009-12-04, 09:04 AM
Don't drink the Kool-Aid!
:smalleek:

but she's already playing 3rd ed... ba-dump-bump-psh!

i'm here all night folks! don't drink the punch it's been spiked with hate and bile like none the abyss has seen before (who's the jerk what put a FATAL book in it anyways?)

Zincorium
2009-12-04, 09:11 AM
I disagree. A system that presents tools and advice to a prospective GM, will make for better gaming than one that says little to nothing about it. So long as the advice is good, anyway.
That isn't to say rules-light systems can't be good... but I wouldn't call the lack of a feature, a defining feature.

You're not disagreeing, you're making a separate point, which is valid to a certain extent.

Saying system A is good for new DMs and system B is hard for them to learn may be important to you, but it's also wholly subjective. There's a very real chance that either it's not true for other groups or is simply irrelevant. Everything else you said has the same degree of truth for you and possible lack thereof for others.


The things I pointed out- DM talent, Player Investment, and storylines which are epic in scope, can't be helped by the best system ever invented, and can't be held back even if the game is complete garbage. If you seriously think that your DM is worse simply for playing a game which you don't like, you and I don't operate on the same rules of reality, and so there's no point talking back and forth.

Hzurr
2009-12-04, 09:37 AM
Hey, if I had my way, I'd play ADnD all the time, but us old timers have to settle for what's available. I play 4e because it's what everyone around here is playing. Gaming is gaming is gaming. If I found a RIFTS or HARP or GURPS group that I enjoyed hanging out with, I'd learn to play those games. Is it worth giving up a fun gaming group just to "stick to your guns?" IMHO, the answer to that is a loud and resounding NO.

We have a guy similar to this in my group. Ideally, he'd be playing 2nd ed, or d6 Star Wars; but he plays with us because he enjoys the game regardless of the mechanics. (and because he has the best DM ever. :smallbiggrin:)

He (Mark Hall here on the boards) actually refuses to admit that 4E is really d&d; since his test to decide if something is d&d is: "Can a housecat kill a 1st level wizard?" Which is no longer true in 4E. :smalltongue:

Indon
2009-12-04, 09:52 AM
I'd like to chime in with the people who say you can play 4E without thinking it's a very good system.

I'm playing in a 4E game very, very heavily houseruled, and the system is still kind of meh, but a group's a group, you know.

Glass Mouse
2009-12-04, 10:02 AM
Meh. People learning of something awesome and then trying to spread the word is not something I'd grant much anger. I mean, sure, it's annoying, but hey... if that's your worst problem, you've got it good.

Tell your GM that yeah, you still hate 4ed, you still don't feel like trying it out, but if he ever starts up a 3.5 game, you're there.
Unless you really don't want to game with him.

In which case the problem, of course, is something else entirely.

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-04, 10:46 AM
We have a guy similar to this in my group. Ideally, he'd be playing 2nd ed, or d6 Star Wars; but he plays with us because he enjoys the game regardless of the mechanics. (and because he has the best DM ever. :smallbiggrin:)

He (Mark Hall here on the boards) actually refuses to admit that 4E is really d&d; since his test to decide if something is d&d is: "Can a housecat kill a 1st level wizard?" Which is no longer true in 4E. :smalltongue:

Housecat's have no stats. This is not the same as saying that a housecat is a level 1 minion.

Technically, this is a normal housecat.
House Cat

Kitty is adorable, evil, and deadly.

House Cat Level 1 Lurker
Tiny Natural Beast XP 100
Initiative +7 Senses Perception +6; Low Light
Kitty Dander
HP 22; Bloodied 11
AC 15; Fortitude 13, Reflex 15, Will 14
Speed 6

Claw (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage

Pounce (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage
House Cat shifts up to his speed before attacking

Kitty is Angry (standard; recharge 456)
+6 vs AC; 2d10 + 3 damage
The Housecat may make either a pounce or claw attack before rolling for 'Kitty is angry'

Lurk (Minor Action, At will)
The Housecat may immediately shift half it's speed if makes a successful stealth check.

Mewling Cuteness of Doom (standard; encounter) * psychic, charm
Ranged sight; +4 vs Will; 2d10 + 3 damage
Mewing softly, the Kitty is so cute it hurts. Target is all gooey and weakened (save ends)

Alignment: Evil
Skills: +8 stealth +8 acrobatics
Str 13 (+1) Dex 16 (+3) Wis 13 (+1)
Con 10 (0) Int 10 (0) Cha 14 (+2)


House Cat Tactics
Kitty is likely to attempt to tackle a target from hiding, sneaking up and frenzying all over the target using it's recharging 'Kitty is angry' attack.

House Cat Lore
Nature (DC:10) Despite being adorable, the average Housecat is both deadly and quite evil.
Because I, as DM, say so.

Also; Akisa, the only relevant questions are "Did you enjoy gaming with that dm/group, and "do you currently have enough games to play in." If the answers are Yes and No, then the course is clear. Otherwise, friendly reply and thanks for the offer.

Hzurr
2009-12-04, 11:04 AM
Housecat's have no stats. This is not the same as saying that a housecat is a level 1 minion.

Technically, this is a normal housecat.
House Cat

Kitty is adorable, evil, and deadly.

House Cat Level 1 Lurker
Tiny Natural Beast XP 100
Initiative +7 Senses Perception +6; Low Light
Kitty Dander
HP 22; Bloodied 11
AC 15; Fortitude 13, Reflex 15, Will 14
Speed 6

Claw (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage

Pounce (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage
House Cat shifts up to his speed before attacking

Kitty is Angry (standard; recharge 456)
+6 vs AC; 2d10 + 3 damage
The Housecat may make either a pounce or claw attack before rolling for 'Kitty is angry'

Lurk (Minor Action, At will)
The Housecat may immediately shift half it's speed if makes a successful stealth check.

Mewling Cuteness of Doom (standard; encounter) * psychic, charm
Ranged sight; +4 vs Will; 2d10 + 3 damage
Mewing softly, the Kitty is so cute it hurts. Target is all gooey and weakened (save ends)

Alignment: Evil
Skills: +8 stealth +8 acrobatics
Str 13 (+1) Dex 16 (+3) Wis 13 (+1)
Con 10 (0) Int 10 (0) Cha 14 (+2)


House Cat Tactics
Kitty is likely to attempt to tackle a target from hiding, sneaking up and frenzying all over the target using it's recharging 'Kitty is angry' attack.

House Cat Lore
Nature (DC:10) Despite being adorable, the average Housecat is both deadly and quite evil.
Because I, as DM, say so.


Fantastic! :smallsmile:

I think he was more referring to the whole "wizards have more than 4 hp at 1st level" thing, but I think the next time we play a low-level game, I'll throw a couple of these at the party, just so I can give them a hard time.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 11:48 AM
Housecat's have no stats. This is not the same as saying that a housecat is a level 1 minion.

Technically, this is a normal housecat.
House Cat

Kitty is adorable, evil, and deadly.

House Cat Level 1 Lurker
Tiny Natural Beast XP 100
Initiative +7 Senses Perception +6; Low Light
Kitty Dander
HP 22; Bloodied 11
AC 15; Fortitude 13, Reflex 15, Will 14
Speed 6

Claw (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage

Pounce (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage
House Cat shifts up to his speed before attacking

Kitty is Angry (standard; recharge 456)
+6 vs AC; 2d10 + 3 damage
The Housecat may make either a pounce or claw attack before rolling for 'Kitty is angry'

Lurk (Minor Action, At will)
The Housecat may immediately shift half it's speed if makes a successful stealth check.

Mewling Cuteness of Doom (standard; encounter) * psychic, charm
Ranged sight; +4 vs Will; 2d10 + 3 damage
Mewing softly, the Kitty is so cute it hurts. Target is all gooey and weakened (save ends)

Alignment: Evil
Skills: +8 stealth +8 acrobatics
Str 13 (+1) Dex 16 (+3) Wis 13 (+1)
Con 10 (0) Int 10 (0) Cha 14 (+2)


House Cat Tactics
Kitty is likely to attempt to tackle a target from hiding, sneaking up and frenzying all over the target using it's recharging 'Kitty is angry' attack.

House Cat Lore
Nature (DC:10) Despite being adorable, the average Housecat is both deadly and quite evil.
Because I, as DM, say so.

Also; Akisa, the only relevant questions are "Did you enjoy gaming with that dm/group, and "do you currently have enough games to play in." If the answers are Yes and No, then the course is clear. Otherwise, friendly reply and thanks for the offer.

Kitty's mewling should cause Domination. :smallwink:

FoE
2009-12-04, 11:50 AM
Oh no, is this going to turn into another Snuggles the Death Kitty thread? :smalltongue:

Incidentally, OP, I heard all the 4E players in the world get together on Friday night for the express purpose of discussing how to get you to convert to 4E. It's the most boring and pointless conspiracy ever. The other major conspiracies all get together and laugh at them. The 'second shooter on the grassy knoll' guys once threw a water ballooon at them.

chiasaur11
2009-12-04, 11:52 AM
Oh no, is this going to turn into another Snuggles the Death Kitty thread? :smalltongue:

Incidentally, OP, I heard all the 4E players in the world get together on Friday night for the express purpose of discussing how to get you to convert to 4E. It's the most boring and pointless conspiracy ever.

Yeah, but the Knights Templar brought chips and dip last week, so it wasn't a total waste.

FoE
2009-12-04, 11:55 AM
Yeah, but the Knights Templar brought chips and dip last week, so it wasn't a total waste.

Everyone then gets together to watch porn on the Illumaniti's TV. Unfortunately, the signal is scrambled, so you only get audio and the occassional flash of something that looks like boob (but only if you squint really hard).

Nero24200
2009-12-04, 12:04 PM
Everyone then gets together to watch porn on the Illumaniti's TV. Unfortunately, the signal is scrambled, so you only get audio and the occassional flash of something that looks like boob (but only if you squint really hard).

I thought the Area 51 guys came by and fixed the T.V last week?

Harr
2009-12-04, 12:18 PM
Anyway, I just have a strong disdain for the 4e, it's combination of "irrational" opinions of the power system mechanics and the belief I could ever get into character immersion.

Sounds like your DM still wants to game with you, cause he's, you know, still your friend and wants to spend time with you?

What you need to ask yourself is if this 'disdain' that you have is strong enough to snub your friends and pass on the chance to spend time with them. I mean sure, there will be 4e there, but there will also be joking around, people whom you like, eating chips, throwing dice, some beer maybe, and just fun times in general. Do you dislike 4e to a stronger degree that you like that other stuff?

I'm not saying you'd be right or wrong either way. If you choose to go, your reward would be to spend time with friends. If you choose not to go, your reward would be not to play 4e. So either way :smallsmile:

(This is of course assuming the people you game with are your friends, if they're not, then there's really no decision to be made.)

Giggling Ghast
2009-12-04, 12:26 PM
If you choose to go, your reward would be to spend time with friends. If you choose not to go, your reward would be not to play 4e. So either way :smallsmile:

Here lies the body of Danny O'Day
Who died defending his right of way
His cause was just; his will was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong

Artanis
2009-12-04, 12:35 PM
Anyway, I just have a strong disdain for the 4e, it's combination of "irrational" opinions of the power system mechanics and the belief I could ever get into character immersion.

Like tcrudisi, I can't figure out what the hell is going on with this statement, and I'm completely sober.

Could you elaborate or clarify or something?




As for the thread at large: I would only bother going if you're honestly going to give 4e an honest shot with an open mind. If you go in adamantly convinced that you hate 4e and that nothing will change your mind, then you're just going to be miserable.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 12:38 PM
I thought the Area 51 guys came by and fixed the T.V last week?

No, they've got satellite, and they had serious atmospheric interference. Cultists were trying to whip up a storm to summon Dagon.

Akisa
2009-12-04, 12:56 PM
Like tcrudisi, I can't figure out what the hell is going on with this statement, and I'm completely sober.

Could you elaborate or clarify or something?




As for the thread at large: I would only bother going if you're honestly going to give 4e an honest shot with an open mind. If you go in adamantly convinced that you hate 4e and that nothing will change your mind, then you're just going to be miserable.

Stupid insomnia, anyway what I was trying to say my reason for not liking 4e is because of two reasons. I can't get into character and I hate the power mechanics. And not getting into character is just going to annoy the group and this is not the first time someone wanted me to try 4e. There is also the fact I have no time for a new game at the moment.

Artanis
2009-12-04, 01:07 PM
Fair enough.

There's nothing wrong with not playing if you don't want to or don't have the time. As the others have said, nobody's trying to convert you. Your friends just want you to join what they're doing, and what they're doing just happens to be 4e :smallsmile:

Talyn
2009-12-04, 01:16 PM
No, they've got satellite, and they had serious atmospheric interference. Cultists were trying to whip up a storm to summon Dagon.

Please. Everyone knows Dagon only plays White Box D&D.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 01:16 PM
Stupid insomnia, anyway what I was trying to say my reason for not liking 4e is because of two reasons. I can't get into character and I hate the power mechanics. And not getting into character is just going to annoy the group and this is not the first time someone wanted me to try 4e. There is also the fact I have no time for a new game at the moment.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1st ed we discovered that plucking a string made a sound.
2nd ed we discovered that if we stuck it to a bit of wood with some other strings we could make a tune.
3rd ed we discovered how to make a guitar, and to start making some beautiful music.
3.5 ed we discovered we could make the guitar electric, and that there were no limits to our creativity.
4th ed we got Guitar Hero. Which is nice. People like Guitar Hero. *I* like Guitar Hero. However:
No matter how many times you try to tell me it's a musical instrument, I'll laugh at you. No matter how many times you tell me "it's electric, like the old one", I'll continue to laugh.

4th ed has taken years of fixes and fine tuning a system, ignored them, and built a 1st edition of an entirely new game system. That's fine. I dislike that they've tagged on a DnD sticker on it, just as much as if they tagged on a DnD sticker to a Twilight novel. The sticker is not what makes it DnD.

Hell, the DnD miniatures game is a closer system to the current 4.0. I didn't care that they released the miniatures game. Fine, you're branching out WotC, go for it. Videogames too? Great. Novels? Fantastic.

However: "This is the 4th edition of the game you're playing" ?
"Oh awesome"
"Yeah. Everything you could ever do in 3.5, forget that. Here learn 200 actions we ripped out of WoW to play your Shaman".
"Erm... how is that anything like what I was playing"
"See the sticker?"

Having said that, I would like to try out the Eladrin build I made for it.
It seems like the only one I'd be interested in playing though.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 01:20 PM
Sounds like your DM still wants to game with you, cause he's, you know, still your friend and wants to spend time with you?

What you need to ask yourself is if this 'disdain' that you have is strong enough to snub your friends and pass on the chance to spend time with them. I mean sure, there will be 4e there, but there will also be joking around, people whom you like, eating chips, throwing dice, some beer maybe, and just fun times in general. Do you dislike 4e to a stronger degree that you like that other stuff?

I'm not saying you'd be right or wrong either way. If you choose to go, your reward would be to spend time with friends. If you choose not to go, your reward would be not to play 4e. So either way :smallsmile:

(This is of course assuming the people you game with are your friends, if they're not, then there's really no decision to be made.)

My new attitude is, "Sure I'll join your game for a while if after a good stopping point, you can let me run whatever I want and you'll play it." I think the ideal gaming group has everyone rotate DM and game pick responsibilities.

Kris Strife
2009-12-04, 01:21 PM
Please. Everyone knows Dagon only plays White Box D&D.

If you want an eldritch horror to DM, you need to summon a shoggoth anyways.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 01:36 PM
My new attitude is, "Sure I'll join your game for a while if after a good stopping point, you can let me run whatever I want and you'll play it." I think the ideal gaming group has everyone rotate DM and game pick responsibilities.

I'd like that, but it seems my group doesn't ever play systems I want to play, because I'm always DMing them.

I do DnD 3.5, so does one other host.
I do Vampire: The Masquerade.

They do:
Runequest.
4.0
Warhammer 40K.
Warhammer Fantasy.
Shadowrun.

Which is fine, but I've not played either of my systems in over a year and a half now. I'm not in a group that doesn't like those systems, just for some reason the players who enjoy them keep wanting me to DM them.

I have a massive backlog of character ideas.

Gametime
2009-12-04, 01:36 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1st ed we discovered that plucking a string made a sound.
2nd ed we discovered that if we stuck it to a bit of wood with some other strings we could make a tune.
3rd ed we discovered how to make a guitar, and to start making some beautiful music.
3.5 ed we discovered we could make the guitar electric, and that there were no limits to our creativity.
4th ed we got Guitar Hero. Which is nice. People like Guitar Hero. *I* like Guitar Hero. However:
No matter how many times you try to tell me it's a musical instrument, I'll laugh at you. No matter how many times you tell me "it's electric, like the old one", I'll continue to laugh.

4th ed has taken years of fixes and fine tuning a system, ignored them, and built a 1st edition of an entirely new game system. That's fine. I dislike that they've tagged on a DnD sticker on it, just as much as if they tagged on a DnD sticker to a Twilight novel. The sticker is not what makes it DnD.

Hell, the DnD miniatures game is a closer system to the current 4.0. I didn't care that they released the miniatures game. Fine, you're branching out WotC, go for it. Videogames too? Great. Novels? Fantastic.

However: "This is the 4th edition of the game you're playing" ?
"Oh awesome"
"Yeah. Everything you could ever do in 3.5, forget that. Here learn 200 actions we ripped out of WoW to play your Shaman".
"Erm... how is that anything like what I was playing"
"See the sticker?"

I'm going to preface my statement by saying that your personal opinion of any of the editions is perfectly valid and beyond reproach.

However, your characterization of all the editions until 4th representing a natural and linear progression is misleading and, frankly, not really true. Even assuming you're talking about the 1st edition of AD&D (rather than the very original D&D, which was mostly a few tweaks to the existing Chainmail wargames system), the 2nd edition completely overhauled things, and 3rd edition totally overhauled that.

I think the reason people think 4th is so dissociated from other editions is because in the other editions, spellcasting remained (very roughly) the same, in terms of structure. Individual spells, spell learning mechanisms, and even the classes learning those spells might change, but the structure of spellcasting remained common.

In 4th, to be honest, almost everything about 3.5 was kept in a refined form (the action economy, the skill system, the feat system, the class system [though not multiclassing or prestige classing, which were more heavily structured]), but the one thing they REALLY didn't keep was the spell system. They added in a whole new system of "spells" (and gave them, in one way or another, to everyone), which really offended the sensibilities of a lot of players.

Not that there's anything wrong with feeling that way, but there's a big difference between "Dey took our spurrrrrrlls!" and "It's a whole new game!"

tcrudisi
2009-12-04, 01:46 PM
I'm sober now... but this thread looks like it's heading in the direction of another 3.5 vs 4e debate, which makes me wish I was still drunk.

Please just leave it at, "OP, obviously they enjoy your company and wish you would share their interests so they can spend more time with you. This is a compliment as it is just friends wanting to share their time with you." I believe that was the general consensus, though if anyone else has any other reasons, please share them. Otherwise... can we please avoid starting a debate between 3.5 and 4e?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-04, 01:48 PM
It's not just spells. D&D has a long tradition of different classes having different mechanics. At a minimum, casters operated very differently from melee. 4e merged the systems. Yes, the exact rules available to each class is different, but the system is the same.

Easier for a newbie to pick up? Probably. Very different from previous versions? Yes.

In answer to the original question, because he's an evil abomination, which must be cleansed with fire.

Chrono22
2009-12-04, 04:51 PM
You're not disagreeing, you're making a separate point, which is valid to a certain extent.

Saying system A is good for new DMs and system B is hard for them to learn may be important to you, but it's also wholly subjective. There's a very real chance that either it's not true for other groups or is simply irrelevant. Everything else you said has the same degree of truth for you and possible lack thereof for others.
If a person can learn, a person can learn to be a better DM. Play is of course the best way to get that experience, but the rules can give you a head start. Natural talent is a factor, but it isn't the only one.


The things I pointed out- DM talent, Player Investment, and storylines which are epic in scope, can't be helped by the best system ever invented, and can't be held back even if the game is complete garbage. If you seriously think that your DM is worse simply for playing a game which you don't like, you and I don't operate on the same rules of reality, and so there's no point talking back and forth.
If you really think this, I think you are also from another plane of existance. Consider a game like chess- it obviously has fewer chances for player investment. There is no advice on how to run an RPG with it. That's because it isn't an RPG- it is demonstratively worse at being an RPG than other games.
A game system can be in impediment to play, and it can also be a tool to enhance it. A system with logically inconsistent rules (rules that contradict eachother), counter intuitive rules (rules that contradict the point of the game), and bad advice about play, has bad rules and advice... You can accomplish more with a system that assists you, than with one that tries to stop you at every turn.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 05:32 PM
Please. Everyone knows Dagon only plays White Box D&D.

That's why the cultists didn't care that we couldn't watch anything last night.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1st ed we discovered that plucking a string made a sound.
2nd ed we discovered that if we stuck it to a bit of wood with some other strings we could make a tune.
3rd ed we discovered how to make a guitar, and to start making some beautiful music.
3.5 ed we discovered we could make the guitar electric, and that there were no limits to our creativity.
4th ed we got Guitar Hero. Which is nice. People like Guitar Hero. *I* like Guitar Hero. However:
No matter how many times you try to tell me it's a musical instrument, I'll laugh at you. No matter how many times you tell me "it's electric, like the old one", I'll continue to laugh.

4th ed has taken years of fixes and fine tuning a system, ignored them, and built a 1st edition of an entirely new game system. That's fine. I dislike that they've tagged on a DnD sticker on it, just as much as if they tagged on a DnD sticker to a Twilight novel. The sticker is not what makes it DnD.

Hell, the DnD miniatures game is a closer system to the current 4.0. I didn't care that they released the miniatures game. Fine, you're branching out WotC, go for it. Videogames too? Great. Novels? Fantastic.

However: "This is the 4th edition of the game you're playing" ?
"Oh awesome"
"Yeah. Everything you could ever do in 3.5, forget that. Here learn 200 actions we ripped out of WoW to play your Shaman".
"Erm... how is that anything like what I was playing"
"See the sticker?"
No. You are not doing 4th edition justice. It is different, but it is not less. It might not be more, either. 4th Edition is not some kind of pale imitation of 3.5 or World of Warcraft. It is its own being. It has similarities to both games, but is different in other ways.

Calling 4th Edition a worthless system compared to 3.X is an insult to everyone who plays the game, and I won't stand for it.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-04, 05:36 PM
It is different, but it is not less. It might not be more, either.4th Edition is not some kind of pale imitation of 3.5 or World of Warcraft. It is its own being. It has similarities to both games, but is different in other ways.
Yes, 4e is like Guitar Hero. Guitar Hero is not IMO a pale imitation of playing guitar, but its own being, similar but different. And certainly not less. Think of how many people enjoy Guitar Hero and how many people enjoy playing guitar.

But that's where it falls apart IMO. Comparing 4e to Guitar Hero is too much of a credit to its name, because the edge Guitar Hero has over guitar playing is both different and larger than the edge 4e has over 3e. Also, chronologically, after the Guitar Hero analogy he started 4e-bashing, so...yeah

Time to join the chorus: you're not converting to 4e, you're playing a single game of it. I played freeform once, didn't convert to it (game died). I played GURPS once, didn't convert to it (though it's certainly nice). Playing a few games of 4e isn't any sort of commitment to the edition, and it's almost certainly just for the sake of friendship.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 05:47 PM
However, your characterization of all the editions until 4th representing a natural and linear progression is misleading and, frankly, not really true. Even assuming you're talking about the 1st edition of AD&D (rather than the very original D&D, which was mostly a few tweaks to the existing Chainmail wargames system), the 2nd edition completely overhauled things, and 3rd edition totally overhauled that.

Overhaul.
Verb (Used with object)
1. To make necessary repairs on; restore to serviceable condition.
2. To investigate or examine thoroughly for repair or revision.
4. To haul or turn over for examination.

(I assume you weren't referring to the nautical term).

We are in agreement it seems. They were overhauled. Necessary repairs were made. Thorough investigations were made on the previous versions. Years of play testing were done.

This is not the case with the transition to 4.


In 4th, to be honest, almost everything about 3.5 was kept in a refined form (the action economy, the skill system, the feat system, the class system [though not multiclassing or prestige classing, which were more heavily structured]), but the one thing they REALLY didn't keep was the spell system. They added in a whole new system of "spells" (and gave them, in one way or another, to everyone), which really offended the sensibilities of a lot of players.

The skill system, is not the same.
The class system, is not the same.
The action economy is decidedly different.
The feat system isn't exactly a system... Feats exist. You can pick them.

You could argue Warhammer Fantasy "kept the class system", and it keeps a class system closer to 3.5 than 4.0 (in that it allows multiclassing and "prestiges"). This does not make an argument for it being a DnD system, rather than a completely different game system.

Think of it this way:
What could you do in 2.0 that you couldn't do in 3.5?
Now, what could you do in 3.5 that you can't do in 4?

FoE
2009-12-04, 05:51 PM
*Looks at covers of 4E books*

Sorry, I've looked at every book I have and they all read Dungeons and Dragons.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 05:55 PM
That's why the cultists didn't care that we couldn't watch anything last night.

No. You are not doing 4th edition justice. It is different, but it is not less. It might not be more, either. 4th Edition is not some kind of pale imitation of 3.5 or World of Warcraft. It is its own being. It has similarities to both games, but is different in other ways.

Calling 4th Edition a worthless system compared to 3.X is an insult to everyone who plays the game, and I won't stand for it.

How dare you call Guitar Hero less. Calling Guitar Hero less is an insult to everyone who plays the game, and I won't stand for it.

It's easier. It's simpler. Some people find it more fun. You don't have to learn all the chords to do it. It still requires some skill. Many old guitar players (like Slash) play it and like it.

I don't play guitar. I own all the Guitar Hero games (bar the Metallica and Aerosmith ones). I also own 6 of the 4E books.
My only argument, is that it is not DND. As you said they are different.

It took many of the ideas of DND (like guitar hero did with guitar), and brought it to the masses (like guitar hero did with guitar).

The only difference is, guitar hero, is not being marketed, as the guitar's replacement.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 05:56 PM
Or, really, the idea that one has to "convert" at all to play a certain edition, as if it were some kind of religion, seems a bit extreme. Not really... it's really common for people to treat it that way.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 05:59 PM
Now, what could you do in 3.5 that you can't do in 4?
Or, more properly, what can you do in 3.5 that you can't do in 4, as a limitation of the system rather than a lack of published material in that regard?

I also own 6 of the 4E books. My only argument, is that it is not DND. As you said they are different.
What makes it not Dungeons and Dragons? It says it's Dungeons and Dragons, the owners of the franchise say it's Dungeons and Dragons, it has the same premise and basic functions as older editions of Dungeons and Dragons... what's it missing that makes it Dungeons and Dragons?

Kaiser Omnik
2009-12-04, 06:01 PM
How dare you call Guitar Hero less. Calling Guitar Hero less is an insult to everyone who plays the game, and I won't stand for it.

It's easier. It's simpler. Some people find it more fun. You don't have to learn all the chords to do it. It still requires some skill. Many old guitar players (like Slash) play it and like it.

I don't play guitar. I own all the Guitar Hero games (bar the Metallica and Aerosmith ones). I also own 6 of the 4E books.
My only argument, is that it is not DND. As you said they are different.

It took many of the ideas of DND (like guitar hero did with guitar), and brought it to the masses (like guitar hero did with guitar).

The only difference is, guitar hero, is not being marketed, as the guitar's replacement.

"brought it to the masses" Seriously? How come all 4th edition haters are so elitist?

You don't get to decide what is and what isn't D&D. Sorry.

Knaight
2009-12-04, 06:06 PM
I disagree. A system that presents tools and advice to a prospective GM, will make for better gaming than one that says little to nothing about it. So long as the advice is good, anyway.
That isn't to say rules-light systems can't be good... but I wouldn't call the lack of a feature, a defining feature.

Lots of rules light(not necessarily rules minimal) games present tools and advice to the GM. The difference is that instead of requiring mastery of a lot of very simple tools, it requires mastery of a few more complex ones. Some people are better at the former, some at the ladder, but if you can work with a few complex tools well, lots of simple ones are just going to get in your way and slow you down, and if you are adept at using lots of simple tools then using complex ones will screw things up.

FoE
2009-12-04, 06:07 PM
What is this supposed ideal form of Dungeons and Dragons that 4E fails to achieve, I wonder? Does it involve parties of adventurers? Dungeons? Monsters? A d20 mechanic? An alignment system?

Do these things not exist in the new edition?

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 06:09 PM
What makes it not Dungeons and Dragons? It says it's Dungeons and Dragons, the owners of the franchise say it's Dungeons and Dragons, it has the same premise and basic functions as older editions of Dungeons and Dragons... what's it missing that makes it Dungeons and Dragons?I would disagree with "same premise" ... it's a similar premise, but certainly not the same. Just like GURPS Fantasy Palladium FRPG are a similar premises; it might be a little closer than those (I'm personally not all tat convinced).


"brought it to the masses" Seriously? How come all 4th edition haters are so elitist?Because many of the design decisions appear to quite clearly be aimed at drawing in the masses rather than appeasing to the grognards. You don't have to hate 4e to see that (I don't hate it, I'm just not interested in it)


You don't get to decide what is and what isn't D&D. Sorry.Yes I do; you get to decide that too. And if what you decide doesn't match what I decide, that's ok, it's not a big deal.


What is this supposed ideal form of Dungeons and Dragons that 4E fails to achieve, I wonder? Does it involve parties of adventurers? Dungeons? Monsters? A d20 mechanic? An alignment system?Palladium FRPG has all of those things. Obviously, those things are not the defining characteristics of "what is D&D" (unless you're claiming that Palladium FRPG is D&D). They might be part of what defines D&D, but they aren't the whole of what defines it.

FoE
2009-12-04, 06:12 PM
And if what you decide doesn't match what I decide, that's ok, it's not a big deal.

It IS a big deal. When people come up with that tiresome argument that "4E is not D&D," it's an insult to the people who like the system. It's like calling us posers.


Palladium FRPG has all of those things. Evident ally, those things are not the defining characteristics of "what is D&D"

Then what is?

Chaelos
2009-12-04, 06:13 PM
I'm sympathetic to those who hear a jarring note in 4E, relative to previous editions. There are times when I, too, start feeling that it's simply not "D&D" in the same sense that previous editions. There are times when simplification is a good thing, and there are times when it can be taken to far--and in 4E, I think they might have crossed that line, but with a good DM everything can work smoothly.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 06:13 PM
When people come up with that tiresome argument that "4E is not D&D," it's an insult to the people who like the system.when people claim that it's a tiresome argument, it's an insult to the people who don't like the system.

though in both cases, it's insulting only if you choose to take it that way.

oxybe
2009-12-04, 06:15 PM
How dare you call Guitar Hero less. Calling Guitar Hero less is an insult to everyone who plays the game, and I won't stand for it.

It's easier. It's simpler. Some people find it more fun. You don't have to learn all the chords to do it. It still requires some skill. Many old guitar players (like Slash) play it and like it.

I don't play guitar. I own all the Guitar Hero games (bar the Metallica and Aerosmith ones). I also own 6 of the 4E books. My only argument, is that it is not DND. As you said they are different.

It took many of the ideas of DND (like guitar hero did with guitar), and brought it to the masses (like guitar hero did with guitar).

The only difference is, guitar hero, is not being marketed, as the guitar's replacement.

by your account, i would hardly call 3rd ed D&D then. sure it was marketed as such but as a player who cut his teeth on 2nd ed, i would hardly call 3rd ed D&D using your concepts as it did away with a lot of old concepts and brought in it's own.

classes gained HP after 10th? classes have the same xp progression chart? no bonus XP for a high stat? no minimum requirements for races & classes? no percentile skills for the Theif Classes? ect...

3rd ed took a lot of 2nd ed's concepts and reworked them.
4th ed took a lot of 3rd ed's concepts and further reworked them.

and after playing 1st ed several months ago, i can assure you that 2nd ed reworked 1st.

it might not be what you're looking for, but it's very much D&D as much as 3rd is

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 06:17 PM
It IS a big deal. When people come up with that tiresome argument that "4E is not D&D," it's an insult to the people who like the system. It's like calling us posers.No, it's not; they're not saying anything at all about you, they're talking about the system. So they're not calling you anything.


by your account, i would hardly call 3rd ed D&D then. sure it was marketed as such but as a player who cut his teeth on 2nd ed, i would hardly call 3rd ed D&D using your concepts as it did away with a lot of old concepts and brought in it's own.Personally, 3e looks much closer to 2e (especially late 2e) than 4e is to 3.5. If you go back further and compare 1e and 2e, the rules were pretty much compatible (you could play 2e adventure modules in 1e with no changes and vice versa).

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 06:19 PM
Are there any things that have been present in all forms of D&D from 1st ed AD&D to 4th ed? (and maybe Basic/Expert/Master etc D&D as well)

Maybe these might be a place to start, when thinking about what makes D&D what it is.

At the moment, the most I can think of is monsters- some monsters were invented by D&D, occurred in possibly all the editions, and did not appear in other fantasy games until after D&D- and then, looked very like clones, rather than independantly invented concepts.

Beholders, rust monsters, owlbears, etc.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-12-04, 06:19 PM
I would disagree with "same premise" ... it's a similar premise, but certainly not the same. Just like GURPS Fantasy Palladium FRPG are a similar premises; it might be a little closer than those (I'm personally not all tat convinced).

Because many of the design decisions appear to quite clearly be aimed at drawing in the masses rather than appeasing to the grognards. You don't have to hate 4e to see that (I don't hate it, I'm just not interested in it)

Yes I do; you get to decide that too. And if what you decide doesn't match what I decide, that's ok, it's not a big deal.

Why would making D&D more accessible make it not D&D? D&D 3.x took ideas from the first and second editions and made it somewhat more accessible. But because it kept some old school spell names, among other things, it was more D&D than 4th edition? That's what I don't get.

I meant objectively, of course. Obviously, everyone can decide if it "feels like D&D" (whatever that means) for them. Just don't state that as a fact.


No, it's not; they're not saying anything at all about you, they're talking about the system. So they're not calling you anything.

It is, because many of the people saying that look down on those who play 4th edition.

"Oh, yeah, go play your over-simplified game with the other younglings!" Or something like that.

The fact that 4th edition doesn't have as much annoying exceptions as 3rd and doesn't cling unnecessarily to the past (vancian magic is not everything, folks) doesn't make it too simple, dumbed-down or whatever.

Gamerlord
2009-12-04, 06:19 PM
What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e? Since I can't sleep I decided to check my old e-mail and one of my old DMs sent me an invitations. In the e-mail it asks if I still dislike 4e and if so I should give it one more shot.

Well, have you ever actually played 4e?

I hated it before I played it, now I consider it the best edition ever.

FoE
2009-12-04, 06:20 PM
No, it's not; they're not saying anything at all about you, they're talking about the system. So they're not calling you anything.

If you can't understand how someone would be offended if you started calling their favorite hobby "an imitation of the real thing", then there's no point continuing this debate.

But don't worry! I'm not insulting your intellegience! I'm just talking about how your brain works. I'm not calling you anything.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 06:25 PM
"brought it to the masses" Seriously? How come all 4th edition haters are so elitist?

You don't get to decide what is and what isn't D&D. Sorry.

Retroactive labelling.

You labelled me a 4th edition hater. (I simply don't think it maintains the spirit of the previous editions, I prefer 3.5).

Then you labelled me an elitist. (I made a factual statement about how 4th edition and guitar hero are both simplified with the expressed purpose of bringing new/more players into the game).

You then said "why are 4th edition haters elitist".
For you have deemed it so with the power of assumption and the internet.

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 06:26 PM
Yes I do; you get to decide that too. And if what you decide doesn't match what I decide, that's ok, it's not a big deal.
No, you don't. Dungeons and Dragons is a specific property. It has not been made "public domain" for you to decide what it is and what it isn't. You don't get to decide that The Last Battle isn't part of the Chronicles of Narnia, and you don't get to decide that an apple is not a fruit, or that a monkey is not a mammal.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 06:27 PM
Why would making D&D more accessible make it not D&D?I don't think that I actually said that.

If you go back to your question and rephrase it so that it actually has something to do with what I said, like "Why would radically changing the game to make D&D more accessible to the masses make it not be D&D to the grognards?" well, the answer seems rather obvious.


D&D 3.x took ideas from the first and second editions and made it somewhat more accessible.I don't really think that 3e was designed to be more accessible, so I disagree with your premise here. I think 3.x's attempt at mass appeal was based on being everything to everyone (by having a gigantic amount of splatbooks) rather than by by actually trying to make the game more accessible.


But because it kept some old school spell names, among other things, it was more D&D than 4th edition?I didn't say that; you won't find me waxing eloquent on the glory of 3.x.


No, you don't. Dungeons and Dragons is a specific property. It has not been made "public domain" for you to decide what it is and what it isn't. You don't get to decide that The Last Battle isn't part of the Chronicles of Narnia, and you don't get to decide that an apple is not a fruit, or that a monkey is not a mammal.Yep, I totally do.

I really hope you're not as angry as you're coming across here to me... if so ...and I am only saying that because I care -- there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.


It is, because many of the people saying that look down on those who play 4th edition. I say that; I don't look down on people who play 4e.


The fact that 4th edition doesn't have as much annoying exceptions as 3rd and doesn't cling unnecessarily to the past (vancian magic is not everything, folks) doesn't make it too simple, dumbed-down or whatever.Actually, Vancian casting is one of the few major differences between D&D and Palladium FRPG.

Roland St. Jude
2009-12-04, 06:33 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please avoid both personal attacks and also making personal insults out of criticisms of ideas or things.

If there's nothing left to this thread besides edition warring, I'll lock it.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 06:36 PM
If you can't understand how someone would be offended if you started calling their favorite hobby "an imitation of the real thing", then there's no point continuing this debate.

But don't worry! I'm not insulting your intellegience! I'm just talking about how your brain works. I'm not calling you anything.

Our hobby imitates fantastical semi-medieval battles. That's kindof the point.

Also, your hobby is roleplaying, your hobby is not 4E.

Just like say, your hobby could be diving, rather than "diving with a type T200 air tank and C19 scuba gear".

Also, it's not an insult if someone says "The C18 was more comfortable". He just means the gear. Not your anatomy.

Kris Strife
2009-12-04, 06:37 PM
Wow. Congratulations. You're all angry and at each other's throats over an arguement on the internet about which edition of a game you think is better.

I don't play 4e. I took a look at it, decided I prefered the way things work in 3.5 better.

Some people don't play 3.5. They prefer the way 1st, 2nd or 4e were made.

If someone says '3.5 isn't D&D', my response is: 'Okay. I'm going back to my game now.' That seems to be the way most of the other 3.5 fans that have posted in this thread feel.

Why are the 4e fans getting upset over the same thing, since WotC is all but saying '4e is the only D&D'?

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 06:40 PM
When reading the Basic/Expert/Master books, there were one or two things that caught my eye.

Level caps- the highest level spells arrive at level 36- and levelling stops at level 36.

The concept of Immortals- going on a quest which ends with the character becoming immortal- a bit like Epic Destinies.

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 06:41 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please avoid both personal attacks and also making personal insults out of criticisms of ideas or things.

If there's nothing left to this thread besides edition warring, I'll lock it.

Sorry Roland, kinda my fault. Don't lock it, not really fair on OP up there. The war looks like it's cooling down anyway. (though that may simply be my naivety).

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 06:45 PM
Why are the 4e fans getting upset over the same thing, since WotC is all but saying '4e is the only D&D'?

They're saying that 4e is the only D&D that they're going to actively support, since that is their current iteration of the product. It's well within their rights to do so, just as much as it is within Microsoft's rights to discontinue patching Windows XP. They haven't denied anywhere that the previous editions exist, just stated that they're finished with that version of the product and are moving on.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 06:49 PM
In a sense, there is something of the Vancian system in 4th ed- for wizards, at least.

Daily powers, a choice of daily powers at the start of the day, chosen from a spellbook.

It may be a little more like 1/day spell-like abilities in that (unless you use the spellbook) it automatically regenerates once you've rested.

But, it is still, sort of, Vancian.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 06:59 PM
When reading the Basic/Expert/Master books, there were one or two things that caught my eye.

Level caps- the highest level spells arrive at level 36- and levelling stops at level 36.

The concept of Immortals- going on a quest which ends with the character becoming immortal- a bit like Epic Destinies.That's an interesting correlation, though I'm thinking that's something that's pretty constant across most FRPGs.

Of course, if you start saying that 4e is like Basic D&D while 3.x is like Advanced D&D... well, that's people are going to fixate on "Basic" and "Advanced" words and you've got yourself into another holy war.


In a sense, there is something of the Vancian system in 4th ed- for wizards, at least.I think that's really kind of reaching (though I think you kind of agree, based on your wording).


Don't lock it, not really fair on OP up there. To be honest, the OP asked the question is a really bad way... seriously, "convert" is such a loaded word. You can see it get people's hackles up in the first few responses.


Wow. Congratulations. You're all angry and at each other's throats over an arguement on the internet about which edition of a game you think is better.THere are a lot of similarities to the 2e/3e edition changeover. The specifics of the arguments have changed but the gist seems very much the same. I don't really remember that sort of arguments over the 1e/2e change, but that's probably due to there only being limited internet access (mostly usenet for me) and the fact that those games were so compatible.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-04, 07:20 PM
THere are a lot of similarities to the 2e/3e edition changeover. The specifics of the arguments have changed but the gist seems very much the same. I don't really remember that sort of arguments over the 1e/2e change, but that's probably due to there only being limited internet access (mostly usenet for me) and the fact that those games were so compatible.

They were there. Hell, people don't seem to remember, but there were arguments about the damn 3.0 to 3.5 switch.

D&D is a property belonging to WOTC. It is what they say it is. 3.5e and 4e are not the same game. They were never intended to be. Nor was 2e, and 3.5.

If you don't like it, don't play. I don't like 1e. The word THACO fills me with a deep simmering annoyance. But it is still D&D. You dislike the power system. Oh well. It is still D&D. That is all.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 07:23 PM
I don't like 1e. The word THACO fills me with a deep simmering annoyance. THAC0 (0, not O) was 2e AD&D, not 1e. In 1e we just had tables.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 07:54 PM
When reading the Basic/Expert/Master books, there were one or two things that caught my eye.

Level caps- the highest level spells arrive at level 36- and levelling stops at level 36.


Actually, clerics and druids got 7th level spells at 17th and magic-users got 9th level spells at 21st. But yes, 36 is the top level. Also from what I've heard, BECMI is the most balanced system for high level play. I hope to get there myself someday and find out!

Baalthazaq
2009-12-04, 07:56 PM
They're saying that 4e is the only D&D that they're going to actively support, since that is their current iteration of the product. It's well within their rights to do so, just as much as it is within Microsoft's rights to discontinue patching Windows XP. They haven't denied anywhere that the previous editions exist, just stated that they're finished with that version of the product and are moving on.

It is well within their rights to do many things. It is well within their rights, to publish the game of Chess, with (as I said before) a DnD sticker on the front. Or livestock. Or a table.

If I say "That's not DnD" that is simply a shorthand form of "That does not fit in with the spirit of the previous editions of DnD of which I felt a consistent improvement/iterative process until this point where I feel that they have taken it in another direction and removed various elements that were enjoyable without reason".


*************************************************
Microsoft discontinued patching XP, this is true, and people complained. this is possibly the worst example you could give. Most people refused to buy Vista. They continued to use XP despite lack of support. Software pirates wouldn't even pirate vista.

Results: They patched it for another year after they intended to. They allowed retailers to continue stocking it for over a year beyond the original contract date because people didn't want Vista.

They released Windows 7 as an answer to this and it is by all accounts a better system for it, with less system slowdown, less forced management, and in many cases is even an improvement to XP, which is fine.

They listened to their customers, and much of the complaints about Vista were addressed. Hell, Wizards already showed they were listening with their "Don't split the party" campaign where they brought back all the old missing races and classes from 3.x.

If DnD 5 turns out to be the game system I was hoping for when 4.0 was first announced, fantastic. If I "shut up" cos "they're within their rights", it won't be. (And we'd all be stuck with Vista).

Hashmir
2009-12-04, 08:25 PM
If I say "That's not DnD" that is simply a shorthand form of "That does not fit in with the spirit of the previous editions of DnD of which I felt a consistent improvement/iterative process until this point where I feel that they have taken it in another direction and removed various elements that were enjoyable without reason".

I believe that this is the true point of contention, and the source of much of the conflict.

You see, if you simply said, "I feel that 4e is very different from 3.5e," almost no one in the world would contest this or take offense. You could even say, "I feel that 4e is very different from 3.5e, and it removed much of what I liked in 3.5e." Indeed, you could say, "I feel that 4e is very different from 3.5e, and it removed everything I associate with the name 'D&D,'" and you would still be unlikely to provoke a conflict.

The reason is that all of the above are expressed as feelings or opinions; they are about you and your perceptions. Almost no one here is particularly interested in convincing you that you are wrong to prefer one system to another.

However, you said, "4e is not D&D." This is very different, because it takes those subjective and personal opinions and it states them as fact. Instead of being about you, the statement is about the game. Many of us (obviously) greatly enjoy 4e, and as much of that enjoyment is from the parts that are the same as the parts that are different.

Thus, while it may not be a direct or intentional attack on us, the statement denies a fundamental part of our enjoyment. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Mando Knight
2009-12-04, 08:26 PM
It is well within their rights to do many things. It is well within their rights, to publish the game of Chess, with (as I said before) a DnD sticker on the front. Or livestock. Or a table.

If I say "That's not DnD" that is simply a shorthand form of "That does not fit in with the spirit of the previous editions of DnD of which I felt a consistent improvement/iterative process until this point where I feel that they have taken it in another direction and removed various elements that were enjoyable without reason".


*************************************************
Microsoft discontinued patching XP, this is true, and people complained. this is possibly the worst example you could give. Most people refused to buy Vista. They continued to use XP despite lack of support. Software pirates wouldn't even pirate vista.

Results: They patched it for another year after they intended to. They allowed retailers to continue stocking it for over a year beyond the original contract date because people didn't want Vista.

They released Windows 7 as an answer to this and it is by all accounts a better system for it, with less system slowdown, less forced management, and in many cases is even an improvement to XP, which is fine.

They listened to their customers, and much of the complaints about Vista were addressed. Hell, Wizards already showed they were listening with their "Don't split the party" campaign where they brought back all the old missing races and classes from 3.x.

If DnD 5 turns out to be the game system I was hoping for when 4.0 was first announced, fantastic. If I "shut up" cos "they're within their rights", it won't be. (And we'd all be stuck with Vista).
You can complain, and you can complain until they change it, but it doesn't change the fact that Vista is very much a Windows operating system and D&D 4e is Dungeons and Dragons. And you still haven't shown where 4e fails to keep the spirit of the previous editions.

One positive thing that 4e is showing is that Wizards listens to its players this time around. People wanted Half-Orcs, Gnomes, Druids, and Bards back, so they got them in the PHB2. (They were planning on releasing them eventually anyway, though...) People complained while they were making 4e that wizards, clerics, and druids could make a fully optimized Fighter worthless in 3.X, so they made sure to keep the overall capabilities of characters on a given level roughly consistent. The initial skill DCs and some monster stats were mathematically shown to be a bad idea by the community, so Wizards listened and made some fixes. I wasn't around on the 'net when 3.X was new, so I have no idea if this held true then, but it's a good thing that they're able to release these "patches" to "fix the bugs" in the system rather than claiming them as a feature.

Serpentine
2009-12-05, 12:42 AM
I thought the Area 51 guys came by and fixed the T.V last week?That's what they want you to think! O.O

OP, what'd you end up doing?

drawingfreak
2009-12-05, 01:45 AM
...what I was trying to say my reason for not liking 4e is because of two reasons. I can't get into character and I hate the power mechanics...
What about the game keeps you from being in character?

Being in character is all about action and reaction. Would your character use certain abilities that are listed in the class you have taken? Would they do the smart thing and roll diplomacy before rolling to attack?

The mechanics are just a means to an end. It should not stop you from roleplaying; unless you are referring to the time it takes to resolve certain things. The time it takes to figure things out decreases over time (unless you are my players...GOD!). The more you learn it and play it, the faster things should run, allowing more time for deep roleplaying.

Now, I can see someone looking at Skill Challenges and going "WELP! There goes the concept of roleplaying." I was kind of the same way at first and tried to stay away from it. Personally, I think the way Skill Challenges are described in the books makes them hard to get into. But after some research into them and a few practice rounds, I figured them out and use them semi-regularly. They don't hinder RPing when done right. Frankly, the only thing about them that should be homebrewed is the Skill Challenge Initiative. Taking equal turns in an out of combat setting is weird. I managed to make an initiative based Skill Challenge work once so far. Interrogation is built for it.

Katana_Geldar
2009-12-05, 01:48 AM
Skill challenges can work well as long you have players who are willing to use skills like tools and you don't make them artificial (i.e., say "This is a skill challenge, make five Diplomacy rolls").

I used skill challenges before I knew they were called that, had no idea it was an actual DM mechanic.

Kallisti
2009-12-05, 03:28 AM
I prefer 3.5, but I play and enjoy 4.0 and GURPS and Palladium and Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu and 2.0 and Star Wars Saga and Star Wars Revised and many different White Wolf games. Because you can play more than one system. It's not blasphemy against my worldview that WotC published an edition I like less than 3.5. It's a little sad because there's no more new 3.5 material, but liking one edition doesn't obligate me to hate the others.

The arguments that 4.0 isn't D&D are just bizarre, though. D&D is a registered trademark of WotC. They say 4.0 is D&D. It is therefore D&D. TO whoever said they coulld breed livestock with D&D stickers, I know you were joking, but it's true. They could make the 5.0 core books two cows and a chicken. It'd be a bad move for business, but they could. You, unless you are a WotC board member, have no right to decide what is or isn't D&D.

You can, however, say "This isn't my D&D." Cows and chickens will never be my D&D. 4.0 will probably never be it either. 3.5 will forever hold that special place in my heart as my D&D. Just like others love 1e, or 2e, or 4e, or 3.Fax, or Pathfinder. It's like having different favorite movies or favorite colors. It shouldn't be a big deal. But it is, because people blow it way out of proportion.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESOR! IT'S JUST A GAME![/rant]

Sorry if you're insulted by me saying you're all blowing this way out of proportion. I just get extremely tired of these threads. People can never seem to step back and remember they're arguing about a game, not a religion.

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 04:36 AM
Actually, clerics and druids got 7th level spells at 17th and magic-users got 9th level spells at 21st. But yes, 36 is the top level. Also from what I've heard, BECMI is the most balanced system for high level play. I hope to get there myself someday and find out!

Ah. I was thinking of Wish- which in my copy of the Master Player's Guide, states that only 36th level clerics, and 33-36th level magic-users, can have.

Reinboom
2009-12-05, 06:29 AM
THere are a lot of similarities to the 2e/3e edition changeover. The specifics of the arguments have changed but the gist seems very much the same. I don't really remember that sort of arguments over the 1e/2e change, but that's probably due to there only being limited internet access (mostly usenet for me) and the fact that those games were so compatible.

Actually, a rather interesting comparison for these that I find is:
Get out your 3.x books, compare the exact text of True Seeing (the spell) with the same text of True Seeing in a 2e book.

Keep going backwards in systems.

Some of the writing in 3.x books has been there for ages. :smalltongue:
And this is true with a lot more than just True Seeing. Try Teleport next. Then move away from the Ts.


On everything else said:
You're almost all hooligans! Few of you toil away for months on end to make your own real D&D!
*inserts advertisements for Victorious Press's upcoming works, Fantasy Craft, and d20r here*


On actually everything else said:
I believe it better to experience ideas first (and second) before truly completely turning them down. For any given system, give it two sessions before throwing it out. I recommend against just a single session; in my experiences, people usually become blinded by the differences and the intricacies of the rules and character creation in their first sessions which usually skews their perception much more negatively than what it's worth.
Besides, ultimately, you get to hang out with friends. That's usually good. :smalltongue:

Akisa
2009-12-05, 07:01 AM
What about the game keeps you from being in character?

Being in character is all about action and reaction. Would your character use certain abilities that are listed in the class you have taken? Would they do the smart thing and roll diplomacy before rolling to attack?

The mechanics are just a means to an end. It should not stop you from roleplaying; unless you are referring to the time it takes to resolve certain things. The time it takes to figure things out decreases over time (unless you are my players...GOD!). The more you learn it and play it, the faster things should run, allowing more time for deep roleplaying.

Now, I can see someone looking at Skill Challenges and going "WELP! There goes the concept of roleplaying." I was kind of the same way at first and tried to stay away from it. Personally, I think the way Skill Challenges are described in the books makes them hard to get into. But after some research into them and a few practice rounds, I figured them out and use them semi-regularly. They don't hinder RPing when done right. Frankly, the only thing about them that should be homebrewed is the Skill Challenge Initiative. Taking equal turns in an out of combat setting is weird. I managed to make an initiative based Skill Challenge work once so far. Interrogation is built for it.

The first time I played may have soured me forever but I made a male fighter. He studied every day under the wing of a knight as a squire. But when it actually came to combat something was wrong, I couldn't put my finger on it wasn't until the second session did some one say something. I kept refering to my fighter's powers as spells. To this day I can't seperate the powers system as spells.*

Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders). The closet would be Avenger but from my understanding it's a light armor class and not as a shiney knight.*

Gamerlord
2009-12-05, 07:12 AM
Well, when I though of pallys as warriors in big,cumbersome armor that use holy light to protect people, not run around like a ninja-pally.


And lets face it, avengers are just ninja-pallys.



How about this? Don't think of it as D&D, think of it as something entirely different.

Sliver
2009-12-05, 07:15 AM
Yeah that is a big problem with 4e.. It says it is D&D, and people have some expectations that it will still be able to give them the same experience that they could get before, but it is not.

Frog Dragon
2009-12-05, 07:18 AM
I can sorta see where the OP is coming from (I personally don't like 4ed either and we play 3.5 and Saga.), but still disagree. Could it be that they're not trying to convert you? Maybe they just wan't to play with you?
Even if you accept to try the system, you have no obligation to continue playing with it if you honestly hate it that much.
I don't see any attempts to convert you, just play with you.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-12-05, 10:38 AM
The first time I played may have soured me forever but I made a male fighter. He studied every day under the wing of a knight as a squire. But when it actually came to combat something was wrong, I couldn't put my finger on it wasn't until the second session did some one say something. I kept refering to my fighter's powers as spells. To this day I can't seperate the powers system as spells.*

Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders). The closet would be Avenger but from my understanding it's a light armor class and not as a shiney knight.*

Anyone can do damage; it's not that spellcaster clerics (as opposed to battle clerics) are incapable of it, they just do slightly less damage than strikers and can heal at the same time. Sure beats the healbot cleric of older editions.

Also, anyone can spend feats to get better (heavier) armor. It's not particularly helpful to the avenger, but if it's only the fluff you want, it's possible. Although a paladin or a cleric in 4th edition could definitely fit the role.


Anyway, I just don't get why some people so desperately need the same text for spells (the True seeing example), vancian spellcasting (which is not completely gone, considering the wizard), the same horrible imbalance between non-spellcasters and spellcasters, etc. to call it D&D. I understand nostalgia, but a lot of things have changed between Basic D&D and D&D 3.5; 4th Edition has flaws, but to me, the game is really evolving. As for the last point...I believe some just like to feel powerful and special playing spellcasters while the ones playing the fighter or the rogue sat back and watched. For one, I don't miss that time. I still have little experience with 4th Edition D&D, but I can tell you one thing: I was never able to engage everyone as much in the game in older editions. This, for me, is a win. And those players still roleplay in the same way, whatever the rules.

tcrudisi
2009-12-05, 12:15 PM
Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders).

The roles are common misconceptions. For instance, Paladins are "defenders", yet there is a build that does some of the best damage in the game. Bards are "leaders", but ditto with them. Can that Paladin that does amazing damage still defend? Sure, though not as well as a Paladin that focuses on protecting his party.

A striker Cleric would be a bit tougher, but anyone can focus on doing damage at the expense of their primary role. In fact, it's much easier to make anyone a "striker" than to make most a "controller". A Paladin as a "striker"? Easily done. A Paladin as a "controller"? hahahaha.

Ridureyu
2009-12-05, 12:16 PM
Personally, I don't consider it Dungeons & Dragons unless "Elf" is a class.

CrazySopher
2009-12-05, 12:54 PM
Ditto on tcrudisi there, at least on a good deal of his points. Class roles are pretty flexible, sometimes without even needing to go into extensive building; Fey-pact Warlocks are at least half-Controller no matter -what- you do with them. I think a lot of the issue comes from the idea of just what exactly each class role means, or perhaps how flexibly one can perform each role. While "Striker" is pretty straightforward, Swordmage "Defends" the party either by teleporting to it and bashing it in the head, reducing the damage dealt to a friend, or sticking the enemy exactly where he is. The middle of the three is at least a good deal leader-ish, and the first one sounds more like an Avenger than anything, which can be almost as full-blown Striker as a Ranger is depending on build. A huge Striker Paladin might "Defend" simply through being too huge a threat to ignore, causing the enemy to shift focus to it instead of its party members as a result. You might want a second Defender in the party to act as a more typical guardian, but the Paladin still gets the job done.

Mando Knight
2009-12-05, 01:05 PM
Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders). The closet would be Avenger but from my understanding it's a light armor class and not as a shiney knight.*

Use Ardent Vow from Divine Power instead of Lay on Hands, pick Valiant and Holy Strike as your at-will attacks, and pick the largest-damage powers you can find each level. There, now you're a smite-y paladin. (Basically, follow the "Avenging" and "Ardent" Paladin builds) A Cleric could follow the L4Z0R (all Implement powers, massive Wis. Named after its affinity for Radiant powers) or Battle Cleric builds, both of which deal decent damage and have powerful rider effects that keep the party going. Notable is the cleric power Divine Power, which helps more than just himself when he's using it this time around.

"Striker," "Defender," and "Leader" are role names that tell you their specialization as compared to other character classes: Defenders are big, tough, and can hold down an enemy on their own, possibly while threatening excessive damage. Leaders don't do that, but instead focus on maximizing their allies' capabilities, which is often done by running up there and smashing the bad guy yourself (especially the Battle Cleric and Bravura Warlord). Strikers focus on hurting things, with everything else as secondary. Controllers like to hurt things as much as the other Not-Strikers (except for 4e's take on the healbot Cleric), but their focus is making the battlefield look like what they want rather than what the DM wants, by moving things around, killing off legions of minions, making threatening monsters pathetic, etc.

Each class has their "normal" builds as well as a "Striker-y" build, which sacrifices some of their normal capabilities for MASSIVE DAMAGE... while still being able to heal that guy at -9 and dying or keeping that gigantic demon off of everyone else's backs.

Gamerlord
2009-12-05, 01:16 PM
Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders). The closet would be Avenger but from my understanding it's a light armor class and not as a shiney knight.*
"Clerics can't be strikers"
Garbage, I am DMing and my group has a leader/striker cleric in it, the way he's playing, you would think he's trying to be a striker, running around burning the faces off anything that moves, plus, he's a bit smash-happy, why he worships Pelor, I don't know. He acts more like a crazed lunatic then a cleric of Pelor!

CrazySopher
2009-12-05, 01:17 PM
One last comment is that oftentimes, 4th ed classes also have builds that go in secondary directions other than Striker. Barbarian can go for a more Leader-y role, more Defensive, etc. Wardens have the whole gamut of secondary roles to fill depending on which build you follow, and don't even get me started on Warlock.

And if for some reason this doesn't satisfy you, try to find a different class and re-flavor it some. My Half-Orc Fighter from 3.5 practically lead the party, and it turns out that Bravura Warlord fits his personality, style, and rank in the party better than Fighter ever did.

oxybe
2009-12-05, 01:42 PM
"Clerics can't be strikers"
Garbage, I am DMing and my group has a leader/striker cleric in it, the way he's playing, you would think he's trying to be a striker, running around burning the faces off anything that moves, plus, he's a bit smash-happy, why he worships Pelor, I don't know. He acts more like a crazed lunatic then a cleric of Pelor!

i think you just summarized most D&D PCs that i've ever played with... :smalltongue:

Sliver
2009-12-05, 02:35 PM
"Clerics can't be strikers"
Garbage, I am DMing and my group has a leader/striker cleric in it, the way he's playing, you would think he's trying to be a striker, running around burning the faces off anything that moves, plus, he's a bit smash-happy, why he worships Pelor, I don't know. He acts more like a crazed lunatic then a cleric of Pelor!

Sounds like a reasonable behavior for a cleric of the Burning Hate..

Corvus
2009-12-05, 03:01 PM
Also I can't convert some of my favorite characters to 4e. I have a paladin and cleric who are suppose to be holy warriors that use their divine gifts to strike down enemy of the faith as strikers not defenders or healers(leaders). The closet would be Avenger but from my understanding it's a light armor class and not as a shiney knight.*

The charops board has some crazy builds for practicably everything - as well as some very helpful guides that could give you ideas.

Also you could consider the Invoker for a real wrath-of-gods divine type character. Technically a controller, but the covenant of wrath ones can get the damage cranking...

Kaiser Omnik
2009-12-05, 03:02 PM
The charops board has some crazy builds for practicably everything - as well as some very helpful guides that could give you ideas.

Also you could consider the Invoker for a real wrath-of-gods divine type character. Technically a controller, but the covenant of wrath ones can get the damage cranking...

I second that. The Invoker in my group gets the job done!

Gamerlord
2009-12-05, 03:08 PM
I second that. The Invoker in my group gets the job done!

I third that, curse you invoker and your minion-destroying powers....

Serpentine
2009-12-05, 11:21 PM
Hey, guys? Now you're trying to convert her. She doesn't like it. Neither do I (and not because it's "not D&D" or because "the wording's different" or because "the spellcasting's different" or because "they got rid of the imbalance - heresy!". Because it simply doesn't inspire or interest me). We're all in agreement that her friends probably just want to play a game with her, and are unwilling to change the game for her, and she hasn't said anything to contradict this. She doesn't like it, stop trying to convince her that she should.

Mando Knight
2009-12-05, 11:29 PM
Hey, guys? Now you're trying to convert her. She doesn't like it. Neither do I (and not because it's "not D&D" or because "the wording's different" or because "the spellcasting's different" or because "they got rid of the imbalance - heresy!". Because it simply doesn't inspire or interest me). We're all in agreement that her friends probably just want to play a game with her, and are unwilling to change the game for her, and she hasn't said anything to contradict this. She doesn't like it, stop trying to convince her that she should.
...I wasn't trying, really... she just said that she couldn't play a striker-y Paladin or Cleric in 4e, and I was trying to show ways of doing so...

Still doesn't reach the levels of "CLERIC SMASH" that a self-buffing Cleric could get in 3.5, though. For the meek little priest who suddenly becomes an avatar of divine smashy-goodness, I don't really think there's anything better than a 3.5 Cloistered Cleric 'Zilla build.:smalltongue:

CrazySopher
2009-12-05, 11:32 PM
...I wasn't trying, really... she just said that she couldn't play a striker-y Paladin or Cleric in 4e, and I was trying to show ways of doing so...

Still doesn't reach the levels of "CLERIC SMASH" that a self-buffing Cleric could get in 3.5, though. For the meek little priest who suddenly becomes an avatar of divine smashy-goodness, I don't really think there's anything better than a 3.5 Cloistered Cleric 'Zilla build.:smalltongue:

True that, but I love my Radiant Servant too much to play anything else. :smallbiggrin: Call me stubborn, but there ya go.

And, erm, sorry about being a little overzealous about 4E, OP. ^^; I didn't mean to, honest!

Kaun
2009-12-06, 12:10 AM
Why does this tread or at least one with a similar title seem to apear on the forums every month or so?

We should just sticky a thread in the forum called "Painfully mindless edition war!!" and let people go at it in there like some 24/7 no rules cage match.

Gamerlord
2009-12-06, 07:48 AM
Why does this tread or at least one with a similar title seem to apear on the forums every month or so?

We should just sticky a thread in the forum called "Painfully mindless edition war!!" and let people go at it in there like some 24/7 no rules cage match.

*sigh* At least it isn't NEARLY as bad as edition wars on other sites....

On those siites?
It looks more like this on those sites:

"U ARE NOOB"
"NO U ARE NOOB"
"MGWTFBBQ U BOTH ARE NOOBS!!!1!"

Be glad we don't act like that.

Gamerlord
2009-12-06, 07:50 AM
Hey, guys? Now you're trying to convert her. She doesn't like it. Neither do I (and not because it's "not D&D" or because "the wording's different" or because "the spellcasting's different" or because "they got rid of the imbalance - heresy!". Because it simply doesn't inspire or interest me). We're all in agreement that her friends probably just want to play a game with her, and are unwilling to change the game for her, and she hasn't said anything to contradict this. She doesn't like it, stop trying to convince her that she should.

Simply telling her a misconception about 4e, we had a thread about that a while back... It went semi-well, IIRC.

Well, these threads will keep showing up as long as it is not against the rules....

Kaiser Omnik
2009-12-06, 10:47 AM
Hey, guys? Now you're trying to convert her. She doesn't like it. Neither do I (and not because it's "not D&D" or because "the wording's different" or because "the spellcasting's different" or because "they got rid of the imbalance - heresy!". Because it simply doesn't inspire or interest me). We're all in agreement that her friends probably just want to play a game with her, and are unwilling to change the game for her, and she hasn't said anything to contradict this. She doesn't like it, stop trying to convince her that she should.

What the OP asked:


What's with people wanting me to convert to 4e?

Now, we don't know everything about her friends, we don't read minds. We cannot speak about that. But those who like 4th edition can explain why they like it and why it wouldn't be so bad to try one more time in order to play with her friends (nobody's forcing her here or saying her opinions are stupid!). Then the thread somehow got derailed, but that happens quite a lot, doesn't it?

Don't assume our intentions. You think we are being rude? Ok, maybe. But I find your post pretty rude too.

EDIT: Anyway, what with the religious vocabulary (both in the OP and that post)? "Convert"? I don't get why people shouldn't be capable of enjoying more than one game or edition. It's not like 4th edition players form a sect or anything. :smalltongue:

Yes, I know convert also means "change from one system to another or to a new plan or policy". But converting someone to something is different.

Yukitsu
2009-12-06, 01:08 PM
EDIT: Anyway, what with the religious vocabulary (both in the OP and that post)? "Convert"? I don't get why people shouldn't be capable of enjoying more than one game or edition. It's not like 4th edition players form a sect or anything. :smalltongue:

Yes, I know convert also means "change from one system to another or to a new plan or policy". But converting someone to something is different.

In general, I didn't switch over to 4E because of time. I know two playing groups, one of good freinds who stuck to 3.5, and another that went to 4E. I don't have time to get into a full blown game with both systems, and I refuse to do so, because I don't have that much time.

Frankly, if someone irritated me that much over a petty edition thing, I'd hack at them with a hatchet. While it's not really worth arguing against it, it's also worthless arguing for it.