Why are you here... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Eldariel

2013-12-15, 06:58 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

I can realize every fantasy concept imaginable in 3.5 on some level. Not so much in 4e. The system is more modular, there's more material and it has a better feel. Free multiclassing, genuine different systems for different archetypes each with their own feel (martial adepts, psionics, incarnum, spellcasting, binding), easy modal system for homebrewing classes, races and monsters, presence of tools to realize all events of basically any fantasy story/replicate any powers, etc.

Not to mention, after spending years learning all 3.X material by heart (and forgetting much of it in later years of course), I'm kinda inclined against throwing all that effort to the wind and relearning everything (much the reason I still lean more towards 3.X material than PF material even tho PF is an improvement on some significant fields; I do use the core PF system in my own games currently tho simply 'cause it does skills & poisons so much better).

Brookshw

2013-12-15, 06:59 AM

4e felt too much like an mmo?

Alt answer. (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l24k_KQg84k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dl24k_KQg84k)

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-15, 06:59 AM

1: this part of the forum also includes the pathfinder discussions which is the system I actually use and draw my experience from.

2: my information on 4th and on doesn't leave me with an astoundingly positive view on it, it may be a simple lack of experience but I'd still rather not go into a section on the forum I can't contribute to (for what little contribution I'm capable of giving).

Waker

2013-12-15, 07:01 AM

Eldariel has made several excellent points, specifically multiclassing and subsystems. There is also the issue of stubbornness amongst players who don't want to make the transition, so even if I own a fair number of the 4th ed books, I haven't played a game of it in about 4 years.

Psyren

2013-12-15, 07:02 AM

4th edition has great positives but it just isn't the game I wanted to play. The Giant summed up all my issues with it in SSDT.

It has fantastic (non-recycled) artwork too.

Eldan

2013-12-15, 07:07 AM

Several reasons.

For a long time, there was a simple choice: all third edition material, including a neverending wealth of third party and magazine material plus a lot of fluff three or four earlier editions that was easily converted, or a handful of 4E books. No choice.

Second, 4Es marketing pissed me off. Especially the lore articles. "Remember the old editions? Man, those were terrible! Come to the new editions, they are fun! Remember Planescape? What a slog of a setting! No one ever enjoyed that! Take this new cosmology! We stuck all of Planescape's names on it out of context, because that is fun! Fun fun fun fun funny fun! Don't play wrong, play fun! 4E!"

Third, well. 3E is a beautiful mess of a system. And I love tinkering. As an analogy, know those people who buy formerly beautiful 30 year old cars and then spend years and years restoring them with parts they bought on auction sites online and lots and lots of time and efort? That's me and third edition. There's so much work and love in that system for me.

Fourth, well, I love diversity. And 3E has more of it. In the number of concepts you can build. In the rules you use for those concepts. And the playstyles. Yes, many people think levels 5-12 or so were the most enjoyable and balanced in D&D, so 4E focused on the feeling of those levels and balanced it more. But you know what? If I wanted levels 5-12 in 3E, I could play levels 5-12 in 3E. But I could also play 1-3 for a more brutal campaign where death is cheap, E6 for something low-fantasy, or level 18-20 for godlike superheroes.

Hyena

2013-12-15, 07:07 AM

Because 4e feels like a video game, not like a tabletop game. Also, 1hp fire giants.

Greenish

2013-12-15, 07:11 AM

I'm just here for the Edition Wars.

*grabs popcorn*

johnbragg

2013-12-15, 07:16 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Because the 4th Edition rollout gave me no reason to switch over. The ad campaign was clever, showing a screenlit MMORPG player and the tagline "If you're going to spend your Saturday in your basement killing Orcs, you might as well have some friends over."

Then the game came out, and it was underwhelming. Powers you could use once every encounter just breaks immersion for me. Everything about the game seemed like an MMORPG backported into a tabletop RPG. The whole point of playing "roleplaying games" at a table with friends, for us, is roleplaying, character development and group storytelling. Without that, you might as well pick up the controller and play WOW or Call of Duty or, if it's still around, Everquest.

Owning a dozen 3rd edition books, with access to at least another dozen or two through friends in our gaming group, updating involved money we didn't need to spend.

danzibr

2013-12-15, 07:17 AM

I like that you start as a scrub in 3.5. In 4e you start out as someone destined to do great things or something like that.

Actually, I did play 4e a couple times and I liked it. I just like 3.5 more.

mistformsquirrl

2013-12-15, 07:19 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Well for me, there's two large reasons.

1) Pathfinder (what I mostly play these days, which is basically 3.5e with some modifications), is freely and legally available online for the most part. Since books are quite expensive, that's a big help. It's also WAY more convenient to look things up with a search engine backing you up like on www.d20pfsrd.com as opposed to trying to remember if this feat or that was in this book or that.

Also I loved 3.0/3.5e and Pathfinder is just an extension of something I already liked and was familiar with, so switching just... didn't make sense to me. I mean why switch when I'm happy with what I have, right?

2) I actually like some aspects of 4e quite a bit; but in addition to the above, I really hated what it did to the Forgotten Realms and am... unenthusiastic with it's poor support for summoning characters. Maybe I'm weird, but one thing I've always enjoyed is being able to summon monsters/have animal companions/use leadership to have a cohort/have a powerful mount, etc...

4e, for balance reasons, doesn't really do that kind of thing especially well.

-----

Basically condensed:

For me, 4e is a very different game that just doesn't grab me the way 3.5e did. I don't really blame 4e for that, I think it's a good game taken objectively on it's merits; but it's also not for me, kind of in the same way I'm not a big sports fan in RL, but clearly some people are.

Beardbarian

2013-12-15, 07:21 AM

Because 4E characters are all the same thing with different fluff.
Seriously, warriors with 1/day strikes?

Boci

2013-12-15, 07:27 AM

Mainly because I find 3.5 a more interesting game to discuss. I mean I also prefer 3.5 to 4, although I will play both, but I also really like World of Darkness, yet I hardly ever post on its thread.

As for why I prefer 3.5, its mainly the subsystems. I believe someone who has practiced swordplay, someone who has studied necromancer and someone who binds incomprehensible beings to their body and soul for the day should have different mechanical templates, not just powers.

Dr. Cliché

2013-12-15, 07:31 AM

I can realize every fantasy concept imaginable in 3.5 on some level. Not so much in 4e. The system is more modular, there's more material and it has a better feel. Free multiclassing, genuine different systems for different archetypes each with their own feel (martial adepts, psionics, incarnum, spellcasting, binding), easy modal system for homebrewing classes, races and monsters, presence of tools to realize all events of basically any fantasy story/replicate any powers, etc.

Not to mention, after spending years learning all 3.X material by heart (and forgetting much of it in later years of course), I'm kinda inclined against throwing all that effort to the wind and relearning everything (much the reason I still lean more towards 3.X material than PF material even tho PF is an improvement on some significant fields; I do use the core PF system in my own games currently tho simply 'cause it does skills & poisons so much better).

Interesting - it's pretty similar for me. Especially as someone who enjoys being the DM, I've always enjoyed the freedom 3rd offers. Whatever I need for an encounter, I can generally find a creature that suit my needs. Or, failing that, I can create one - either by adding a template or class levels to an existing monster - or even by creating one from scratch.

The other thing for me was that 4e just tended to rub me the wrong way:
- Ranges measured in squares instead of ft.
- Minions have 1hp even when normal members of their species have 300+
- Barely any customisation options for monsters, and nothing even remotely resembling spellcasting for monsters

Psyren

2013-12-15, 07:35 AM

Eldariel

2013-12-15, 07:42 AM

Interesting - it's pretty similar for me. Especially as someone who enjoys being the DM, I've always enjoyed the freedom 3rd offers. Whatever I need for an encounter, I can generally find a creature that suit my needs. Or, failing that, I can create one - either by adding a template or class levels to an existing monster - or even by creating one from scratch.

The other thing for me was that 4e just tended to rub me the wrong way:
- Ranges measured in squares instead of ft.
- Minions have 1hp even when normal members of their species have 300+
- Barely any customisation options for monsters, and nothing even remotely resembling spellcasting for monsters

I don't mind squares over feet. I'm European so feet make no sense to me anyways, no more so than Fahrenheits or pounds (we usually use online unit converters). Squares is the more neutral option though obviously I'd prefer it if the system were just built on SI (luckily 3.5 has simple enough suggestions for that).

Minions I agree with; they're just kinda silly and very "gamist". I guess that's one of my biggest gripes with 4e in general. It's very gamist when I specifically want a simulationist game if I'm playing RPGs with at all more serious tone. I also think same rules should apply to everybody; I like the simplicity of making any race/class combination in 3e (tho admittedly LA is broken beyond belief).

Telonius

2013-12-15, 07:57 AM

Biggest reason? When 3rd edition was being published, I had disposable income. I'd sunk several hundred dollars into the books for 3.x. When 4th came out, the economy had tanked and I didn't have much disposable income. So WotC had to give me a really good reason to make room for it in my budget and give them my money. They had to really wow me.

I got the 4th-ed PHB to give it a chance. My reaction was ... seriously underwhelming. The "video game" feel didn't actually bother me at all. It just didn't feel like 4th could do much of anything that 3rd ed couldn't already do.

There were other little things on top of that (it seemed they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they rebalanced the classes, and I didn't want to wait for an expansion book to get my Gnomes), and there were parts of it that I really liked (stepping away from Vancian casting). But without that core reason to purchase, it just wasn't going to happen.

EDIT: Nearly forgot another important thing - "I am the only person I know who still plays 3rd" would have been a very good reason to purchase. Nobody that I gamed with was interested in getting the new edition either.

Eldan

2013-12-15, 08:01 AM

SowZ

2013-12-15, 08:02 AM

Dr. Cliché

2013-12-15, 08:06 AM

You may as well ask, "Why do you still rewatch the original Star Trek episodes when you could watch TNG re-runs?"

You don't think that would be off-topic in the Pathfinder/D&D3.5 forum?

Psyren

2013-12-15, 08:07 AM

I don't mind squares over feet. I'm European so feet make no sense to me anyways, no more so than Fahrenheits or pounds (we usually use online unit converters). Squares is the more neutral option though obviously I'd prefer it if the system were just built on SI (luckily 3.5 has simple enough suggestions for that).

I was raised on metric myself and I tend to agree. One thing I liked about Green Ronin's Dragon Age game was that a "square" was 3 feet, i.e. one yard. 1 yard is roughly analogous to 1 metre, so it was a unit of distance that anyone could easily visualize regardless of country of origin.

4e is a totally different game with less character creation freedom, though more balance and cool tactics. The experience is totally different, though. And you can play both.

You may as well ask, "Why do you still rewatch the original Star Trek episodes when you could watch TNG re-runs?"

Bad analogy as I would gladly watch TNG over TOS :smallbiggrin:

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-15, 08:07 AM

You don't think that would be off-topic in the Pathfinder/D&D3.5 forum?

...and we immediately derail into "what class are kirk and picard"

Eldariel

2013-12-15, 08:10 AM

I actually really like using pounds and inches and miles and leagues and grains and gallons and acres and the entire illogical mess for my fantasy games. At least if I play in less advanced worlds.

There's no scientific authority to define SI units in a game modelled on dark ages or antique Europe. Every city state, duchy, petty kingdom, trade company, empire and tribal confederation uses whatever it wants for measurements and mathematics. "The length of the king's foot" is a better measurement in that situation than "one thousandth of one ten thousandth of the way from the equator to the pole". Because no one ever measured that accurately or cared.

Of course, but it's a matter of convenience at least for me; I don't know Imperials, but I know SI. I'd prefer determining things like combat distance, my character height and such in numbers I understand. Of course, the distances you're told in the local tavern probably go by the local measurements, but for convenience's sake, instead of learning measurements for each town separately OOC we just assume our characters IC know those, and OOC we use the system familiar for us.

With regards to the actual length measured, it's worth remembering that the original "meter" is a certain plank of wood that happens to be this long; the definitions through constants are subsequent definitions created as science advanced just made to match the original. In that sense it's just as arbitrary as the imperials with the advantage that the system is internally consistent (that is, changing from a unit to another is easier).

I feel using a measurement system familiar to the players is like the language: my groups mostly play the game in Finnish (occasionally mixing in English as convenient, and of course we play in English if we happen to have foreigners in the group at a point) instead of the languages that actually exists in the game world, since our Finnish is way better than our Common or Elven or whatever (and believe you me, as a linguist I'd love nothing better than to speak the actual language for each of these in-game languages but the effort it would take to create them and for everyone to reach a conversational level in them, let alone native, would just be way too much).

SowZ

2013-12-15, 08:10 AM

You don't think that would be off-topic in the Pathfinder/D&D3.5 forum?

It's not off-topic. My point is just that the two aren't mutually exclusive and that switching to 4e isn't necessarily a natural progression from 3.5 in the same way that 3.5 was the natural progression from 3e.

Amphetryon

2013-12-15, 08:20 AM

Because I've not felt the need to 'update' to 4e, given that I still get enjoyment from 3.X.

BowStreetRunner

2013-12-15, 08:38 AM

Because 4e feels like a video game, not like a tabletop game.

Pretty much this.

Actana

2013-12-15, 08:44 AM

I mostly lurk in the 3.5 forum, mostly keeping to the 4e forum for posting. However, I find 3.5 vastly more interesting than 4e. I prefer 4e when playing D&D, but for theorizing 3.5 is just better with more depth and possibilities. I can't really enjoy playing 3.5 anymore as I've grown so disillusioned with the system (both as a player and as a DM) that I can't handle it or its variants for that matter. However, I still enjoy theoretical 3.5 far more than theoretical 4e, even though I don't necessarily project my interest into anything specific.

The discussions here are also far more common and varied than in the 4e subforum, so that's another plus as to why I still hold my interest in 3.5.

Krobar

2013-12-15, 08:49 AM

I started playing somewhere around 1981. I went from D&D to AD&D, to second edition, to 3.0 to 3.5...

I'll be damned if I'm going to buy yet ANOTHER set of books. NO ****** WAY!!!!!!

Besides, 4th Edition is like D&D with training wheels.

some guy

2013-12-15, 08:59 AM

Not to mention, after spending years learning all 3.X material by heart (and forgetting much of it in later years of course), I'm kinda inclined against throwing all that effort to the wind and relearning everything.

Mostly this. I can run a game of 3.5 without preparation or books, if I want. Everyone I play with, knows the rules.
I also play 4e, but I don't know the rules enough to run a game without a lot of preparation.

jedipilot24

2013-12-15, 09:23 AM

3.5 has an Open Gaming License, 4e doesn't and that takes half the fun out of playing it.
I do like some of the fluff of 4e and wouldn't mind playing a Points of Light 3.5 game. I like the fact that 4e recognized the different party roles (Controller, Leader, Striker and Defender); I even rolled up a 4e wizard and played a few games but even though they designated the wizard a Controller, I still spent most of my time spamming magic missile.

Well if wanted to do that then I'd roll up a 3.5 Sorcerer or Warlock.

Another issue, as a lot of others have already touched on, is money. The 3.5 gamers have sunk a lot of money into the system and the economy now is a far cry from what is was when 3.0 and 3.5 came out.

Faily

2013-12-15, 09:33 AM

3.5 is fun. 4E is not. Simple as that.

Killer Angel

2013-12-15, 09:34 AM

I've tried 4 ed., and decided that it isn't my cup of tea.
3.5 and Pathfinder, are.

johnbragg

2013-12-15, 09:39 AM

Another issue, as a lot of others have already touched on, is money. The 3.5 gamers have sunk a lot of money into the system and the economy now is a far cry from what is was when 3.0 and 3.5 came out.

Y'know, I listed "money" too, but I'm rethinking that. Because people are buying Pathfinder stuff from Paizo. A lot of us have picked up a 4E PHB along the way. Yes the economy is different, but I think the bigger problem is that 4E isn't an obvious upgrade over 3X.

If someone came out with a campaign setting that included rebalanced Core classes, where a level 10 Swordsman was competitive with a level 10 Mage, it would sell because it would be an upgrade.

When 3E came out, Skills and Feats made 2E obsolete for most people. Even people like me who had a dozen or more 2nd Edition books. Skill points and Feats meant you could customize characters in D&D in ways you simply couldn't with 2E--my Fighter with Improved Trip and a reach weapon and your Fighter with a Greataxe and his fighter with TWF and a rapier and dagger are completely different builds.

Not to mention level-by-level multiclassing and prestige classes. We're still screwing around with all of the different ways to put a character together.

4E just didn't have that "hook."

The Trickster

2013-12-15, 10:02 AM

I'm may be repeating what others have said, but here goes.

1). I also didn't really like the marketing campaign. I understand wanting to hype your product, but at the cost of picking on your old product? An old product people love and still played? It made me a little grumpy.

2). For all of its flaws, 3.5 has so much versatility in character creation. Think about all of the "Iron Chef in the Playgrounds" there have been for 3.5. I haven't seen any for 4.0 (unless I missed them). A 4.0 ICitP would not have nearly as many unique ideas.

3). 4.0 kinda bores me. A personal opinion, sure, but w/e.

4). I find feats/powers to be underwhelming.

5). Classes, to me, feel kinda...the same. I understand some are strikers, some are controllers (and whatever else), but they don't feel like playing a different class. A fighter feels very different from a wizard in 3.5. In 4.0? Not so much (to me at least).

I will say, if you are looking for a one-shot game, 4.0 can work (the rules are easier to pick up, imo). But I shudder at the thought of playing a 4.0 long term campaign.

MesiDoomstalker

2013-12-15, 10:10 AM

Uh... I play both. Just a matter of what my group wants to do at the time. We just wrapped up a 4e Faerun game, and now starting a 3.5 Ebberon game. We like both, just for different reasons.

Sith_Happens

2013-12-15, 10:33 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

I just haven't had a chance to play 4th yet. If I had, I'd be in both subforums.:smallsmile:

unseenmage

2013-12-15, 10:38 AM

4e is a totally different game with less character creation freedom, though more balance and cool tactics. The experience is totally different, though. And you can play both.

You may as well ask, "Why do you still rewatch the original Star Trek episodes when you could watch TNG re-runs?"

This.

I enjoyed that in 4E I had to suddenly learn tactics and strategy to fill the same amount of time 3.5 took just checking rulebooks for grapple rules. (This is less a critique and more actual play experience.)

But yeah, I came back to 3.x because the complexity gave me something to sink my teeth into.

thorr-kan

2013-12-15, 10:44 AM

4ED is UNCLEAN! 3ED is kinda skanky, too.

Beat.

Nah. I just prefer 2ED. It's the system I grew up on and know the best. 3ED is fun, and was fine when the Monday Night Group was still together. I'd play again given the chance. But 4ED just didn't feel like DnD to me.

Novawurmson

2013-12-15, 10:48 AM

The reason I played 3.5 is because that's the game my friend's roommate invited me to play about 6 years ago, if I'm completely honest with myself.

The reason I haven't switched to 4th (and did include PF) is probably the completely free SRD/PRD/PFSRD. When I first starting playing D&D, I had little money and none of the books. If I wanted to learn something about the game, I had to go over to a friend's...or I could view all the game rules for free online. Pathfinder game me the same opportunity to "try before I buy," as well as providing a very convenient, free, searchable database to quickly resolve rules questions.

Sitting down with a book is a lot of fun when building a character concept from scratch or evaluating new material, but the technological component is vital for a rules-heavy game.

NotScaryBats

2013-12-15, 10:55 AM

I play both and love both. I've never felt that the concrete mechanics and 'video game' style rules of 4e detract from the tabletop, intereactive, role playing aspect of the game.

Personally, I've never played 3.5 face to face; only on PbP. No one around here wants to play it.

My brothers and their friends liked 4e a lot. Balance is a big part of that, because they don't like save or die, one lucky sword swing at 1st level and you die, two magic missiles and you're done casting for the day, blah blah blah. Everyone in 4e has something they can do rarely (1/day) and consistently (1/encounter), and whenever they want (at will).

Nothing like templates and monster classes exists in 4e, and refluffing to that extent is just bonkers to me. I can't play a Gravetouched Ghoul cleric in 4e the same way I can in 3.5

So, both have strong merits, and I love them both.

Gale

2013-12-15, 11:35 AM

I'm here to play D&D and chew bubblegum.
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
...
Actually, I'm here because I've only started playing 3.5 a few months ago. I've never had a chance to play any other editions of the game and I don't think I know anyone around my campus that has the 4th editions books or is interested in playing it.

Airk

2013-12-15, 11:44 AM

The simple answer is "because they are different games and different people like different things."

When you get right down to it, there are only minimal similarities between 3E/Pathfinder (Hereafter referred to as '3E' because I am lazy) and 4E from a design perspective. Lots of names are shared, along with some high level concepts (character classes, customized by 'feats') but the underlying design goals are different.

3E has a lot of issues. Nearly all of those are solved in 4E, however, they are traded for different issue, as inherent in the design.

3E makes at least a vague attempt at being a simulationist game (I'd argue that it's not a very -strong- simulationist game, but it at least makes gestures in that direction). That brings with it a certain amount of undesirable baggage. 4E is a strongly gamist design. That brings with it a certain amount of undesirable baggage. It's just different baggage. Pretty much all the complaints I see from people about 4E are either A) Personal taste nitpicks (Sorry, but feet vs squares? Why do you care? If I'm drawing a dungeon or a battlemap on a piece of paper anyway, I have to convert feet to squares anyway. And if I'm not drawing it, there's no reason to describe in squares in 4E either.) and/or directly flow from the game's decision to be more gamey (Standardization of class ability types).

I don't really play either game anymore, oddly, though I've played 4E more recently than 3E. 4E can be a fairly engaging tabletop miniatures battle game - I'm a little baffled when people accuse it being "like a video game" and can only presume that those people have never played a traditional tabletop tactical battle game before, because THAT is really far more what it is like. 3E is a game I'll probably never go back to, because if I wanted something less gamey than 4E for a fantasy game, I would probably select something like Burning Wheel instead, but 3E has a specific blend of charop crunch and simulationist nods that hits the sweet spot for some people. (Though IMHO, a large number of those people also haven't really explored anything much else, which is why we get so many threads that can be summed up as "I am trying to do <thing which D&D doesn't really lend itself to> with D&D. Why is it so hard? Help!")

Fax Celestis

2013-12-15, 11:47 AM

3.5 has an Open Gaming License, 4e doesn't and that takes half the fun out of playing it.

This is admittedly a huge portion of my dislike for 4e. The GSL on 4e was such a slap in the face for third-party developers after the OGL that I not only lost my excitement for learning the ins and outs of a new system, but also felt betrayed, as if I'd discovered my girlfriend was cheating on me and had been for two years behind my back.

AstralFire

2013-12-15, 11:48 AM

Because my groups refuse to change, and I can't get a 4E group.

I don't really play either game anymore, oddly, though I've played 4E more recently than 3E. 4E can be a fairly engaging tabletop miniatures battle game - I'm a little baffled when people accuse it being "like a video game" and can only presume that those people have never played a traditional tabletop tactical battle game before, because THAT is really far more what it is like. 3E is a game I'll probably never go back to, because if I wanted something less gamey than 4E for a fantasy game, I would probably select something like Burning Wheel instead, but 3E has a specific blend of charop crunch and simulationist nods that hits the sweet spot for some people. (Though IMHO, a large number of those people also haven't really explored anything much else, which is why we get so many threads that can be summed up as "I am trying to do <thing which D&D doesn't really lend itself to> with D&D. Why is it so hard? Help!")

I like you. Thank you.

AlltheBooks

2013-12-15, 12:01 PM

It's too streamlined, not interesting enough.There is a reason most 4th forums are anaemic there simply isn't a lot to talk about. 3rd is a mess and I love it. Also limits.

3rd is for ambitious, cosmos shattering adventurers, the imagination of the players and tolerance of the DM is the limit. 4ths limits? *Points* right over there.

Also dragons. Also outsiders. Hell the complete destruction of tons of cool, flavourful monsters and settings. All gelded and reduced to a role.

I like the tactical board game aspect of it, I just wish they din't take 50 years of rich material and distil it down into something so bland.

Vortenger

2013-12-15, 12:01 PM

I played 4th Edition.

Was the best damn board game I ever played.

Then I went back to playing an RPG
(Still would play 4e too, if anyone was still interested)

Greenish

2013-12-15, 12:02 PM

Sorry, but feet vs squares? Why do you care?It's easier to imagine and relate to units you're actually familiar (which is why I'd prefer metric too).

Airk

2013-12-15, 12:13 PM

It's easier to imagine and relate to units you're actually familiar (which is why I'd prefer metric too).

Right, but basically, when you describe things for imagining you use real units, and when you describe things for drawing (in which case, you're not imagining because the map is right there) you use squares. Also, to be truthful, I don't think most people have a good understanding of how far 30 feet (or ten meters, or whatever) is anyway, unless they work in construction or something and deal in those measures every day. Which is why people understand how tall 5'4" (or 158cm, or whatever) is, but have no idea how far 100 feet really is.

Alent

2013-12-15, 12:18 PM

The balance of Multiclassing, feats and skills.

I like the storytelling side of roleplay, and I like being able to use system mastery to ensure I live to get to finish a story, and to ensure that the character is believable in their story. I have issues with the gameplay balance, but at lower level play that's not as much of a problem as it is at higher levels.

Greenish

2013-12-15, 01:00 PM

Right, but basically, when you describe things for imagining you use real units, and when you describe things for drawing (in which case, you're not imagining because the map is right there) you use squares.That you can translate them to US customary or metric or oolongs or whatever strikes your fancy doesn't matter when the objection is to how the books describe the stuff.

johnbragg

2013-12-15, 01:14 PM

A) Personal taste nitpicks (Sorry, but feet vs squares? Why do you care?

It's a proxy or a standin for a huge range of issues that all boil down to "You are controlling a figure with certain game abilities in a game" vs "You are playing a bold adventurer in a heroic fantasy game."

4E can be a fairly engaging tabletop miniatures battle game - I'm a little baffled when people accuse it being "like a video game" and can only presume that those people have never played a traditional tabletop tactical battle game before, because THAT is really far more what it is like.

Context I suppose. I never thought to compare 4E to Starcraft or Axis and Allies or Empires in Arms or Warhammer etc etc. To the extent it felt like the old 2E computer D&D games, that was the opposite of progress.

3E is a game I'll probably never go back to, because if I wanted something less gamey than 4E for a fantasy game, I would probably select something like Burning Wheel instead, but 3E has a specific blend of charop crunch and simulationist nods that hits the sweet spot for some people. (Though IMHO, a large number of those people also haven't really explored anything much else, which is why we get so many threads that can be summed up as "I am trying to do <thing which D&D doesn't really lend itself to> with D&D. Why is it so hard? Help!")

3E benefits from its huge "installed knowledge base." D&D is sort of the Microsoft of gaming--there are better systems, but every gamer is familiar with D&D, and that's valuable.

And a lot of those threads end up with "Look at this splatbook, it has a lot of what you're looking for." "Thanks! That looks awesome!" (Or "Look at homebrew thread X"

SowZ

2013-12-15, 02:14 PM

I also don't like 4e at mid-high levels. In 3e, lower level feats and class abilities get improved and built upon as you level. In 4e, lots of times your old choices of powers just get superseded. You end up with so many encounter and daily powers the whole system feels counter-intuitive at really high levels. What's the point of encounter powers if you have enough of them to never need your at-wills?

This isn't to say 3.5 works well at high levels, either, but at least I feel my character progression is interesting.

Pex

2013-12-15, 02:18 PM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Because I do not like 4E and do not feel the need to continue expressing my dislike for it at every opportunity.

Too bad people who don't like 3E can't say the same in the 3E forums.

molten_dragon

2013-12-15, 02:22 PM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

I tried 4th edition shortly after it came out, and I didn't like it. It was overly simplified, and sacrificed uniqueness and individuality in the classes for the sake of balance. They made a few good changes (I love the 'every direction is 5 feet' rule), but most things I very much prefer the way 3.5 did them.

Subaru Kujo

2013-12-15, 02:40 PM

Because none of my DMs play 4th edition and by extension I don't.

Lanaya

2013-12-15, 02:56 PM

Uh... I play both. Just a matter of what my group wants to do at the time. We just wrapped up a 4e Faerun game, and now starting a 3.5 Ebberon game. We like both, just for different reasons.

Excuse me? You're not allowed to just like multiple similar things you know. You have to pick a side, fanatically defend it against anyone who picked the other side because they are Having Fun Wrong, and spend your spare time chatting with other people who picked your side (the right side) about how terrible the other side is. That's how the internet works.

OldTrees1

2013-12-15, 03:02 PM

1) Inertia is proportional to mass. (The more material, the more options, the greater the pull)

2) 3rd has more mechanical variety of the type I would notice (At Will warriors, Encounter Warriors and/OR Daily Warriors). That "OR" really helped make the classes feel drastically different for me.

3) 3rd has the kind of customization that I like (Level by level Multiclassing)

Airk

2013-12-15, 03:17 PM

That you can translate them to US customary or metric or oolongs or whatever strikes your fancy doesn't matter when the objection is to how the books describe the stuff.

That actually makes it seem MORE silly to me, not less, since all the examples in the book are on a tactical battlemap anyway. x.x

It's a proxy or a standin for a huge range of issues that all boil down to "You are controlling a figure with certain game abilities in a game" vs "You are playing a bold adventurer in a heroic fantasy game."

Then people should just say then instead of getting hung up on a lame technicality. That said, yes, that's pretty much the fundamental difference - 4E (and OSR, IMHO) are gamist games. Their purpose is to play a game. 3E tries a LITTLE bit harder to pretend that you are an actual hero in an actual world. It doesn't try very hard, compared to the competition, but it does try.

3E benefits from its huge "installed knowledge base." D&D is sort of the Microsoft of gaming--there are better systems, but every gamer is familiar with D&D, and that's valuable.

And at the same time, the world has a lot of issues because people insist on doing things like...running IIS in an enterprise. ;P

And a lot of those threads end up with "Look at this splatbook, it has a lot of what you're looking for." "Thanks! That looks awesome!" (Or "Look at homebrew thread X"

Those aren't the threads I'm thinking of; Mechanically, you can cobble anything on. The threads I'm thinking of are the ones that are, essentially, asking "Why do my players turn into murderhobos when I want my game to be about <something that's not being murderhobos>". And the answer is "because D&D rewards and encourages murderhoboism." It gives you zero tools for doing anything else, so if you manage to make it do something else, you've basically done it by sheer force of personality and mutual agreement rather than because the game is any good at that at all.

Lots of people (including me, back in the day) look at D&D and say "I can do whatever I want with this game, why do I need another game system?" and the answer is "Because D&D doesn't do anything to help you run anything outside of a 'standard D&D adventure'." This confusion is not assisted by the veritable hordes of D&D editions and clones and spin offs that are all competing for that same limited space instead of trying to expand the possibilities of an RPG to encourage other types of behavior. Any task resolution system can theoretically be used to play any type of game, but games have the potential to be more than task resolution systems.

I could go on about this forever, but the gist is that while it's possible to run any kind of game in D&D, it's an inelegant tool for many game types, and it encourages the wrong sort of behavior for many types of games. People act like you can fix this with house rules, but generally that's mitigation rather than fixing. That or you end up playing a game that basically isn't D&D anymore except that it uses, say, a d20 for most tasks.

Anyway, this is all game theory sort of stuff, but there are lots and lots of games out there, which do a lot of interesting things that, if you tried to run them in D&D, would suffer. I encourage everyone to get out and look at some alternative games (and I mean "on the web" rather than "At your friendly local game store that can only afford to give shelf space to a handful of big titles anyway.") to get an understanding of what is possible.

Then, if you go back to running your semi-simulationist 3E, or your tactical crunch game 4E, you're doing so with a knowledge of the alternatives and understanding of why you might have chosen these games, rather than "because we just play D&D"

Svata

2013-12-15, 03:27 PM

Because 4e classes just feel to "samey" to me, and I LIKE 3.5

Svata

2013-12-15, 03:29 PM

FinnDarkblade

2013-12-15, 03:35 PM

For me it's because I started on 3.5 and didn't want to switch, I love being able to fiddle around with character builds rather than being on a set progression, and 4th does indeed feel too much like an MMO, which I never got into. So pretty much the same as most people who stuck with 3.5. I do enjoy Pathfinder though.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-15, 04:53 PM

Particle_Man

2013-12-15, 04:55 PM

Most of what I would have said has been said. Another point is more of how I felt than perhaps how it was, but here goes

With 3.5 there is still a chance of just getting random items and rolling with it. With 4e it seems explicit that you turn your old magic items into special gold powder to make the new items you really want, and you explicitly build your character towards not just feats, powers, etc., but towards magic items too. It just got to be too much for me. I prefer some things to be the random province of the DM.

Also, d20, by being OGL, as allowed for a ton of variety (Mutants and Masterminds, etc.) while still giving people enough familiarity that they are not flailing around. It is fun that way.

GoblinArchmage

2013-12-15, 05:04 PM

I stuck with Third Edition for a few reasons:

I already own a lot of 3.0/3.5 material, and I don't want all of that money to go to waste.

I've tried Fourth Edition, and I didn't like it as much.

I have yet to actually get the true 3.5 experience, considering that i have never played in a game that didn't consist almost entirely of new and inexperienced players (usually including the DM) who know nothing about the rules. I am beginning to think that I will never actually get the experience that I am looking for. (I did try a play by post once, but it didn't last, and it just wasn't the same as an in person session.)

Scow2

2013-12-15, 05:16 PM

It would seem that a big reason is "4e shipped broken, and nobody got the memo when it was fixed."

cakellene

2013-12-15, 05:30 PM

I tried 4e, but couldn't stand it. I likes my multi-classing and diversity that is such a part of 3.5.

molten_dragon

2013-12-15, 05:30 PM

It would seem that a big reason is "4e shipped broken, and nobody got the memo when it was fixed."

That could be it.

It's kind of like trying a new food and disliking you. Even if your tastes change later and you might like it now, you probably aren't going to try it again and find out.

I know I haven't really paid any attention to 4th edition since I tried it and disliked it. Has it really improved a lot?

killem2

2013-12-15, 05:38 PM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Because my friends in I spent the last 10 years buying and collecting 3.0 and 3.5 material, and generally, do not like the idea of being told to buy it all over again.

Scow2

2013-12-15, 05:42 PM

That could be it.

It's kind of like trying a new food and disliking you. Even if your tastes change later and you might like it now, you probably aren't going to try it again and find out.

I know I haven't really paid any attention to 4th edition since I tried it and disliked it. Has it really improved a lot?
Yes, especially with the "Essentials" line changing things up (Everyone in 3.5 had AEDU powers as well, but weren't called out as such.)

Greenish

2013-12-15, 05:45 PM

(Everyone in 3.5 had AEDU powers as well, but weren't called out as such.)The what, now?

Scow2

2013-12-15, 05:47 PM

The what, now?
At-will, Encounter, and Daily powers. Though more Daily and At-will than encounter powers until you got to Martial Initiators.

Mithril Leaf

2013-12-15, 05:48 PM

Because moving from 3E to 4E would be moving in the opposite direction to what I actually want to do. I'm a GURPs guy at heart, but there's just not the momentum that 3E has. Plus, the OGL lets me view tons of content online. So playerbase and content big things keeping me here.

Eulalios

2013-12-15, 05:53 PM

a better measurement in that situation than "one thousandth of one ten thousandth of the way from the equator to the pole". Because no one ever measured that accurately or cared.

Ehh... the Ptolemaic Egyptians certainly did. And cared. Then the western world went through a long intellectual decline back through thinking that the world was a flat disc. And then well before Columbus, we came out of that ...

Science history is worth reading.

I can take D&D 3.5 and achieve virtually any capability or feel for an individual character or the whole setting (or anything in between) without having to go outside the rules set. I can also, if I'm so inclined, whip up entirely new material that can slot right in fairly easily and without issue.

4e is good at what it does but it can't really go beyond what it is built to do (and I have little interest in what 4e is good at). 3.5 is decent at what it purports to do but can be taken far beyond what it is built to do and keep functioning.

Rules wise D&D 3.5 can support E6 as easily as it can support higher epic full RAW plane busting campaigns. The biggest difference is simply the mindset and feel of the game, the written rules can decently support both.

^ This.

Greenish

2013-12-15, 05:55 PM

At-will, Encounter, and Daily powers. Though more Daily and At-will than encounter powers until you got to Martial Initiators.Please elaborate. How does everyone have at-will powers in 3.5? I guess with broad enough definition, like skills or the ability to walk or to hit things, but what daily powers, say, a fighter or a rogue has?

Eldariel

2013-12-15, 06:02 PM

Ehh... the Ptolemaic Egyptians certainly did. And cared. Then the western world went through a long intellectual decline back through thinking that the world was a flat disc. And then well before Columbus, we came out of that ...

Science history is worth reading.

Well, I do recall much like the affair with heliocentric model and Copernicus, the intellectual elite did know the state of affairs already before Columbus's trip. It was just the "public" truth that was being marketed to the rabble that we're being told of.

Tvtyrant

2013-12-15, 06:18 PM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

I am in both forums. I also play both, and find that they have some problems together and many opposed.

In 3.5 the very low levels are interesting despite a lack of options due to the extremely high risk of dying. In 4E really low levels are incredibly boring as you have 2-3 powers that are not at-wills, and combat still takes forever. You can crit on a daily power and not one shot an enemy! At level 1! What was that guard made of, rock??

At higher levels 4E becomes more varied without breaking apart, while 3.5 IME shatters like glass. You are still one-shotting everything, but combat becomes a slog due to the number of actions going on. 4E is even more of a slog, but it has better balance and threads like "killing a Balor at level 6" become impossible.

I like and run both games though, I just find level 1-3 in 3.5 the most interesting and in 4E the least.

TuggyNE

2013-12-15, 06:36 PM

At-will, Encounter, and Daily powers. Though more Daily and At-will than encounter powers until you got to Martial Initiators.

Initiators do not have encounter powers, since they have refresh mechanisms that are usable, repeatedly, in combat. Factota do, and a few other classes, as do non-initiators that take Martial Study.

Similarly, unless I am rather mistaken about 4e dailies, most casters do not strictly have daily powers; they have a pool of daily uses that can be divided among various spells of appropriate levels.

Turn Undead, Smite Evil, and similar could be considered dailies I suppose.

And while everyone in 3.x has basic attacks, the concept of at-wills is not actually a thing for any but perhaps reserve feat users and warlocks. Well, maybe sneak attackers/skirmishers, but those are more always-on than "sneak attack, at will: make an attack that adds xd6 bonus damage" or whatever.

In short, the conceptual structure is just not the same, and attempting to map it over will easily be seen through.

Afgncaap5

2013-12-15, 06:55 PM

I've never played a character in 4e D&D, but I've run 4e D&D on three sessions to start and finish an adventure with my group just so that we could give it a try (it was the "Stick In The Mud" thing that Dungeon magazine used at the start of their Chaos Scar series). After that, most of my group thinks it's horrible outright. Me and one other guy in the group felt like it was a *good* game, but it wasn't the game we wanted to play. It was like a really, really complicated board game where everyone played with slightly different rules (most of which amounted to the same kinds of things.)

4e got a lot right. But it just wasn't the game I wanted to play. (I actually worked on convincing a big 4e player that she should try 3.5, and she did; ultimately, it wasn't 3.5 that convinced her to to not play 4e, it was her attempt to convert something from 4e to GURPS and the realization that almost all of the 4e powers and abilities, for all of their awesome flavortext, did the same things mechanically.) I think 5e might be more like I wanted 4e to be since 5e seems to be taking some of what worked from 4e and putting it into more of a 3.5-ish environment.

Particle_Man

2013-12-15, 10:21 PM

Please elaborate. How does everyone have at-will powers in 3.5? I guess with broad enough definition, like skills or the ability to walk or to hit things, but what daily powers, say, a fighter or a rogue has?

I don't think everyone has, but for example the paladin has detect evil at will, the warlock has eldritch blast (in various flavours with the right invocations) at will, and many invocations at will. The paladin also has the rather rare weekly power.

Barbarian effectively has dailies with rage (albeit limited to one per encounter).

Doorhandle

2013-12-15, 10:31 PM

Airk

2013-12-15, 10:39 PM

(I actually worked on convincing a big 4e player that she should try 3.5, and she did; ultimately, it wasn't 3.5 that convinced her to to not play 4e, it was her attempt to convert something from 4e to GURPS and the realization that almost all of the 4e powers and abilities, for all of their awesome flavortext, did the same things mechanically.)

That's a strange thing to think, considering that powers range from teleports to granting attacks to status effects to damage, to blah, blah, this that and the other. Yeah, you can argue "There's no difference between the ranger power where he shoots them with an arrow and the wizard power where he blasts them with a bolt of magic.' but uhm... you'd be right about that in most systems. 3d6 damage is 3d6 damage. Sometimes certain abilities have 'extra' effects, but that could easily be extrapolated from the flavor text if, somehow, you grew annoyed that a spell that causes sleet doesn't make the ground slippery or something.

I think 5e might be more like I wanted 4e to be since 5e seems to be taking some of what worked from 4e and putting it into more of a 3.5-ish environment.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but "5E" seems like a trainwreck in the making. I mean, it's basically a game with no clear design goal except "Convince people who liked earlier editions to buy the game again without alienating people who like 4E". How does THAT help you make a good game? And it's basically being designed by comittee. I'm not sure what state it's in right now, but the playtest I had a PAX East last year was an awful game.

Raven777

2013-12-15, 10:45 PM

I happen to enjoy 3.F's spell system and do not take kindly to seeing it diminished.

Vhaidara

2013-12-15, 10:46 PM

I'm firmly in the camp of "Spent way more money than I want to admit on book and don't want to spend it again".

Seriously, DnD 3.5 books covered my Christmas presents for like 6 years.

Kane0

2013-12-15, 11:02 PM

I play both, but I've committed more of 3rd ed to memory so that makes a difference.

Drachasor

2013-12-15, 11:31 PM

Things I like about 4E...

Healing Surges: Let's everyone have some capability for healing themselves, while providing a natural limit to how much someone can be healed (easily). No need for carrying around wands of CLW anymore. Nice!
Minions: Let's you have mooks with a lot less paperwork and fewer dice rolls. This makes the game go a lot faster while changing very little. Note that they should only be used when you'd be one-shotting them the vast majority of the time anyway.
DMG Page 42: Awesome system for ad-hoc stuff.
Design Balance: I liked how a goal of the system was to make the classes balanced with each other, unlike 3.X.
Pi=4: didn't care much for all AoE pretty much being squares.
Rituals: Just plain awesome, if you ignore the fact most should be free and they generally cost way, way too much.

Things I dislike about 4E...

Class design: uninspired with very similar mechanics for everyone. Everything following the AEDU system was not a great idea.
Non-Continuous Simulation: Low level enemies becoming minions (with changed attack/defense stats) and other things only make sense if encounters are meant to represent reality for that encounter only, and without the system representing a continuous reality from encounter to encounter.
Lack of Utility: Utility powers often very limited in function and use. Far too few utility powers overall. Game discouraged using non-utility powers for utility. Game encouraged taking utility powers that primarily had combat use.
Discouragement of Creativity: PHB was written in a way that made players think they could only do what was explicitly allowed. While the DMG had rules to handle creativity, the PHB basically shouted "DON'T BE CREATIVE" at the players. Also, creativity broken the AEDU balance (for what it is worth).
Too much Feat Tax: The game really had too many feats you had to take just to keep the mechanics working. It should have had none.
Monetized Powers: They clearly had a system for designing powers that were balanced. Rather than give that to players and DMs to design whatever powers they wanted, they instead monetized it all so that you'd pay money for books with new powers. Disgusting.
Non-upgradeable Powers: Similarly, if you went with a particular theme, you got screwed. Powers couldn't be upgraded to higher level versions (again, likely for monetization reasons). So as you leveled up you had to lose abilities that you previously had. Not just "maybe lose" like a 3.5 Sorcerer, but definitely lose.
Lack of Out-of-Combat stuff in general: Besides some utility powers, a couple skills, and rituals, the game didn't provide much to handle out of combat encounters.
ToB was better: I was very disappointed in 4E because of this. ToB was just a better system than what 4E had.

Pet Peeve:
People who say 4E was like a video game. It wasn't. And no one who has ever said this to me has been able to say HOW it is like a video game. Seems like a clumsy criticism that gets used because it sounds good even if it doesn't make sense. It was more like a tactical board game, but that certainly doesn't explain the problems it had.

This is especially crazy given how many D&D video games there have been.

Airk

2013-12-16, 12:13 AM

People who say 4E was like a video game. It wasn't. And no one who has ever said this to me has been able to say HOW it is like a video game. Seems like a clumsy criticism that gets used because it sounds good even if it doesn't make sense. It was more like a tactical board game, but that certainly doesn't explain the problems it had.

This is especially crazy given how many D&D video games there have been.

As best as I can tell, there are two reasons people do this:

#1: They think that the 4E 'roles' correspond in some useful way to the MMO 'holy trinity' of healer/tank/DPS. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but face it - those three functions are intrinsic to how combat _works_ in these types of games, whether you codify it or not, so this comparison is silly.
#2: These people have never PLAYED tactical board games, but HAVE played things like the old D&D computer games that more or less approximated tactical boardgames. These people simply lack the information to make the correct connection, so are simply grasping at the best comparison they have. These people are just ignorant and deserve to be enlightened. ;)

Raven777

2013-12-16, 12:44 AM

Pet Peeve:
People who say 4E was like a video game. It wasn't. And no one who has ever said this to me has been able to say HOW it is like a video game.

Balance* as a stated goal is what rings "MMO" in my head when I think about 4e. A misguided aim to make everyone's potential on par. The D&D I want to play isn't one that cares for balance. The D&D I want to play lets you be a Half-Elf Vampire Sorcerer with Paragon Surge fighting alongside Thrallherds and Binders and Warblades who run on their own subsystems with their own unique tricks. The D&D I want to play rewards the time spent poring over the system for hidden gems. It doesn't compromise potential in a wasteful bid to make everyone equal.

*There is not enough bbCode to format the amount of venom and disgust I'd like to put in that word.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 12:55 AM

Balance* as a stated goal is what rings "MMO" in my head when I think about 4e. A misguided aim to make everyone's potential on par. The D&D I want to play isn't one that cares for balance. The D&D I want to play lets you be a Half-Elf Vampire Sorcerer with Paragon Surge fighting alongside Thrallherds and Binders and Warblades who run on their own subsystems with their own unique tricks. The D&D I want to play rewards the time spent poring over the system for hidden gems. It doesn't compromise potential in a wasteful bid to make everyone equal.

*There is not enough bbCode to format the amount of venom and disgust I'd like to put in that word.

3.5 DID care about balance. In fact they got better at it as time went on (obviously the PHB was awful). 3.0 cared too.

And there's a world of difference between having multiple sub-systems and not caring about balance. They are two completely different things. Granted, it can be harder to balance subsystems than one system, but it is far from impossible (again, as 3.5 shows quite well).

Anyhow, so you are saying you prefer a system where the new player can't make an effective character and everyone else massively overshadows him? Or do you prefer the system where the person who focuses on concepts the system has "hidden gems" for does massively better than a person that comes up with a cool concept the game doesn't support? Both?

Personally, I prefer a system that rewards creative thinking IN PLAY rather than creative thinking in character generation. I like creative thinking during generation completely allowed and multiple sub-systems are nice, but I don't want that to overshadow in-game decisions. 3.5 has some major problems here.

That said, I generally prefer the 3.5 problems compared to the 4E problems. Though I'd rather have neither.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 12:58 AM

As best as I can tell, there are two reasons people do this:

#1: They think that the 4E 'roles' correspond in some useful way to the MMO 'holy trinity' of healer/tank/DPS. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but face it - those three functions are intrinsic to how combat _works_ in these types of games, whether you codify it or not, so this comparison is silly.
#2: These people have never PLAYED tactical board games, but HAVE played things like the old D&D computer games that more or less approximated tactical boardgames. These people simply lack the information to make the correct connection, so are simply grasping at the best comparison they have. These people are just ignorant and deserve to be enlightened. ;)

you do realize there's a difference between "enlightened" and "insulted" right? not everyone likes 4E, not everyone liked 3.0 or 3.5 or pathfinder, however intentionally saying "you're wrong and your reasons are stupid" isn't really helping change their opinions.

yes the "holy trinity of MMOs" is based on the traditional necessary roles for RPGs, but by streamlining the actions a character can take in those roles so that they don't feel as much customization or individuality 4e has poisoned several people against it.

and how do you KNOW these people have never played a tactical board game? because they dislike 4e? is personal taste completely dead to this conversation then? I dislike pie, does that mean I've never tasted a dessert to know what pie is comparable to? I don't like loud noises, does that mean I can't hear and don't know what noises are like? no, it just means I personally do not like them. what is fun and enjoyable for some is not always fun and enjoyable for everyone else and it's close-minded to call someone else ignorant for not liking the same thing as you.

Aegis013

2013-12-16, 12:59 AM

I can take D&D 3.5 and achieve virtually any capability or feel for an individual character or the whole setting (or anything in between) without having to go outside the rules set. I can also, if I'm so inclined, whip up entirely new material that can slot right in fairly easily and without issue.

4e is good at what it does but it can't really go beyond what it is built to do (and I have little interest in what 4e is good at). 3.5 is decent at what it purports to do but can be taken far beyond what it is built to do and keep functioning.

Rules wise D&D 3.5 can support E6 as easily as it can support higher epic full RAW plane busting campaigns. The biggest difference is simply the mindset and feel of the game, the written rules can decently support both.

This is a good summary of my feelings on the two systems as well. 3.5 simply has a much broader scope and breadth which its rules can be used for.

That does, however, take a fairly significant investment of time and energy to reach the level in which you can use the system in that way well. So I certainly understand many people's dislike for the system.

However, I get to chat, read, and theorize about the system a lot more than I actually get to play it. I want those activities to affect when I'm actually playing (positively), and there's a lot less of that type of discussion in the 4e forum, from my experience. I've lurked there for a couple weeks in preparation for a 4e game. Unfortunately that game only lasted one session and all of my other experience was perusing someone else's copy of the core books and doing some self play test and realizing that monsters and player characters in the original core were very weirdly balanced against each other.

My understanding is like that of many people's here though. It has merits and I have no intention of saying otherwise. I just like 3.5 a whole lot; I no reasons/motivating factors to move to a different D&D system. (Though other systems such as Deadlands classic and a Marvel Superheroes system see play every now and then at my table, other systems too here and there)

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 01:03 AM

you do realize there's a difference between "enlightened" and "insulted" right? not everyone likes 4E, not everyone liked 3.0 or 3.5 or pathfinder, however intentionally saying "you're wrong and your reasons are stupid" isn't really helping change their opinions.

yes the "holy trinity of MMOs" is based on the traditional necessary roles for RPGs, but by streamlining the actions a character can take in those roles so that they don't feel as much customization or individuality 4e has poisoned several people against it.

and how do you KNOW these people have never played a tactical board game? because they dislike 4e? is personal taste completely dead to this conversation then? I dislike pie, does that mean I've never tasted a dessert to know what pie is comparable to? I don't like loud noises, does that mean I can't hear and don't know what noises are like? no, it just means I personally do not like them. what is fun and enjoyable for some is not always fun and enjoyable for everyone else and it's close-minded to call someone else ignorant for not liking the same thing as you.

But if you say you don't like loud noises because they smell like poo, then one might say you've poorly articulated your reasons for disliking it. That does not mean you aren't allowed to dislike it, of course. That's my problem with the video game criticism of 4E -- it is poorly articulated and just isn't true. That doesn't mean that disliking 4E is "wrong" or anything like that, merely that calling it a video game is silly.

Raven777

2013-12-16, 01:07 AM

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 01:08 AM

But if you say you don't like loud noises because they smell like poo, then one might say you've poorly articulated your reasons for disliking it. That does not mean you aren't allowed to dislike it, of course. That's my problem with the video game criticism of 4E -- it is poorly articulated and just isn't true. That doesn't mean that disliking 4E is "wrong" or anything like that, merely that calling it a video game is silly.

that I can at least respect. that I can simply understand as not agreeing with the reasoning for dislike. what I take issue with is airk's response which was much closer to outright insulting people.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 01:13 AM

You're Stormwinding me :P New players are usually taught what works and what doesn't. They have the potential to learn the ropes like anybody else. And I like there being gems to support the concepts I want to play, obviously. There usually are ways to make any concept work effectively in 3.F. On the other hand, everything I remember reading back when 4e came out made it feel so... bounded.

The Stormwind fallacy is that optimizing doesn't mean you aren't RPing too. That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that if you RP first, then you can get stuck with crap. In fact, there are many, many, many valid RP concepts that can only lead to crap in 3.5, because there are no clever tricks for them. Others require very, very round-about ways to make work. Others require something very specific that might not be allowed. Heck, non-caster Sword and Board Fighter is a very tough concept to work well without ToB in 3.5 and it is very basic. A Monk or other hand-to-hand warrior is similar.

The bigger the distance between the low end, average, high, and ultra-high op (and beyond), the more new players are likely to be useless. Unless of course they don't actually make their characters and have someone else pointing out "no, that concept is stupid and can't work in 3.5, do X instead." Many don't find this fun.

OldTrees1

2013-12-16, 01:26 AM

I'm saying that if you RP first, then you can get stuck with crap IF you stick to RAW rather that work with your DM.
Fixed
I agree with your post, but I feel that it had an unintentional implication that people should not RP first. 3rd edition can fail for some RP first characters. This is one reason DMs have the power to alter the rules. So people should still RP first but understand that they might need the DM's help to port support for the concept into 3rd edition.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 01:31 AM

Fixed
I agree with your post, but I feel that it had an unintentional implication that people should not RP first. 3rd edition can fail for some RP first characters. This is one reason DMs have the power to alter the rules. So people should still RP first but understand that they might need the DM's help to port support for the concept into 3rd edition.

Yeah, if the DM has to fix it, then it is BROKEN. 3E DOES fail for many RP first characters. A great DM will fix it, but most DMs (in my experience) do not make custom house rules just to support a particular player concept.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 01:36 AM

Yeah, if the DM has to fix it, then it is BROKEN. 3E DOES fail for many RP first characters. A great DM will fix it, but most DMs (in my experience) do not make custom house rules just to support a particular player concept.

which is a shame as sometimes a houserule to help a player's RP or character logic can make a campaign really interesting and fun.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-16, 01:45 AM

I'm saying that if you RP first, then you can get stuck with crap. In fact, there are many, many, many valid RP concepts that can only lead to crap in 3.5, because there are no clever tricks for them. Others require very, very round-about ways to make work. Others require something very specific that might not be allowed. Heck, non-caster Sword and Board Fighter is a very tough concept to work well without ToB in 3.5 and it is very basic. A Monk or other hand-to-hand warrior is similar.

The bigger the distance between the low end, average, high, and ultra-high op (and beyond), the more new players are likely to be useless. Unless of course they don't actually make their characters and have someone else pointing out "no, that concept is stupid and can't work in 3.5, do X instead." Many don't find this fun.

I have yet to find *any* concept that I can not make mechanically viable in 3.5. In core only there are a ton of things that can't be made mechanically viable but in 3.5 as a whole I have yet to find anything.

OldTrees1

2013-12-16, 01:48 AM

Yeah, if the DM has to fix it, then it is BROKEN. 3E DOES fail for many RP first characters. A great DM will fix it, but most DMs (in my experience) do not make custom house rules just to support a particular player concept.

BROKEN is hyperbole. Flawed/Imperfect would be a more accurate term. Like a chair with uneven legs. Otherwise I agree with your statement.

(I made my own luck by being a DM willing to houserule when it improved the group's experience)

AMFV

2013-12-16, 01:49 AM

The Stormwind fallacy is that optimizing doesn't mean you aren't RPing too. That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that if you RP first, then you can get stuck with crap. In fact, there are many, many, many valid RP concepts that can only lead to crap in 3.5, because there are no clever tricks for them. Others require very, very round-about ways to make work. Others require something very specific that might not be allowed. Heck, non-caster Sword and Board Fighter is a very tough concept to work well without ToB in 3.5 and it is very basic. A Monk or other hand-to-hand warrior is similar.

The bigger the distance between the low end, average, high, and ultra-high op (and beyond), the more new players are likely to be useless. Unless of course they don't actually make their characters and have someone else pointing out "no, that concept is stupid and can't work in 3.5, do X instead." Many don't find this fun.

Well yeah, if you disallow large swathes of content it's very difficult to make a concept work. Making a good "fighter" character is really difficult without TOB to be honest. When you start banning things then concepts become unworkable, I can't think of anything that is completely unworkable.

I have yet to find *any* concept that I can not make mechanically viable in 3.5. In core only there are a ton of things that can't be made mechanically viable but in 3.5 as a whole I have yet to find anything.

Actually I've just thought of something that was pretty unworkable, I was trying to construct a superman character if you could help figure out the methodology for doing that it'd be outstanding. I would like to avoid shapechange and/or wish abuse if possible.

That's literally the only concept I had trouble building in 3.5, and there are multiple ways to try to build it.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 01:50 AM

Well yeah, if you disallow large swathes of content it's very difficult to make a concept work. Making a good "fighter" character is really difficult without TOB to be honest. When you start banning things then concepts become unworkable, I can't think of anything that is completely unworkable.

Not allowing TOB is sadly pretty common and certainly doesn't equal disallowing large swathes of content. Though most groups I've played in do not allow all 3.5 content that was made by Wizards. So usually there are several books at least that are not to be used.

I have yet to find *any* concept that I can not make mechanically viable in 3.5. In core only there are a ton of things that can't be made mechanically viable but in 3.5 as a whole I have yet to find anything.

To be fair, most of what is allowed in your games wouldn't be allowed in almost anyone else's, even if it is amusing to hear about.

And given the power level of your games, what might end up being good or even overpowered in a normal game is probably not viable compared to what it is competing with.

Just curious though, how would you do a magic-less Batman?

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-16, 02:07 AM

Actually I've just thought of something that was pretty unworkable, I was trying to construct a superman character if you could help figure out the methodology for doing that it'd be outstanding. I would like to avoid shapechange and/or wish abuse if possible.

That's literally the only concept I had trouble building in 3.5, and there are multiple ways to try to build it.

That one is actually relatively easy but (as should be obvious from the power level you want) is massively powerful and uses various broken tricks.

At the more extreme end you use Ice Assassin of an Aleax of yourself + Fusion + Astral Seed + dying to come back totally immune to any harm. Then you just start piling on the other abilities. Throw in a Factotum 8/ Fighter 12 Ice Assassin and a couple Fighter 20 Ice Assassins for more feats. Basically keep doing that until you have picked up all of the abilities needed for "Superman". No Shapechange or Wish abuse actually necessary.

Less extreme, Psion 18/ Magic Mantle Ardent 1/ Wizard 1 with Praticed Manifester, Practiced Spellcaster, and Psiotheurgist to push your ML high enough to manifest Persistent Timeless Body (ML of 23 required, or use Metapower: Persist to drop it down to 21 and then you can drop the wizard from the build). That gets you Superman's immunity to damage. Synchronicity infinite loop to fake his speed. Use some nice Festering Anger plus a way to heal the con damage daily for the Strength. The more esoteric powers are a bit harder to do but can still be done.

To be fair, most of what is allowed in your games wouldn't be allowed in almost anyone else's, even if it is amusing to hear about.
Does nothing to negate my premise. If one want's to bitch about the 3.5 rules then one is free to do so but one should also actually bitch about the rules and not the rules plus ones own houserules.

And given the power level of your games, what might end up being good or even overpowered in a normal game is probably not viable compared to what it is competing with.
I play games at all kinds of power levels.

Just curious though, how would you do a magic-less Batman?
Probably a Factotum/Monk/Fighter/Swordsage combo. Depends on which Batman I wanted to do in particular, exactly how magic less the magic less Batman is, the level I had to work with, and the optimization level.

TypoNinja

2013-12-16, 03:10 AM

I stayed on 3.5 for a few reasons, some more important than others.

I have a 3.5 group I play with, none of them are interested in spending time and money on a new edition. We already have more ideas for games and settings in 3.5 than we do time to play them. I'm not that interested in any new system either. I'm just starting to get enough system mastery to be able to give advice on most topics without consulting a book (or 5) first, I've no interest in switching now that I'm getting good at it.

4th really feels like nothing more than a money grab. We got 3 to 3.5 in just three years, and then to 4th in four more. Contrast the decade plus for the previous two editions. D&D is something like 40 years old, but we've seen 3 editions in the the space of 7 years with the release of 4th. Years between product release might seem fast when it seems like we get a new iSomething every couple of months, but consider a weekly D&D game following a published adventure path like say Savage Tide from 1 to 20 will take at minimum a year to complete that content. And there's three full paths I know of from 1-20 without getting into the mini-campaigns like Expedition to the DemonWeb Pits, City of the Spider Queen, and the like. Or the hundreds of smaller adventures published in Dragon mags. There are many years worth of playtime in published material, never mind if you actually design your own setting. 4 Years between editions is an eyeblink.

And add in that there was so much more than could have been done under 3rd. More support for high level play, a 3.5 Epic Level Handbook. Published adventures at 20+. Rules to help manage mass combat. Update the Savage Species for the love of Pelor. Release an LA supplement for all those monsters who have an LA - just because LA plus HD would have been over 20. We have official rules for magic item generation and spell design, where's my class creation rules?

3 and 3.5 have a lot of material. A lot. I've got most of it on a bookshelf. If I go by cover price the worth of said bookshelf would be in the thousands. Telling me that's obsolete is not endearing. 3.5 sold cause my (and my friends) piles of 3.0 books were still largely relevant. New core books was about it, and Completes replacing things like the Sword and Fist.

In the end cost kept me on 3.5. I've payed a lot for my collection of books and intend to keep enjoying them. My entertainment dollars (and time) are precious, what each gets spent on is in competition, that's why I own no consoles, but do own a PC. 4th doesn't contain anything remotely tempting for the kind of expense involved in starting with a new edition. It might be superior, it might not, at this point I have no interest in even trying to find out. Better or not is only applicable if you are starting from zero. It might be better, but I'm starting from a few grand worth of 3.0 and 3.5 material. I'm pretty certain its not that much better.

Actana

2013-12-16, 04:23 AM

I think one of the things that has consistently been a problem creating the gulf between 3.5 and 4e is the difference between the core assumptions of the two systems. 3.5 attempts to simulate a world of which the PCs are part of. Now, you may argue how well it succeeds, but at least it attempts to create a world where everyone plays by the same rules. 4e does not care one whit about that, and instead narrows its focus on the PCs, leaving most other things to the DM. Where 3.5 had a lot of rules for NPCs, situations and otherwise, often to the point where I at least felt that I had to have stats for pretty much everything and know how the stats affecting something like a DC for a poison, 4e gives a lot more freedom for the DM to decide things arbitrarily.

I may be wrong, and shouldn't generalize, but I have a feeling when 4e came out people were expecting something like 3.5 version 2. 3.0 was a (somewhat) logical leap from AD&D, and 3.5 was a logical leap from 3.0. But 4e was a very big change, and people weren't expecting such a huge one, and the introduction of new elements that hadn't really been as prominent in earlier editions (daily, encounter and other powers have been in earlier editions, but never in an as standardized form as in 4e) made people react adversely to it.

That, and the math was honestly rather broken in 4e on launch. It's a lot better these days, and there is more actual variance in classes. It's a bit more subtle on a theoretical level, but classes really do play differently. A paladin plays entirely differently from a warden, who plays entirely differently than a swordmage, despite all of them being defenders.

The "it feels like a video game" argument has never been something I understood either. To me, 4e feels like a good game, not necessarily a video game, and being a good game is important to me. Neither 3.5 nor 4e really encourage RP in any significant way in their mechanics, and as such I look to the better play mechanics of the two, which in my opinion 4e has.

Overall, I think it's a matter of calibrating expectations. 4e is game about tactical miniature combat, and it's a fine game as it is (not perfect, mind you). But it's not "not a roleplaying game" or "a video game": it gives just as much roleplaying advice as 3.5 does, and occasionally even more. It doesn't try to do as much as 3.5 either and rather focuses on what D&D has been about for the most part: kicking in doors, killing things and taking their loot.

Plus, there is a lot of things like the amount of 3.5 books one has already, and Pathfinder being free. Those things are really important, and not to mention people just not playing 4e.

Knaight

2013-12-16, 05:09 AM

Basically, nothing that interests me in 3.5 made it over. I don't particularly enjoy actually playing it, but seeing how people have messed around with the edges of it - Theoretical Optimization and rules weirdness both - is often somewhat interesting. Plus, I do know the system fairly well, and I don't dislike it to the point of it being a significant downside in a campaign, so it still sees some use.

Plus, 3e is too combat focused for me. 4e really didn't improve things in that regard.

huttj509

2013-12-16, 05:13 AM

Just glancing at some of the "RP character building" comments, I think what, in my experience, 3.5 does poorly is organic character building (growing from the bottom up, as opposed to having a plan in mind from the start). I can start at level 1, and just pick up stuff as I go, but there's often enough prerequisites for feats and such that, really, in order to know what feat to take at level 1, I need to know what I want to take at level 6. This gets more headache-inducing with prestige classes (and weapons of legacy, but those have other issues :smalltongue:).

In my (very limited) experience, 4e has much less of a problem with this (and there's other systems that manage to avoid it entirely).

I do agree with the idea that 3.5e focused more on the simulationist aspects, while 4e is much more gamist. This is epitomized in area effects. 3.5e? Circles mapped approximately to the grid, because it's more realistic, and better fits the mind's eye view of what's happening. 4e? Squares, because it's easy without pulling out a template.

I think if people said 4e was "too gamey" for their tastes, it'd be easy for me to understand. Different tastes and such, as the 2 versions there really do have different focuses in that regard. "Video game" and "MMO" seem to feel at the same time too specific and too vague to convey the issue, so it comes across as a knee-jerk parroted response.

Twilightwyrm

2013-12-16, 05:13 AM

Pet Peeve:
People who say 4E was like a video game. It wasn't. And no one who has ever said this to me has been able to say HOW it is like a video game. Seems like a clumsy criticism that gets used because it sounds good even if it doesn't make sense. It was more like a tactical board game, but that certainly doesn't explain the problems it had.

This is especially crazy given how many D&D video games there have been.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it is more along the lines of a "general feeling that is difficult to elaborate on in any specificity". I just remember looking through the 4e PHB for the first time, and thinking "this is like an MMO". I hadn't read anything about the system before, I had only heard rumors here and there. The analogy just can't seem to be shaked, no matter how many other non-MMOs it is compared to. If I had to point to anything to illustrate this point, I would point to the 1st level at-will power every class gets, essentially as their basic attack. It brings to mind a load-out of abilities on a bar at the bottom of your screen, where you keep hitting that one basic ability while waiting for the proper setup, or cool down to end, on your better powers.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 05:52 AM

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it is more along the lines of a "general feeling that is difficult to elaborate on in any specificity". I just remember looking through the 4e PHB for the first time, and thinking "this is like an MMO". I hadn't read anything about the system before, I had only heard rumors here and there. The analogy just can't seem to be shaked, no matter how many other non-MMOs it is compared to. If I had to point to anything to illustrate this point, I would point to the 1st level at-will power every class gets, essentially as their basic attack. It brings to mind a load-out of abilities on a bar at the bottom of your screen, where you keep hitting that one basic ability while waiting for the proper setup, or cool down to end, on your better powers.

As I said above, I don't mean to imply disliking 4E is wrong. I personally dislike it more than like it. I just think the "it's like a video game" or "it's like an MMO" is superficial and wrong.

How many different sorts of games have at-will attacks? A ton. How many different sorts of games have attacks on a cool-down? A ton. Heck, 4E in a real sense doesn't have cooldown attacks, since in MMOs especially, you see almost nothing that is "once per encounter" (cooldowns are either too short for that or far too long). And the big cooldown stuff in MMOs...you rarely start off a combat with them, unlike 4E where you will start the combat off with the encounter powers, typically.

To say nothing of how the roles in 4E are quite different from the MMO trinity.

I know it is a hard to shake viewpoint, but that doesn't make it less wrong.

Perhaps even worse, it is NOT USEFUL, in that it fails to capture why people don't like 4E. What it does do is encourage people to find one thing they can compare to some sort of video game or MMO, tie a loose analogy to it, and then say "yeah, 4E is just like a video game!" Even though different people say this for very, very different reasons.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 05:59 AM

As I said above, I don't mean to imply disliking 4E is wrong. I personally dislike it more than like it. I just think the "it's like a video game" or "it's like an MMO" is superficial and wrong.

How many different sorts of games have at-will attacks? A ton. How many different sorts of games have attacks on a cool-down? A ton. Heck, 4E in a real sense doesn't have cooldown attacks, since in MMOs especially, you see almost nothing that is "once per encounter" (cooldowns are either too short for that or far too long). And the big cooldown stuff in MMOs...you rarely start off a combat with them, unlike 4E where you will start the combat off with the encounter powers, typically.

To say nothing of how the roles in 4E are quite different from the MMO trinity.

I know it is a hard to shake viewpoint, but that doesn't make it less wrong.

Perhaps even worse, it is NOT USEFUL, in that it fails to capture why people don't like 4E. What it does do is encourage people to find one thing they can compare to some sort of video game or MMO, tie a loose analogy to it, and then say "yeah, 4E is just like a video game!" Even though different people say this for very, very different reasons.

Well just because you don't appreciate the analogy doesn't necessarily make it wrong for others. Many MMORPGs have vastly different systems and roles themselves. Simply comparing roles across isn't always possible. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is possible that it is how people feel.

As for me, it's an opportunity cost thing. I love 3.5, it's one of my favorite games to play, for many of the reasons that people have already presented. 4E is expensive, but if my friends were playing it, I might buy it, but without wanting to play it with people, I have very little incentive to. It simply did not do enough to attract my attention away from other games.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 06:06 AM

Well just because you don't appreciate the analogy doesn't necessarily make it wrong for others. Many MMORPGs have vastly different systems and roles themselves. Simply comparing roles across isn't always possible. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is possible that it is how people feel.

As for me, it's an opportunity cost thing. I love 3.5, it's one of my favorite games to play, for many of the reasons that people have already presented. 4E is expensive, but if my friends were playing it, I might buy it, but without wanting to play it with people, I have very little incentive to. It simply did not do enough to attract my attention away from other games.

Liking an analogy doesn't make it accurate. I haven't seen one person defend the Video Game/MMO analogy for 4E that didn't have it fall apart under even mild scrutiny. So pardon me, but I hate horrible analogies. Doesn't matter if they are popular or not.

Might as well say 3.5 is just like a video game or 1st Edition or 2nd Edition. Certainly were a lot of video games that incorporated both. Matter of fact, I think being like a video game WAS levelled at 3.0 when it first came out. Hmm, quick search does show these sorts of comments 10+ years ago on the interwebs

AMFV

2013-12-16, 06:11 AM

Liking an analogy doesn't make it accurate. I haven't seen one person defend the Video Game/MMO analogy for 4E that didn't have it fall apart under even mild scrutiny. So pardon me, but I hate horrible analogies. Doesn't matter if they are popular or not.

Might as well say 3.5 is just like a video game or 1st Edition or 2nd Edition. Certainly were a lot of video games that incorporated both. Matter of fact, I think being like a video game WAS levelled at 3.0 when it first came out. Hmm, quick search does show these sorts of comments 10+ years ago on the interwebs

Well to be fair when I looked at 4th edition, and read the PHB, I thought that it was intended to be easier to adapt to video games than 3.5. Most of the powers don't change the game directly, they're flat damage bonuses, which is easier to adapt. That was my assumption. Particularly since true Vancian casting is so difficult to replicate in game form.

Actana

2013-12-16, 06:16 AM

I also find it slightly amusing, though not at all argumentatively sound, that 4e only has a single and very loose video game adaptation, the Neverwinter MMO, which is extremely loose 4e. Whereas 3.0, 3.5 and AD&D have multiple quite faithful video game adaptations, including an MMO.

So what's the video game edition now, huh? :smallwink::smalltongue:

On the note though, 4e is very difficult to adapt into video games. There are too many interrupting and opportunity powers to make it feasible. Real time combat wouldn't make sense because you'd have to have a chance to react to everything, and turn based wouldn't really work either because you'd constantly be bogged down in possibilities for interrupts. 3.5 has them too, but they're far less common.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 06:19 AM

Well to be fair when I looked at 4th edition, and read the PHB, I thought that it was intended to be easier to adapt to video games than 3.5. Most of the powers don't change the game directly, they're flat damage bonuses, which is easier to adapt. That was my assumption. Particularly since true Vancian casting is so difficult to replicate in game form.

How exactly is Vancian casting difficult to adapt? Tons of games have done it. Adapting 4E I think probably requires you cut stuff like Rituals and utility powers. The combat is pretty easy to adapt...but previous editions also had combat that was easy enough to adapt as hordes of games show. Heck, computer games have an easier time than people adapting spherical areas to a square grid.

Most of the changes look like they were made with a few things in mind:
1. Make the game easier for people to play on the table (square AoEs)
2. Make it much easier to balance classes (they took the lazy way with all classes using the AEDU system).
3. Monetize the books (hence no generic system for making new powers).
4. Tone down high level magic (part of 2, I suppose)

Given the large number of computers games that have used previous editions, I don't see how "make it easier" entered into things.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 06:24 AM

How exactly is Vancian casting difficult to adapt? Tons of games have done it. Adapting 4E I think probably requires you cut stuff like Rituals and utility powers. The combat is pretty easy to adapt...but previous editions also had combat that was easy enough to adapt as hordes of games show. Heck, computer games have an easier time than people adapting spherical areas to a square grid.

Most of the changes look like they were made with a few things in mind:
1. Make the game easier for people to play on the table (square AoEs)
2. Make it much easier to balance classes (they took the lazy way with all classes using the AEDU system).
3. Monetize the books (hence no generic system for making new powers).
4. Tone down high level magic (part of 2, I suppose)

Given the large number of computers games that have used previous editions, I don't see how "make it easier" entered into things.

How many games have had flight? Or wish? Or had any of the really clever for spells like mage hand? Those have never really been adapted in any effective way. It is easy to adapt things that are mathematical or simple, but things that are game changing are extremely difficult.

Take NWN 2 for example, one of my favorite adaptations, it loses much of the advantages of alter self (scratching it entirely), Polymorph is much weakened. The spells have never been well adapted. And the starting core in 4th Edition is easier to adapt, although I don't if their later stuff became more complex in that respect.

To be honest that analogy is perfectly fine, it's an emotive analogy, which means that it means... Nothing. I could feel like playing 4th is like being stabbed by penguins, and it would be a valid analogy. It's not a quantitative analogy and therefore has quite a bit of the same validity as any analogy people would provide.

Gemini476

2013-12-16, 06:29 AM

Because while I don't really play either of them, 3.5 is more amusingly broken. That's really the only reason why I'm on this website, really. The Dysfunctional Rules threads are pretty much why I come here.

Also 4E is World of Warcraft, just like 3E was Diablo. I think there were some old comments way back on how AD&D was Dragon Warrior or something, but I'm not sure.

D&D has always been very gamist, although 3.X did try for a more simulationist approach. They never really worked well for non-slaughter vagrant games, though. All of the editions have been very much geared for going through a dungeon to battle a dragon.

SiuiS

2013-12-16, 06:30 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

This post + your name = perfect! XD

Your question is loaded though, and presupposes some arbitrary binary of mutual exclusion. I'm here and not in the fourth edition forum because that's where this thread that I clicked on was. And when I'm in the fourth edition forum and not this one, it's often for the same reason. I play every version of D&D except the old CHAINMAIL stuff.

As to what you meant, why would a person prefer to use 3.5 over 4e as their engine for any given game, well... A lot of the things considered problematic are actually bonuses. Power discrepancy, granularity, ridiculous number climb, huge amount of peripheral resources. I know 1e and 3e enough to wing it, and both can and have run dramatically successful, well balanced games without books at all (for me, the players used them I'm sure). I cannot do to hat with 4e with the same proficiency.

Za'hynie Laya

2013-12-16, 08:19 AM

I have most of my gaming roots planted in 1st edition AD&D. The only 2nd ed exposure I got was from the Baldur's Gate/Planescape:Torment/Icewind Dale PC games.
Paying $60 USD for a new D&D game in 2000 was affordable at that time. (WotC's 1st printing of the 3.0 core rulebooks was only $20 apiece back then!) This marketing strategy sooth my fears of the WotC buy-out of TSR and I became a "WotC fan-boy".
I felt 3.5 was a money-grab in 2003, but Monte Cook said in an interview somewhere that a Third Edition revision was originally planned from the beginning. Other designers said the revision would come at the game's half-life or in 2005. A newer edition would become available around 2010 was speculated at the time.
There was SO MUCH third-party support for 3.x over it's seven year life, I felt I may never need to upgrade to another edition of D&D. But...
In a knee-jerk reaction, I bought the 4th edition core set.
My excitement waned to apathy after a failed attempt to convert a 3.5 PC to 4.0 character and a boring low-level combat encounter afterwards. But I gave it another go...purchasing nine more books and a few character builds tried at the table. Shortly, all the romance for 4th edition was bleeding away from me. (And don't get me started on what they did to Faerun.)
Other groups I played with went back to 3.5 after six months and the main group I game with regularly was evenly split on 3.5 versus 4th, so we stayed with Revised Third edition.
Variety is the main reason I stuck with 3.5, for both the players' choices and the DM's too. Economics would be another reason behind variety. I just have too many 3.x books (WotC and 3rd-party) and may never get to use them all. If I ever play another edition of D&D, it will be 1st ed.
I am proud of Piazo for carrying the real Dungeons and Dragons "torch" forward, but may never get around to trying their new RPG. I hope they are successful in what they do with it.

killem2

2013-12-16, 08:33 AM

Dr. Cliché

2013-12-16, 08:37 AM

Your question is loaded though, and presupposes some arbitrary binary of mutual exclusion.

I'm aware, though it wasn't intentional - this just seemed like a slightly more amusing way of asking the question.

Gemini476

2013-12-16, 08:45 AM

My son and I play the Wrath of Ashardalon board game, is that what 4e is similar to? A pre made character with special abilities?

Honestly 4E could have just been a really advanced board game, and left 3.5 alone to prosper.
While WoA and the like are pretty good boardgames, they're also very simplified versions of 4E. 4E characters can get surprisingly complex as they level up, what with the flood of feats, powers, and magical items.
They really made too many feats. At least the Character Builder helps with keeping track of them...

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 08:54 AM

How many games have had flight? Or wish? Or had any of the really clever for spells like mage hand? Those have never really been adapted in any effective way. It is easy to adapt things that are mathematical or simple, but things that are game changing are extremely difficult.

Take NWN 2 for example, one of my favorite adaptations, it loses much of the advantages of alter self (scratching it entirely), Polymorph is much weakened. The spells have never been well adapted. And the starting core in 4th Edition is easier to adapt, although I don't if their later stuff became more complex in that respect.

To be honest that analogy is perfectly fine, it's an emotive analogy, which means that it means... Nothing. I could feel like playing 4th is like being stabbed by penguins, and it would be a valid analogy. It's not a quantitative analogy and therefore has quite a bit of the same validity as any analogy people would provide.

And 4E has a lot of stuff like that too, quite frankly. Rituals are unlikely to get any support. Teleport abilities are unlikely to be properly implemented in terms of bypassing walls (and ALL Eldarin have that). Flight capabilities exist too and they are unlikely to work. A number of other utility powers as well. This is to say nothing of the structured system the DM has via page 42 for handling creative ideas. And heck, skills are never implemented well in general.

To say nothing of all the reactive abilities (many at first level) that 4E has which 3E games didn't have to deal with generally speaking.

The only game adaption of 4E that exists isn't nearly as faithful as pretty much any of the 3E adaptions.

It's an analogy that sucks. It doesn't convey anything except a dislike of computer games/technology more than anything. It certainly doesn't convey the reality of how the systems have been used in games. And it means different things to different people -- and inconsistency in application is a pretty damning trait for an analogy.

Arguing it just makes it clear you don't know much about 4th edition.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-12-16, 09:09 AM

Well I figure ill share my POV

I look at 4th ed and instead of seeing a new version of D&D like with 3rd I saw what amount to Hasbro putting out a game to grab a slice of that WOW pie.Its no different than in 2nd ed when the management put out as many systems as possible to try and steal shares from other up and coming RPGs and low and behold it sunk TSR much like t has sunk Hasbro edition D&D

You can BS and come up with excuses about how its not EXACTLY like WOW because you arent harvesting bear asses for a quest giver with an exclamation point over his head.It doesnt run exactly like WOW but honestly it function more like a Japanese MMORPG with neat cool animu super-powers with no fluff justification whatsoever and jawdropping stupid stuff like bloody path.Its pretty obvious what you got was just Star Ocean slapped onto a character sheet

My next problem would be the classes being design around video game archtypes.Ok sure you could argue that in old games the Fighter was the "Striker/DPS guy? and Cleric the "Healer" and all that other drek but they werent designed to fit a single hat.Maybe I would play my Wizard as a battlefield controller but he did what I wanted to do with a large set of available abilities and the class wasent a designed around a simple concept like "the Witch doctor is the controller" and given a limited tree of abilities to choose from that all end up being "Roll D20 do damage+Status effect".Oh yeah and I also wanna do things outside of combat on occasion too and since this isnt 1985 playing 1st/2nded ed i rather prefer something beyond "Just make it up yourself schmuck".I prefer to play heroes not a Tanky DPS Jungler because we already have a Support and Ranged DPS in bot lane

Now then why do I stick with 3rd ed?Because despite its often exaggerated flaws its real D&D.Its a great system always has been and always will be even if rename it "Pathfinder".Sure Ive played other systems but I always come back here.You know why?Its maybe because this thing is really good and it works despite the potential existence of Pun-Pun or weapon focus being lame.Maybe the actual game trumps that and thats why it has been the king of RPGs for 40 some odd years

Macros

2013-12-16, 09:14 AM

I'm here because why do I have to like only one game ? I like both 3.5 and 4e, it's just they are not the same games at all. Assuming that someone who likes 3.5 will dislike 4e seems like a fallacy to me.

SillySymphonies

2013-12-16, 09:16 AM

Honestly? The art direction and interior design of the books.

The interior design of the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM is reminiscent of an old tome (even more so the FRCS). The interior design of the 4e PHB/DMG/MM is reminiscent of well, a rulebook.

The art direction of 4e is too reminiscent of WoW for my taste: bright primary colours, huge pauldrons, over-the-top poses, etc.: flashy, almost kitschy. (Plus I don't really care for the art styles of Wayne England and William O'Connor, respectively.)

Compare 3e's concept art (http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/concept/01/): natural, unsaturated colours, sensible armour, neutral poses. (Too be honest, they started deviating from this in some of the splatbooks: e.g. too much Wayne England art in the MIC for my taste.)

Compare:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG92.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/MonsterManual_art/img/111113_CN_GL.jpg

PS It's not like the interior design and art direction is my sole reason for preferring 3.5 over 4e. However, since my other considerations are already covered quite well by the other posters in this thread, I figured I might as well add a new angle to the conversation. :smallsmile:

jedipotter

2013-12-16, 09:26 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

4E just went in the wrong direction of what I wanted out of D&D. I want a game where I can create anything. 4E has very little options to create anything. For example in 3.5E I can make any kind of wizard: a blaster, a thief, an investigator, and so on. A 4E wizard is just a battle field controller.

It seemed like they crafted 4E specifically so a gamer like me would not like it. Makes sense as I'm the sort of gamer how spent lots of money a week buying 3.5 stuff(granted from others then Wizard, as they were too busy to put out 3.5 stuff) They changed too much, and not in a good way.

And to top it all off they simply ruined the Forgotten Realms when they tagged on the 4E stuff.

Airk

2013-12-16, 10:18 AM

you do realize there's a difference between "enlightened" and "insulted" right? not everyone likes 4E, not everyone liked 3.0 or 3.5 or pathfinder, however intentionally saying "you're wrong and your reasons are stupid" isn't really helping change their opinions.

My post really had nothing to do with liking or not liking 4E and everything to do with comparing it to a video game, but if you want to take it as a personal insult, who am I to stop you? :)

yes the "holy trinity of MMOs" is based on the traditional necessary roles for RPGs, but by streamlining the actions a character can take in those roles so that they don't feel as much customization or individuality 4e has poisoned several people against it.

I'm sorry; I'd like to discuss your argument, but I can't actually tell what it is. :smallconfused:

and how do you KNOW these people have never played a tactical board game?

Usually because when I ask them why they compared 4E to a video game and not to a tactical board game, they say "Well, I've never played a tactical board game.". Some of this has even happened in this thread.

You seem to be acting under the mistaken assumption that my post was a direct letter to you.

because they dislike 4e? is personal taste completely dead to this conversation then? I dislike pie, does that mean I've never tasted a dessert to know what pie is comparable to? I don't like loud noises, does that mean I can't hear and don't know what noises are like?

Whether you like something or not is independent of its objective qualities. 4E is objectively like a tactical board game. If someone doesn't notice this, there has to be a reason why. Usually that reason is "they don't have a basis for comparison." Being insulted by this, as you are, makes no sense.

Actana

2013-12-16, 10:22 AM

To be honest, the most baffling thing about 4e to me is the amount of unbridled hate it receives. People say things about it that aren't even true, are the same as in earlier editions, and are generally just misguided and full of inane rhetoric. Not liking a system is fine, but honestly, it's as if 4e is devilspawn.

Then again, internet et al...

AMFV

2013-12-16, 10:25 AM

And 4E has a lot of stuff like that too, quite frankly. Rituals are unlikely to get any support. Teleport abilities are unlikely to be properly implemented in terms of bypassing walls (and ALL Eldarin have that). Flight capabilities exist too and they are unlikely to work. A number of other utility powers as well. This is to say nothing of the structured system the DM has via page 42 for handling creative ideas. And heck, skills are never implemented well in general.

To say nothing of all the reactive abilities (many at first level) that 4E has which 3E games didn't have to deal with generally speaking.

The only game adaption of 4E that exists isn't nearly as faithful as pretty much any of the 3E adaptions.

It's an analogy that sucks. It doesn't convey anything except a dislike of computer games/technology more than anything. It certainly doesn't convey the reality of how the systems have been used in games. And it means different things to different people -- and inconsistency in application is a pretty damning trait for an analogy.

Arguing it just makes it clear you don't know much about 4th edition.

I don't dislike computer games or fourth edition, but when I first read the books that was my overall impression. That was more video-gamey, I'm not sure how much of a thing, but it was certainly my feelings on the subject. Since I've heard the analogy many times, I suspect it is a least a moderately good analogy.

Again, I don't dislike fourth edition, and I've made that analogy, at least in some part, from my impressions of the system, if I had a group that wanted to play that I'd be completely down with that though.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 10:35 AM

I don't dislike computer games or fourth edition, but when I first read the books that was my overall impression. That was more video-gamey, I'm not sure how much of a thing, but it was certainly my feelings on the subject. Since I've heard the analogy many times, I suspect it is a least a moderately good analogy.

Again, I don't dislike fourth edition, and I've made that analogy, at least in some part, from my impressions of the system, if I had a group that wanted to play that I'd be completely down with that though.

Yeah, just because a lot of people use a bad analogy, doesn't make it any better. One could similarly have said Basic D&D was "more video gamey". And people DID say 3rd was more video gamey than 2nd. It's a very common criticism of new systems, ESPECIALLY if they simplify things. Hmm, that might be where it comes from, seeing the system more streamlined and simplified.

But anyone I've seen try to elaborate on how it is like a video game...well, the argument falls apart after even a cursory analysis. Probably why it annoys me. Well, that and the fact "it's like a video game" says nothing and it unhelpful.

Ansem

2013-12-16, 10:40 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Mechanically superior, more realism (think of mechanics and Vancian vs at-will), feels more like a roleplay game instead of a videogame, more content.
My question.... why are people in the 4th edition forum and not here?!

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 10:43 AM

Mechanically superior, more realism (think of mechanics and Vancian vs at-will), feels more like a roleplay game instead of a videogame, more content.
My question.... why are people in the 4th edition forum and not here?!

Umm, pretty sure there's not ANY magic system that's more "realistic" than any other. Unless one is inherently self-contradictory.

Hmm, as for realism in general. I think that depends on how you measure it. A lot of the "realistic" bits of 3.X are actually really bad. Falling, crafting, trading, etc. But the world does feel like it has more continuity, since the system isn't focused on simulating little slices of time semi-irrespective of other slices of time it is simulating.

Imho, I think I went over the strength and flaws of 4E on the previous page pretty well. I think 4E is overall a very flawed game, but it does have some really great bits to it relative to 3.X.

Krazzman

2013-12-16, 10:45 AM

I posted a Thread in the 4th Edition subforum asking why I didn't like it.

To condense it here again:

I tried it out on 2 occasions. Once with a Rogue Striker and the other with a Ranger Striker (first twf then ARchery as the DM let me reroll).

It sucked both times. But I remember the Rogue part better. Basically we had the handholding paladins of we heal eachother while smacking scum. My rogue no able to incapacitate 1 frigging Goblin while striking from the shadows. My Rogue getting K.O.'ed in EVERY ****ing fight. Yes even them. I needed to hit everything at least two times before killing anything.

In the end the guys in that forum told me that we forgot some things, took some things from 3.5 knowledge (basically just the DM) and wrong knowledge too and that the DM basically cheated as we played Shadowfang keep, the one with the miner sniper goblins in our edition and nondisposable mooks... or disposable in everyones other game.

This really killed the moot for the new edition for me.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 10:45 AM

Then again, internet et al...
Things the internet is for:

Porn
Unbridled hatred
???
Profit!

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 10:48 AM

Yeah, just because a lot of people use a bad analogy, doesn't make it any better.

If multiple people arrive to the same conclusion independently, it is obviously coming from somewhere and not just memetic transfer.

Actana

2013-12-16, 10:49 AM

I don't think 4e is any more "video gamey" than 3.5 is. Or any version of D&D is. However, remove the video part and it's actually true. 4e is more "gamey" than 3.5, but I don't count that as a bad thing in the end.

One thing that came to mind about 4e, classes and character roles in that 4e doesn't work the same way with customization as 3.5. In 3.5, you can go "I want to make a Fighter who is tanks, deals damage, or otherwise impedes enemies. Or a Wizard who does battlefield control or blasting." In 3.5 you can use the same Wizard class to do both control and blasting, the class works for both concepts. However, in 4e the Wizard class is primarily battlefield control (you can also make a high damage Wizard, but that's not the point here). To make a blaster "wizard", you could as well create a Warlock or a Sorcerer. The classes' power source is still arcane, the classes uses almost the same implements for casting and the fluff is almost completely the same (and 4e is heavy on refluffing, as well as easy to do it within the same power source). For a "fighter", you can have the basic Fighter class, the more heavily armored Knight variant, the lighter armored Slayer variant, they're all viable* characters who are of the Fighter class and they all work and play differently. And beyond even the Fighter, you could make a Warlord for a "martial leader of men", as by all appearances fluffwise a Warlord is just like a Fighter, except he focuses on leader. For a "divine warrior" archetype, you can use the basic Paladin class for a defender, the Cavalier-paladin for a mounted expert, the Blackguard-paladin for a more damage-dealing/darker holy warrior, the Avenger for a high-damage class, et cetera.

In a way, 4e characters work on a conceptual basis, where you find the best class to fit your concept, instead of doing what you can in 3.5: fitting to concept into the class.

*This is not taking into account that some classes aren't as powerful as others. It's still a problem, albeit massively smaller than in 3.5.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 10:51 AM

If multiple people arrive to the same conclusion independently, it is obviously coming from somewhere and not just memetic transfer.

Yes, but that doesn't make the conclusion correct. Gaming is far from the only place you'll see this sort of thing.

Newwby

2013-12-16, 10:53 AM

But anyone I've seen try to elaborate on how it is like a video game...well, the argument falls apart after even a cursory analysis. Probably why it annoys me. Well, that and the fact "it's like a video game" says nothing and it unhelpful.

Not to mention that comparing something to a video game isn't really a criticism as video games generally skew toward enjoyable.

I'm still with 3.5/Pathfinder simply because 3.5 was the first system I came across and I'm still learning it. The idea of starting to learn a whole new system is intimidating (but, I will add, something I've been trying to do more of recently)

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 11:03 AM

Yes, but that doesn't make the conclusion correct.

Neither will saying "That's an incorrect interpretation" make your interpretation any more of a correct or valid interpretation than anyone else's. That's the thing with opinions: sometimes they're factually incorrect. That doesn't make them any less valid.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 11:51 AM

Neither will saying "That's an incorrect interpretation" make your interpretation any more of a correct or valid interpretation than anyone else's. That's the thing with opinions: sometimes they're factually incorrect. That doesn't make them any less valid.

Yeah, that's why I ask people to EXPLAIN how it is like a video game. So far it has been trivially easy to show how it doesn't work. Usually it mischaracterizes video game mechanics, or uses something that's true of most games in general (video or not), or applies to 3.5 D&D just as well, etc, etc.

So when I say that cursory analysis has these arguments fall apart, I am not just talking out of my ass. I'm speaking from experience.

And when I say it is unhelpful, same thing. There are a half-dozen ways people mean this and any two people are often more likely than not to be talking about something different when they say it is "like a video game."

Analogies can be good or bad. Some analogies are bad. There's a fair degree of objectivity to this. People are entitled to their opinions, sure. But opinions can be wrong. Like I said before, I'm not saying anyone has to like 4E. Overall I don't like it (despite finding some of the mechanics worth stealing). But it would be nice if people could criticize it with something that actually has meaning rather than a feel-good kludge.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 12:01 PM

That would be far easier if degree of enjoyment were an objective standpoint rather than a subjective one.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 12:02 PM

Yeah, that's why I ask people to EXPLAIN how it is like a video game. So far it has been trivially easy to show how it doesn't work. Usually it mischaracterizes video game mechanics, or uses something that's true of most games in general (video or not), or applies to 3.5 D&D just as well, etc, etc.

So when I say that cursory analysis has these arguments fall apart, I am not just talking out of my ass. I'm speaking from experience.

And when I say it is unhelpful, same thing. There are a half-dozen ways people mean this and any two people are often more likely than not to be talking about something different when they say it is "like a video game."

Analogies can be good or bad. Some analogies are bad. There's a fair degree of objectivity to this. People are entitled to their opinions, sure. But opinions can be wrong. Like I said before, I'm not saying anyone has to like 4E. Overall I don't like it (despite finding some of the mechanics worth stealing). But it would be nice if people could criticize it with something that actually has meaning rather than a feel-good kludge.

as entertaining as it is seeing people bicker over the right way to dislike something they both dislike.. it is the opinion of some that 4e is bad, it is the opinion of some that "like a video game" is a fitting enough analogy to cover why. it is your opinion that "like a video game" is not. perhaps instead of covering 3 pages with debate over how valid those opinions are and how you think that an analogy you personally dislike is bad largely because it doesn't explain to you specifically what they mean we could, maybe just maybe, continue with the actual topic.

or perhaps we could continue to argue over personal views on how someone should or shouldn't say "I don't like this". because we're clearly getting across that our views are reasonable when we spend our time complaining about whether instead of saying "4e is like a video game" we should use another analogy like "4e is like a box of chocolates", maybe even move into simile or metaphor.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 12:10 PM

Yeah, that's why I ask people to EXPLAIN how it is like a video game. So far it has been trivially easy to show how it doesn't work. Usually it mischaracterizes video game mechanics, or uses something that's true of most games in general (video or not), or applies to 3.5 D&D just as well, etc, etc.

So when I say that cursory analysis has these arguments fall apart, I am not just talking out of my ass. I'm speaking from experience.

And when I say it is unhelpful, same thing. There are a half-dozen ways people mean this and any two people are often more likely than not to be talking about something different when they say it is "like a video game."

Analogies can be good or bad. Some analogies are bad. There's a fair degree of objectivity to this. People are entitled to their opinions, sure. But opinions can be wrong. Like I said before, I'm not saying anyone has to like 4E. Overall I don't like it (despite finding some of the mechanics worth stealing). But it would be nice if people could criticize it with something that actually has meaning rather than a feel-good kludge.

Life is like a box of chocolates. Because it's brown and it looks like ****... Analogies are not objective, they are not quantitative, they are subjective. I feel that 4E is more video-gamy, so do many many many people. I shouldn't be put on a stand and forced to defend the way I feel about something.

Furthermore, it isn't really a problem for me, I don't mind 4e, I just have all the 3.5 books, and I'll be damned if inertia isn't just a terrible thing. So it's not a criticism.

The general feel is mostly what I'm discussing, the way you obtain powers, the fact that you get powers from trees, the focus on having everybody as the self healing types. I mean there are many things that remind me of video games. Powers on cooldowns for even better examples. Most powers are flat and static, with the exception of utility powers. Most combat is done in ways that is numeric and quantitative in solution, you can figure out an optimal DPR, in fact a great deal of theorycrafting goes towards this.

Even the theorycrafting feels more videogamy to me for this reason. There is less room for creating a character that solves problems in unique ways. That sort of creativity kind of dies in this system, and that's not always a bad thing, but it does present itself as more "like a video game" to me at least.

Edit: Dagnabbit, I can't believe somebody Ninja'd me on the box of chocolates thing.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 12:13 PM

Edit: Dagnabbit, I can't believe somebody Ninja'd me on the box of chocolates thing.

I was honestly surprised someone hadn't mentioned it before I did.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 12:16 PM

I was honestly surprised someone hadn't mentioned it before I did.

This is ridiculous anyways, we all know that fourth edition is like a rose, red and lush, but full of thorns.

Psyren

2013-12-16, 12:21 PM

I don't necessarily know that 4e feels like a "video game." I can say that MMOs were likely what they had in mind when they came up with its very rigid role-based structure.

Which is not to say that can't be fun. Certainly it's likely to translate far better to a CRPG format than anything 3.x was capable of doing. As soon as I have some free time I'm definitely going to check out Neverwinter.

Things the internet is for:

Porn
Unbridled hatred
???
Profit!

5. Cats

Particle_Man

2013-12-16, 12:32 PM

Come to think of it, the 1974 Original D&D might be the closest to a modern MMO in one respect, as it is the only version of D&D that explicitly allows for up to 50 players in a campaign! :smallsmile:

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 12:32 PM

Life is like a box of chocolates. Because it's brown and it looks like ****... Analogies are not objective, they are not quantitative, they are subjective. I feel that 4E is more video-gamy, so do many many many people. I shouldn't be put on a stand and forced to defend the way I feel about something.

Tell that to the SAT. In fact quite a few tests understand that analogies are pretty objective.

That would be far easier if degree of enjoyment were an objective standpoint rather than a subjective one.

I guess my point when completely over your head.

as entertaining as it is seeing people bicker over the right way to dislike something they both dislike.. it is the opinion of some that 4e is bad, it is the opinion of some that "like a video game" is a fitting enough analogy to cover why. it is your opinion that "like a video game" is not. perhaps instead of covering 3 pages with debate over how valid those opinions are and how you think that an analogy you personally dislike is bad largely because it doesn't explain to you specifically what they mean we could, maybe just maybe, continue with the actual topic.

or perhaps we could continue to argue over personal views on how someone should or shouldn't say "I don't like this". because we're clearly getting across that our views are reasonable when we spend our time complaining about whether instead of saying "4e is like a video game" we should use another analogy like "4e is like a box of chocolates", maybe even move into simile or metaphor.

I don't think it is really off-topic, because when one person says "it is like a video game" that doesn't mean the same thing as when someone else says it most of the time. That's one of the reasons it is a bad critique, because it doesn't actually convey information beyond "I don't like it." It gives the superficial appearance of conveying information, especially since comparing things to video games in a derogatory fashion is popular.

Look, there's AMFV with yet another meaning to "it's like a video game." Once again showing that no one is talking about the same thing when they say this. That's a pretty major problem on a thread that's about why people don't play 4E, don't you think? I mean, people should be giving actual reasons rather than saying "it's like a video game" which doesn't actually mean anything remotely clear.

The general feel is mostly what I'm discussing, the way you obtain powers, the fact that you get powers from trees, the focus on having everybody as the self healing types. I mean there are many things that remind me of video games. Powers on cooldowns for even better examples. Most powers are flat and static, with the exception of utility powers. Most combat is done in ways that is numeric and quantitative in solution, you can figure out an optimal DPR, in fact a great deal of theorycrafting goes towards this.

People said the same about 3.X regarding feat trees. In fact, you don't have power trees in 4E, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Unless you mean categories of powers by class. But lots of games (including 3E) have that. And like I've said before, in how they work and are used, encounter powers are very different from cooldown powers in games (which are usually used every few fights or multiple times a fight and very rarely at the beginning of a fight).

Regarding optimal DPR, a lot of 3.X and even 2E was like this too, unless you were using save or die/lose to make the fight trivial from round 1.

Even the theorycrafting feels more videogamy to me for this reason. There is less room for creating a character that solves problems in unique ways. That sort of creativity kind of dies in this system, and that's not always a bad thing, but it does present itself as more "like a video game" to me at least.

It is certainly a simpler game, like 3E was simpler in a lot of ways than 2E (and still is) or basic D&D was simpler than AD&D. They streamlined a lot and they certainly did remove a lot of powerful options. They also removed a lot of out-of-combat stuff which I didn't care for either.

However, they actually have a really great system for resolving creative actions in combat on page 42 of the DMG. Sadly the PHB is written in such a way that it really discourages thinking creatively and doesn't even touch on the fact the DM can handle creative ideas very easily. This should have been incorporated into the core mechanics.

Skill Challenges were meant to handle creative stuff outside of combat, but they initial version was just....awful mathematically. It also didn't have very good guidelines (unlike page 42 stuff). So the game really suffered there as well.

I think they should have some more silos for non-combat stuff and made a bigger focus on it, because the game is certainly lacking there overall. Though, to be fair, 3.X is kind of a unbalanced mess there (though it is nice to have the options even so).

Addendum: Anyhow, I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that saying "it's like a video game" is an incoherent criticism that has no unified meaning and conveys no useful information beyond "I don't like it." If we're going to talk about why we prefer 3.X, then we should actually give reasons, aye?

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 12:35 PM

I don't necessarily know that 4e feels like a "video game." I can say that MMOs were likely what they had in mind when they came up with its very rigid role-based structure.

More like MMOs had D&D in mind, and D&D really just made their roles (which are different than MMOs roles) more explicit with a little more mechanical support.

Which is not to say that can't be fun. Certainly it's likely to translate far better to a CRPG format than anything 3.x was capable of doing. As soon as I have some free time I'm definitely going to check out Neverwinter.

I'd avoid Neverwinter. It's made by Cryptic. They literally just make shallow pieces of crap that are designed to get you to fork over as much money as possible. It's also a fairly loose implementation of the 4E mechanics.

Anyhow, general rule: avoid any game made by Cryptic.

Dimers

2013-12-16, 12:47 PM

Yet another person who plays both.

I didn't pick up Pathfinder because of the cost and the overlap with 3.X; I did pick up 4e because my flip-through of the first PHB intrigued me. The very far-reaching changes from all earlier editions made me wonder, "How well is this going to work? Is it better?"

I find 4e superior for roleplaying, simply because it encourages refluffing as an answer to the problem of mechanics mismatched to concept. 3.X does not. An individual 3.X DM might very well do that with a particular 3.X player, there's nothing stopping them, but it's not what the writers seem to want. Instead, they offer thousands upon thousands of possible feats, spells and prestige classes to try to force mechanics to meet any possible concept. That's laudable and a hell of a lot of fun in character-building, but it's also an unnecessarily difficult answer (with a high entrance fee) to the very common problem of making a character that can do what you envision them being able to do.

I'm here as well as the 4e subforum because 3.5's huge variety is fun, because the posters here have some great insight into all games, because I still play 3.X in some of my games, and because there's so much more activity here that it's almost impossible for the first page of threads to be devoid of anything I find interesting.

TL;DR -- While I respect and acknowledge 3.X's several good points, I'd say overall that I'm here for the people rather than the game itself.

I don't necessarily know that 4e feels like a "video game." I can say that MMOs were likely what they had in mind when they came up with its very rigid role-based structure.

Not rigid at all. Everyone can deal damage, everyone can debuff enemies, everyone can buff and/or heal allies. It's a matter of degree and what you choose to focus in over time.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 12:49 PM

Tell that to the SAT. In fact quite a few tests understand that analogies are pretty objective.

I guess my point when completely over your head.

I don't think it is really off-topic, because when one person says "it is like a video game" that doesn't mean the same thing as when someone else says it most of the time. That's one of the reasons it is a bad critique, because it doesn't actually convey information beyond "I don't like it." It gives the superficial appearance of conveying information, especially since comparing things to video games in a derogatory fashion is popular.

Look, there's AMFV with yet another meaning to "it's like a video game." Once again showing that no one is talking about the same thing when they say this. That's a pretty major problem on a thread that's about why people don't play 4E, don't you think? I mean, people should be giving actual reasons rather than saying "it's like a video game" which doesn't actually mean anything remotely clear.

People said the same about 3.X regarding feat trees. In fact, you don't have power trees in 4E, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Unless you mean categories of powers by class. But lots of games (including 3E) have that. And like I've said before, in how they work and are used, encounter powers are very different from cooldown powers in games (which are usually used every few fights or multiple times a fight and very rarely at the beginning of a fight).

Regarding optimal DPR, a lot of 3.X and even 2E was like this too, unless you were using save or die/lose to make the fight trivial from round 1.

It is certainly a simpler game, like 3E was simpler in a lot of ways than 2E (and still is) or basic D&D was simpler than AD&D. They streamlined a lot and they certainly did remove a lot of powerful options. They also removed a lot of out-of-combat stuff which I didn't care for either.

However, they actually have a really great system for resolving creative actions in combat on page 42 of the DMG. Sadly the PHB is written in such a way that it really discourages thinking creatively and doesn't even touch on the fact the DM can handle creative ideas very easily. This should have been incorporated into the core mechanics.

Skill Challenges were meant to handle creative stuff outside of combat, but they initial version was just....awful mathematically. It also didn't have very good guidelines (unlike page 42 stuff). So the game really suffered there as well.

I think they should have some more silos for non-combat stuff and made a bigger focus on it, because the game is certainly lacking there overall. Though, to be fair, 3.X is kind of a unbalanced mess there (though it is nice to have the options even so).

Addendum: Anyhow, I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that saying "it's like a video game" is an incoherent criticism that has no unified meaning and conveys no useful information beyond "I don't like it." If we're going to talk about why we prefer 3.X, then we should actually give reasons, aye?

Except saying it "feels like a video game" is a stylistic criticism, it's like a thing being "tacky" it just is, and if most folks agree then it's tacky. I came to my conclusion about it being video-gamy, for the reasons I stated, without outside input, since many people have for many different reasons come to the same conclusion that doesn't make the analogy worse but better.

If hundreds of people come to the same conclusion based on differing evidence then it's probably a pretty solid conclusion, and I'm fairly sure that's happened here. I've said why I don't play, and that has to do with the groups I play with, and my degree of 3.5 system mastery.

It's like a video game is an emotive discussion on what my impressions were regarding the game, furthermore, it's as half a dozen people have pointed a common and very likely valid interpretation.

Brookshw

2013-12-16, 12:52 PM

. As soon as I have some free time I'm definitely going to check out Neverwinter.

It wasn't horrible, I played into the 40s. Crafting system had some perks but its time intensive out of game. Each zone had a story capped by a dungeon. There's a bit of a grindy feel but not nearly as bad as others. One big strength was they made player generated content easy and accessible and then incentivized people tri check it out via daily quests. Not fantastic overall but reasonably fun, especially for free.

Psyren

2013-12-16, 12:52 PM

Eh, even if it ends up being pay to win later I can simply jump ship. And if its fun then they'll deserve a buck or two.

They're not that much different than MMO roles. The major difference is that "controller" tends to be diffused between the tank and dps in an MMO, while "leader" has elements diffused among all three.

And honestly I think the 4e roles could be a lot of fun in a CRPG setting, where you expect your fights to be highly tuned and your range of strategy tightly constrained anyway.

Drachasor

2013-12-16, 01:03 PM

Except saying it "feels like a video game" is a stylistic criticism, it's like a thing being "tacky" it just is, and if most folks agree then it's tacky. I came to my conclusion about it being video-gamy, for the reasons I stated, without outside input, since many people have for many different reasons come to the same conclusion that doesn't make the analogy worse but better.

Except what is tacky to one person is different than what is tacky to another. I'd have the same problem with people saying "3.X is tacky" or "4E is tacky." Again, it conveys no real information beyond the fact you don't like it.

As we've seen in this thread, the people saying this mean very different things.

If hundreds of people come to the same conclusion based on differing evidence then it's probably a pretty solid conclusion, and I'm fairly sure that's happened here. I've said why I don't play, and that has to do with the groups I play with, and my degree of 3.5 system mastery.

You mean like heavier objects falling faster? The earth being flat? How bad a fall is being directly proportional to distance? The idea that bad things happen to bad people? A bunch of people coming to the same idea doesn't mean anything.

It's like a video game is an emotive discussion on what my impressions were regarding the game, furthermore, it's as half a dozen people have pointed a common and very likely valid interpretation.

Again, they aren't coming to the same idea. They are just coming to the same descriptor and mean very different things with that descriptor. You mean one thing by it. Someone else means another. A third person means something different than you both. Etc. Sure you can categorize them into groups, but only after finding out exactly why they feel that way.

jedipotter

2013-12-16, 01:16 PM

Yeah, that's why I ask people to EXPLAIN how it is like a video game.

I'll try.

A video game has a one direction railroad path to follow. You can not do anything except ride the rails. If you even try to go off the rails you will be prevented from doing so.

There is no role playing in a video game. All the NPC's are just programed characters that only say a couple things. A video game character is just a set of abilities. And they are not role playing abilities as that is impossible for a video game program.

A video game is almost pure combat, with a couple links between fights. And you can't go around a fight, unless the game was programed with that option.

So now 4E. The railroad thing is normal for a RPG. But look at the next two.

No Roleplaying. 4E has the Social Check or whatever it is called to avoid roll playing. Have a boring non combat encounter, well just roll 12 times and make it before failing eight times. It does not even have the bare bones of a 3X skill check.

It is all about combat. 4E is very combat heavy. Like 75% of it is all combat(while 3X is more like 50%). Just do some easy math and count the number of 1st level combat spells in 4E and 3.5E. Notice how 4E has endless pages of Attack Spells, and then just a couple Utility spells. Then note the cornucopia of spells of all types a 3.5 spellcaster gets. So a typical character in 4E has like 15 Attack Powers/Spells and like one Other. What does such a character look like it is made to do? And remember that most 4E so called utility powers are buffs and so are mislabeled and should be called attack powers.

So what does a player with a character that has tons of Attack Powers what to do? Well, fight, of course. In 3.5E you can make a detective character of lots of classes, that solves crimes and ''defeats'' foes by arresting them. This is impossible to do in 4E. It is impossible to make a character that is not all about combat in 4E.

So a pure combat character on a railroad plot with no role playing equals a video game, or 4E.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 01:19 PM

I guess my point when completely over your head.

Please feel free to denigrate some more.

"I don't like 4e."
"Why not?"
"Feels too video gamey."
"But it's not like a video game."
"I don't know, I just don't, okay?"

It is a subjective opinion about a very subjective topic (what's enjoyable)--I know a dude who thinks hanging upside down off a cliff face with no climbing gear is enjoyable: to me, that sounds like a nightmare. Subjectively, we're both right. The same premise applies here.

AMFV

2013-12-16, 01:27 PM

Except what is tacky to one person is different than what is tacky to another. I'd have the same problem with people saying "3.X is tacky" or "4E is tacky." Again, it conveys no real information beyond the fact you don't like it.

I don't dislike it, here we'll bold that, I DON'T DISLIKE IT, I've said that about nine or ten times now. I don't mind 4E, I don't particularly feel like learning it, but if I had a group I liked that wanted to play it, I'd be all for it.

I'm commenting on my opinion about the "feel" of the game, which is a qualitative subjective observation, since fun is also qualitative and subjective it makes good sense that any descriptor I would bring up should be the same.

As we've seen in this thread, the people saying this mean very different things.

I've noticed that they tend to say pretty similar things, "roles are too rigid", "character development is on a pre-planned track", "the powers are more reflective of video game powers," now we have used different words to say that, but that was pretty much the discussion regarding why it feels video gamey to us, I'm sorry that our subjective viewpoint is not good enough.

You mean like heavier objects falling faster? The earth being flat? How bad a fall is being directly proportional to distance? The idea that bad things happen to bad people? A bunch of people coming to the same idea doesn't mean anything.

But they're coming to the same idea from different evidence without collaboration, and that does mean something.

Again, they aren't coming to the same idea. They are just coming to the same descriptor and mean very different things with that descriptor. You mean one thing by it. Someone else means another. A third person means something different than you both. Etc. Sure you can categorize them into groups, but only after finding out exactly why they feel that way.

I think that you find that the descriptor has a different meaning, mostly because you're kind of looking for that, it's like playing a word game. Nope all of our subjective ideas won't be the same, but they'll be similar enough.

Eldan

2013-12-16, 02:54 PM

I think 4E is "videogamey" in one thing: discouraging creativity. Let me elaborate a bit:

One of the biggest advantages that tabletop RPGs have over computer RPGs is that you have a human DM who can think creatively and allow the players to think creatively as well. Especially these days, where games allow for (but don't necessarily have) beautiful graphics, deep stories and characters, huge worlds and combat systems that are far more indepth and detailed than antyhing a human DM could run.
Think of a simple example, fire spells. At the table, with a permissive DM and creative player, they might burn ropes, set buildings ablaze, heat and soften metal, be used for frying food, sterilize wounds or melt ice and snow. In a CPRG, most often, they just deal damage, rarely, they destroy some special sections of environment or have some effective in some pre-scripted decisions.

4E felt a lot like that to me when I read it. Narrow powers with narrow effects and strongly hinting that they shouldn't be used for anything other than what the book explicitely tells you they do.

One other, smaller but still important thing: 4E's graphical design felt very sterile to me. The third edition books with their faux leather, fake parchment and pencil sketches? I loved that look. Just small things, like the gem-page-numbers really make a lot of difference to me. 4E often looked like a business power point presentation with fantasy illustrations.

Phelix-Mu

2013-12-16, 03:43 PM

Alright, engaging rant drive.

I am, at heart, a designer. I design campaigns, worlds, settings, creatures, characters, npcs. Since I started playing AD&D a freaking age ago, I have literally designed hundreds of characters, monsters, npcs, and the better part of an entire planet (three continents and counting). Thousands of pages of work across dozens of notebooks and a half-dozen computers.

So, needless to say, updates to editions are troublesome. Fluff can easily be ported across editions, but crunch? Not so much. I was minorly peeved when, after about a decade of playing 2e, they moved to 3.0. But, TSR had been on the ropes for a while, so it was a necessary evil.

3.0 was good. I did like it, invested in many books, and converted much of my stuff.

Then they came out with 3.5 a few years later. This was...irritating. Luckily, little had changed, so conversion was easy. The main irritation was replacing the core books, which were still in good condition (my AD&D books had required extensive duct taping by the time they were rendered obsolete). This struck me at the time as a waste of money.

But, eventually so much more had been released for 3.5 that the conversion was well worth it. I made my peace with the revisions, updated my .docs and major npcs and epic pcs, and otherwise got set to have my world be a 3.5 setting.

Then they announced that no more 3.5 stuff would be released in anticipation of the 4e rollout. I fumed. I cried. There was actual gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts. Looking at the previews for 4e, I realized that it would be a major, extremely big undertaking to move my setting into 4e. Not totally impossible, but they really weren't even supporting conversion (unlike in 2e->3e).

So, I largely ignored 4e. Is it good? Is it bad? I don't bloody give a damn. All my stuff is 3.5, my players still play and know it well, and I can't bring myself to burn it all down just so I can buy a new set of expensive books and spend time reacquiring system mastery.

Then they announced that 5e was in development. Much hilarity ensued, and, by this time, WotC had basically solidified itself as being a little too much into the business model side of things.

There is almost no way that I will bring myself to look at Next as anything more than a curiosity, like some dead/dying animal on the side of the road; there's no way I am paying money for the privilege of bringing it home with me.

johnbragg

2013-12-16, 03:53 PM

If multiple people arrive to the same conclusion independently, it is obviously coming from somewhere and not just memetic transfer.

Probably the ad showing a screenlit WOW player, with the tagline:

"If you're going to spend all day Saturday in your basement killing orcs, you might as well have some friends over."

Elderand

2013-12-16, 04:00 PM

I didn't move to fourth edition for a simple reason.

4th ed is not in the same lineage of dnd games that led to 3.5. It's a different beast altogether.

That in and of itself is fine.

The thing is, 4th doesn't correspond to what I expect of dnd and I have no interest in it on it's own merits.

Too radicaly different to interest me on the basis of the dnd name and not interesting enough on it's own merit.

Volthawk

2013-12-16, 04:14 PM

Personally, it's basically because the only reason I really look to D&D for games is because of how much of a complex, diverse, glorious mess 3.5 is, especially when we throw the vast amounts of homebrew available in. I love it. These days I mostly play systems other than D&D, but 3.5 still holds a place for being what it is (ut was also my first, which helps).

Brookshw

2013-12-16, 04:43 PM

Probably the ad showing a screenlit WOW player, with the tagline:

"If you're going to spend all day Saturday in your basement killing orcs, you might as well have some friends over."
I can't speak for others but I can say truthfully that I had never seen that ad (still have not for that matter) when I picked up 4e to try it out. After 5 or so sessions it became horribly apparent that the classes were exceedingly pigeon holed into serving specific roles with little to none of the customization or flexibility that 3.0/3.5 offered. Perhaps that changed as splat books came out, but expecting a further investment of hundreds of dollars to see if they managed to breath some life and vibrance into a system that otherwise seemed devoid of any substantial flexibility struck me as a poor investment. Many of my players were veterans playing since 1e and when they wanted to get creative we found there were few to no rules to allow for thinking outside the box. /shrug, not the rpg for me.

I will give it this however, they got rid of gnomes in the core :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2013-12-16, 05:16 PM

I can't speak for others but I can say truthfully that I had never seen that ad (still have not for that matter) when I picked up 4e to try it out. After 5 or so sessions it became horribly apparent that the classes were exceedingly pigeon holed into serving specific roles with little to none of the customization or flexibility that 3.0/3.5 offered. Perhaps that changed as splat books came out, but expecting a further investment of hundreds of dollars to see if they managed to breath some life and vibrance into a system that otherwise seemed devoid of any substantial flexibility struck me as a poor investment. Many of my players were veterans playing since 1e and when they wanted to get creative we found there were few to no rules to allow for thinking outside the box. /shrug, not the rpg for me.

I will give it this however, they got rid of gnomes in the core :smallbiggrin:

Here's one of the ads in question:

http://unsuitableforadults.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wowdanddad-lg.jpg

Which didn't bother me personally, though I don't see what possible benefit they could have forecast from portraying their target market as basement-dwelling troglodytic otherkin.

As for the gnome thing, I gather a lot of folks hated their omission. Which amuses me even more greatly once you consider the rumor that Kender will be a core race in 5e.

Brookshw

2013-12-16, 05:35 PM

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 05:42 PM

That's......that's an, uh, interesting marketing campaign :smalleek:

yep, nothing says "no we're not just exploiting you for your money, we care about the people playing our game and we want them to enjoy it. really." like throwing as many negative gamer stereotypes as they can into an ad targeting the gamers they insult.

Brookshw

2013-12-16, 05:46 PM

yep, nothing says "no we're not just exploiting you for your money, we care about the people playing our game and we want them to enjoy it. really." like throwing as many negative gamer stereotypes as they can into an ad targeting the gamers they insult.

Cripes, someone was paid to make that? Did WoTC keep the receipt? Wow, just.....wow. had I seen that I wouldn't have even bothered to buy core 4e to try it out. Excuse me, this has made my head hurt enough for one night.

Suddo

2013-12-16, 05:50 PM

I like 4e but when I stopped playing (when the crazy swordsage/fighter/paladin teleport crazy-ness was the funny optimization trick) I just kind of ran out of stuff to do in the game. There isn't as much to work with for character concepts. In 3.P I can do really interesting things but in 4e not as much.

4e is a great pick up and play game especially if you want to role play a lot. 3.P is more fun on a conceptual level.

Eldan

2013-12-16, 05:57 PM

yep, nothing says "no we're not just exploiting you for your money, we care about the people playing our game and we want them to enjoy it. really." like throwing as many negative gamer stereotypes as they can into an ad targeting the gamers they insult.

I dont know, I don't see chips, acne, glasses or any action figures in the background :smalltongue:

johnbragg

2013-12-16, 06:36 PM

Here's one of the ads in question:

http://unsuitableforadults.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wowdanddad-lg.jpg

Which didn't bother me personally, though I don't see what possible benefit they could have forecast from portraying their target market as basement-dwelling troglodytic otherkin.

The target at the time was considered to be WOW players, of which there were many. The idea (we thought) was that MMORPG players were a rather untapped market for D&D, and a receptive market--they're already down with playing orcs and elves and swordsmen and shamans. Our group was positive on the idea of bringing tabletop roleplaying to the MMORPGing masses.

Then when the product came out, it felt (to us) like WOTC had brought the MMORPG to the tabletop, and there was general disappointment.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-16, 06:43 PM

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-16, 06:58 PM

The target at the time was considered to be WOW players, of which there were many. The idea (we thought) was that MMORPG players were a rather untapped market for D&D, and a receptive market--they're already down with playing orcs and elves and swordsmen and shamans. Our group was positive on the idea of bringing tabletop roleplaying to the MMORPGing masses.

Then when the product came out, it felt (to us) like WOTC had brought the MMORPG to the tabletop, and there was general disappointment.

I'm kind of curious how implying they're odd looking basement shut-ins really helps with that whole "tapping an untapped market" thing... also considering online games like WoW or rift are RPG based (even if they're rather linear in progression options due to technology constraints) I'm not sure how they came across as an untapped market for D&D.

D&D is pretty much one of the big central points for gamer culture. setting up an ad that attacks players for another central point, in this case online gaming, doesn't really encourage them to try it out. it simply makes people feel insulted and erodes any feeling of connectedness from existing buyers.

Psyren

2013-12-16, 07:50 PM

I was under the impression that there was quite a lot of overlap between CRPG players and TRPG players.

There was during the BG/ID/NWN era. But MMOs, particularly Everquest and WoW, caused the former to outpace the latter dramatically in terms of growth. 4e's design was likely calculated to bring those new players into the fold.

What they underestimated were two things:

- How appealing they could make dice-rolling be to the point-and-click crowd;
- The degree to which they might alienate their existing fans, snapping the base.

Knaight

2013-12-16, 08:00 PM

Honestly? The art direction and interior design of the books.

The interior design of the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM is reminiscent of an old tome (even more so the FRCS). The interior design of the 4e PHB/DMG/MM is reminiscent of well, a rulebook.
...

Compare 3e's concept art: natural, unsaturated colours, sensible armour, neutral poses. (Too be honest, they started deviating from this in some of the splatbooks: e.g. too much Wayne England art in the MIC for my taste.)

Compare:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG92.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/MonsterManual_art/img/111113_CN_GL.jpg

We've looked at very different old tomes. Looking at the 3.5 DMG, there are a number of ways it obviously looks like a game. There are the big blue subheadings, the red page border with chapter titles on the side, the artwork being in a realist style as opposed to a more flattened and stylized perspective, the alternating white and yellow brown lines on the tables, etc. Also, there's plenty of ridiculous things in it. Look at page 22 of the DMG (picked on the basis of my flipping through it and getting to it early). The shields the gnolls have are in a bizarre shape, there is weirdly asymmetrical armor that covers very little, there's the absurdly oversized gnoll axes, so on and so forth. Elsewhere in the books, there's the small matter of just about every depiction of Mialee.

I like the 3.5 aesthetic overall*, and feel it fits the subject matter, whereas the 4e aesthetic does feel a bit off - though using something similar for a superhero game could work well. I just don't see old tome in it at all, let alone sensible weapons and armor.

Psyren

2013-12-16, 08:29 PM

4e art is very vibrant and dynamic... the bits that weren't recycled that is.

PF though has the twin advantages of being shiny/new yet also familiar/nostalgic. I have a lot of fun thumbing through the Bestiaries in particular and comparing the artwork for the creatures there to their 3.5 counterparts (or those of even earlier editions.)

johnbragg

2013-12-16, 08:54 PM

There was during the BG/ID/NWN era. But MMOs, particularly Everquest and WoW, caused the former to outpace the latter dramatically in terms of growth. 4e's design was likely calculated to bring those new players into the fold.

What they underestimated were two things:

- How appealing they could make dice-rolling be to the point-and-click crowd;
- The degree to which they might alienate their existing fans, snapping the base.

They also failed to understand the key advantage that tabletop RPGs have over MMORPG. In D&D, you're creating a character, a persona, who exists in a coherent imaginary world, not just a collection of combat modifiers and abilities.

Amphetryon

2013-12-16, 09:02 PM

Psyren

2013-12-16, 09:43 PM

They also failed to understand the key advantage that tabletop RPGs have over MMORPG. In D&D, you're creating a character, a persona, who exists in a coherent imaginary world, not just a collection of combat modifiers and abilities.

Stormwind Fallacy :smallwink:

I'd say it's more that MMOs, like every other CRPG, are limited in the kinds of narrative they can deliver through their mechanics. 4e went the approach of bringing those limitations over to the tabletop space - this resulted in much more tightly-tuned and balanced combat, but undermines one of the key strengths of the tabletop medium, i.e. the ability to realize scenarios that neither the GM nor even the designers anticipated ahead of time.

As an example - no matter what kind of godlike power your WoW mage or warlock achieves, he could never, say, enslave Malygos, lead the Kirin Tor, devote himself to the Burning Legion etc. Even on a roleplay server where you can state those to be character goals, the knowledge that you physically cannot even come close to these objectives hangs over your character and makes their declarations fall flat.

Obviously, if you could do stuff like that it would be imbalanced at best and damaging to the setting at worst. But on a localized scale - a small group of less than a dozen friends and a bunch of NPCs to react to their ambitions - it can work.

johnbragg

2013-12-16, 09:50 PM

To be fair, some people play MMOs that way. I've seen it.

"That way"=heavy roleplaying rather than murderhoboing.

True, but I think that playstyle has grown in MMOs since 4E came out. WOW became "sandboxier" with some of their expansions, the Sims sort of gave way to Minecraft etc.

Raven777

2013-12-16, 11:20 PM

http://unsuitableforadults.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wowdanddad-lg.jpg

I used to be a Heroic raider and I think that's a clever ad. :smallconfused:

Psyren

2013-12-16, 11:24 PM

I used to be a Heroic raider and I think that's a clever ad. :smallconfused:

"Clever" isn't the word I'd use. "Edgy" maybe, or "tongue-in-cheek" if I wanted to be charitable. I genuinely thought they thought they were engaging in some good-natured ribbing.

Not sure what's clever about it though. "Hurr hurr our target audience lives in basements" doesn't require the keenest intellect to come up with, nor the keenest to think it will go over well.

As I said it didn't bother me much - mostly because basements don't really exist where I'm from - but I can see why others may have been upset.

Raven777

2013-12-16, 11:33 PM

Well, maybe it's because I fail to feel insulted because I know firsthand a night of raiding is an inherently social thing anyway? There's usually 9 other people telling bad jokes or complaining about their job with you as you kill the boss, and when you spend years playing the same game with the same people every week, having them in Vent feels no different than having them at your table. That's actually what I miss the most.

Jgosse

2013-12-17, 10:34 AM

4e felt too much like an mmo?

Alt answer. (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l24k_KQg84k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dl24k_KQg84k)

that's about it for me.

Particle_Man

2013-12-17, 11:44 AM

Addendum: Anyhow, I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that saying "it's like a video game" is an incoherent criticism that has no unified meaning and conveys no useful information beyond "I don't like it." If we're going to talk about why we prefer 3.X, then we should actually give reasons, aye?

"I don't like it" is a valid reason though, in and of itself, and sometimes does not allow for further analysis. Just like "I don't like the taste of mint tea" is a valid reason not to drink it, without requiring or allowing for further analysis.

huttj509

2013-12-17, 12:16 PM

"I don't like it" is a valid reason though, in and of itself, and sometimes does not allow for further analysis. Just like "I don't like the taste of mint tea" is a valid reason not to drink it, without requiring or allowing for further analysis.

Sure, but if you offered me some mint tea, and I said "no, it tastes like licorice," you might be confused, and point out that it really doesn't taste like licorice. At this point, me not liking mint tea has fallen by the wayside in the discussion of whether mint tea tastes like licorice.

Also, IRL, some things I don't like, quite strongly (to the extent that I wonder if what I'm tasting is seriously different from what other people taste, it's possible), are olives and alcohol. "I don't like X" doesn't cut it IRL without me needing to go into detail about how abhorrent I find the flavors in order to quell the "oh, you just haven't had good X" "you just need to get used to it" "how can you not like X!"

2xMachina

2013-12-17, 01:29 PM

Simply put: 3.5 has options. 4.0 doesn't nearly have as much.

EDIT: If I'm to compare 4.0 to a video game, I'd say the mechanic limitations would be it. 3.5 lets you mix all kinds of things and get unique, dev-unthought of results. That's the advantage of TRPG to me, over video games. The freedom to build your char, and do whatever, while sticking to the rules of the world (in the way we do whatever we want in RL, while sticking to physical rules)

some guy

2013-12-17, 02:42 PM

"I don't like it" is a valid reason though, in and of itself, and sometimes does not allow for further analysis. Just like "I don't like the taste of mint tea" is a valid reason not to drink it, without requiring or allowing for further analysis.

Just not liking something is indeed a valid reason for not doing something. However, when I'm on a forum (or talking with friends) I expect people to explain their position. Saying why you don't like a particular thing makes it possible for other people to understand you and have a conversation (and maybe learn a thing or two).

AMFV

2013-12-17, 02:50 PM

Just not liking something is indeed a valid reason for not doing something. However, when I'm on a forum (or talking with friends) I expect people to explain their position. Saying why you don't like a particular thing makes it possible for other people to understand you (and maybe learn a thing or two).

And saying "I don't like because to me it feels like a video-game", would be a perfectly reasonable response in this case.

some guy

2013-12-17, 02:52 PM

And saying "I don't like because to me it feels like a video-game", would be a perfectly reasonable response in this case.

To which I would reply "In what way?".

Fax Celestis

2013-12-17, 03:24 PM

To which I would reply "In what way?".

Every class uses the same fundamental mechanics (AEDU)
Defined at-will mechanics as a class feature rather than a system feature
Lack of non-combat abilities outside of skill-use (utilities are largely combat powers that don't deal damage)
Neutered alignment spectrum
Worse Christmas Tree effect than 3.5
"Leveled" items
"Combat Advantage" boiled down to one effect
Healing surges having a fixed, defined value and limited in uses per day
No "complicated" options (summoning, illusions, polymorph) in core--possibly outside of core
Races/classes/stat mods have no downsides; everything is a positive effect
The very existence of minions
Basing damage for powers off of your relevant equipment (ie: 4[W] + 1d6)
Residuum

There are more.

Dr. Cliché

2013-12-17, 03:27 PM

Worse Christmas Tree effect than 3.5
...
Basing damage for powers off of your relevant equipment (ie: 4[W] + 1d6)

Whilst I agree with everything else on your list, what's the 'Christmas Tree Effect'?

Also, I'm curious as to why you consider basing damage from powers off your relevant equipment to be a bad thing?

Elderand

2013-12-17, 03:33 PM

Whilst I agree with everything else on your list, what's the 'Christmas Tree Effect'?

Also, I'm curious as to why you consider basing damage from powers off your relevant equipment to be a bad thing?

Christmass tree means you are covered in magic items of all kind and absolutly need such ornaments to be anywhere near relevant to the challenges you are expected to face.

some guy

2013-12-17, 03:38 PM

[snip]

There are more.

Alright, cool. I like your list because I agree on some points, while some other points are why I also like playing 4e. (I definitely hate point 3 (because of the same reasons as you)
But my point is more that your list has made me think about the reasons why I like some aspects of 4e and why I hate others. It made me able to articulate my opinion on 4e a bit better. While on a post only stating "It feels too much as a videogame." I would have only thought; "Well, alright.".

Fax Celestis

2013-12-17, 03:42 PM

Note: these are not necessarily things I dislike about 4e, not are they necessarily bad design decisions. However, they do contribute to the "video gamey" feel.

Bonzai

2013-12-17, 07:34 PM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

There are many reasons.

1. What they did to the Forgotten Realms. Back in the day, I was a big dragon lance fan, and it was my first campaign setting. I never got the complaints about how it was only about the heroes and was impossible to play in. To me that was the DM's job to use the setting to create new adventures. Then they nuked the setting, and my love affair with Krynn came to an end. Looking around, I started getting into the Realms and was hooked. I spent a lot of time and money diving into it's lore, and using it to create rich and flavorful campaigns. Then they announce 4th edition and their brilliant plan of..... nuking the setting. The writers who built and developed the setting were for the most part gone. The new guard had little to no reverence or respect for the setting, and believed that they could do things better. They claimed that it was impossible to develop anything in the Realms because it was too developed already. Evidently Dm's like me who used the setting to write their own campaigns were miracle workers as we have been doing so for years. They claimed that it was nothing like Dragon Lance, and ignored the lesson it taught. That when you destroy the things that endeared people to the setting, you risk losing your existing base while gambling on attracting new customers.

The result? They kill off all the characters except for their major cash cows. Ripped up huge chunks of the continents, throw in a nation of dragon people from some where ('cause they are like cool man), turned other areas into blatant rip offs of other fantasy settings, mauled most of the gods, and invalidate hundreds of dollars worth of fluff books. All the while giving me, an up to then loyal customer, an arrogant and condescending vibe as they went on and on about how terrible the setting and systems we grew to love was, and how amazing and brilliant they and their new product was going to be. Because of this I will never buy another Wizards of the Coast Novel or Fluff book. I am done. I will never shell out good money for books that they have no qualms about invalidating. Since then I have gone straight home brew using the open source system as my base.

So yeah.... I started with a bad taste in my mouth. However I was willing to try and give 4th a once over to be fair.

2. There was a comic that came out when 4th was released that captured my thoughts on the magic system really well. It had an ogre magi ambushing a party, throwing a rock and yelling "magic missile!". I thought it brilliantly summed things up. Magic was mainly just a different type of attack, which made casters mechanically no different from any other class. This homogenizing of the classes didn't sit well with me. Then there was the whole ritual thing. To me it came across as a Wizard tax. If a wizard wanted to bring any kind of utility to the party, then he was going to pay through the nose to do so. That turned me off even more. Overall it seemed like D&D with training wheels, and it was not the game I wanted to play. I was up to trying a few games of it to be fair, but.....

3. Everyone I play with pretty much soured on it themselves. Of my group, one person played it and didn't mind it. He felt that since it was so limited, that it forced role play. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but to each their own. He also said that it favors a more proactive play style. Those who try and conserve resources and hold on to their dailies won't have as much fun as those who aren't afraid to blow through them. Fair enough I guess. Other than that one player, no one else has bothered trying the system. One was kind of interested, until he heard about 4.5 coming out, and now evidently 5th edition is in the works. He has also decided to save money and just stick with 3.5, and possibly looking into Pathfinder. That kind of put the nail in the coffin for me.

So now I am 3.5 home brew setting, and WoTC will never see a dime of my money again... (unless they re-release one or two old books to round out my collection).

Dawgmoah

2013-12-18, 10:40 AM

...and not in the 4th Edition forum?

Basically, I'm interested to know why people stuck with 3.5 over 4th.

Simply put: I moved and could not find anyone interested in 1st edition back in 2008. I'd been stealing monsters out of 3.x for years and fitting them into my 1st edition game so had a few books.

Now, several dozen books into it, I had no desire to ditch it all and migrate to 4th. Nor do I have any interest in migrating to PF or 5th edition.

The body of D20 rules allow me to go from Starships to Sorcerers and on to Private Investigators in Victorian England and on to the Wild West.

I got 31 years of use out of my 1st edition Monster Manual. Probably won't live long enough to get that ROI out of 3.5. But what the hey.

Eldariel

2013-12-18, 12:10 PM

There are many reasons.

1. What they did to the Forgotten Realms. Back in the day, I was a big dragon lance fan, and it was my first campaign setting. I never got the complaints about how it was only about the heroes and was impossible to play in. To me that was the DM's job to use the setting to create new adventures. Then they nuked the setting, and my love affair with Krynn came to an end. Looking around, I started getting into the Realms and was hooked. I spent a lot of time and money diving into it's lore, and using it to create rich and flavorful campaigns. Then they announce 4th edition and their brilliant plan of..... nuking the setting. The writers who built and developed the setting were for the most part gone. The new guard had little to no reverence or respect for the setting, and believed that they could do things better. They claimed that it was impossible to develop anything in the Realms because it was too developed already. Evidently Dm's like me who used the setting to write their own campaigns were miracle workers as we have been doing so for years. They claimed that it was nothing like Dragon Lance, and ignored the lesson it taught. That when you destroy the things that endeared people to the setting, you risk losing your existing base while gambling on attracting new customers.

The result? They kill off all the characters except for their major cash cows. Ripped up huge chunks of the continents, throw in a nation of dragon people from some where ('cause they are like cool man), turned other areas into blatant rip offs of other fantasy settings, mauled most of the gods, and invalidate hundreds of dollars worth of fluff books. All the while giving me, an up to then loyal customer, an arrogant and condescending vibe as they went on and on about how terrible the setting and systems we grew to love was, and how amazing and brilliant they and their new product was going to be. Because of this I will never buy another Wizards of the Coast Novel or Fluff book. I am done. I will never shell out good money for books that they have no qualms about invalidating. Since then I have gone straight home brew using the open source system as my base.

Oh yeah, I forgot to touch upon that but this too. I actually liked old FR for certain styles of game and it was just about the only setting with truly through-the-roof power on the level 3.5 DMG recommends (tho the powerful people were very slow to do anything).

Fun setting, but they decided to sunder it yet again (I hadn't even gotten over the last sundering) and it's so distant from what I remember that I barely feel I know any of the places in 4e so I'm just sticking with the pre-spellplague version.

Of course, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, all the fun settings were more or less abandoned (tho I do like Eberron). Which doesn't exactly help their cause.

Fax Celestis

2013-12-18, 01:57 PM

Of course, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, all the fun settings were more or less abandoned (tho I do like Eberron). Which doesn't exactly help their cause.

FWIW, Ravenloft got outsourced to White Wolf. Dragonlance got outsourced too. The others, though, just got left to rot behind the chemical sheds.

Captnq

2013-12-18, 02:23 PM

Just cutting and pasting here.

If anyone at WotC happens to read this, pay attension.

We're not stupid.

I mean, as a whole, gamers who game using RPGs that aren't WoW-like, where we work out the calculations on paper or on a computer by hand, that takes brains. Sure, there are cookbook doods who just wait for someone to post a kewl combo, but even those guys like to tear things apart and put them together. We're smart. We figure things out. Even as socially inept as some of us are, we are all brilliant in some way or we wouldn't be playing this game.

We know when you are being greedy. We know when you don't give a **** and are writing books based on "demographics". We know when you are "making bold new changes" just to get rid of copyrighted material. We know when you listen to marketers and not to the people who actually play the game.

You don't have to be afraid of taking chances. We'll forgive you for mistakes as long as it's with the best of intentions. The whole 2nd edition Godsfall Plotline? That sucked. It really blew chunks. Mystra dies trying to climb some stairs? Really? The best possible choice for the god of magic is Midnight? Really?

You tried to convert the books into modules. I get it. But you tried. I can see the sincerity in the attempt.

If someone said, "I have a bold new vision and it involves this thing called the Spellplague!" and meant it, we'd know. Because if you really meant that this Spellplague was going to be cool, you'd figure out a way for the DMs to run it, instead of just saying, "Annnnnnnd... TheSpellPlagueHappensAndEverythingChangesAndNowIts AHundredYearsLaterAndDon'tYouWannaBuySome
OfTheNewBooksTheyAreSoCoolWhatDoYouMeanYouHaveIssu esYouAreAFoolForNotInstantlyLovingThisOur
DemoGraphicsAndMarketingDepartmentSaysSo!"

I guess D&D used to be like Microsoft. They made sure everything was backwards compatible, so the game had a great deal of legacy rules holding it back. 2nd Edition was a nice upgrade to the OS, but it still had a whole lot of artifacts that held the game back.

3rd edition Was like switching to Unix. Unix was the scaffolding that was going to be used to build the great unified OS that reached the heavens. But programers found the scaffolding itself so damn useful, that they never got around to building it. 3rd and 3.5 were like that. It wasn't the great gaming system that they wanted, but it was an excellent scaffold to build great games, each one to every player's needs.

Then someone at WotC said, "Hey! Look at Apple! Let's be like Apple!" Well, in order to BE like apple, you need a "Steve Jobs". You need one man to lead and he has to be completely insane, or visionary. Most likely both. He has to desire nothing short of perfection at any cost.

WotC clearly had a bottom line. They clearly had a budget. They didn't have one leader. They didn't have a vision, but a business plan. WotC is not apple. They are more like apple when Steve Jobs left and they tried making the apple clones. You know, THE DARK TIMES.

I mean, that's all a Gaming system is, an Operating System. A very slow and adaptable Operating System. But if you take away adaptability, you had BETTER be awesome. Apply takes away choices from it's users, but the choices it gives people are AWESOME. WotC took away choice, and gave... lame.

They tried to make it like a FPS/WoW, when most people want an Holodeck. I got FPS games. It's called Borderlands. I'm still playing the first one. Haven't had time to get the second one yet. WoW just came out with Cinder Kittens. My wife, who hates most games, actually is thinking about playing WoW simply because you can be a ninja panda and have a pet burning kitten. Why play 4e when I can just play WoW?

Don't try to compete with that, WotC. You can't win at that. You can't even get into the arena.

So, we got D&D Next coming up. They are taking their time. They are doing it "right". Some how, I fear the only lesson they learned is, "They figured out we're greedy bastards full of **** because we tried too much too fast. This time, let's go slower. Wait a few years. They're idiots. They'll forget."

Hope I'm wrong. I'll take a look at it when it comes out. But they need to stop thinking we're stupid.

Spammy.

Garagos

2013-12-18, 02:30 PM

My friends and I spend too much money on 3.0 and 3.5 books to switch (again...we were all 2E players for years starting out our D&D adventures). Also, we know enough about the 3.5 rules that we didn't wanna have to relearn all those nuances again.

Phelix-Mu

2013-12-18, 02:36 PM

Just cutting and pasting here.

....snip....

Well said, if a bit acerbic. I totally know the feeling, though. I raged hard when 4e was announced. It was in the midst of a three year campaign that went from 1st to the mid-20s and cemented some of the best relationships I've ever had. It felt like they'd taken a can of gasoline and a lighter and doused my world in flames of greed. I was angry. I was sad.

But, in the end, it's their loss. I will likely never purchase another book from WotC directly again; anything I want is available used on the internet (among other sources), and it's honestly only 3rd party stuff and Paizo that has even caught my eye lately (and the prices still seem waaay beyond reason). If WotC want to "move on in pursuit of perfection" well...I can smell a fool's quest and an ill-disguised money-grab.

The game is what we make of it.

kardar233

2013-12-19, 09:05 PM

I think the reason the "4E is video gamey" idea comes up so much is because in a certain way, it is. Allow me to explain:

Because of the limitation of the video game format (namely, no DM to improvise or judge), abilities have to take a form that has to be easily arbitrated by the game. A "Lift" ability can be fairly straightforward but if it's able to be used on you or your allies than it can turn into limited flight, something that could be used to transport you to areas that the designers did not intend. This quote from earlier in the thread sums it up well:
Think of a simple example, fire spells. At the table, with a permissive DM and creative player, they might burn ropes, set buildings ablaze, heat and soften metal, be used for frying food, sterilize wounds or melt ice and snow. In a CPRG, most often, they just deal damage, rarely, they destroy some special sections of environment or have some effective in some pre-scripted decisions.

When I've played 4E, it felt like the use of abilities in any way apart from their specified capabilities was discouraged. Furthermore, because of the consolidation of the "Combat Advantage" mechanic, creativity seems to be discouraged. If your DM allows you to damage the floor to make fighting difficult for your opponents, for example, Combat Advantage is the only standard mechanism to reward you for doing so, and unless you specifically have methods of taking advantage it's not a particularly meaningful one. On the other hand, in 3.5 if you wreck the floor, you can force them to make Balance checks which (if they're not trained enough) will render your opponent flat-footed, which can be a massive disadvantage.

It seems to me that 4E tried to make life easier on DMs by reducing the amount of adjudication and improvisation required. However, one of the major things tabletop RPGs have in favour of CRPGs is the ability of a DM to do just that, to allow for player creativity.

TypoNinja

2013-12-19, 10:00 PM

It seems to me that 4E tried to make life easier on DMs by reducing the amount of adjudication and improvisation required. However, one of the major things tabletop RPGs have in favour of CRPGs is the ability of a DM to do just that, to allow for player creativity.

This is it exactly.

All my favorite D&D stories are from low level games, where low on resources, options and power, we throw together a bunch of random crap in unintended ways to get a crazy but effective solution that leaves people alternating between laughing and double checking a rule book because it seems to crazy to work.

Its why I never got into any of the computer D&D games, a computer just can't be programed for those crazy options.

Case in point. I had a party run across a door they lacked the strength to break down, and lacked the ability to pick locks. After some consultation the Cleric took his large steel shield cast resist energy on it, the wizard summoned up a magma Mephit told it to stand in the shield, and had it go puddle of magma. They then poured the thing through the lock.

I for the life of me cannot imagine a computer game programmed with that level of imagination for any situation.

SarmKahel

2013-12-20, 02:39 PM

I can definitely see an appeal to both systems.

3.X has a much more diverse system, with a lot more development time, having been out for so many years more than 4e. It also has a large 3rd party development pool, with probably thousands of options. It isn't without downsides however, and I think this is what drives some people to 4e. 3.X is a nightmare of complication for new players, requiring extensive study, or many hours of play testing before you figure out how the subtle mechanics of the game works.

4e has a very simple game system by comparison, and I don't mean simple in a bad way, I mean you can pick it up and after a short read, you can begin play on a similar level to your more experienced friends. I remember when I tried 4e awhile back, my freinds and I had no idea what we were doing, we barely read the handbook and put together a reasonably balanced party containing a fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric, and when we got to the combat step of our little adventure, we all dealt roughly the same damage to our opponents. My first experience with 3.5 was far different, with my lv. 6 druid dealing 3-6 points of damage per round, while the parties optimized melee character was power attacking for 25-40.

I still play 3.5 because its what I know, and as a DM you always need to know the game system better than your players. It makes introducing players to the system harder, but in my eyes, the complexity of the system makes it more entertaining after the first few sessions of gameplay.