OGL vs. 4e vs. 3e - and Homebrewing

[sigurd]

I am not an expert on 4e and I invite any comment without competition or negativity. I'd like to hear how I'm wrong (as well as hear that I'm right ) I've kicked this around in my head a bit and I'd like your opinions.

Edition differences and the future of 3e

WOTC
Firstly, Hasbro will do what it has to - making a profit is what it concentrates on. The D20, OGL, SRD(s), GSL have all been optional for them. I think the D20 served WOTC very, very well - witness December when their competition has to be pulled from the shelves - but that doesn't change that we should be grateful to them for all the licenses and the role playing.

OGL
I think the OGL is a special case because it can't be revoked. It is an honest place to start building a shared ruleset. I hope the OGL becomes the larger draw for players and home brewers. I'm not too worried about publishers, really. They will follow the gamers. OGL is my game system of choice.

4e & 3e
I'm not 4e bashing, but I think it has a publishing weakness over 3e. Besides not encouraging outside publishers, it has moved the level of world abstraction further into 'game' and away from simulation. 4e encapsulates a lot of rules into powers and special actions that are fairly well defined in scope and outcome - there is less room for tweaking.

Simulation is a huge draw for homebrew because everything is a fair topic. If I write about a special kind of underwear for 3e it affects everything else in the game world. The relationships in 3e are for the most part causal and based on the premise that 'everything' has to be considered. A DM will modify things of course, but if I say 'dragon skin underwear makes you thirsty' (or something equally weird) I can make a case for how it affects anything. IMHO, 3e rules are more closely tied to basic setting principles and simulation logic. I think it gives you a greater license to experiment in the setting.

In 4e, the weird is more often irrelevant because nobody is going to rewrite all the powers. There is less confusion but there is also less variety and realism. I think people will tire of the different powers because they aren't as obviously drawn from the core mechanics of the world. They are more static and, I think, will get uninteresting faster. People will munchkin all the available powers and select the most powerful and then abandon them because they're done, or find the powers are mostly the same because they share the same game design principles.


I think the strength of D&D and role playing emerges from the gray areas. 4e reduces the gray areas and, I think, weakens the story telling. I won't deny that 4e looks much easier to run. Perhaps 4e popularity will explode with the more tactical gamers but for me it feels wrong. I'm a dreamy, story-based gamer and I'll keep the old rules or find another game.

my .02

Sigurd

[Duke of URL]

I'd agree with you to the extent that the more streamlined (or simplistic, if you prefer) design of 4e lends itself much less to "tweaking" and the like. There's probably plenty of room to add material, however -- the real trick will be in making it distinctive enough to be unique while conforming enough to work in the more straight-jacketed mechanical framework.

[KKL]

WotC's GSL can kiss my ass. It's a straitjacket born from hell and the collective souls of every bad lawyer in existance formed into a devil. And a half.

[Kellus]

In my opinion, one of the most defining differences between 3.5 and 4e design is the time stop spell. In 3.5, this was a powerful temporal effect with long-reaching possibilities and consequences, and was the basis for many theoretical optimization exercises and scenarios. In 4e, you get a few extra actions.

When I read that in the 4E PHB the book pretty much met the wall.

[KKL]

In my opinion, one of the most defining differences between 3.5 and 4e design is the time stop spell. In 3.5, this was a powerful temporal effect with long-reaching possibilities and consequences, and was the basis for many theoretical optimization exercises and scenarios. In 4e, you get a few extra actions.

When I read that in the 4E PHB the book pretty much met the wall.

What? In 3.5e, Time Stop gives you 1d4+1 rounds in which to **** around. In 4e, you get two standard actions. In both editions, Time Stop is still very good. It's slightly watered down, but they're the same thing.

[Zeta Kai]

WotC's GSL can kiss my ass. It's a straitjacket born from hell and the collective souls of every bad lawyer in existance formed into a devil. And a half.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way, but QFT.

[Shadow_Elf]

There's a lot of acronyms being thrown around with that I (having never [I]really [I] played 3e, don't get.

In any case, here's my thoughts.

Classes, Characters and Roleplaying:
Classes: The main flaw with 4e is that all of a class's features are gained @ level 1, which seriously inhibits the potential for a multiclass. The Power System is much more streamlined than the 3e system, and also a heck of a lot easier to balance (esp. In paragon paths)
Characters + Roleplaying: The way I see it, RP doesn't need rules. If I want my characters to have an intrigue focused campaign full of Bluff, Streetwise, Diplomacy and Intimidate, I can, with limited input from the rules (I set some DCs and let the RP begin). The focus on combat in the rules I think makes the Core books better, since I don't need a book on how to play my character.

DMing:
I'm not sure how the 3e rules tackled the DMG, but I feel that the 4e DMG has the right balance of how to RP and how to fight. My main problem with it, actually, is that it is too ambiguous about appropriate encounters. You have an exp budget, but you can only spend it on things within 3 levels of the PCs and an appropriate exp budget makes things too easy? Why not make the standard the part that most people will use, not some arbitrary number? Otherwise, I like it, esp. its rules for making monsters and the set of templates. Very nice.

Monster Manual:
I think the names tell the purpose:
Grimlock Berzerker: Hey, it can Rage! That is its defining feature. Hence, the name.
Rimefire Griffon: Its Ice + Fire, in one Griffony package. Whats wrong with that?
Grell Philosopher: Okay, this one I'll give you. They could have found something better.
Foulspawn Grue: Grues are awesome. Therefore Foulspawn = Awesome, regardless of name.
Fomorian Painbringer: The name is actually acurate, it makes you experience random pain.

Alignment:
WotC screwed up here. The 4e Alignment is unnecessarily restrictive. Which is why all my homebrews use 3.5e alignment system. But this is easy enough to change.

[Meek]

My problem with 4e is that it didn't utterly destroy alignment, step on its burning corpse and do a voodoo dance. Thankfully I can do this very easily by just writing "Unaligned" on my alignment space. Oh, and Skill Challenges confused the hell out of me pre-errata. Now that Wizard's has removed all mentions of initiative and stopped treating it like a regimented encounter, it is far, far easier for me to visualize.

[Zeta Kai]

Oh, and Skill Challenges confused the hell out of me pre-errata. Now that Wizard's has removed all mentions of initiative and stopped treating it like a regimented encounter, it is far, far easier for me to visualize.

But the Skill Challenge debacle just illustrates how little play-testing went into crucial game elements. You shouldn't need errata that critical for a game that came out the month before. I've seen homebrew that was much better thought-out than the 4E Skill Challenges. Hell, I've made homebrew that was much better thought-out than the 4E Skill Challenges.

Pre-errata, they are boring to play, needlessly complicated, & only get easier when the difficulty goes up. It's not hard to call them broken right out of the box. And the errata only raises them up from Borked to Merely Lame. And unless the DM puts a lot of effort into making them unavoidable (again, putting more work on the DM instead of less), the players can still bypass many of them with a sword or a spell.

So, tell me again, how is this an improvement over 3E? Huh? What? I've sorry, I can't here you over the sound of WotC's cash registers ringing...

[Meek]

But the Skill Challenge debacle just illustrates how little play-testing went into crucial game elements. You shouldn't need errata that critical for a game that came out the month before. I've seen homebrew that was much better thought-out than the 4E Skill Challenges. Hell, I've made homebrew that was much better thought-out than the 4E Skill Challenges.

Pre-errata, they are boring to play, needlessly complicated, & only get easier when the difficulty goes up. It's not hard to call them broken right out of the box. And the errata only raises them up from Borked to Merely Lame. And unless the DM puts a lot of effort into making them unavoidable (again, putting more work on the DM instead of less), the players can still bypass many of them with a sword or a spell.

So, tell me again, how is this an improvement over 3E? Huh? What? I've sorry, I can't here you over the sound of WotC's cash registers ringing...

I have no clue at all why you are being so randomly hostile to me, but I have no desire to speak on the subject when that sort of attitude is flying around either.

[Shadow_Elf]

Skill challenges were dumb. So I don't use them. They didn't waste a whole lot of space in the DMG on it, thankfully.

Also, on the subject of the SRD. The reason the 4e one is useless is not because 4e is dumb, its because the 3.Xe one was too useful. Who needs rulebooks when you can print anything off of the SRD? Wizards wasn't going to make money if the rulebooks were free.

Also, it is not an improvement on 3e, necessarily. It is just different. But not different for the sake of being different. Wizards is trying to appeal to a new audience, one that wants a strategy game more than anything, really. (Spore, anyone? We were expecting a world crossing planet conquering RPG/Strategy, and what we got was poor Sims ripoff and "My First RTS")

Think of Fire Emblem. FF Tactics. Very popular. Lots of storyline, but focus on combat.

[RPGuru1331]

WotC's GSL can kiss my ass. It's a straitjacket born from hell and the collective souls of every bad lawyer in existance formed into a devil. And a half.

I would make passionate love to GSL-tan if such a thing existed. You have no idea how happy it made me that they started restricting their game content.

[Meek]

I would make passionate love to GSL-tan if such a thing existed. You have no idea how happy it made me that they started restricting their game content.

While I'm not exactly happy (I'm more neutral to it), I don't begrudge them for it. They made the old OGL and SRD as a courtesy. If they didn't like the results, they can choose to do something different. And the fact that they're making a new one to accommodate people like Necromancer and Goodman who asked them for the changes is good too.

...

And I would make passionate love to GSL-tan too. But not really because of her textual content.

[RPGuru1331]

While I'm not exactly happy (I'm more neutral to it), I don't begrudge them for it. They made the old OGL and SRD as a courtesy. If they didn't like the results, they can choose to do something different. And the fact that they're making a new one to accommodate people like Necromancer and Goodman who asked them for the changes is good too.
Actually, the old OGL and old SRD were partial survival techniques. You can not copyright game mechanics. You /can/ copyright fluff. The old SRD made it very, very clear what was takeable and what was not. Answer: Not as much as one might think.


And I would make passionate love to GSL-tan too. But not really because of her textual content.

Hah. Well, I'm concerned with other games being played, rather then just DnD. While I'm sure folks like Zeta Kai will argue "It's because 4e sucks", the reason I'm angling for is "Fewer people will usethe GSL or OGL to steal full systems, and just make their own game". No D20 Deadlands. No D20 GURPs. No D20 WoD. People will, god forbid, actually learn other systems. Not that DnD is horrid or something, but I *would* like people to learn other things and play them too.

[Meek]

I'm inclined to agree with that too. There really was too much d20 stuff around. As far as my courtesy comment, what I meant is they didn't have to do it the way they did. A lot of people have gotten used to the OGL like it's a right they should have. A lot of games don't have this sort of thing. In a way I feel like the OGL spoiled people.

Edit: Would GSL-tan be younger than OGL-tan or older? How do we relate her appearance to the actual content of the licenses? This is actually piquing my interest more than it should :smalltongue:

[RPGuru1331]

I'm inclined to agree with that too. There really was too much d20 stuff around. As far as my courtesy comment, what I meant is they didn't have to do it the way they did. A lot of people have gotten used to the OGL like it's a right they should have. A lot of games don't have this sort of thing. In a way I feel like the OGL spoiled people.

I wasn't gonna say it myself, but I'd have to agree with it. While I'm pretty consumerist as a whole, I don't think we're entitled to have the systems for free. And I am definitely glad to see the money I spend on other systems go to /new systems/, rather then re-dos of DnD.

There was an OP I didn't respond to.


IMHO, 3e rules are more closely tied to basic setting principles and simulation logic. I think it gives you a greater license to experiment in the setting.
3e rules.. aren't really at all simulation-based. I mean, it's a bit moreso then 4e, but that's a bit like being taller then the lollipop guild, ain't it?


Edit: Would GSL-tan be younger than OGL-tan or older? How do we relate her appearance to the actual content of the licenses? This is actually piquing my interest more than it should
I'm going to regret this, but wouldn't she be a prim, proper, and fully clothed meganekko? Probably an Office Lady of some sort?

[Meek]

I'm going to regret this, but wouldn't she be a prim, proper, and fully clothed meganekko? Probably an Office Lady of some sort?

...

I must know you from somewhere, because you feel like a brother to me. From which corner of the 'nets do you hail from, comrade?

[Zeta Kai]

I have no clue at all why you are being so randomly hostile to me, but I have no desire to speak on the subject when that sort of attitude is flying around either.

I'm not being hostile to you at all. I bear you no malice, & am not really addressing you specifically with my comments. I'm agreeing with your basic sentiment, while making a case for why Skill Challenges exemplify the damaging lack of playtesting & overview that obviously must have occurred.

And RPGuru, you do not speak for me. I don't rant that 4E sux, & I didn't arrive at my conclusions about that system in a knee-jerk, reactive manner. I was against its premise before it was announced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52317), & after reading & analyzing its ruleset, I have rejected it on many small-yet-important philosophical grounds. I don't hold anything against anyone who likes it, or even prefers it to other systems. I may even play another game or two of 4E.

But I will NEVER be DM for a 4E game. It just won't happen. I'd rather run a game of FATAL. Or be torn apart by salt-coated dogs.

[RPGuru1331]

I'm not being hostile to you at all. I bear you no malice, & am not really addressing you specifically with my comments. I'm agreeing with your basic sentiment, while making a case for why Skill Challenges exemplify the damaging lack of playtesting & overview that obviously must have occurred.
You did so in a very hostile manner. "I can't hear you over the sound of cash registers ringing"? You don't see the hostility? *Really?*


And RPGuru, you do not speak for me. I don't rant that 4E sux, & I didn't arrive at my conclusions about that system in a knee-jerk, reactive manner. I was against its premise before it was announced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52317), & after reading & analyzing its ruleset, I have rejected it on many small-yet-important philosophical grounds. I don't hold anything against anyone who likes it, or even prefers it to other systems. I may even play another game or two of 4E.
Your hostility to another poster who's not even really broadcasting a pro-4e vibe speaks much louder then your words now! Sorry! I really couldn't care less either way. Dislike it or don't, I really only came here to say why I prefer the GSL.



I must know you from somewhere, because you feel like a brother to me. From which corner of the 'nets do you hail from, comrade?
I can't seem to get Xkcd to load quickly.. oh well! I mostly lurk gaming sites.

[RTGoodman]

I'm NOT going to get involved in any sort of argument/discussion about 3.x vs. 4E because they inevitably turn into big flame wars, but I just wanted to stop by and point out that reading this whole thread:


I was against its premise before it was announced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52317)

was very interesting before it turned into a big argument several pages in. Just take a look at predictions there and the things people wanted for 4E, and compare them to what was actually included. I think there's a LOT of similarity, even if some people DISLIKE the same changes nowadays.

[Zeta Kai]

You did so in a very hostile manner. "I can't hear you over the sound of cash registers ringing"? You don't see the hostility? *Really?*

1) I wasn't speaking to you. This is not debatable; it is a simple fact.

2) I was agreeing with Meek, not flaming him. Read my words in context.

3) My hostility, of which there is a vast supply, is aimed squarely at a money-grubbing soulless corporation that goes through brilliant game designers like a flu victim goes through kleenex. Unless you work for them, then you weren't the intended victim.

So, yes, really.

QED

[KKL]

But I will NEVER be DM for a 4E game. It just won't happen. I'd rather run a game of FATAL. Or be torn apart by salt-coated dogs.

Harsh. 4e does have it's bad points, but comparing 4e to FATAL is out of line, and probably against several state laws.

[EvilElitest]

i'm honestly not sure why this is in homebrew, but everybody knows my complaint with 4E, its limiting, shallow and unimaginative,full of arbitrary changes and simplistic ideas. But i suppose if we have to keep to the actual content of homebrewing (which this thread doesn't seem that focused on) the problem with 4E homebrewing is the fact that it is too blanced ironically enough.


Basically, because of the fact that balance is such a major deal in 4E, the current balence is very absolute. Any change/additoin could upset the rather delicate balance, and unless your very good at math, your eventually going to make a mistake with the balance. Now fluff is easy to add, but thats because 4E doens't really have any as it is.

On the subject that the OP brought up, here is the thing. Unlike 2E, 3E isn' going to die as easily because of the free gaming license, which means that people can just keep publishing 3E no problem, there are already plenty of third party groups out there. The fact that 4E doesn't have this makes its furture a little uncertain. There is a good think and a bad thing with the gaming license . The advantage for people like me is that 3E isn't just going to die. the disadvantage is the exact same thing, that as long as 3E keeps dominating the gaming world with their free license, nothing you know, better than 3E is going to come along easily

The moral? um, don't play FATAL?

Anyways, shouldn't htis be under gaming, sorry for hte rant
from
EE

[thevorpalbunny]

Alignment:
WotC screwed up here. The 4e Alignment is unnecessarily restrictive. Which is why all my homebrews use 3.5e alignment system. But this is easy enough to change.

If you have to change it to make it work, it is broken. 4e alignment: broken. 4e skills: broken. 4e combat: boring.


3e rules.. aren't really at all simulation-based. I mean, it's a bit moreso then 4e, but that's a bit like being taller then the lollipop guild, ain't it?

3e is an extraordinarily good simulation of how things actually work. See this essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) from the Alexandrian. He crunched the numbers and shows how well it works.


WotC's GSL can kiss my ass. It's a straitjacket born from hell and the collective souls of every bad lawyer in existance formed into a devil. And a half.
Hear, hear. The GSL is the reason I didn't buy the 4e PHB. I probably would have bought that one book otherwise, but the "if you make something that works in 4e, we own your soul" bit meant that I could no longer in good conscience give Hasbro my money.

Also, a glut of d20 products is a good thing. Why could it possibly be bad to have products from various companies which were all at least partly compatible?
The only issue is fixing the probability distribution at a flat rather than a normal distribution, which you can fix by switching to 3d6 in place of 1d20.

[KKL]

If you have to change it to make it work, it is broken. 4e alignment: broken. 4e skills: broken. 4e combat: boring.
4e Alignment: A metric crapton better than 3.5e's alignment.
4e Skills: A lot better than 3.5e's skills in some places.
4e Combat: Actually fun for everyone, and not just the people who have spells and similar things.

[EvilElitest]

Actually, and may i be forced to watch every high school music for all of eternity if i ever say this again, 4E might be a good thing, because now a lot of different companies are making viable d20 games/settings on their own, which is great. Horrary for WoTc incompetence
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

4e Alignment: A metric crapton better than 3.5e's alignment.
4e Skills: A lot better than 3.5e's skills in some places.
4e Combat: Actually fun for everyone, and not just the people who have spells and similar things.

1) Not really. It's inconsistent, hypocritical, and is like the 3E dilpomancy system, IE, utterly and totally useless in game. 3E alignment was actually sound, just a bad basis (see sig link) but 4E's doesn't make any bloody sense fomr the get go
2) If by better you mean limiting and simplistic, um, yeah
3) And is able to do so by taking away form the rest of the game in the process:smallamused:
from
EE

[RPGuru1331]

3e is an extraordinarily good simulation of how things actually work. See this essay (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) from the Alexandrian. He crunched the numbers and shows how well it works.


What does all this mean? It means that the vast majority of people you meet will be lucky to have a single +1 bonus in any of their ability scores. Most of them will, in fact, have straight 10’s and 11’s across the board.
And he loses already. Dude, most folks in blue collar jobs pretty easily break a 12 str or 12 Con.. Hell, in REAL LIFE (tm), base physical stats are extremely volatile. Ask anyone who can say they 'used to be in shape', and didn't lose that shape due to age. Only a nerd who never goes outside, and never works out, will never experience the shame that is your 'stats' plummeting over the course of months because you stopped going out and started focusing on school and games.:smallfrown:

I find myself in a bad corner to be in though. You have a lot of words, and a lot of numbers. And most of them are wrong. But if I were to set about showing you how each is wrong, step by step, with real numbers, I will find I have lost a lot of time I could spend not doing this. So have the last word (http://xkcd.com/386/) on DnD stats, but ask yourself why there are no rules for getting out of shape, or why drowning heals you out of negs.


Hear, hear. The GSL is the reason I didn't buy the 4e PHB. I probably would have bought that one book otherwise, but the "if you make something that works in 4e, we own your soul" bit meant that I could no longer in good conscience give Hasbro my money.
That's.. not remotely similar to what it says. Please, by all means, reread the damn thing. You can't make 3e products if you make 4e, and if you make 4e, they have claim to your mechanics that you added to 4e. That last bit? Already existed in 3e.


Also, a glut of d20 products is a good thing. Why could it possibly be bad to have products from various companies which were all at least partly compatible?
Okay, how do I start explaining all of it.

First, it's terrible at doing everything (Which is a huge problem with no. 3). DnD doesn't do everything. That's the myth it presents, I know, but it really sucks at handling folks who aren't mages, who don't have a combat focus. There's just not many mechanics. There's no book focus on it. People being unwilling to move away means it sucks to be a non-mage non-combat focus character. (Say Rogue; I dare you. Almost all of their class features are either for dungeon crawling or for combat). And thanks, in part at least, to Wizard's CHAROP boards, it appears to have hte least palatable fanbase, due to their massive focus on true combat based games. You can blame 4e for that if you wnat, but it just doesn't fit.

Second, a glut in the system creates a massive monetary (Or piratical) expectation on the players. Look at the Duellist vs. Assassin thread in the D20 gaming forum. The guy just wants to play a Duellist or Assassin; He's got suggestions for all sorts of changes or feats from a multitude of books.

Third, as I said, it's god damn hard to get DnD players off their butts and playing games that aren't DnD. It's not that DnD is awful, but it'd be nice to have people not try and force everything into it. I've seen some strange RPGs try and be adapted into DnD, and it's universally failed, because DnD doesn't /do/ those kinds of things (Like, say, Mascot-tan). Is it /that/ difficult to learn a new system? Nobody's expecting you to learn 400 sourcebooks like they do for DnD.


The only issue is fixing the probability distribution at a flat rather than a normal distribution, which you can fix by switching to 3d6 in place of 1d20.
I wouldn't really call this a problem either way. 3d6 vs. d20 is just about following the bell curve rather then a straight probability.

[EvilElitest]

while d20 isn't the best system, it isn't as bad as Guru says. Heck, maybe now somebody might fix the damn thing
from
EE

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I like this particular "Homebrew (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy84o0)."

Paizo Publishing (Former publishers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines) took the 3.x OGL, and wrote up a cleaned up version of the rules, then gave the Beta Version out for FREE!

They tweaked the grapple rules, eliminated a few redundant skills, and otherwise cleaned up a lot of common complaints that have been around since 3.0 came out.

I've looked over the rules for 4th ed, but so far I'm unimpressed. True, Hasbro is in business to make a profit and pay out dividends to their shareholders, but the complete rewrite to the rules that have worked so well seems a bit over much. It also reminds me of Atari's policy of keeping game creation inhouse when Nintendo allowed third-party companies to create games for their core machine.

I guess I'm showing my age, but I've seen every "new and improved" version of D&D since 1979, and while some were actual improvements (3.x), others were a bit less "improved." I'm thinking "even numbers" are actually step backs. And at least 3.x made an effort to upgrade 1st and 2nd edition to 3.x

4.0 actually said to finish any campaigns, and get ready to start anew... Not exactly what I'd call "Customer Friendly."

[KKL]

1) Not really. It's inconsistent, hypocritical, and is like the 3E dilpomancy system, IE, utterly and totally useless in game. 3E alignment was actually sound, just a bad basis
Are you contradicting yourself here?

but 4E's doesn't make any bloody sense from the get go.
Oh I see.

The 4e alignment system is a hell of a lot more consistant than 3.5e's ridiculous alignment system. Also, I believe that alignments should have a minimal impact on games because of how WotC did them; dumb. It's stupid to try and graph/shoehorn something like morals into nine points on a grid. WotC only exasperated (exacerbate? whatever) the problem by deeply ingraining alignment into the system in such a way that removing them would prove an exercise in futility, exhaustion, or both at the same time.


2) If by better you mean limiting and simplistic, um, yeah
It's simple because it works. I'm not saying that 4e does skills expertly, but I'm saying it's a marked improvement in some ways over 3.5's huge list of skills, most of which weere unimportant and redundant. Skill points only proved to piss this off even further by making damn sure that if you didn't hyperspecialize in a couple of skills by not spreading yourself thin, you were going to fall flat on your ass because hey, spending points to make sure you don't fail climbing will make you suck more at swimming. Or fail to hear things below everyday conversation. Or fail at seeing things. Or a myriad of other littl eproblems 3.5's skill system had.


3) And is able to do so by taking away form the rest of the game in the process:smallamused:
Take away what, exactly? 3.5e's simulationist aspect were hamfisted, half-assed, and so remarkably bad I wanted to club the people who thought it was awesome.


Basically, because of the fact that balance is such a major deal in 4E, the current balence is very absolute. Any change/additoin could upset the rather delicate balance, and unless your very good at math, your eventually going to make a mistake with the balance. Now fluff is easy to add, but thats because 4E doens't really have any as it is.
You're taking the entire balance thing to a level of silly stupidity I can only find by destroying my mind with South Park.

@Surfing HalfOrc: Pathfinder is TERRIBLE.

[thevorpalbunny]

And he loses already. Dude, most folks in blue collar jobs pretty easily break a 12 str or 12 Con.. Hell, in REAL LIFE (tm), base physical stats are extremely volatile. Ask anyone who can say they 'used to be in shape', and didn't lose that shape due to age. Only a nerd who never goes outside, and never works out, will never experience the shame that is your 'stats' plummeting over the course of months because you stopped going out and started focusing on school and games.:smallfrown:

I find myself in a bad corner to be in though. You have a lot of words, and a lot of numbers. And most of them are wrong. But if I were to set about showing you how each is wrong, step by step, with real numbers, I will find I have lost a lot of time I could spend not doing this. So have the last word (http://xkcd.com/386/) on DnD stats, but ask yourself why there are no rules for getting out of shape, or why drowning heals you out of negs.


That's.. not remotely similar to what it says. Please, by all means, reread the damn thing. You can't make 3e products if you make 4e, and if you make 4e, they have claim to your mechanics that you added to 4e. That last bit? Already existed in 3e.


Okay, how do I start explaining all of it.

First, it's terrible at doing everything (Which is a huge problem with no. 3). DnD doesn't do everything. That's the myth it presents, I know, but it really sucks at handling folks who aren't mages, who don't have a combat focus. There's just not many mechanics. There's no book focus on it. People being unwilling to move away means it sucks to be a non-mage non-combat focus character. (Say Rogue; I dare you. Almost all of their class features are either for dungeon crawling or for combat). And thanks, in part at least, to Wizard's CHAROP boards, it appears to have hte least palatable fanbase, due to their massive focus on true combat based games. You can blame 4e for that if you wnat, but it just doesn't fit.

Second, a glut in the system creates a massive monetary (Or piratical) expectation on the players. Look at the Duellist vs. Assassin thread in the D20 gaming forum. The guy just wants to play a Duellist or Assassin; He's got suggestions for all sorts of changes or feats from a multitude of books.

Third, as I said, it's god damn hard to get DnD players off their butts and playing games that aren't DnD. It's not that DnD is awful, but it'd be nice to have people not try and force everything into it. I've seen some strange RPGs try and be adapted into DnD, and it's universally failed, because DnD doesn't /do/ those kinds of things (Like, say, Mascot-tan). Is it /that/ difficult to learn a new system? Nobody's expecting you to learn 400 sourcebooks like they do for DnD.


I wouldn't really call this a problem either way. 3d6 vs. d20 is just about following the bell curve rather then a straight probability.

Okay, point by point:

Those blue-collar folks who have 12 Str or Con: No. The problem is that us white-collar folks (broad generalization about most D&D players) are below average. Off the cuff, I'd say that the average upper-middle-class or upper-class person has Int 12 and Str and Con 9; they probably have Str and Con 10 if they work out frequently and pay a lot of attention to their health.
In short, Str 10 is average, which is blue-collar because most people are. If you think most people are above average, then average is higher than you think.

No rules for getting out of shape: Yes, its true. Like d20 has no rules for carrying unbalanced loads, it has no rules for getting out of shape. It assumes that you don't drastically change your routine; strong people work out, smart people continue to think, charismatic people try to overcharge gullible tourists for fake dragon bones.

Drowning: trivial. The rule was not worded perfectly; the spirit of the rule is correct.

The GSL: What it actually says is that if you make something for 4e, you cannot make anything for 3e. It also says that WotC can revoke the license at any time, but that even if it is ended you still can't make any 3e products.
Or in other words, you just signed over the rights to determine whether you stay in business.
Yeah, "make 4e products and we own your soul" sounds about right.

Your "first, second, third" points.

First: matter of opinion. I disagree.
1a: Rogues are quite good at thievery and convincing people. A 1st-level rogue can be a good pickpocket and con-artist.
Second: wrong. The overall point assumes that everyone wants to build the strongest character possible. The evidence is flawed because the CharOp people regard that as the only important consideration.
Third: I don't understand your point. D&D can't do absolutely everything, so it shouldn't be used for everything? Irrelevant to the point it was intended to refute.

[thevorpalbunny]

It's simple because it works. I'm not saying that 4e does skills expertly, but I'm saying it's a marked improvement in some ways over 3.5's huge list of skills, most of which weere unimportant and redundant. Skill points only proved to piss this off even further by making damn sure that if you didn't hyperspecialize in a couple of skills by not spreading yourself thin, you were going to fall flat on your ass because hey, spending points to make sure you don't fail climbing will make you suck more at swimming. Or fail to hear things below everyday conversation. Or fail at seeing things. Or a myriad of other littl eproblems 3.5's skill system had.


Take away what, exactly? 3.5e's simulationist aspect were hamfisted, half-assed, and so remarkably bad I wanted to club the people who thought it was awesome.


You're taking the entire balance thing to a level of silly stupidity I can only find by destroying my mind with South Park.

@Surfing HalfOrc: Pathfinder is TERRIBLE.

4e skills are worse than 3.5e's in every possible way. Anything that can be done in 4e can be done in 3.5 and many other things as well. The "excess" skills were useless as far as combat was considered, but good for flavor and realism, with a few exceptions (Tumble, Diplomacy, Open Lock).
Yes, if you wanted to be a good climber you had to be worse at something else. That is the truth.
Or in short: That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re: Balance
I'm going to paraphrase you here:
"[4e is] taking the entire balance thing to a level of silly stupidity I can only find by destroying my mind with South Park."
It is absolutely true. 4e fetishizes balance above all other things.

Re:Pathfinder
It is inferior to 3.5e in many ways (skills being the main example). Nonetheless, it kept the core ideas, which makes saying it is better than 4e like saying that white chocolate is better than Brussels sprouts, though I'd rather have real chocolate (3.5).

[Lappy9000]

When the arguments begin to get petty, everyone needs to start rethinking their posts.

If not, I'll have to let the monster in the darkness out, and noone will be safe from his nutmeg-seasoned wrath or his +8 vorpal kitty parasol.

[RPGuru1331]

The GSL: What it actually says is that if you make something for 4e, you cannot make anything for 3e. It also says that WotC can revoke the license at any time, but that even if it is ended you still can't make any 3e products.
Or in other words, you just signed over the rights to determine whether you stay in business.
Yeah, "make 4e products and we own your soul" sounds about right.
You wasted your last word. Pity.

No. You did not sign over your ability to stay in business. For No Money, they're letting you mooch off their work. They can revoke your ability to mooch, yes, but that's not saying you can't go build your own stuff. You're just not allowed to mooch anymore. "Signing your soul"? Hardly.


1a: Rogues are quite good at thievery and convincing people. A 1st-level rogue can be a good pickpocket and con-artist.
Second: wrong. The overall point assumes that everyone wants to build the strongest character possible. The evidence is flawed because the CharOp people regard that as the only important consideration.
Uh, wait. I think you needed to expound on me being wrong. "The CharOp folks regard that as the only important consideration, therefore they're not concerned with strong characters". Regardless, that rogue only advances as a cheat by killing people, and that rogue advances at killing people if he cheats (If you want to claim 'You can by the rules give exp for cheating people if you really want!'. Notwithstnading that there's no support for the /how/, even if you're theoretically allowed to do so..)


Third: I don't understand your point. D&D can't do absolutely everything, so it shouldn't be used for everything? Irrelevant to the point it was intended to refute.
It's very relevant. DnD can't do everything, so it shouldn't do everything, yet people will expect everything to be stated up under DnD even if it doesn't fit in that game. That's what hte OGL has done to expectations.

[Zeta Kai]

Drowning: trivial. The rule was not worded perfectly; the spirit of the rule is correct.

QFT. I am so sick & tired off anti-3E pundits dragging this dead horse out to prove that 3E is borked. Seriously, there are much better arguments against 3E than a single typo in the last paragraph of the DMG.

I mean, has anyone gotten their DM to fall for the "I'm at -9, so I use my last partial action stick my head in a bucket of water; I drown, so my HP raises to 0" ploy? Is your DM, by chance, a goat? If so, then I wanna join your game, because a farm animal running the campaign just can't be beat.

[afroakuma]

*sigh* This one's getting off the rails, turning into the same stew every other one has.

I'm seeing a few trickles of incivility from more than one poster, and it's also turning into a straight gaming debate.

I move that the argument die and the thread be locked.

[Lappy9000]

*sigh* This one's getting off the rails, turning into the same stew every other one has.

I'm seeing a few trickles of incivility from more than one poster, and it's also turning into a straight gaming debate.

I move that the argument die and the thread be locked.

Your Honour, I wholeheartedly second the above motion *closes briefcase, stands up from chair, performs perfectly executed pelvic thrust, and then leaves courtroom*

[Knaight]

That said 3.5 has a skill system that is just absurd. Not only does it have predefined skills, but it assigns a huge amount of room to attributes as well, which mysteriously goes down as the skills get better, rather than the skills allowing one to capitalize on their attributes. This would be forgivable if you could create a high level NPC in a reasonable amount of time, but skills alone take a huge amount of time. 3.5 gets bogged down in unnecessary complexity, which is simply unnecessary, the DCs have no real meaning unless you check the skill description as you can't just pull them out of the air where reasonable systems assign a easy task, medium task, hard task system(some of them go into more depth), and in general 3e has a huge amount of failures as a system. 4e came out, and it at least does combat well for everybody without splat books, and it does it much faster, even if it still fails at everything else, meaning it has a use as a war game. And the GSL is going to drive people out, and they might actually try some other games, some of which are far better than D&D at what they try to do, and would be way ahead if they had been there first.

[sigurd]

Is your DM, by chance, a goat? If so, then I wanna join your game, because a farm animal running the campaign just can't be beat.


That Qualifies for a sig.

I appreciate everyone's opinion. I'm pleased to read so much loyalty to the OGL. :)

Knaight I don't disagree with your views - other games have huge benefits. Its just that 3.x has established a sort of common dialogue for game design. The people playing\writing\thinking in it are the biggest asset of D20.

Not going to worry bout 4e, Pathfinder et al has a bright future I hope.


Sigurd.

[RPGuru1331]

Oh, you wanted to hear "Yay OGL, let it live forever". No. Let it burn. And with that from the OP, I say goodnight and good luck.

[afroakuma]

Parting shots were and are unneccessary.

[KKL]

Re: Balance
I'm going to paraphrase you here:
"[4e is] taking the entire balance thing to a level of silly stupidity I can only find by destroying my mind with South Park."
It is absolutely true. 4e fetishizes balance above all other things.
{Scrubbed} I was talking about you taking the balance to levels of silly stupidity. Homebrewing additional crap into 4e won't inexplicably shatter the entire system like it was made of glass and you decided to go to town with a hammer.

And no, 4e doens't fetishize balance above all else. If it did, there would be one class called "I win" that allows you to win.

[Meek]

Oh, you wanted to hear "Yay OGL, let it live forever". No. Let it burn. And with that from the OP, I say goodnight and good luck.

I found that post by Sigurd also rather disappointing, so I'm taking my own leave as well. The moderation should nip this now, as it's not even on-topic anymore.

[EvilElitest]

Are you contradicting yourself here?

No i'm not. 3E aligniment has crappy presentation, but works on a sound basis. But 4E's is bad in its actual core, the very basis of it is utter nonsense.


Oh I see

The 4e alignment system is a hell of a lot more consistant than 3.5e's ridiculous alignment system.
Because you say so? Interesting concept there. Now what makes in incosistent? Now if you want to have an aligniment system, with a few exceptions (cough; poison, necromancy, mind control cough;) it is quite sound and consistent. The basis of good and evil, the beliefs of each, how it functions, those are sounds. 4E contradicts itself, in its very presentation, is about as fluid and function as the 3E diplomancy system. IE, not at all. It doesn't make sense. What qualifies as evil? What is good? Why the hell did you abritarily take away all inbetween. What is the difference between unaligned and evil? where is the line? Does intent/motive make a difference? It doesn't make sense and is essentually useless



Also, I believe that alignments should have a minimal impact on games because of how WotC did them; dumb. It's stupid to try and graph/shoehorn something like morals into nine points on a grid. WotC only exasperated (exacerbate? whatever) the problem by deeply ingraining alignment into the system in such a way that removing them would prove an exercise in futility, exhaustion, or both at the same time.

If 4E scratched the aligniment system entirely, i really wouldn't be that upset. I would understand teh basis of it. but instead they added a absolute moral system, without any actual explanation of an absolute morality system.

And you can do an alignment system well, just like you can do a non alignment system well, see here (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html)



It's simple because it works. I'm not saying that 4e does skills expertly, but I'm saying it's a marked improvement in some ways over 3.5's huge list of skills, most of which weere unimportant and redundant.
1) So? Dark alliance is simpler than Baldur's gate proper, that doesn't make it any better. Its just simplicity, which makes the game much more linear
2) Define unimportant and redundant? As in not fitting into 4E's narrow concept of how the game ought to be played?


Skill points only proved to piss this off even further by making damn sure that if you didn't hyperspecialize in a couple of skills by not spreading yourself thin, you were going to fall flat on your ass because hey, spending points to make sure you don't fail climbing will make you suck more at swimming. Or fail to hear things below everyday conversation. Or fail at seeing things. Or a myriad of other littl eproblems 3.5's skill system had.


Skills added some variety, which makes playing much more interesting than the dreariness that 4E provides. Sure you get balance, but you get it at a bad price.



Take away what, exactly? 3.5e's simulationist aspect were hamfisted, half-assed, and so remarkably bad I wanted to club the people who thought it was awesome.
so the solution is making the game a hack and slash style by design. oh goody.


You're taking the entire balance thing to a level of silly stupidity I can only find by destroying my mind with South Park.

again, i'd rather have 3E's flawed grandur than 4E's perfected mediocrity



@Surfing HalfOrc: Pathfinder is TERRIBLE.
Again, because you say so?

Pathfinder doesn't fix many of the problems with 3E, which needs more work, but it is a viable solution
from
EE
edit
oh, we have a truce now. Sorry. On topic, i think this is about the free license, which means we can now have vaible 3E products :smallbiggrin:. This also means that any other game that hopes to take place of 3E with new ideas is screwed :smallfrown:

[Zeta Kai]

Again, I'd rather have 3E's flawed grandeur than 4E's perfected mediocrity.

QFT. If I sigged anything, I would sig this. That's the best quote I've seen in a long, & it perfectly captures my thoughts on 4E's many inherent flaws.

[EvilElitest]

QFT. If I sigged anything, I would sig this. That's the best quote I've seen in a long, & it perfectly captures my thoughts on 4E's many inherent flaws.

Thank you. i should confess, i recall seeing that somewhere on the internet before about a year ago, not in those exact words, but i can't find it. So i just "re made" it up by memory. I really with i could find the original, but i hope i was able to get the message across

and sig it, you know you want to:smallwink:


Anyways, on topic, regardless on what you think of 4E, love hate, don't care, it is less viable with other companies, so we can expect to see more of the D 20 games by other companies
from
EE

[thevorpalbunny]

That said 3.5 has a skill system that is just absurd. Not only does it have predefined skills, but it assigns a huge amount of room to attributes as well, which mysteriously goes down as the skills get better, rather than the skills allowing one to capitalize on their attributes. This would be forgivable if you could create a high level NPC in a reasonable amount of time, but skills alone take a huge amount of time. 3.5 gets bogged down in unnecessary complexity, which is simply unnecessary, the DCs have no real meaning unless you check the skill description as you can't just pull them out of the air where reasonable systems assign a easy task, medium task, hard task system(some of them go into more depth), and in general 3e has a huge amount of failures as a system. 4e came out, and it at least does combat well for everybody without splat books, and it does it much faster, even if it still fails at everything else, meaning it has a use as a war game. And the GSL is going to drive people out, and they might actually try some other games, some of which are far better than D&D at what they try to do, and would be way ahead if they had been there first.

High-level NPC skills are difficult? Hardly. If they've increased Int many times or taken more than two classes, it gets a bit more complicated,but otherwise pick n+Int mod skills with max ranks. If there is extra from one of those sources, total it, divide by (level+3)=m, and max out m more skills. Toss the extras into Speak Language, use them as flavor, or ignore them.
I can do that for any NPC in 30 secs.
It's true, you can't whip up a high-level NPC in a minute. But if an NPC is high-level, they are important to the campaign world. (Anyone over 5th level is better at what they do than anyone who ever lived in our world, ever. Not opinion, fact.) Also, single-class NPCs are even easier, just use the DMG table.

@Skills: Easy task/Medium task/Hard task systems are simple, but do not reflect what someone would actually experience. Personally, I would prefer to have my gaming experience at least not blatantly go against what I experience day to day.

And yes, 4e is a war game pretending it is an RPG. If I wanted a war game, I would play Warhammer or Starcraft. D&D is not a war game, it is an RPG.

[KKL]

And yes, 4e is a war game pretending it is an RPG. If I wanted a war game, I would play Warhammer or Starcraft. D&D is not a war game, it is an RPG.

Except 4e is no more wargamey than 3.5e.

[EvilElitest]

Except 4e is no more wargamey than 3.5e.

So the fact it is designed to work in such a fashion while 3E is not is just a coincidence?
from
EE

[thevorpalbunny]

You can play a war in 3.5, but it is clunky unless you use extra rules from Heroes of Battle. It also has bunches of rules (mostly skills) not even tangentially related to a war situation but which are useful for adding some numbers to role-playing situations. In the name of simplicity, 4e removed most of these and made every class work the same. This makes it better for combats with many participants, but worse for everything else, especially role-playing and realism.

Not that I expect you to understand this, KKL, given that you have other ideas (viz. game balance) completely backwards (viz. thinking that over-emphasis of balance would result in one class being better than anything else).

Also, I use strange words (viz. viz.) because they are awesome.

[KKL]

Okay, fine. My hatred for each and every one of you runs DEEP. Except Zeta, OP, Meek, and afrokuma. Hell, I probably don't hate all of you. I'm just incredibly annoyed. To the point of ULCERS.

[Gao]

I, for one, believe that 4e is not only a viable, but a far more fun alternative to 3.5. While 3.5 is a fun system, with a whole lot of customization possiblities, I believe that customization is the beast that killed 3.5, like how too many delicious treats made your prom date a fat beast. Let's put out several examples of this massive gluttony that makes 3.5 almost unplayable.

1. Skills. By far the largest example of fattiness. There are way, way too many skills. Each are for individualized things specifically designed for particular purposes, and I'd say about half of which will not ever appear ever. How often do you use profession (Eat a Pidgion), or Craft (Fleshlight), or, you know, Appraise? Yet, these are all skills that not only are never used and pointless, but are encouraged to be used by so called "RP buffs;" you know, the people who claim that WoD is the greatest example of RP ever (Which it's not, it's far more complicated and a pain in the ass than DnD ever will be, but I won't get into that), and stick their nose up, and jerk themselves to the Stormwind Fallacy? Yeah, those guys. Not to mention the lack of class balance with these; if you're not a skill monkey, your skills suck and all you can do is hit. Now, really? A swordsman can't POSSIBLY be a good jumper, Swimmer, AND climber. The rules support this by requiring steeper and steeper DCs for all of these; god forbid you do them in armor! And come on, you can't tell me that he can't possibly do other things than swing swords and move. Not can you tell me strength does crap for this. It doesn't. Your stat gains vs your Armor Check Penalties are so harsh it's not even funny.

2. Now, onto Feats: I actually don't really have a problem with 3.5 feats. I like them. They're nice. Just saying, though; you will never need certain things that are needlessly encouraged. For example, weapon focus/spec/etc. Come on. Really? You get so much damn AB in 3.5 the only way you CAN'T hit things past level 8 is because you're either a wizard, or your DM is a cheapass. So, a lot of these feats are pit traps, or useless.

3. Spells. Ugh. Do we really need these many goddamned spells? Come on. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are invincible in Core, so "JUST PLAY CORE ONLY" People have NO idea what they're talking about. Core does NOTHING to preserve balance. Of course, LogicNinja can tell you how over powerful wizards are, unless you're fool enough to go Direct Damage and say you're roleplaying; but why would you nerf yourself for the sake of roleplaying? Does that make you superior to people who know the true strength of mage? Really, someone with 18 int would know that Sleep is better than magic missile, so take your stormwind fallacy and shove it. If you really wanna be a Dammage, go warmage; you'll do more damage and it'd suit you better. Too bad wizards would still make you feel lame.

4. Prestige classes. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is a perfect example of how 3.5 is such a goddamn moneygrubber. This sucks and you all know it. Another major problem with this is LOL EYE MUST FULLO THE FLUFF which is mostly poorly written anyways. Prestige classes are either suck or broken with very few exceptions. Most of these PrCs have the same concept, but with Minor little differences in detail. They're mostly unnecessary! Come on. Undead Hunter? Paladins and clerics are better. Mindbender? Only good for 1 level dips. Warpriest? Pfft. Shadowsun Infiltrator? Uh, why not just go rogue with some cleric skills? Oh, and the one limiting factor on multiclass 1-level dip abuse? You know, xp penalty? Hahahahah. Doesn't apply to PrC's.

5. Classes: Monks suck. Actually, anything that doesn't cast spells suck. ToB rectifies this, but unless the person you're going against is an idiot, the spellcaster will kill you dead. Look deeply into yourself. In a game where everyone can only do one thing (Hit, skill monkey, cast spells), do you want to be the one who has his usefulness be snuffed out? No, right? But that's what 3.5 E does. Spellcasters>All+bards. A cleric, a wizard, or a druid can do anything and everything better than any other class. Deal melee damage? Divine Strength/Tenser's Transformation/Wild Shape. Sneak? Invisibility/Polymorph into an ant. Heal? Limited Wish, cure spells. Kill things? Save or Dies. There IS no class balance, cause spellcasters dominate. ToB Tried to rectify this. It almost succedded, but even a Crusader/Mo9 will never, ever touch the pure power that is a core wizard. No, AMFs and DMZs don't help. They just make the DM an jerk and kill the non spellcasters who rely on magical crap, while the spellcasters step out, laugh at the enemy, and summon whales on their heads. From 200 feet above.

Now, any and all of these problems can be solved through houseruling. But, as a good friend of mine once said: "The ability of a DM to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." If we're going by straight up rules with no houseruling, 3.5 is an inferior system.

Now, here is how 4e handles each of these issues:

1. Skills. Skills are much, much simpler. Many of the unnecessary skills are lumped together. A fighter can somehow manage to be good at swimming, climbing, AND jumping all in one skill. And he doesn't have to be a human, a warrior-scholar, or banging a nymph to do it (Though goddamn I want that feat in 4e). You can even (GASP) be good at multiple things! SHOCK! Many of the "Useless Skills (BAWW RP)" are gone, and replaced with nothing. So? Then just say you used to be a pigeon eater/fleshlight maker/are good at figuring out the cost of things, and do that. Jeez. Skills are simpler and goddamn I'm glad for not having to calculate out and set a million goddamn skills. It's not worth the effort.

2. Feats: Interesting. I like the tier of feats, and how they scale upwards. A lot of them are different, but in 4e's mechanic balance (Where, you know, to-hit matters?), it's much better and more balanced. With magical items presented as such, even certain easily abused features (WINTERTOUCHED/LASTING FROST) are limited in the usefulness of the weapon; a frost weapon is really, really crap outside of Wintertouched/Lasting frost. Plus, with the retraining system built in, you can swap stuff out and NOT suck.

Before I go on, on retraining: It represents learning and training. Skills fall out of disuse, so they're replaced. Makes perfect sense. It's much more sensible here, and less of a pain, than 3.5's system of "YOU LEARN THIS YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE BONED" until the retrain rules came out, and even then skills screwed you royally with 1 week/rank.

3. Spells. Alright, let's not talk about powers now, but the difference in spell system. No longer will a fighter or a paladin feel useless when the wizard goes LOL NO and ends an encounter in 4 seconds. Now the wizard can do awesome things like scout, fix things, and enchant without losing xp, shafting the rest of the party's dignity, or being a balance problem. Sure, Wizards are no longer as versatile as they used to be, but that's what made them so overpowering and strong; they were swiss-army nukes. Now they're swiss army knives. I like it, honestly. Though, I could go for a rope trick.... but hey, just create your own rituals, right?

4. PrC's: Now we have PPs and EDs. Interesting. Allows you to keep a main class idea while getting nifty features to specialize (Or multiclass) as you like. I actually really dig it; no longer are the days of 1-level-dip abuse and 16 class hax, and the PPs tend to be generic enough to make your own fluff. We're all creative roleplayers, we're smart enough to do that, right? Right? On EDs: I'd like some good ones that AREN'T demigod, though. :< I mean, Demigod is generic enough to fit most concepts, but... DAYUM.

5. Classes. Let's talk about powers. Powers make all classes different, interesting and unique without losing balance. Now, balance doesn't mean "FIGHTER CAN KILL DA WIZARD" (Cause trust me, Jerry, he can't, even in 4e.). It means "Each of us is a valid, useful part of a team and by working together we can overcome many obstacles." Now, let's go back to fluff for a second: don't get caught up in names and descriptions. I have a former friend (read: wanker), who could NEVER get over Bloody Path. HOW CAN YOU MAKE SOMEONE HIT YOURSELF DURR HURR. Who NEEDS to know the specifics as long as you kick ass in the name of your god? Class names and specifics is the cancer that killed 3.5. We had a hundred classes and PrCs that had similar concepts with minute changes. 3.5 was a pisshole of WotC cashiers far more than 4e is or likely will be for a long time. Each class has a role, and each class can also perform different roles. Fighters can do striker well, Warlords can do decent damage, and warlocks can control. Wizards are still deathly powerful and needed in every game. So what if your powers are limited?! Refluff them! "That's not magic missile, that's LAZER BEAMS FROM MY EYES YOWZA!" And really? SOme of the classes that were dirt in 3.5 (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, Fighter, I'm looking at you) are freaking awesome now. Rangers are death with two blades and a bow, Fighters are LOL LOCKDOWN to LOL BEATDOWN, warlocks are the jack of all asskicking, and paladins? Paladin PPs make my DM cry. They're all awesome, they're all kickass, and they all are viable, fun options to play.

A quick word on alignments: the planescape system was dumb. Accept it. Even if it's less specific, I think how you play your character should matter more than what cheesy label you placed on it. 4e's might not be perfect, but it's good enough for roleplaying. I mean, if you're a good roleplayer who knows their concept and acts it out without needing strict "Guidelines" that sucked anyways.

In conclusion: 3.5 is is a corpulant load of fat drivel. She was good fun, but she ate too much and got fat. Give her a kiss and a pat on the rump, and go date the new, exciting 4e. Go back and give 3.5 a good pushin on the cushion every once in a while; I still run my 3.5 game and I love it to death, but I love my 4e game too. The games are both fun, exciting, and great for bonding. Roleplaying is not inherent in the system; it comes from you. You decide if you are a nice, or fun, or interesting, or diverse, or weird character. It's YOU. If you say a rules system is bad for roleplaying, it's really just an excuse for your piss poor roleplaying.

Last word: A note on Realism: This is D and mother$#(*ing D. You fight dragons with magic swords in a fantasy land with lesbian elf princesses with tatas bigger than my college tuition bill. You want freaking REALISM? If you want gritty realism, go play Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (lol YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BOAR), or something else. Please do not confuse D&D with being realistic in the first place.

[KKL]

Sup Gao. Lovin' the wall of text.

[Gao]

Not much, KKL. Just throwing in my 2 bits. Oh, and IRT OP: the reason why homebrew isn't that prolific with 4e yet likely has to do with how different the system is. A +1 attack bonus isn't token giggles anymore, it's a +5% boost in power in a game where hitting isn't a sure thing anymore. That, and most homebrews are, like I mentioned earlier, simply a slight shift in rules+fluff until we get to stuff that isn't Swords and Sorcery and other stuff you can slap onto regular DnD. Then it becomes it's own new system. 4e... will likely take some time to make homebrewed things mechanically, but every DM here has homebrewed a setting, right? Hell, I'm running a 4e Super Robot Wars game on IRC/maptools, and we're having a hella lotta fun right now. The "Homebrew?" You pilot a mech with your stats. All other mechs have regular people or monster stats. There. The pilots still roleplay and converse, things just look/are different, and since our players have imagination and a good head they can nod and work with it. I don't see why one has to make things so specific as far as THIS MUST BE ON MY SHEET NUMERICALLY OR ELSE I DON'T HAVE IT, when frankly that sort of thing takes away from your gameplay experience. Maybe one of the posters could explain it to me, rationally, why these skills are so important, or why Prestige Class 8543 is so important? to have? I'd like to see your rationality behind all of this.

[EvilElitest]

I, for one, believe that 4e is not only a viable, but a far more fun alternative to 3.5. While 3.5 is a fun system, with a whole lot of customization possiblities, I believe that customization is the beast that killed 3.5, like how too many delicious treats made your prom date a fat beast. Let's put out several examples of this massive gluttony that makes 3.5 almost unplayable.

Wait a second there. The beast taht killed 3E wasn't its options, its was the organization of the said options. It wasn't the avaiblity of the customization, it was the way the customization was set up, there was no set place of internal balence inherent in the system to be used as a reference point, and there defiently has no cross referencing going on there. If people had a damn chart that monitored all the existing skills and feats (ironically Blizzard has this actually in terms of their own mechanics) they could keep it from getting out of hand. So its not the option of customization thats a flaw, a claim like that is just silly, its like saying that depth is a flaw in a complicated book, the real reason is its presentation, or in this case orginization


1. Skills. By far the largest example of fattiness. There are way, way too many skills. Each are for individualized things specifically designed for particular purposes, and I'd say about half of which will not ever appear ever.
Here is where i, as per normal, say "fallacy". Do you have some poll to prove that? Do you know for a fact that exactly half of the feats have never been used? can you in all honestly make that claim or are you just exaggerating? Hey wait, you are exaggerating, 3E has been around for about a decade, it has a lot of books, there are many many people playing them, i'm sure people enjoyed certain skills/feats. So are you basically saying that all the other choices aren't used....because you don't use them? Are you saying that your way is hte only way to play? I isn't that a wee bit absolute?

How often do you use profession (Eat a Pidgion), or Craft (Fleshlight), or, you know, Appraise?
1) Nice, making up random skill on the spot to prove a point, classy
2) Um, i've used appraise a lot. How could i logically tell the worth of what i am selling? Gems and status don't have a price tag on them, and i'm certainly not going to trust the vender for an honest view. Now i admit this won't come up if your playing a combat only sort of game style, but that isn't the only way to play D&D.......until 4E of course


Yet, these are all skills that not only are never used and pointless, but are encouraged to be used by so called "RP buffs;

Yeah, i hate them. Heretics, they should be purged for having the audacity to attempt to add depth to a game. Prove those suckers wrong.....with fallacies and sterotypes.



you know, the people who claim that WoD is the greatest example of RP ever (Which it's not, it's far more complicated and a pain in the ass than DnD ever will be, but I won't get into that), and stick their nose up, and jerk themselves to the Stormwind Fallacy? Yeah, those guys.
Stereotypes? Classy. Well, actually, i don't play WoD, nor do many people who dislike 4E (for what ever reason), so you claim is like any other stereotype, ill mannered and ulitimatly irrelevant.

Through i like the rant against RP "intellectual elitist"



3. Spells. Ugh. Do we really need these many goddamned spells? Come on. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are invincible in Core, so "JUST PLAY CORE ONLY" People have NO idea what they're talking about. Core does NOTHING to preserve balance.
is there a logic here:smallconfused:. you rant against spell amounts, which again i say the fault is organization, not amount, and then trial off into balance issues? your reasoning seems a tad out of place


Of course, LogicNinja can tell you how over powerful wizards are, unless you're fool enough to go Direct Damage and say you're roleplaying; but why would you nerf yourself for the sake of roleplaying? Does that make you superior to people who know the true strength of mage? Really, someone with 18 int would know that Sleep is better than magic missile, so take your stormwind fallacy and shove it. If you really wanna be a Dammage, go warmage; you'll do more damage and it'd suit you better. Too bad wizards would still make you feel lame.

1) Evoking a poplular poster's name doens't prove a point
2) Again, stereotypes. Through to be fair, taht seems to be a norm so far, but first you rail against the lack of balance, then insult the people who don't like it
3) "You can only play it my way, my way my way my way" is what your saying then?



4. Prestige classes. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is a perfect example of how 3.5 is such a goddamn moneygrubber.
If we are talking money, both of guilty of this, i mean 4E is the one with the massive amount of books deemed "core"


This sucks and you all know it. Another major problem with this is LOL EYE MUST FULLO THE FLUFF which is mostly poorly written anyways.
because you say so



Prestige classes are either suck or broken with very few exceptions. Most of these PrCs have the same concept, but with Minor little differences in detail. They're mostly unnecessary! Come on. Undead Hunter? Paladins and clerics are better. Mindbender? Only good for 1 level dips. Warpriest? Pfft. Shadowsun Infiltrator? Uh, why not just go rogue with some cleric skills? Oh, and the one limiting factor on multiclass 1-level dip abuse? You know, xp penalty? Hahahahah. Doesn't apply to PrC's.
1) Your not proving anything you realize, your just railing. which doesn't rpove anything
2) Again, attacking 3E doesn't prove 4E right


5. Classes: Monks suck. Actually, anything that doesn't cast spells suck. ToB rectifies this, but unless the person you're going against is an idiot, the spellcaster will kill you dead. Look deeply into yourself. In a game where everyone can only do one thing (Hit, skill monkey, cast spells), do you want to be the one who has his usefulness be snuffed out? No, right? But that's what 3.5 E does. Spellcasters>All+bards. A cleric, a wizard, or a druid can do anything and everything better than any other class. Deal melee damage? Divine Strength/Tenser's Transformation/Wild Shape. Sneak? Invisibility/Polymorph into an ant. Heal? Limited Wish, cure spells. Kill things? Save or Dies. There IS no class balance, cause spellcasters dominate. ToB Tried to rectify this. It almost succedded, but even a Crusader/Mo9 will never, ever touch the pure power that is a core wizard. No, AMFs and DMZs don't help. They just make the DM an jerk and kill the non spellcasters who rely on magical crap, while the spellcasters step out, laugh at the enemy, and summon whales on their heads. From 200 feet above.

yeah, we know this, nothing new. Again, your not proving anything other than a delight in sterotypes and being insulting.
i'll finish it later
from
EE

[Duke of URL]

No. You did not sign over your ability to stay in business. For No Money, they're letting you mooch off their work. They can revoke your ability to mooch, yes, but that's not saying you can't go build your own stuff. You're just not allowed to mooch anymore. "Signing your soul"? Hardly.

The clauses in the GSL that basically allow them to revoke any product line you make under the GSL with no advance notice and for any reason is tantamount to selling one's sole for the privilege of using the D&D logo (which is all the GSL really allows you to do anyway).

[thevorpalbunny]

I'm only going to discuss realism because EE pretty much covered the straw-man arguments.

There is a little thing called suspension of disbelief; the idea is that everyone playing accepts that magic is possible, dragons exist, etc. This part is simple.

The important thing is that other than those initial things which everyone agrees to believe, you should strain disbelief only as much as necessary. When my rgoue in 4e uses his daily power and then gets to another encounter where he needs it again, his buddy can say "Do that thing you did earlier, it'll finish him off!" and I have to say "Umm. I can't." and he asks why and I can't tell him because there is no reason other than "because we're characters in a game of Dungeons and Dragons, 4th edition." that strains my suspension of disbelief. Even if no one ever has that conversation, the knowledge that he can't and there is no reason why jars me out of character for a minute every time it comes up.

Then there's the skill challenge system, which is a huge mess of no-in-game-explanation issues, the different ways to make characters and monsters. 4e works fine as a game, it's that "role-playing" part of RPG that's the issue.

[Fri]

snip from meek and rp guru about ogl and gsl-tan

Why are there no pictures of them yet? Internet, you have failed me this time.

[RPGuru1331]

The clauses in the GSL that basically allow them to revoke any product line you make under the GSL with no advance notice and for any reason is tantamount to selling one's sole for the privilege of using the D&D logo (which is all the GSL really allows you to do anyway).

I just read through the GSL again to make sure I didn't forget some clause. Where does it say that you're not permitted to make your product line? Section 12 states that you're not permitted to use Licensed Materials after the termination of the license; Licensed Materials refers to the SRD, not to what you made. Please, by all means, I'm in factual error if you're correct; Tell me precisely what I missed.


Why are there no pictures of them yet? Internet, you have failed me this time.
Because there's no Rule 35 for the creation of -tans? Someone should enforce one.

[Gao]

I'm only going to discuss realism because EE pretty much covered the straw-man arguments.
DnD, realism, haha, etc.


There is a little thing called suspension of disbelief; the idea is that everyone playing accepts that magic is possible, dragons exist, etc. This part is simple.
lolk.


The important thing is that other than those initial things which everyone agrees to believe, you should strain disbelief only as much as necessary.
lolk. You'll have to strain pretty far to exist in a world where massive lizards that breath fire and should be broken to pieces under their own weight exist, but okay.


When my rgoue in 4e uses his daily power and then gets to another encounter where he needs it again, his buddy can say "Do that thing you did earlier, it'll finish him off!" and I have to say "Umm. I can't." and he asks why and I can't tell him because there is no reason other than "because we're characters in a game of Dungeons and Dragons, 4th edition." that strains my suspension of disbelief.
This seems to be a personal flaw then an actual problem. Might I provide a solution?

"Because it's a difficult combat technique and I'm too far along in the day to concentrate well enough to make sure I didn't foul it up by stabbing myself (Or you) in the face, now get back to taking blows for me/healing me/casting spells!"


Even if no one ever has that conversation, the knowledge that he can't and there is no reason why jars me out of character for a minute every time it comes up.
This is more of a personal problem than an inherent flaw of the system. Some things just can't be repeated often. Sword techniques, special stabs, they're all not easy to pull off and trying to do it over and over again would actually be an interesting way to explain basic meleeing; "Lemme try that move again... darn, can't get it right.. hold still..."


Then there's the skill challenge system, which is a huge mess of no-in-game-explanation issues
Skill challenges are a stupid idea. That said, it's representative of how well you actually pull off the overall action. Usually, it isn't one big thing that affects something; it's a combination of a variety of skills that slowly push something to the edge of one big thing. Or, you know, fouling it up enough that your desired effect proves pointless.


the different ways to make characters and monsters.
Different=/=bad. Actually, Monster Creation is fairly balanced and not at all as poorly made as the HD system of 3.5e. And of course chargen is different. It's not 3.75, it's 4e.


4e works fine as a game, it's that "role-playing" part of RPG that's the issue.
The system is a fine system. It needs players to make it a fun, roleplaying experience though: but what RPG doesn't?



Wait a second there. The beast taht killed 3E wasn't its options, its was the organization of the said options. It wasn't the avaiblity of the customization, it was the way the customization was set up, there was no set place of internal balence inherent in the system to be used as a reference point, and there defiently has no cross referencing going on there. If people had a damn chart that monitored all the existing skills and feats (ironically Blizzard has this actually in terms of their own mechanics) they could keep it from getting out of hand. So its not the option of customization thats a flaw, a claim like that is just silly, its like saying that depth is a flaw in a complicated book, the real reason is its presentation, or in this case orginization
So you agree that 3.5 is dead. I do too! Nothing's wrong with customization to a point, but needless complication is highly unnecessary. What does it prove? "Oh, I'm a ___ working for ___?" I can do that without a fancy prestige class name, and I can make it with a character that will survive a decent fight, too.


Here is where i, as per normal, say "fallacy". Do you have some poll to prove that? Do you know for a fact that exactly half of the feats have never been used? can you in all honestly make that claim or are you just exaggerating? Hey wait, you are exaggerating, 3E has been around for about a decade, it has a lot of books, there are many many people playing them, i'm sure people enjoyed certain skills/feats. So are you basically saying that all the other choices aren't used....because you don't use them? Are you saying that your way is hte only way to play? I isn't that a wee bit absolute? ITT: Pretentious misspellings. Also, this paragraph is about skills, not feats. I addressed feats in a later paragraph saying that I enjoyed feats. Please do not make an argument implying I said something I did not, it's rather... petty.


1) Nice, making up random skill on the spot to prove a point, classy
Speaking of petty. How does this invalidate my point? You're not playing Peasants and Party Poopers, you're playing Dungeons and Dragons. These are skills that very rarely come up, and are underwhelming for anything you might do with them. Although if Craft (Fleshlight) came up I'd take it in a heartbeat.


2) Um, i've used appraise a lot. How could i logically tell the worth of what i am selling? Gems and status don't have a price tag on them, and i'm certainly not going to trust the vender for an honest view.
Spells, my dear Watson. Spells. Besides, it's not like anyone's gonna give you what they're worth anyways; magic item Wal-Marts tend to have stingy vendors.

Now i admit this won't come up if your playing a combat only sort of game style, but that isn't the only way to play D&D.....
Alright, let's nip this in the bud. About roughly half my game sessions are RP heavy. And by that I mean "Hay let's play Adventurer's everyday life!" while I sit around going FFFFFFFFFFFFF waiting for them to stop playing with the surrogate party daughter, and move on with the damn plot. I don't play combat-only games, but yet again, rules for something like RP only restrict creativity with a rules bound mindset. Furthermore, the vast majority of people I've played DnD with don't use appraise either; hell, it's not even useful past gems and other mundane crap.


..until 4E of course
Slow clap for the snippy comment.



Yeah, i hate them. Heretics, they should be purged for having the audacity to attempt to add depth to a game. Prove those suckers wrong.....with fallacies and sterotypes.
Stereotype. For god's sake, man, Spellcheck comes with every word processor created by man now these days. Hell, Firefox will point out your misspellings.

Still, how do these skills add depth? "Oh, I have three skill points in fishing, let's roll to see how much SP I got!" If you really want to do things like this, we have Renaissance fairs. They're much more entertaining then sitting around playing Make Believe slice-of-life.



Stereotypes? Classy. Well, actually, i don't play WoD, nor do many people who dislike 4E (for what ever reason), so you claim is like any other stereotype, ill mannered and ulitimatly irrelevant. I do, and am currently in a Mage game. It is actually a lot of fun, but by no means is it a superior experience to any other game. And how is my claim irrelevant? This skill system does nothing but hinder gameplay and character generation in the name of "Customization!"


Through i like the rant against RP "intellectual elitist"
Holy crap, is that a line WITHOUT a childish quip?



is there a logic here:smallconfused:. you rant against spell amounts, which again i say the fault is organization, not amount, and then trial off into balance issues? your reasoning seems a tad out of place
This wasn't an argument devoted to you, as much as you may wish it was; it was an argument as to why 4e was a better gaming experience than 3.5, and part of that reasoning was that 3.5 had an unfair hard-on towards spellcasting types.



1) Evoking a poplular poster's name doens't prove a point
The point is that wizards are over powerful to the point where they can do jobs without other classes, superseding their roles and emasculating other players. LogicNinja's guide is an excellent point on this. I was unaware he was popular here, but okay. I'm certain that just because he is popular means everything he says is completely pointless; at least, by your logic.


2) Again, stereotypes. Through to be fair, taht seems to be a norm so far, but first you rail against the lack of balance, then insult the people who don't like it
Part of a stereotype is that the vast majority of that type of person eventually make it true. Let me provide an idea for you; if you are an 18 intelligence mage (Which is on the level of which you can cure cancer on the drive to work), with a squishy body, in a world full of big nasty things that can hurt you, are you going to pick up direct damage spells that aren't as effective as a thick meathead with a sword, or are you going to pick up spells that can instantly kill, disable, or screw over anything you throw them at? Hmm. Such a haaard decision. You might be playing for fun, but your character is probably playing for keeps. Keep that in mind.

3) "You can only play it my way, my way my way my way" is what your saying then?

Quote me directly where I say that.


If we are talking money, both of guilty of this, i mean 4E is the one with the massive amount of books deemed "core"
3.5 Core: PHB, DMG, MM, XPH
4e Core: PHB, DMG, MM.
4>3 where I come from.


because you say so
Could you come up with no better? Seriously, I could be getting ready for my 3.5 game or fapping right now.



1) Your not proving anything you realize, your just railing. which doesn't rpove anything
Really? All of these classes are subpar, and don't really justify themselves as a valid option, especially when you could use standard classes and ROLEPLAY to make yourself a character like this.


2) Again, attacking 3E doesn't prove 4E right
See second half of the post.


.

yeah, we know this, nothing new. Again, your not proving anything other than a delight in sterotypes and being insulting.
i'll finish it later
from
EE

Really? It seems like your post is nothing more than an assault against my post and point of view. Like I said, this post was not aimed towards you. Hell, I don't even know who the hell you are, or why you insist on babbling like this; half your points aren't even valid, and you obviously don't look at an entire picture, think, then post with valid and coherent reasoning. Are you some kind of massive troll?

[Duke of URL]

I just read through the GSL again to make sure I didn't forget some clause. Where does it say that you're not permitted to make your product line? Section 12 states that you're not permitted to use Licensed Materials after the termination of the license; Licensed Materials refers to the SRD, not to what you made. Please, by all means, I'm in factual error if you're correct; Tell me precisely what I missed.


11. Termination and Effect.

11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.

11.2 Survival. Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (together with all other provisions that reasonably may be interpreted as surviving termination of this License) will survive the termination of this License.

11.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Licensed Materials and will destroy all inventory and marketing materials in Licensee’s possession bearing the Compatibility Logo. Licensee will remove the Compatibility Logo from all advertising, web sites, and other materials. Licensee will solely bear all costs related to carrying out this provision (in addition to any other provision) of the License. Wizards may, in its sole discretion and upon written agreement between Wizards and Licensee, extend this License for those Licensed Products that otherwise comply with the terms of this License.

11.1: Allows WotC to terminate the license for any reason.

11.2: Continues to enforce all relevant restrictions of the GSL after termination, even after the benefits are removed. This includes the ability to republish the same information under the OGL (part 6), challenging WotC legally (section 10), or even preventing WotC from ripping off your cancelled product to create one of their own (section 18).

11.3: Requires the destruction of physical stock of materials.

[RPGuru1331]

11.1: Allows WotC to terminate the license for any reason.

11.2: Continues to enforce all relevant restrictions of the GSL after termination, even after the benefits are removed. This includes the ability to republish the same information under the OGL (part 6), challenging WotC legally (section 10), or even preventing WotC from ripping off your cancelled product to create one of their own (section 18).

11.3: Requires the destruction of physical stock of materials.

...
Right. And none of those restrictions says you can't publish the product line with non-GSL books, you just can't print OGL ones. That's exactly what I said; You're prevented from mooching, but not from you know, making your own work.

Of course, you may say "They can rip off what I make!" is signing your soul away, but then you would consider the OGL to be equally signing away your soul, so I sincerely doubt that's the problem.

[Duke of URL]

After destroying your physical copies, at WotC's whim, you would have to rework everything to remove references to any 4e mechanics -- so what to replace them with? Can't be 3.5 or Pathfinder, since they're OGL products.

Would it still be technically possible? Yes, but at an extremely high burden to the developer.

At the same time, WotC has every right to steal your concepts, even down to things that would have been product identity under the OGL, such as storylines, and publish it under 4e while you're busy destroying physical stock and trying to refit a product to an entirely different mechanical system.

So, from a company standpoint, yes, you've sold your soul to get the rights to use the spiffy 4e logo. Just hope the devil doesn't come calling to collect.

As for the whole "freeloading" issue... it is in WotC's interest for 3rd party publishers to develop products for their system -- it helps build market base for them and maintains interest in the system. Neither side is "mooching" off the other, they are symbiotically helping each other.

Or, so went the theory in 3.x. The 4e GSL appears to basically say, "if you want to develop compatible products, go ahead, suckers. We'll shut you down the minute we feel like it."

[Lappy9000]

Geez, I'm having to make Fortitude saves every minute just for reading this thread, there's so much venom in the posts....

[RPGuru1331]

After destroying your physical copies, at WotC's whim, you would have to rework everything to remove references to any 4e mechanics -- so what to replace them with? Can't be 3.5 or Pathfinder, since they're OGL products.
Have I not made myself clear, when I've said "Your own work?"


Would it still be technically possible? Yes, but at an extremely high burden to the developer.
The only OGL-compliant products I can think of, besides Pathfinder, which is just DnD 3.75 anyway, are Mutants and Masterminds, and Silhouette Core. Neither would be overly crippled by the loss of the OGL; MM explicitly stated that they used DnD mechanics as a time saver, and to get some free marketting; 1e was a seperate system, and they completed the harder parts of system creation, only really borrowing a die resolution mechanic (Yes, they have DnD stats, but DnD stats have very small effects on the game compared to Powers, which were totally their own). Silhouette Core included DnD mechanics as a possible way to run it, but clearly had its own system, and its own system worked better. Ripping out DnD mechanics might be a bit worse for MM, but for Silhouette? "Oh no, no D20 Logo. We still have the product, we just lose free marketting"


At the same time, WotC has every right to steal your concepts, even down to things that would have been product identity under the OGL, such as storylines, and publish it under 4e while you're busy destroying physical stock and trying to refit a product to an entirely different mechanical system.
You have a janitor, right? Have him destroy physical stock when he's not busy; The License says you must act in good faith, and frankly, pulling actual personnel off of the creation of a new system would go beyond good faith. Have non-key personnel do the book burning while the rest do the work. And frankly, I doubt you have that much stock if you're so reliant on the OGL/GSL that losing it cripples you. AS to "They have hte right to steal your work", what that line means is that they can release something conceptually similar. In no persistent part of the license do you waive your right to copyright your own work, so if what they do is an infraction of copyright law, you can still nail them. If they weren't, you were screwed anyway.

Before you say it;
19. Choice of Law; Jurisdiction. This License will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, USA, without reference to its choice of law rules. Licensee irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located at King County, Washington with respect to any claim or suit brought by Licensee arising out of or related to this License, and Licensee agrees not to commence or prosecute any such claim or suit other than in the aforementioned courts. LICENSEE EXPRESSLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE.
Assuming Wizards manages to get a copyright declared "Related to the license", you waived your rights to the trials that don't happen between companies; You're still good for Arbitration, among other options.


So, from a company standpoint, yes, you've sold your soul to get the rights to use the spiffy 4e logo. Just hope the devil doesn't come calling to collect.
Only if you can't make your own system.


As for the whole "freeloading" issue... it is in WotC's interest for 3rd party publishers to develop products for their system -- it helps build market base for them and maintains interest in the system. Neither side is "mooching" off the other, they are symbiotically helping each other.
It doesn't help /me/ for you to be develloping equally pricey books for an overbloated system, which any DnD line will be, with or without outside help. As far as I'm concerned, you're mooching off of a well marketted name to try and divert customers.


Or, so went the theory in 3.x. The 4e GSL appears to basically say, "if you want to develop compatible products, go ahead, suckers. We'll shut you down the minute we feel like it."
Again, only if you can't make your own system. You're probably in the wrong company if you can't. Notwithstanding that it's against wizards interests to flagrantly withdraw the license.

[Zeta Kai]

...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but don't bother trying to convince RPGuru. He obviously believes what he wants to believe, & your "facts" & your "quotes" & your "well-reasoned, logical conclusions" aren't going to change his mind. If he wants to believe that all 3rd-party developers are moochers, let him. It's his delusion, & he's entitled to it.

[RPGuru1331]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but don't bother trying to convince RPGuru. He obviously believes what he wants to believe, & your "facts" & your "quotes" & your "well-reasoned, logical conclusions" aren't going to change his mind. If he wants to believe that all 3rd-party developers are moochers, let him. It's his delusion, & he's entitled to it.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that he's right on what you may or may not do with a clearly worded, easily readable legal document. If you'd like to insist on misreading things that are in black and white, I'm going to stop paying attention, because we call that feeding the trolls. The facts are, you're only screwed if you're making DnD sourcebooks, and nothing more. And even then, only if Wizards decides to be stupid and give up the benefits to having a reasonably trusted License.

FYI, the OGL and GSL's greatest evils are in their consolidation of the market as a Dungeons and Dragons-derivative based creation, not in any ill-conceived notions of 'selling your soul to the GSL'.

[Duke of URL]

You have a janitor, right? Have him destroy physical stock when he's not busy; The License says you must act in good faith, and frankly, pulling actual personnel off of the creation of a new system would go beyond good faith. Have non-key personnel do the book burning while the rest do the work. And frankly, I doubt you have that much stock if you're so reliant on the OGL/GSL that losing it cripples you.

It isn't the time, of course, its the loss of capital. You know, that thing that companies use to do silly things like pay people and cover the costs associated with running a business.

Most 3rd party developers are "small potatoes", so yes, destruction of physical stock can be very, very expensive on a relative scale.


AS to "They have hte right to steal your work", what that line means is that they can release something conceptually similar. In no persistent part of the license do you waive your right to copyright your own work, so if what they do is an infraction of copyright law, you can still nail them. If they weren't, you were screwed anyway.

Before you say it;
19. Choice of Law; Jurisdiction. This License will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, USA, without reference to its choice of law rules. Licensee irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located at King County, Washington with respect to any claim or suit brought by Licensee arising out of or related to this License, and Licensee agrees not to commence or prosecute any such claim or suit other than in the aforementioned courts. LICENSEE EXPRESSLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE.

Assuming Wizards manages to get a copyright declared "Related to the license", you waived your rights to the trials that don't happen between companies; You're still good for Arbitration, among other options.

That's your reading. Small companies that can't afford pricey lawyers read it differently.

More importantly, section 18 is basically a warning shot that if you publish something that is similar to what WotC plans, then they will use section 11 (and 19) to shut you down and leave you with no recourse.




Only if you can't make your own system.

Time and money. Time and money.


It doesn't help /me/ for you to be develloping equally pricey books for an overbloated system, which any DnD line will be, with or without outside help. As far as I'm concerned, you're mooching off of a well marketted name to try and divert customers.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But that doesn't make it a fact, nor does it make it right.

No one is forcing you to buy 3rd party products.


Notwithstanding that it's against wizards interests to flagrantly withdraw the license.

It was against WotC's public perception interest to put out such a borked license in the first place, and yet they did so anyway. Small companies are justifiably resistant to betting their company's future on the capricious whim of WotC and Hasbro.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Again, only if you can't make your own system. You're probably in the wrong company if you can't. Notwithstanding that it's against wizards interests to flagrantly withdraw the license.Uh, if you could make your own system, why were you using the GSL in the first place?

Just saying.

[RPGuru1331]

It isn't the time, of course, its the loss of capital. You know, that thing that companies use to do silly things like pay people and cover the costs associated with running a business.
Unless you're making a DnD source book, the significant loss of capital is that you have to pay your developers to go back over work they've done and tweak it. At most. Again, if you actually, you know, developed your own system and just made it D20 compatible to sucker in the spoiled D20 generation, you're looking at a pretty small loss overall.


Most 3rd party developers are "small potatoes", so yes, destruction of physical stock can be very, very expensive on a relative scale.
I'm going to have to give you that one, actually. But then, I would honestly expect 3rd party developers small enough to consider that a hit to prefer a DTRPG PDF; Why eat a production cost that isn't significantly helping you?


That's your reading. Small companies that can't afford pricey lawyers read it differently.

More importantly, section 18 is basically a warning shot that if you publish something that is similar to what WotC plans, then they will use section 11 (and 19) to shut you down and leave you with no recourse.
Dude. You get recourse. you lose the Jury Trial, which these lawsuits almost never reach. I even said that, and highlighted the relevant passage.





Time and money. Time and money.
If you're doing it right, you already spent that time and money. Have you ever read Silhouette Core?



That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But that doesn't make it a fact, nor does it make it right.
And it's your opinion that the OGL ever made a circumstance good for consumers; That doesn't make it a fact, nor does it make it right.



No one is forcing you to buy 3rd party products.
I don't.


It was against WotC's public perception interest to put out such a borked license in the first place, and yet they did so anyway. Small companies are justifiably resistant to betting their company's future on the capricious whim of WotC and Hasbro.
Not really. You know who made waves? Paizo, a little, and maybe 1 or 2 loud people on the internet. The gaming public really couldn't care less, by and large. Which puts the argument into perspective..


Uh, if you could make your own system, why were you using the GSL in the first place?

Just saying.
Free Marketting. Make your system OGL/GSL compatible, you get the D20 logo. This is especially effective if you make, say, the core book D20 compatible (To sucker in the spoiled kids who can't be arsed to learn a new system), then predominantly make it a new system. They already spent the money, so they'll learn the system, is the thought process.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So basically, temporary free marketing is the only reliable benefit you get out of the GSL, since your license to actually use the rules can be revoked arbitrarily.

Great system.

[RPGuru1331]

So basically, temporary free marketing is the only reliable benefit you get out of the GSL, since your license to actually use the rules can be revoked arbitrarily.

Great system.

It's the only thing I can really approve of using the OGL for either, so it /is/ a great system, as far as I'm concerned. I've made my stance quite clear; I want there to be a diverse set of systems within the market, with different focuses, rather then everyone playing follow the leader and giving WotC even more complete dominance over the gaming market, with a system that really is only focused on tactical gaming (I mean Dungeons and Dragons, not 3e, or 4e, or 2e, or 1e, the whole kit n' kaboodle.)

And I think I understand Duke's motivation, though I'm not sure, since I don't exactly see any product of his..

[Duke of URL]

So basically, temporary free marketing is the only reliable benefit you get out of the GSL, since your license to actually use the rules can be revoked arbitrarily.

Great system.

Yup. But apparently that's OK because us third party publishers all suck and we're freeloading moochers anyway.

Oh, and we can easily afford to destroy physical inventory and pull products off the market to completely rework them, and if we can't it's because we're too stupid or lazy.


And I think I understand Duke's motivation, though I'm not sure, since I don't exactly see any product of his..

We just need to finish artwork and proofing to get our first two products out the door. Thanks for your concern.

[KKL]

Geez, I'm having to make Fortitude saves every minute just for reading this thread, there's so much venom in the posts....

Welcome to the Internet! [General]
Prerequisite: You must be exposed to an argument over the internet, over a forums. Multiple times.
Benefit: You gain +10 to all saves to resist negative effects gained from reading arguments over the internet.
Special: This actually doens't work. At all.

[RPGuru1331]

Yup. But apparently that's OK because us third party publishers all suck and we're freeloading moochers anyway.

Oh, and we can easily afford to destroy physical inventory and pull products off the market to completely rework them, and if we can't it's because we're too stupid or lazy.

Why keep physical material if it's that significant an investment? Do you really get that many sales from people walking into the store and picking up your book? You appear to be a publisher, except that I can't actually find your products so I'm not sure. I know the new era of marketting has been looking at viral internet marketting, which lends itself to .pdf downloads, especially since the easiest way to get into fringe gaming with RPGs is over the internet.

And I do believe what I specifically said was that with analysis, the GSL is not a significant risk unless you're producing Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks, if you can call that a risk. Wizards being able to revoke the license frivolously doesn't mean they will. Though I will grant that throughout history, people have abused their power for utterly stupid reasons.


We just need to finish artwork and proofing to get our first two products out the door. Thanks for your concern.
It's not my fault your forum doesn't actually reference your work. Don't get snippy with me; Without actual publicly viewable reference, it may as well be a vanity forum, for all I can confirm.

I love how you have nothing left to attack but my disdain for 3rd party publishers, btw.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's the only thing I can really approve of using the OGL for either, so it /is/ a great system, as far as I'm concerned. I've made my stance quite clear; I want there to be a diverse set of systems within the market, with different focuses, rather then everyone playing follow the leader and giving WotC even more complete dominance over the gaming market, with a system that really is only focused on tactical gaming (I mean Dungeons and Dragons, not 3e, or 4e, or 2e, or 1e, the whole kit n' kaboodle.)

And I think I understand Duke's motivation, though I'm not sure, since I don't exactly see any product of his..So basically, you admit GSL is bad for its advertised purpose, but are perfectly happy with this because you don't like D&D, Wizards of the Coast or the idea of this kind of license in the first place.

[RPGuru1331]

So basically, you admit GSL is bad for its advertised purpose, but are perfectly happy with this because you don't like Wizards of the Coast or the idea of this kind of license in the first place.
Basically. It's great for me, and consumers who don't want there to /be/ an umpteenth DnD sourcebook. It's theoretically bad for folks who want to rely on DnD for their meal ticket, but *still* not for any reason vaguely related to 'selling your soul'. The only real change over the OGL is that you can lose your ability to continue your product line as a DnD compatible product.

[afroakuma]

Welcome to the Internet! [General]
Prerequisite: You must be exposed to an argument over the internet, over a forums. Multiple times.
Benefit: You gain +10 to all saves to resist negative effects gained from reading arguments over the internet.
Special: This actually doens't work. At all.

Quoted for truth. Sad, sad truth.

And once again, please: we're grown-ups here, folks. The parting shots are unneccessary.

[Lappy9000]

Welcome to the Internet! [General]
Prerequisite: You must be exposed to an argument over the internet, over a forums. Multiple times.
Benefit: You gain +10 to all saves to resist negative effects gained from reading arguments over the internet.
Special: This actually doens't work. At all.

Maaan, I've already taken that feat. And no, it really doesn't work -.-

[Nerd-o-rama]

And once again, please: we're grown-ups here, folks. The parting shots are unneccessary.You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Vadin]

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconcievable!

[afroakuma]

But iocane comes from Australia - as everyone knows!

[Shadow_Elf]

Maaan, I've already taken that feat. And no, it really doesn't work -.-

It only works against level 3 Insults or less. You have to take 3 levels in Internet Barbarian and 5 ranks in Craft (Comeback) and Perform (Insult) before you can take the PRC that gives you sniping immunity: The Frenzied Debater. Unfortunately, its the capstone feature, and I only have 3 levels in it...

Not bad for someone who doesn't play 3.X eh?

[Lappy9000]

It only works against level 3 Insults or less. You have to take 3 levels in Internet Barbarian and 5 ranks in Craft (Comeback) and Perform (Insult) before you can take the PRC that gives you sniping immunity: The Frenzied Debater. Unfortunately, its the capstone feature, and I only have 3 levels in it...

Not bad for someone who doesn't play 3.X eh?

Ohhhhhh, thanks! I guess that isn't exactly an optimized build, what with my 4th level Threadomancer/2nd level Homebrewer. I'm pretty sure I got it as a bonus feat through the "Resisted the Starcraft BattleNET" bloodline, though. Perform isn't a class skill, darn. This multiclass may take a little....
Not bad at all. I forgot for a moment that you're a 4e kinda guy ;)

[Shadow_Elf]

Ohhhhhh, thanks! I guess that isn't exactly an optimized build, what with my 4th level Threadomancer/2nd level Homebrewer. I'm pretty sure I got it as a bonus feat through the "Resisted the Starcraft BattleNET" bloodline, though. Perform isn't a class skill, darn. This multiclass may take a little....
Not bad at all. I forgot for a moment that you're a 4e kinda guy ;)

I have both the "Survived Starcraft Battlenet" and "Survived Warcraft Battlenet" bloodlines, and they stack. I used LA buy off to take them.
My class distribution looks a little like this:

Video Gamer 4 (Base Class)
Super Smash Bro. 4 (Video Gamer PRC)
DotA N00B 1 (Video Gamer PRC)
Homebrewer 4 (Multiclass)
Internet Barbarian 3 (Multiclass)
Frenzied Debater 3 (Internet Barbarian PRC)
Threadjitsu Master 1 (Homebrewer PRC)

Is that even possible by Rules As Written Improvised?

[Lappy9000]

I have both the "Survived Starcraft Battlenet" and "Survived Warcraft Battlenet" bloodlines, and they stack. I used LA buy off to take them.
My class distribution looks a little like this:

Video Gamer 4 (Base Class)
Super Smash Bro. 4 (Video Gamer PRC)
DotA N00B 1 (Video Gamer PRC)
Homebrewer 4 (Multiclass)
Internet Barbarian 3 (Multiclass)
Frenzied Debater 3 (Internet Barbarian PRC)
Threadjitsu Master 1 (Homebrewer PRC)

Is that even possible by Rules As Written Improvised?

How'd you level that? It would seem like you'd take massive experience penalties if you didn't do it right. Here's mine:

Lapay Nin-Thozand

Threadomancer 4 (Base Class [Bump specialization; Troll and Flame barred])
Homebrewer 3 (Multiclass; World-building Variant)
Interninja 1 (Threadomancer PRC)

I've also taken the "Survived Starcraft Battlenet" bloodline, Skill Focus (Craft [Off-Topic Post]), Extended Spell (Greater Bump), the Propr Gramr feat that my group home-brewed, and the Lurker flaw feat.

This is the best fake optimization evar.

[Vadin]

I would totally play that game if it were somewhere between 4e and 3.5 but not sold (and thus subject to being relevant to the thread).

[Nerd-o-rama]

Video Gamer 3 (base class)
P&P Player 2 (base class)
Cartoon Fan 3 (base class)
Nerd Dilletante 10 (Multiclass PrC)
Smug Snarker 2 (Jerk PrC)

[Shadow_Elf]

How'd you level that? It would seem like you'd take massive experience penalties if you didn't do it right. Here's mine:

Lapay Nin-Thozand

Threadomancer 4 (Base Class [Bump specialization; Troll and Flame barred])
Homebrewer 3 (Multiclass; World-building Variant)
Interninja 1 (Threadomancer PRC)

I've also taken the "Survived Starcraft Battlenet" bloodline, Skill Focus (Craft [Off-Topic Post]), Extended Spell (Greater Bump), the Propr Gramr feat that my group home-brewed, and the Lurker flaw feat.

This is the best fake optimization evar.

Nah. My race is The Optimizer, which has +2 to two variable stat bonus and takes no exp penalty from multiclassing. And that's it. Which is why I took the bloodlines, for a few more racial bonuses. I would have taken some levels in Threadomancy, but I didn't have the Craft (Excuse) ranks to do it. Also, I hear that the Moderator PRC is the best Prestige class for optimization. They get Turn UnThread and Mega-Edit as at-will powers.

Well, our new gaming system has certainly lightened the mood in this thread, eh?

[Zeta Kai]

I think one the main issues here is the idea that 3rd-party developers are somehow "mooching" off of WotC & their OGL/GSL, & that somehow they are to blame to for whatever WotC decides to do about that.

The truth is this: WotC wrote the OGL, & they wrote the subsequent GSL. Nobody put a gun to their head & forced them to do either. They are like hosts of a party; this party being the D20 system. The 3rd-party developers are like guests at the party. WotC wanted the guests there, because it would make for a bigger party. The OGL allows developers to use a unified system, the core of which was published by WotC. So anyone buying those 3rd-party products would have to buy WotC books in order to use them. Everybody wins.

This isn't mooching. This is profit. The host is making a ton of money hosting this party.

Now, the guests don't have to come to the party. They could, as some say, make their own systems. But they stand to gain from joining the fun. Making a game system that people will buy & is fun to play is not a small order. And no matter how fun your system is, gamers can only know so many systems well, & gamers will be willing to learn only so many systems. So it's to the benefit of the 3rd-party developers to let WotC make the core system, & then tweak it to their liking with supplemental material. So, with this arrangement, everybody wins.

This isn't mooching. This is profit. The guests are saving a lot of effort joining this party.

So, whatever you may think about the GSL, the undeniable fact is that the rules of the next party are different than the last one, to continue the metaphor. They have been changed by the host. Some guests are unhappy, & some are not coming back. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, the fact is that the future of gaming will look like lots of little parties, & no big central party. Who will have to clean up later is anyone's guess.

[Shadow_Elf]

Despite not understanding any of this legal lingo, I give you an A++ for the analogy :smallbiggrin:.

[afroakuma]

Well spoken, Zeta.

[EvilElitest]

Things i missed because i was pressed for time, including another festering mass of stereotypes, fallacies, misconceptions, insults and


Let's put out several examples of this massive gluttony that makes 3.5 almost unplayable.

The thing is, as one of your main problems with your little rant is, 4E isn't proven better by 3E's flaws. I honestly don't like either, but "proving" its flaws doesn't make 4E any better. Pointing out flaws in the old starwars doesn't make the prequals any less bad, nor does it make them better than the old series.


4. Prestige classes. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, this is a perfect example of how 3.5 is such a goddamn moneygrubber.
While i'm know that Prcs have problems, i find the claim that 3E is money grabbing rather absurd. Its WotC, 4E is just as guilty as 3E. I mean, they are the ones who expanded the definition of Core to cover many more books. And they are rolling out splat books just as much as 3E did, so 4E is no less a money grabber than 3E.

Unless this is another of those "Its a money grabber because i dislike it, but the things i like aren't" sort of things


This sucks and you all know it. Another major problem with this is LOL EYE MUST FULLO THE FLUFF which is mostly poorly written anyways. Prestige classes are either suck or broken with very few exceptions. Most of these PrCs have the same concept, but with Minor little differences in detail. They're mostly unnecessary! Come on. Undead Hunter? Paladins and clerics are better. Mindbender? Only good for 1 level dips. Warpriest? Pfft. Shadowsun Infiltrator? Uh, why not just go rogue with some cleric skills? Oh, and the one limiting factor on multiclass 1-level dip abuse? You know, xp penalty? Hahahahah. Doesn't apply to PrC's.

1) For future reference, your points would be more effective if you actually structured your statements in a coherent and organized manner rather than a rambling mass, because as it is your rushing from point to point so haphazardly makes your points sound utterly disoriented and lack any actual explanation and backing other than "Grrr, this is bad". True, the actual content of your posts prove this as well, but you could at least make it look good in the process.
2) So let me get this straight? having additional class options that have a theme tied in sucks, but.......the paragon paths do not? eh
3) So you are willing to prove that out of the thousand or so PrC, every single one alternate between useless and over powered? Or are you just going to keep on with the stereotypes?
3) I'm going to call you out on your claim they are exactly the same, because plenty of the Prcs are pretty diverse in nature and quality, mechanics and the way they act. Oh there are certainly some that are redundent or pointless, but that certainly doesn't damn the entire concept
4) eh? While i'll say that the fluff in the complete books sucks (it sucks) there are plenty of Prcs taht are rather unique in their appearance and back ground. Also, you start out with a claim about how they suck due to their only minority different nature, then go into a random rant about how they are only good for a level one dip or what have you, which makes your statement just seem silly
5) You do realize that pointing out mechanical problems with balance doesn't render PrC useless or obsolite, just something that needs to be fixed.


5. Classes: Monks suck. Actually, anything that doesn't cast spells suck. ToB rectifies this, but unless the person you're going against is an idiot, the spellcaster will kill you dead. Look deeply into yourself. In a game where everyone can only do one thing (Hit, skill monkey, cast spells), do you want to be the one who has his usefulness be snuffed out? No, right? But that's what 3.5 E does. Spellcasters>All+bards. A cleric, a wizard, or a druid can do anything and everything better than any other class. Deal melee damage? Divine Strength/Tenser's Transformation/Wild Shape. Sneak? Invisibility/Polymorph into an ant. Heal? Limited Wish, cure spells. Kill things? Save or Dies. There IS no class balance, cause spellcasters dominate. ToB Tried to rectify this. It almost succedded, but even a Crusader/Mo9 will never, ever touch the pure power that is a core wizard. No, AMFs and DMZs don't help. They just make the DM an jerk and kill the non spellcasters who rely on magical crap, while the spellcasters step out, laugh at the enemy, and summon whales on their heads. From 200 feet above.

Yeah, we know this. We've known this for like, 10 years now, explained in a much more coherent and logical fashion than this by many people on the boards (including me). but that doesn't render 4E better. Just because its different doesn't make it better. you can attack 3E all you want, it doesn't make 4E any less shallow, or invalidate any of 3E's good points.



Now, any and all of these problems can be solved through houseruling. But, as a good friend of mine once said: "The ability of a DM to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." If we're going by straight up rules with no houseruling, 3.5 is an inferior system.

That quote applies to 4E as well you realize. Many people have used taht as an excuse for 4E's mistakes, so i only hope your standard will stay the same when it comes to your own game




Now, here is how 4e handles each of these issues:

In the most heavy handed manner possibly


1. Skills. Skills are much, much simpler. Many of the unnecessary skills are lumped together. A fighter can somehow manage to be good at swimming, climbing, AND jumping all in one skill. And he doesn't have to be a human, a warrior-scholar, or banging a nymph to do it (Though goddamn I want that feat in 4e). You can even (GASP) be good at multiple things! SHOCK! Many of the "Useless Skills (BAWW RP)" are gone, and replaced with nothing. So? Then just say you used to be a pigeon eater/fleshlight maker/are good at figuring out the cost of things, and do that. Jeez. Skills are simpler and goddamn I'm glad for not having to calculate out and set a million goddamn skills. It's not worth the effort.

Oh yes, it is simpler, certainly. Simple, linear, boring and shallow.

But you know what, its better that way. I mean, we don't deserve the options or choice that a more in depth edition might offer, because 3E did it wrong, so logically, the solution is the opposite of that. Because 3E produced such a badly organized and haphazard system, the solution logically is a system that presents the choices for you at the get go, that makes things obvious to you, that linearizes the system so that those pesky options won't lead to the lack of balance. Really, its for the best, for the sake of the balance you understand:smallsigh:


2. Feats: Interesting. I like the tier of feats, and how they scale upwards. A lot of them are different, but in 4e's mechanic balance (Where, you know, to-hit matters?), it's much better and more balanced. With magical items presented as such, even certain easily abused features (WINTERTOUCHED/LASTING FROST) are limited in the usefulness of the weapon; a frost weapon is really, really crap outside of Wintertouched/Lasting frost. Plus, with the retraining system built in, you can swap stuff out and NOT suck.

1) Oh yes, the tier of feats, where WotC is oh so nice (see patronizing) to simplify the game's selection options so we can have a much easier time figuring out how to work the system



Before I go on, on retraining: It represents learning and training. Skills fall out of disuse, so they're replaced. Makes perfect sense. It's much more sensible here, and less of a pain, than 3.5's system of "YOU LEARN THIS YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE BONED" until the retrain rules came out, and even then skills screwed you royally with 1 week/rank.

Yeah, how dare 3E actually hold you responsible for your choices. Through i find one thing rather interesting here, you say that it represents learning and training, but how the hell does forgetting how do something let you suddenly learn how to do something else just as well?


3. Spells. Alright, let's not talk about powers now, but the difference in spell system. No longer will a fighter or a paladin feel useless when the wizard goes LOL NO and ends an encounter in 4 seconds. Now the wizard can do awesome things like scout, fix things, and enchant without losing xp, shafting the rest of the party's dignity, or being a balance problem. Sure, Wizards are no longer as versatile as they used to be, but that's what made them so overpowering and strong; they were swiss-army nukes. Now they're swiss army knives. I like it, honestly. Though, I could go for a rope trick.... but hey, just create your own rituals, right?
Again, the medicine is worst than the cure. 3E's spells were horribly horribly broken, but they are far better in their general quality in terms of the theme, while the new wizard is basically just a combat blaster, with all of the none combat spells shunted into rituals. Personally, i think the 4E wizard would work well as a war wizard, but as the solution to magic, its a situation just as bad in the other direction (insert political metaphor here), because it limits the nature of the classes. Sure you don't have the problems of 3E, you've just replaced them with problems in the other direction


4. PrC's: Now we have PPs and EDs. Interesting. Allows you to keep a main class idea while getting nifty features to specialize (Or multiclass) as you like. I actually really dig it; no longer are the days of 1-level-dip abuse and 16 class hax, and the PPs tend to be generic enough to make your own fluff. We're all creative roleplayers, we're smart enough to do that, right? Right? On EDs: I'd like some good ones that AREN'T demigod, though. :< I mean, Demigod is generic enough to fit most concepts, but... DAYUM.

1) I note a lot of your complaints of PrCs could be cut and pasted here pretty easily, but what ever
2) I love you promotion of making up your own fluff. Fluff is just as an essential part of the game as mechanics, that is what makes 3E a good edition despite there many many flaws, and 4E has no fluff mentioning. Oh right, we can make up are own, but i remind you of that quote you provided "The ability of a DM to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design."
Basically, making up your own fluff doesn't excuse the job taht 4E did



5. Classes. Let's talk about powers. Powers make all classes different, interesting and unique without losing balance. Now, balance doesn't mean "FIGHTER CAN KILL DA WIZARD" (Cause trust me, Jerry, he can't, even in 4e.). It means "Each of us is a valid, useful part of a team and by working together we can overcome many obstacles."
Again, 4E solves the problem in the most heavy handed manner possible, in order to make everybody useful in a group, they had to design the classes in such a way they could work off each other perfectly. In order to do that, they needed to make a very specific style of play that supported that, and taht the classes exist to serve within that area. So 4E achieved their balance, by promoting only one style of gaming and holding it up as the ultimate ideal


Now, let's go back to fluff for a second: don't get caught up in names and descriptions. I have a former friend (read: wanker), who could NEVER get over Bloody Path. HOW CAN YOU MAKE SOMEONE HIT YOURSELF DURR HURR. Who NEEDS to know the specifics as long as you kick ass in the name of your god? Class names and specifics is the cancer that killed 3.5.
Ah yes, it was so horrible, 3E had actual bad story to their games and included details, i'm so glad 4E just focuses upon the important things, like combat and slaughter:smallbiggrin:
Because there is only one true way to play the game, all hail the true way:smallsigh:



We had a hundred classes and PrCs that had similar concepts with minute changes. 3.5 was a pisshole of WotC cashiers far more than 4e is or likely will be for a long time.
1) Not really, there was some overlap but generally they had there own niche. Again, fallacy and sterotypes, is this a patter now
2) Again, 4E is kinda doing all the stuff 3E is doing in terms of money, i mean look at how many splat books they've moved out? Cut that BS, because its unfounded
3) Fluff didn't kill 3E, it was crappy organization that killed it, not fluff, that is what puts it above 4E



Each class has a role, and each class can also perform different roles. Fighters can do striker well, Warlords can do decent damage, and warlocks can control. Wizards are still deathly powerful and needed in every game. So what if your powers are limited?! Refluff them! "That's not magic missile, that's LAZER BEAMS FROM MY EYES YOWZA!" And really? SOme of the classes that were dirt in 3.5 (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, Fighter, I'm looking at you) are freaking awesome now. Rangers are death with two blades and a bow, Fighters are LOL LOCKDOWN to LOL BEATDOWN, warlocks are the jack of all asskicking, and paladins? Paladin PPs make my DM cry. They're all awesome, they're all kickass, and they all are viable, fun options to play.
Again, 4E solves the problem by forcing them all into the realm of hack and slash.

Through i note something about your posts, you seem to be relying upon emotional sounding statements more than your



A quick word on alignments: the planescape system was dumb. Accept it. Even if it's less specific, I think how you play your character should matter more than what cheesy label you placed on it. 4e's might not be perfect, but it's good enough for roleplaying. I mean, if you're a good roleplayer who knows their concept and acts it out without needing strict "Guidelines" that sucked anyways.

Again, its bad because you say so? Could you actually go into detail, or rely upon a view taht isn't build upon sterotypes or fallacies

I address the aligniment issue in my blog, see link


In conclusion: 3.5 is is a corpulant load of fat drivel. She was good fun, but she ate too much and got fat. Give her a kiss and a pat on the rump, and go date the new, exciting 4e. Go back and give 3.5 a good pushin on the cushion every once in a while; I still run my 3.5 game and I love it to death, but I love my 4e game too.
Wow, apart from the inherent "Its bad because i made a lot of stereotype, fallacies and insults about it" view point, that is a absurdly disgusting, vile, vulgar, and possible sexist metaphor. ,


The games are both fun, exciting, and great for bonding.
Sure, in a "we all much kill things together" sort of way i suppose


Roleplaying is not inherent in the system; it comes from you. You decide if you are a nice, or fun, or interesting, or diverse, or weird character. It's YOU. If you say a rules system is bad for roleplaying, it's really just an excuse for your piss poor roleplaying.

Fallacy. A game that is inherently designed for hack and slash cannot be compared to a game that actually adds detail and content in terms of fluff. Roleplaying is an element that can be added, but so can balance. A duty of a game is to include the content of both



Last word: A note on Realism: This is D and mother$#(*ing D. You fight dragons with magic swords in a fantasy land with lesbian elf princesses with tatas bigger than my college tuition bill. You want freaking REALISM? If you want gritty realism, go play Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (lol YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BOAR), or something else. Please do not confuse D&D with being realistic in the first place.
Wow, the sheer vulgarity of this statement makes responding kinda painful, it forces me to actually point out the sheer vileness of what your saying.
1) Nothing in D&D makes massive breast and what not a requirement
2) willing suspension of disbelief, i can take a world with magic and fantasy creatures as long as it is done in a realistic logical fashion, not existing as a gamist excuse to slaughter things
3) have you ever seen a wild boar? Those things are bloody huge



DnD, realism, haha, etc.

Because that totally disproves what i just said


lolk.

What an eloquent and logical refute of what he said, it all makes sense now, that is such a proper response. Except it doesn't actually you know, make any point



lolk. You'll have to strain pretty far to exist in a world where massive lizards that breath fire and should be broken to pieces under their own weight exist, but okay.
Do i have to actually refute this? Its such a major fallacy thats been addressed all over the boards i don't know if i should bother

Basically having dragons i can take, if used logically


This seems to be a personal flaw then an actual problem. Might I provide a solution?

"Because it's a difficult combat technique and I'm too far along in the day to concentrate well enough to make sure I didn't foul it up by stabbing myself (Or you) in the face, now get back to taking blows for me/healing me/casting spells!"

So essentially the exact same thing


This is more of a personal problem than an inherent flaw of the system. Some things just can't be repeated often. Sword techniques, special stabs, they're all not easy to pull off and trying to do it over and over again would actually be an interesting way to explain basic meleeing; "Lemme try that move again... darn, can't get it right.. hold still..."

Wait, first you attack realism, then you use it as a defense? eh what?





So you agree that 3.5 is dead. I do too! Nothing's wrong with customization to a point, but needless complication is highly unnecessary. What does it prove? "Oh, I'm a ___ working for ___?" I can do that without a fancy prestige class name, and I can make it with a character that will survive a decent fight, too.

I'd challenge you definition of needless. but regardless, an attack on 3E doesn't suddenly validate 4E's flaws



ITT: Pretentious misspellings. Also, this paragraph is about skills, not feats. I addressed feats in a later paragraph saying that I enjoyed feats. Please do not make an argument implying I said something I did not, it's rather... petty.
wait a second, this is comical
I say this


Wait a second there. The beast taht killed 3E wasn't its options, its was the organization of the said options. It wasn't the avaiblity of the customization, it was the way the customization was set up, there was no set place of internal balence inherent in the system to be used as a reference point, and there defiently has no cross referencing going on there. If people had a damn chart that monitored all the existing skills and feats (ironically Blizzard has this actually in terms of their own mechanics) they could keep it from getting out of hand. So its not the option of customization thats a flaw, a claim like that is just silly, its like saying that depth is a flaw in a complicated book, the real reason is its presentation, or in this case orginization
and your response is this?



ITT: Pretentious misspellings. Also, this paragraph is about skills, not feats. I addressed feats in a later paragraph saying that I enjoyed feats. Please do not make an argument implying I said something I did not, it's rather... petty.

I just called you out on an unfounded claim, and you respond with complaints about minor misspellings (I'm dyslexic) and that i included the word feats (my bad). What kind of evasion is that?


Speaking of petty. How does this invalidate my point? You're not playing Peasants and Party Poopers, you're playing Dungeons and Dragons. These are skills that very rarely come up, and are underwhelming for anything you might do with them. Although if Craft (Fleshlight) came up I'd take it in a heartbeat.
it does twice, because
1) your trying to use stereotypes to prove you point
2) and you claim of unused skils is utterly unfounded and without any basis other than a fallacious claim


Spells, my dear Watson. Spells. Besides, it's not like anyone's gonna give you what they're worth anyways; magic item Wal-Marts tend to have stingy vendors.
And if i don't have that spell? Or if i'm in the gem basis? Or if i'm selling you know, a normal stature and i want to gather its worth?


Alright, let's nip this in the bud. About roughly half my game sessions are RP heavy. And by that I mean "Hay let's play Adventurer's everyday life!" while I sit around going FFFFFFFFFFFFF waiting for them to stop playing with the surrogate party daughter, and move on with the damn plot. I don't play combat-only games, but yet again, rules for something like RP only restrict creativity with a rules bound mindset. Furthermore, the vast majority of people I've played DnD with don't use appraise either; hell, it's not even useful past gems and other mundane crap.
1) I don't give a damn about wether you use appraise or not, i want to know if you can provide an actual figure proving that more than 50% of groups have never ever used taht skills
2) For a person who i nitpicky about spelling, your rather hard to understand in terms of paragraph structure, because i have absolutely no idea what your saying



Slow clap for the snippy comment.

coming from a man constantly curses?




Still, how do these skills add depth? "Oh, I have three skill points in fishing, let's roll to see how much SP I got!" If you really want to do things like this, we have Renaissance fairs. They're much more entertaining then sitting around playing Make Believe slice-of-life.

well, and i know this sounds odd, i actually enjoy making characters who are not designed to fit within the combat heavy style that D&D promotes, and i like having actual options avialible to me, to design my character in my own way, weather that is combat suitable or not, instead of having to conform to 4E's ideals of proper design



Holy crap, is that a line WITHOUT a childish quip?

Actually, your entire little rant there seems to fit the metaphor quite nicely, your just kinda railing again an imagined group of "RP" elites based upon a series of fallacies




The point is that wizards are over powerful to the point where they can do jobs without other classes, superseding their roles and emasculating other players. LogicNinja's guide is an excellent point on this. I was unaware he was popular here, but okay. I'm certain that just because he is popular means everything he says is completely pointless; at least, by your logic.

Except your missing the point, proving 3E bad doens't render 4E's solution proper.

Part of a stereotype is that the vast majority of that type of person eventually make it true.
Wow, thats not offensive, think about that in context of real life for a second


Let me provide an idea for you; if you are an 18 intelligence mage (Which is on the level of which you can cure cancer on the drive to work), with a squishy body, in a world full of big nasty things that can hurt you, are you going to pick up direct damage spells that aren't as effective as a thick meathead with a sword, or are you going to pick up spells that can instantly kill, disable, or screw over anything you throw them at? Hmm. Such a haaard decision. You might be playing for fun, but your character is probably playing for keeps. Keep that in mind.

1) 18 isn't cure cancer intellegence
2) Yeah i'm sure :roy: aggresses


Quote me directly where I say that.

I did, when i responded to it



3.5 Core: PHB, DMG, MM, XPH
4e Core: PHB, DMG, MM.
4>3 where I come from.


XPH isn't core
And didn't you get the memo, wizards has changed the nature of its core


Could you come up with no better? Seriously, I could be getting ready for my 3.5 game or fapping right now.

I'm not proving 4E wrong, i'm proving you wrong. Much easier


Really? All of these classes are subpar, and don't really justify themselves as a valid option, especially when you could use standard classes and ROLEPLAY to make yourself a character like this.

and your going to back this with?

See second half of the post.


where you evade the point:smallconfused:




Really? It seems like your post is nothing more than an assault against my post and point of view. Like I said, this post was not aimed towards you. Hell, I don't even know who the hell you are, or why you insist on babbling like this; half your points aren't even valid, and you obviously don't look at an entire picture, think, then post with valid and coherent reasoning. Are you some kind of massive troll?
1) No, its a challenge to your use of fallacies, unbacked claims, lies and stereotypes
2) You post is on the forum, if your putting your viewpoint out, expect a response, you do so in an inflammatory manner, all the more likely
3) Why would i care about what you think about me, its irrelevant to the fact
4) Wait, you actively avoided responding to my directly challenges of your logic, and i'm not looking at the whole picture
5) If my points aren't valid, why didn't you bother to actually counter them with something other than "aww, you wrong"?
6) I find the idea of my being a troll, when you just went on a little attack on 3E involving more vulgarities and inflammatory statements than yahtzee, without the funny.
7) regardless, you obviously don't want a response, so i'll let you vent while ignoring you, have a nice day


and in short

Again, I'd rather have 3E's flawed grandeur than 4E's perfected mediocrity.
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

wait, i think i missed something, how is people using a free market considered mooching?
from
EE

[KKL]

{Scrubbed}

[EvilElitest]

{Scrubbed}

Wait, i just explained the holes in his arguments, and you respond by insulting me rather than explain your statements. enough of this, i'm calling in a flame,if your not going to act civil and rely upon childish insults, i'm not going to deal with it :smallsigh:
from
EE

[Gao]

Due to the fact that I have better things to do than write essay amounts to argue with you, I'm just going to say what my points are. For goodness' sake, you're calling 4e wizards "Blasters" which is clearly not what they are, and obviously you go through a post piece by piece to refute it instead of reading the entire thing. {Scrubbed}

1. A good roleplayer should not need rules to roleplay so as much as they need rules to limit themselves from playing pretend. If I want to play someone who's athletic, I shouldn't need to balance myself out between three skills while being completely inept at all three. If I want to play someone social, I shouldn't need to play mathematics with skill points. Overcomplication slows down the game and makes it less fun.
2. DnD has been and always will be a fantasy wargame on a squad-based scale. It's how it was made, it is how it will always be. It takes players who want to roleplay and are willing to make it fun to have a good experience.
3. By making one group of people overpowerful while punishing everyone else who made a choice not to use that group, you discourage diverse roleplaying amongst the player base.
4. 4e and 3.5e do not make players great or poor roleplayers. That's their own part. My point is that a lot of the 'problems' that make 4e bad for the players aren't problems of the system, but problems of the players themselves. Do you really need your hand held to role play? Are you that uncreative? 4e encourages creativity, 3.5 does not.
5. Stats are less important in 4e than in 3.5. Is there something wrong with that? Do you really need that crutch to say "Oh, eye am ___ cause I have ----- Skill!"? Is it that important? You see less options in 4e as limiting; I see it as freedom.
6. Creative applications of skills are rewarded in 4e. In 3.5, all of the 'possible' uses for skills are laid out, and anything else is really DM fiat. 4e has several defined uses, but also plenty of general uses.
7. 4e's "Lack of Options" is currently due to the fact it has 6 books out, max, if you count the DMG and the Campaign Guide to Faerun. Saying "There are no options" is an argument that probably could have been said when 3e came out; and in time, that proved pointless. "Less options" is not a flaw inherent in the system.
8. Problems in the system and problems of the players. Is the problem at hand a player problem, or a system problem? Does 4e really say "U NO ROLEPLAY," or is that a problem with players? Really, if you're so dead set on a game with light if any combat, you're probably best on a RPG forum instead of rollan dice in a combat simulator. But if you want a good set of rules for dealing with fantasy combat combined with rules for dealing with other situations? DnD.

{Scrubbed} I'm going to eat my curry cup noodle, finish my 3.5 game, and get ready to run my Super Robot Wars game on Wednesday.

{Scrubbed}

[Mando Knight]

Wait, i just explained the holes in his arguments, and you respond by insulting me rather than explain your statements. enough of this, i'm calling in a flame,if your not going to act civil and rely upon childish insults, i'm not going to deal with it :smallsigh:

You don't back up any of your arguments with solid, concrete fact... so they lack clout as much as the points that you try to refute. You also use plenty of strawman arguments... the post comes out like an angry marshmallow--large and filled with bile, but lacking substance.

[afroakuma]

End it. All of you. What are you hoping to prove? Neither "side" will concede to another, and any sense of debate is degenerating to the point of uselessness.


7) regardless, you obviously don't want a response, so i'll let you vent while ignoring you, have a nice day


Now. I'm tired of arguing with walls.

There. Closing statements. You've both said you're done - keep to your word.

[EvilElitest]

You don't back up any of your arguments with solid, concrete fact... so they lack clout as much as the points that you try to refute. You also use plenty of strawman arguments... the post comes out like an angry marshmallow--large and filled with bile, but lacking substance.

isn't your post that? You accuse me of this, but you just did that. Isn't there an actual point? Mind explaining why, except with some actual backing. Like proving it, because i think that i did a pretty sound job in pointing out the flaws in taht argument

And to Gao, i've already addressed everything you said, but i have to comment, i've already said that i have dyslexia many times on these boards, so accusations of trolling seems a little inapprote .
from
EE
edit
we have a truce now? Oh sorry then, i'll just ignore them, nothing worth seeing

[afroakuma]

EvilElitest, please. Please, give it a rest.

[EvilElitest]

EvilElitest, please. Please, give it a rest.

see edit
from
EE

[afroakuma]

My apologies. Thank you.

[RPGuru1331]

You don't back up any of your arguments with solid, concrete fact... so they lack clout as much as the points that you try to refute. You also use plenty of strawman arguments... the post comes out like an angry marshmallow--large and filled with bile, but lacking substance.

That actually makes it sound better. You reminded me of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Everything's better with the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man.

[Gao]

There. Closing statements. You've both said you're done - keep to your word.

On an important note, where does one post about homebrew settings, without anything concerning stats? In here makes sense, but all the topics seem to concern homebrew rule creations, as opposed to simply settings.

[afroakuma]

I don't follow. You mean that you would like to post a new homebrew setting? Just the fluff? You would do that here.

[EvilElitest]

not on this thread through.
from
EE

[Gao]

I don't follow. You mean that you would like to post a new homebrew setting? Just the fluff? You would do that here.

That's the spot. Thank you. Stupid question, I know, but it seems like every thread here is rules based, and I'd rather not mispost a topic.

Edit: Damnit too much 2ch is confusing my terminology.

[Poison_Fish]

On an important note, where does one post about homebrew settings, without anything concerning stats? In here makes sense, but all the topics seem to concern homebrew rule creations, as opposed to simply settings.

I'd say go for it anyway. Fluff can be just as interesting as Mechanics, if not more. Though I've actually seen some people post it in Media of all places.

[afroakuma]

Gao, most of what we do is stat-based because it's easier, frankly. Also easier to incorporate into a running game.

However, look at Lappy's Lords of Mechanus for an example of a major fluff project. Heck, most of the campaign setting projects are like that. It's just that they seem inactive because many of the creators reserve the right to sole use of those threads.

[Nerd-o-rama]

That actually makes it sound better. You reminded me of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Everything's better with the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man.So to get rid of EE, we have to cross the streams?

What if we just want to get him a spellchecker?

[Meek]

That's the spot. Thank you. Stupid question, I know, but it seems like every thread here is rules based, and I'd rather not mispost a topic.

Edit: Damnit too much 2ch is confusing my terminology.

Fluff is still Homebrew Design, since it's Home-Brewed and Designed. :smallsmile:

[Poison_Fish]

So to get rid of EE, we have to cross the streams?

What if we just want to get him a spellchecker?

I think we may need to journey to the fires of Mount MSWord to do that. There would be many dangers. Namely, 80's esque bandits in junk cars and crazy hair do's trying to stop us. I for one really don't feel like fighting in thunderdome just for that rare piece of technology from the long gone days.

[EvilElitest]

So to get rid of EE, we have to cross the streams?

What if we just want to get him a spellchecker?

I use spell checker?:smallmad:
from
EE

[afroakuma]

Lay of his spelling, guys. He's dyslexic.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think we may need to journey to the fires of Mount MSWord to do that. There would be many dangers. Namely, 80's esque bandits in junk cars and crazy hair do's trying to stop us. I for one really don't feel like fighting in thunderdome just for that rare piece of technology from the long gone days.Put down Fallout 3 already, dude. It's been 17 hours.

And EE knows I'm messing with him. If he was going to fix his spelling by now, he would have.

[afroakuma]

Fair enough, then.

[thevorpalbunny]

Due to the fact that I have better things to do than write essay amounts to argue with you, I'm just going to say what my points are. For goodness' sake, you're calling 4e wizards "Blasters" which is clearly not what they are, and obviously you go through a post piece by piece to refute it instead of reading the entire thing. It's like talking to a wall. A wall that hides behind dyslexia as an excuse to be a troll.

1. A good roleplayer should not need rules to roleplay so as much as they need rules to limit themselves from playing pretend. If I want to play someone who's athletic, I shouldn't need to balance myself out between three skills while being completely inept at all three. If I want to play someone social, I shouldn't need to play mathematics with skill points. Overcomplication slows down the game and makes it less fun.
2. DnD has been and always will be a fantasy wargame on a squad-based scale. It's how it was made, it is how it will always be. It takes players who want to roleplay and are willing to make it fun to have a good experience.
3. By making one group of people overpowerful while punishing everyone else who made a choice not to use that group, you discourage diverse roleplaying amongst the player base.
4. 4e and 3.5e do not make players great or poor roleplayers. That's their own part. My point is that a lot of the 'problems' that make 4e bad for the players aren't problems of the system, but problems of the players themselves. Do you really need your hand held to role play? Are you that uncreative? 4e encourages creativity, 3.5 does not.
5. Stats are less important in 4e than in 3.5. Is there something wrong with that? Do you really need that crutch to say "Oh, eye am ___ cause I have ----- Skill!"? Is it that important? You see less options in 4e as limiting; I see it as freedom.
6. Creative applications of skills are rewarded in 4e. In 3.5, all of the 'possible' uses for skills are laid out, and anything else is really DM fiat. 4e has several defined uses, but also plenty of general uses.
7. 4e's "Lack of Options" is currently due to the fact it has 6 books out, max, if you count the DMG and the Campaign Guide to Faerun. Saying "There are no options" is an argument that probably could have been said when 3e came out; and in time, that proved pointless. "Less options" is not a flaw inherent in the system.
8. Problems in the system and problems of the players. Is the problem at hand a player problem, or a system problem? Does 4e really say "U NO ROLEPLAY," or is that a problem with players? Really, if you're so dead set on a game with light if any combat, you're probably best on a RPG forum instead of rollan dice in a combat simulator. But if you want a good set of rules for dealing with fantasy combat combined with rules for dealing with other situations? DnD.

Now. I'm tired of arguing with walls. I'm going to eat my curry cup noodle, finish my 3.5 game, and get ready to run my Super Robot Wars game on Wednesday.
Re: point 1, 4, 5, and 8.

In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
4e gives few to no tools for roleplaying. Good role-players can continue roleplaying without them, but in 3.5 the tools are there if they want them.

Re: point 2
Blatant assertion, and false to boot. D&D started as a tactical variant of wargaming. AD&D moved further into role-playing territory, as did every subsequent change. Until 4e, at which point they decided to go back to wargaming.

Re: point 3
With reasonable expectations of occasional ambushes and using the guidelines for encounter difficulty in the DMG (10% EL <lvl, 20% easy with a trick, 50% EL=lvl, 15% EL=lvl+1-4, 5% impossible), in addition to disallowing the more blatant exploits, reasonable party balance can be kept up to ~15. Fighter types are at a disadvantage because many designers don't understand that after 5th level they can do things that no real warrior ever dreamed of (Example: Ajax and Hector, best non-divine fighters in Greek myths, were both, as described, about 5th level, possibly 6th. Aragorn from LotR is 5th level as well.) Because designers have a block on giving them the ungodly-awesome reality-defying abilities they deserve, they are at a disadvantage from the get-go. This isn't, however, a problem with the system.
In straight core with the considerations I outlined earlier to prevent the 15-minute adventuring day, the balance is pretty good, though clerics are mildly more powerful, mostly because in past editions (and many places still) no one ever wants to play the "healb**ch."
Re: point 7
Anything you can do it 4e core you can do in 3.5e core. The reverse is not true. Also, the rigid framework for class structure with power lists etc. and craziness for balance inherently limits what can be done with 4e.
Re: point 6
If by "reward creativity" you are referring to the skill challenge system, you are wrong, though this would be understandable because you are agreeing with what the book says. It says that you can use a skill for a non-standard purpose to include it in a challenge, but that you have to give it a more difficult DC. This means that is almost never correct to actually use a weird use for a skill; numerically it is better to leave it to the "professionals."
And I still think that Joe Fighter shouldn't automagically be good at everything he needs to be good at. The fighter probably has too few skill points, I would prefer 4+Int mod or better, but he shouldn't be any better than Joe Commoner (oh wait, in 4e there is no Joe Commoner, he's a monster now!) at climbing unless he's spent time learning to climb. The 4e skill system is broken six ways from Tuesday.

[afroakuma]

*sigh* We just finished giving this a rest.

[EvilElitest]

damnit, on one hand i realize the need for a truce, but i can't in good faith allow another good man to dive into those damp dark caves without back up. bugger,
from
EE

[Mando Knight]

That actually makes it sound better. You reminded me of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. Everything's better with the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man.

You know, I actually forgot about that guy while writing the post...

[afroakuma]

EvilElitest, I'm expecting that the other side of this argument has decided to honor the truce and stand down. vorpalbunny may simply not have seen it. Let's leave it be at this point. The argument hasn't gotten to the 5th page; we should keep it that way.

And thank you for sticking to the truce.

[thevorpalbunny]

I would give up, but someone is wrong on the internet, and I must fix it.
I have too much misplaced faith in the inherent rationality of anyone intelligent enough to play D&D to do anything else.

[afroakuma]

Was that a sarcastic way of acceding to the truce?

[EvilElitest]

I would give up, but someone is wrong on the internet, and I must fix it.
I have too much misplaced faith in the inherent rationality of anyone intelligent enough to play D&D to do anything else.

i'll comment more tomorrow, but considering the many stereotypes that D&D has been subjected to (and 4E is appealing to) there is some basis. All games, no matter how good have some problems in the fanbase be it D&D, WotC, or LotfR. Except FATAL, because there are no good people
from
EE

[Poison_Fish]

Put down Fallout 3 already, dude. It's been 17 hours.

And EE knows I'm messing with him. If he was going to fix his spelling by now, he would have.

But.. but.. I need to find the money to repair my shotgun ;_;.

Also, both of us are messing with him. I think I've already done and dealt with the spelling stuff, so no need to repeat myself.

[Zeta Kai]

Well, I'll let it be known that I am adhering to the ceasefire agreement, & I bare no malice towards anyone here (except for myself, for getting involved in yet another flame war; old habits die hard :smallredface:).

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: I'm not sure if this thread is through or not, but please keep it civil. Thanks.

[Samurai Jill]

[4E] has moved the level of world abstraction further into 'game' and away from simulation. 4e encapsulates a lot of rules into powers and special actions that are fairly well defined in scope and outcome - there is less room for tweaking.

...There is less confusion but there is also less variety and realism... People will munchkin all the available powers and select the most powerful and then abandon them because they're done, or find the powers are mostly the same because they share the same game design principles.

I think the strength of D&D and role playing emerges from the gray areas...
Sigurd
Is nobody else here familiar with The Big Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model) or GNS theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory)?

I'll recap briefly. Observations suggest that at any one time, the GM, rules and players can further one of three goals- the exploration of themes, character and drama (Narrative,) the pursuit of balanced tactical challenges and compelling, incremental rewards (Game,) or the faithful representation of an external reality or inner consistency (Simulation.) Adhering closely to any one of these goals will inevitably come at the expense of one (or both) of the others.
Let me explain: When you're on a quest to save the princess from demonic sacrifice, what is the most dramatically appropriate thing that could happen? -why you arrive in the nick of time, of course! What is the most tactically satisfying thing to do? -you arrive damned early. What is the most likely thing to happen? -you arrive too damned late.
See?
This is an artificial example, but rather than have me go on, I suggest reading System Does Matter (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html):


Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.

One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A "good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design.

There is nothing wrong with any of these three play styles, by themselves. There really isn't. And it is sometimes possible to arrive at a reasonable compromise between a couple of these goals- To have a game with strong mechanical balance that's still more or less plausible in terms of simulation, or a game that's strong on narrative while still maintaining a respect for tactics and material gratification. Certainly, it is possible to have a game that fails at all three.
Because no-one can deny that a vast rift separated- and continues to separate- D&D from anything resembling an accurate simulation of anything apart from itself- yet it's rules, initially simple, ballooned over time to the point of incongruity, thus excluding the possibility of a smooth narrative experience, while adherence to class and levels as a means of character advancement artificially pigeonholed your character in certain roles and penalised you for fleshing out backgrounds in any mechanically rewarding sense. But as for mechanical balance and tactical finesse? With Monks vs. Druids? And Pun-Pun?

What WotC have done with Fourth Edition is taken a good, long look at what D&D could potentially be good at, honed and refined it, and threw out the rest, and from what I could tell, they did a damned fine job of it. For 90% of D&D players, 4E is Good News. But if you've been left out of the cold with a bad case of sour grapes, here is a suggestion: Try Some Other Role-Playing Games. Really. Sorceror, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Amber, Runequest, GURPS- anything apart from 3E D&D. Seriously. You may be quite pleasantly surprised.

[Zeta Kai]

Omigod, not this again. Thanks, Roland, for stirring up the fight again.

For the record, I hereby pledge to recuse myself from this thread. I implore everyone who is not fond of flame wars from doing the same.

[thevorpalbunny]

D&D 3.5e is a damn good simulation, a good role-playing framework, and not inherently unbalanced (though breakable).
I have now unsubscribed.

[Samurai Jill]

Look, I appreciate that people here have a lot of emotional investment in the old system, and D&D has always had some very nice fluff to go along with the increasingly clunky mechanics: We've all been seduced by the setting and colour at one point or another. But the only reason why people are having this disagreement is because earlier RPGs- and D&D wasn't the sole culprit by any means- tried to be all things to all people.
There is no rule set in the world that will be able to cater to all your tastes when two players have radically divergent creative priorities. Recognise it, and move on. You will (eventually) be happier for it.

(P.S: If you want to try something familiar, try True20 (http://true20.com/). It's a good example of what d20 could be if you chucked out most of the relics and took things in more of a 'lightweight simulation' direction. Or, heck, if you really want to honour G. Gygax, try Lejendary Adventure (http://www.lejendary.com/la/template.php?page=home&style=blaze).)