Fenix
Journeyman
Who in the hell do you think I am?
Posts: 162
|
Post by Fenix on Jan 1, 2010 14:33:16 GMT -5
Too many games. Bah. Theres a WoD game going (Tony's) Theres a WoD gameing Starting (Once a month, yours) A Warhammer game Starting (Mine) A Paused Burning Wheel (Yours) And the Total War Warhammer is still floating in the air till we have a system in place. (That could take months) Brians WoD game ended, did it not? I don't know if hes comeing out with a new one. Alex is running a Test Giest, I don't know if that has kicked off yet. Not really much going on. Landis you sir are wrong, and here is why. The hunter game is still going on, it is paused till the holidays are over. And we as a group have want it to keep going, but B needs time to think of story. B is planing on doing a WoD game, with those that are interested. He said he was putting it on hold but he mentioned that he was hit with a idea for the game. So it should be on the table in the near future. Rock and I are running WoD games also. Like told everyone interested that I wasn't planning on getting it started until the middle of Jan at the soonest. Rock mentioned starting after holidays as well. Both games will be played like once or twice a month to my knowledge. Tony and rob are involved in a game on sun morn, not to mention what game Tony runs on Saturdays with his cousins. Your warhammer games, the one you want to started and if you still need to finish the other one up. And I am certain there are games going on that I have no idea about, or they are just on the "wish list" right now. I for one work a full time job and can't rp all the time, espically since I work 2nd shift. I can't say for the others cause some of you are dedicated. Also remeber the LAST time there was too many games on the table. It was a rp burn out for a lot of us. So I say you are wrong in the fact that there are not that many games on the table, sir.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Jan 1, 2010 16:14:46 GMT -5
Well Rob and Mine game is on hold til Chris comes back to gaming.
|
|
|
Post by roborob on Jan 1, 2010 16:16:21 GMT -5
i dunno if that will happen and maybe we should just abandon it and start another with an open invite to him when he has time??
|
|
|
Post by labael on Jan 1, 2010 16:22:48 GMT -5
Sounds good to me. Though I'm not DMing/Storytelling. My Saturday game with my cousins plus the werewolf game are enough for my Dming.
|
|
|
Post by reigneer on Jan 18, 2010 20:39:58 GMT -5
I gotta say, 3.5 was my bread n butter lol if you knew what you were doing, you could make some really awesome characters. But I have been playing fourth edition. It's not bad. Different, but not bad. I also have a lot of experience with 2nd edition. The only thing that bugs me about fourth edition? Lotta new books.... But my favorite thing about DnD? ''NOTE: These are GUIDELINES!'' One of the best lines in the book. By that line alone, I think they are all awesome. (though it got a lot easier when everything was set to highroll=good, lowroll=bad)
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Jan 28, 2010 19:34:25 GMT -5
i started in 3.5, and then dmed 3.5. i like 4.0 quite a bit and bought alot of books. i feel as the supplements come out that the customization will be more availible. i like it quite a bit, find the dming to be alot simpler; some honestly cooler abilities, and overall more enjoyable to the dm and players.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Jan 28, 2010 20:15:36 GMT -5
Yes, the simplicity is something to be admired about it.
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Jan 29, 2010 7:46:51 GMT -5
i do see a few faults in 4.0, of course, mostly in the lack of sheer customization that the other sets had. but, honestly, 3.5 had nothing if you look at 2.0. as it goes though, with customization comes complexity; i heard it took forever to level up a char in 2.0 (to do the paperwork for it, not actually gaining the exp). it takes what, 5, maybe ten minutes in 4.0? at max. i feel that it works quite well. the fact that i can have a gnoll woth an int of more than ten, however, is kinda scary XD
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Feb 13, 2010 19:01:28 GMT -5
'nuff said Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by labael on Feb 17, 2010 18:14:23 GMT -5
You know I'd be happier if Wizards would have named it something else and continued 3.5 . . .or made a superior product, but as of yet it is a simpler product worthy of the Hasbro name.
The character creation is still a little too complex for my 12 year old brother to sit through but even my 5 year old sister can play through combat interesting enough.
I would like to say I am neither scared nor confused, Sir. I have merely complaints about a game that was supposed to be an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Feb 17, 2010 19:39:13 GMT -5
So what I got out of the previous post:
Superior=More Complicated?
Superior=Not for the dummy-dum-dums?
To me superior is defined as elegant and allowing more and varied options, which is what 4e is in abundance.
Should they have changed the name of the game between 2nd and 3rd? There was a vast difference between those. How about between 1st and 2nd?
Complaints can be made about any edition. And I challenge you to say that nothing has been improved between 3.5 and 4e.
What would, in your opinion, have made it a "superior product"?
It is all a matter of opinion apparently...and to that I refer to one of my previous posts and will not try to argue against opinions. Throw me some facts and I'll counter them.
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Mar 29, 2010 9:00:06 GMT -5
fact- as ive seen, the books cost alot of money. if you go from that perspective alone, someone who already has all of the 3.5 books will find it superior, whereas someone who has none of the books will be able to find 4.0 books in stores and therefor find that superior. but when is the game entirely about money? its not, unless we where all rich (yeah, id like to see that day too guys)
the guys at wizards are quoted as developing 4.0 to be "simpler for the new player, while still haveing the grip on a vetran that keeps them playing"
how many people remember 3.5's save rolls? now you have a flat number, defined by your set of stats and skills. simpler, but a vetran would know how to exploit this relationship to build a resistant character. that alone makes me think they succeded.
my first 3.5 character took a half an hour with our two dms to make a BASIC elf druid. nothing was special about him, except he knew how to make and percive poisons. i can give the group of four players the players handbooks and supplements, and in an hour have them all ready to be rolling dice because they are done with everything. backgrounds, abilitys, it all. what did i do? tell them what i wont let them use. and play videogames.
so, end result- 3.5, due to the time it has been out, has some hardcore fans and alot of customization. 4.0 hasnt been out near as long, so it has a way to go. they recently released the 4.0 psionic heros (so now we have arcane, divine, primal, martial, and psionic) to mess with.
i think we should all sit and play a game of 4.0, then play a game of 3.5 with characters as close to there 4.0 counterparts as we can, then make our minds up. sounds fun to me. ill dm, if you would like
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Mar 29, 2010 11:46:23 GMT -5
You suggest to play pretty much the same game twice, just to see how the rules and system fares For each? Ha! Well, now there's an idea to make me give up any D&D whatsoever.
I wish you luck on your endeavor though.
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Apr 3, 2010 15:33:01 GMT -5
well, if your where to truely give up on something, then you wouldnt care about our opinions, and we wouldnt care about yours on the subject, correct? my thoughts where simple, do two things incredibly simple, with the two rule sets, and see who likes what. thats all. and its actually worked in the past. try using windows xp, vista, and seven to do some simple things. heck, find the "accesories" folder. getting two it, the menus are visually different, and so some people complain. find your "programs" folder on your computer without using the search function thats on most pcs. again, its different. thats all im saying to do.
and its not like id force you to participate. you dont even have to watch. it was just an offer
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Apr 3, 2010 19:18:46 GMT -5
Wow, your definition of simple is very interesting. Last I checked, operating computer programs like those mentioned above should take only a few moments. Whereas player characters for D&D (well at least mine anyway) are always a lot more time and effort invested just in creation, not to mention finding a GM willing to run the same game twice, oh yeah and a few players willing to play the same story twice, and let's not leave out that a fairly standard D&D game lasts around ten-fifteen sessions of about four hours each.
So yeah, okay you might as well have asked me to work for UPS and Federal Express each for a month to compare their similarities.
Appreciate the sentiment though, most folks besides my close friends could give a damn what I think. And my view on giving it up stands with the same opinion as I had above. Only a little heavier fueled now. If I wanted to play the same old D&D game mote than once, i'd still have Baldur's Gate or Diablo...
Thanks though.
|
|