|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 2, 2009 2:36:15 GMT -5
The following thread rapidly became a two-sided rant on which version of our beloved game was the superior, so I have made a new posting for this to allow room for additional opinions on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by shandog on Dec 2, 2009 18:58:52 GMT -5
I've been playing a 4th edition campaign with some friends in the Hershey/Harrisburg Area. Its a real blast, really restores balance to D&D, so you don't have wildly different power of characters depending on how they are built.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 3, 2009 4:17:35 GMT -5
Tell us more about it! I love to read about other games. Just throw us a highlight reel. Anyone else seeing this, do the same, let's see some chatter folks.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 3, 2009 6:48:55 GMT -5
Thank God! Another person who appreciates 4th edition. I'd love to get a 4th ed. game going sometime in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 3, 2009 15:59:25 GMT -5
I think I have sat aside long enough without a D&D setting on the table. Admittedly, I am still slow to choose from the myriad of abilities 4E presents, it is still much easier to decide that the warwagon o' options that 3.5 over-encumbered us with.
I am game to give 4E another shot. Hopefully with a larger group of active players though. I kinda killed the last game with my want to take on the useless untrained city guard. (oops)
|
|
rlandis
Journeyman
FOR THE EMPIRE!
Posts: 224
|
Post by rlandis on Dec 3, 2009 16:08:41 GMT -5
I'm a 3.5 fan. I Enjoy 4'th ed... But I reminds me too much of an MMO on the TT.
I LOVE THE COMBAT OF 4'th ED!
I LOVE IT!
But I don't play DnD for the Combat. I play it for the rp. To me, the skills and set up of 3.5 is more creative in that department and doesn't generalise every skill and ability.
For Combat, 4'th... For Rp, 3.5
|
|
|
Post by labael on Dec 12, 2009 15:55:00 GMT -5
I'll say it once and I'll say it again "I'll be a PC in 4th ed but I don't want to ever DM it again."
|
|
rlandis
Journeyman
FOR THE EMPIRE!
Posts: 224
|
Post by rlandis on Dec 15, 2009 10:04:59 GMT -5
To me, 4'th ed feels like an MMO on paper.
All of your attacks are cheesy moves that if your in an mmo have the same animation with just different colors and effects.
I hate how all of the skills were generalized into these little groups, as that removes from the game alot of Rp Elements.
Here is my logic- A char in 3rd may be great at Diplomacy but be REALLY bad at charming a girl over. In 4'th hes great at both if hes good at one.
I enjoyed 3.5's ability to have "Specialists." You could have the "face", the "brute", the "Know it all."
Even then, those generalizations could be broken down even more so.
In 4'th ed, they are all about "all or nothing."
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 15, 2009 21:24:17 GMT -5
Alright Landis, I just need to vent a little. I can't convince you that it doesn't feel like an MMO on paper, because I can't really see how 4e and 3.5 is different in that aspect. (3.0 and 3.5 were complained at for being Diablo copies back when Grognards hated 3.0 and 3.5 because they weren't 2nd edition.) In 3.5 all of your attacks are...cheesy moves that have no flavor unless you're a mage and then you have descriptor text...just like 4e. Hmmm. If you don't bother to add you own flavor, then don't complain. 4e adds so much more to combat than 3.5s I attack...ok now I attack...just to change it up, I'll attack...Now if you're playing something other than a fighter you have the glorious myriad of options such as...attack...or sneak attack...or feint...or spells...hmmm not so much a myriad as it is bereft of options. Oh well. At least your right as far as RP is concerned...oh wait, nevermind. Lets take a look at the skills that were "lost". List of 3.5 Skills: Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Concentrate, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Heal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump. Knowledge, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Spot, Survival, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device, and finally but definitely not least...Use Rope. List of 4e skills: Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Jump, Tumble), Arcana (Knowledge, Spellcraft), Athletics (Climb, Jump, Swim), Bluff (Bluff, Disguise), Diplomacy (Diplomacy), Dungeoneering (Knowledge, Survival Underground), Endurance (New for doing things such as swimming and running over long periods of time as well as resisting poisons and diseases), Heal (Heal), History (Knowledge, Possibly Decipher Script), Insight (Sense Motive, Spellcraft), Intimidate (Intimidate), Nature (Handle Animal, Knowledge, Ride, Survival), Perception (Listen, Search, Spot), Religion (Knowledge), Stealth (Hide, Move Silently), Streetwise (Gather Information, Knowledge), and Thievery (Disable Device, Escape Artist, Forgery, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand) The only real skills that we've seemingly lost are Appraise, Concentrate, Craft, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Appraise, Craft, Perform, Profession: Any associated skill could be used to appraise an object, make an object, perform, or make small amounts of money. Concentrate: No longer needed, but could be subbed out for Endurance. Use Magic Device: No longer needed but could be subbed out for Arcana. Use Rope: My favorite skill ever , but could be subbed out for Thievery or possibly, its a stretch, acrobatics...if it's truly needed. You'll notice that all of the original RP skills are there. Now to address the specialization of skills...There are two ways to specialize, take the skill as trained and then further take the skill specialization feat...done. Seriously, this represents real life better than the previous edition. First you have general aptitude, represented by not being trained in a skill. Second you have general training, represented by being trained in a skill. Third, you have racial and class bonuses to skills. Finally, you have specialization as represented by the feat. There are a ridiculous number of ways to specialize in 4e from choice of race, choice of class (heroic, paragon, and epic), choice of skills, choice of abilities and choice of feats. None of the individual choices are more tasty than others from an objective point of view...now that's not saying that a specific combination will blow balls or rock ass but that's beside the point. I don't care if you don't like 4e, but please don't argue points that don't exist. Just say you don't like 4e because it isn't 3.5. Oh and one more thing...the skills in WoD are extremely generalized in some departments and highly specific in others...does that make it harder to RP in WoD? On the flip side, the skills in Star Wars D6 and Alternity are highly specific, does that make it easier to RP in those systems?
|
|
|
Post by roborob on Dec 16, 2009 0:41:08 GMT -5
Ok 4th edition is an mmo based game and your really can't say it isn't. you have x,y,or z that are instant recharge, a,b,c that have a short cooldown and v,t,e that have a long cooldown. now combat starts and your mash your combo xxaxxvxxtxxyxxz oh look he is dead, next guy. there is no room for outside the box strategy. the only redeeming things is the simplified skills and the fact that you can pull from one of two stats for your saves. another example of the mmo ifying is grapple. spell casting is now soooo limited. i love picking from a huge list of specific spells rather than having one catch all spell. but as far as your are saying about the 3rd edition bashers you are correct. 3rd edition is more hack and slash than 2nd. each edition pushes farther from role playing and closer to just "me crog me smash, me loot, me smash, me loot, etc" you need a balance. i think a good role playing system has a clear percise battle system but gives the players more to do out of combat than in. if you see craft on a skills list that is a plus. in any of the editions you can role play it is just i feel the older games were built more for it and the newers are just to smash stuff and level. the best rp system i think is the pladium/shadowrun/rifts system. suceed a skill 2 xp, fail 1 xp, kill an enemy 0 xp, kill an enemy and save someone 2 xp, kill and enemy and save a village 5 xp, kill an enemy and save the world 50 xp. as you can see you are encouraged to play to find out who to kill and to use your skills. the down side is i dare you to survive to see level 2!
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Dec 16, 2009 6:08:50 GMT -5
WAIT WHAT?? Hold the bus...but after Rob's last addition (and Dicky's), I have to help you defend. Not that you need it, but you're not online right now, and I am.
I may not have the terminology right, but this is how it is squared in 4E.
You argue that 4E is not RP heavy...well, no system is unless you add it. I mean, story doesn't produce itself, it is the players "job" in ANY role-playing game to identify (or in some cases make) conflict, and then work together a plan to deal with that conflict, and then resolve that conflict. We call this a role-playing game.
But that wasn't really your argument, you said "3rd edition is more hack and slash than 2nd. each edition pushes farther from role playing ... i think a good role playing system has a clear precise battle system but gives the players more to do out of combat than in. ...in any of the editions you can role play it is just i feel the older games were built more for it and the newer are just to smash stuff and level."
Let's be clear, 4E has set up "challenges", in that, no matter how you overcome/run away from/complete them, they award experience, and a gage for this experience is provided so that the characters are free to grow in levels even if all they ever do is practice their skills to challenge themselves. As you gain more knowledge of a skill, it is harder to benefit from success with it, showing that you are becoming more of an expert/professional and see little challenge in it.
I am not a huge fan of 4E (yet), but it doesn't so much have to do with the rules being worded differently, because its all pretty much still there. My beef was I built a few characters that I truly loved, and then 4E released, and immediately our party split to either side, arguing their points. When it first came out, I could not create my Changeling Beguiler/Mind-bender any longer. And that honestly got me pretty steamed, especially since our GM wanted to move that game's story into 4E in order to continue it. I'm sorry, but an "illusionist" wizard is just not the same.
HOWEVER, Rangers (which were my favored class for years) finally got that extra edge they have always needed in 4E without all that damned multi-classing, feat-tree building nonsense. The new ranger is everything he should have been for years. Even though 3.5 rangers were decent, they were pretty easily obsolete as soon as new base classes came out, especially from the Book of Nine Swords, and a few other guides that took a ranger-esque build and made it more flexible. I mean, come on, the Fighter and the Druid either by themselves shadowed most ranger builds where no multi-classing was involved.
Now, I came here to argue role-playing values in 4E...here's the thing: the books shouldn't have to tell you how to role-play, or even for that matter how to justify its rewards. 3.5 could have easily labeled RP mechanics as challenge levels and let you figure the rest out, but they didn't. A challenge is just that, no matter how its laid out, from a poker game, to a pick-pocket, to the slash and clank of battle, experience is, was, and always should be rewarded for ANY completion of a CHALLENGE. A professional poker player who makes a living playing the game will not gain much from playing but perhaps the sheer enjoyment of it after a short time. And the experienced fighter will likely never feel challenged, or even satisfied killing the same little monsters he has already met and beaten before. They must be challenged but their opponents.
Now let's get to the MMO part. What Ryan was saying earlier, which must have slipped through the cracks was, "I can't convince you that it doesn't feel like an MMO on paper, because I can't really see how 4e and 3.5 is different in that aspect." Meaning plainly, they all feel like an MMO when you consider a basic strategy toward fighting, looting, and leveling. We call it "the grind". And if D&D ever has a grind, then "You're doing it wrong! And though you may feel as though your spell lists have dwindled, or that feats are "generic" but face it for yourself: they were really all the same stuff with little flares and pop outs that makes them useful in intricate situations. Since when was magic such an exact science? Its a mystical power, that you are trying to wield or in some cases have actually becomes skilled at doing so. Besides, its NOT World of Warcraft. I cannot shape or have an effect on that world, no matter what I do. And even with its divided game-play experience in Northrend, where one cinematic, or quest finish is the difference between you seeing the enemy your party fights or not, which is confusing, brain-hurting, and pointlessly frustrating; you don't actually make a difference there. Arthas still has the throne, and you still have to kill him, and then so does everyone else. At least in D&D I won't re-run the dungeon twenty times for a stupid piece of armor only to be told I didn't earn enough raid points to warrant my need for the gear yet. You call THAT a role-playing game??
WoW had its good points, and I wasted a lot of time there. Nearly four years in fact. Every combat inclusive role-playing game is just another MMO if you set your mind that way, maybe if you spent less time master-minding combat, and idealizing min/max builds and just played the game it would be fun and not a job of babysitting those who "can't build properly" or ditching the unworthy crew of newbs who just can't keep up with your awesome power. They make video games just for that type of player. Getting the end result as quickly as possible is okay if thats what everyone wants, but if you play with a group like I'm used to, we like to actually experience and get a taste for it before the meat and potatoes get swallowed by our "epic leader"; only to have him belch loudly and make room for us to praise him before we go on to the next meaningless entry.
You see there, its not usually the game that makes it feel like the wrong idea, its typically the player who doesn't care about ANYTHING the other players want as he searches for an experience for himself/herself. And that is the single largest problem that nearly all game groups I've seen have in the first place. Hell at least when Phil was the GM anything you wanted was within your grasp, with plenty of juicy options, even if all the juiciest ones led you to your worst death, damn if it wasn't fun dying doing what YOU WANT to do though!
What was I sayin?....oh yes.
Now let's not forget the layout of the rule guides. 4E made a concise guide that doesn't force you to "rummage" through the rule book back and forth and back and forth to find what you need to just build a character. 3.5 was a blundering mess of splats and page-flipping to get all your facts straight. 4E usually re-explains the same information for each class to point out its subtle differences, and to save your frustration of losing your page. I understand a want for more options to choose from, but for goodness sakes, its hard enough to choose between a "Brute" or a "Sneak" build for a rogue" in 4E, never mind that in 3.5 I could spend an hour looking over what I want for a first feat, simply because if I didn't plan ahead, that choice would become useless quickly.
And did you say something like, "All of your attacks are cheesy moves that if your in an mmo have the same animation with just different colors and effects." Well, role-players are supposed to provide the flavor for their own games, its what makes them fun. Describe it differently, unless you yourself prefer to remain boring and tasteless.
Its not even about that either though. Hell, they provide text to describe spells and moves for you as an example, so you have a clearer image of what the action looks like. Oh and, by the way, in 3.5 wasn't it just basic good knowledge to grab that retroactive toughness feat to preserve your "awesome" behind? Ummm...how much role-playing goes into that? An entire party of 3.5ers really does nothing much more than "attack" (maybe with the help of a feat or spell) in order to win a fight...but here's a news flash, attacking something is how you kill it. Besides, what difference does "adding flavor" make when you nearly always break your bank for optimal starting gear instead of something handed down, even if its not that useful, like your father's short sword, who saw him through the settling of the country you were born in? Don't jab about role-playing elements if your next statement is about optimizing combat. Especially if you struggle to role-play during combat because you're too busy rolling dice for your ninth critical hit this fight. I'm sure with that off-setting bend on possibility really helps you to get into character. Too many players treat combat as a focal point in any system, old, new, modern, fantasy, whatever. If you're trying to argue about losing role-play, build it back into the game "despite" its supposed lack.
How about some more character building?
What was that Dicky? "In 4'th ed, they are all about "all or nothing."" Seriously, what difference does that make? Even if it were true, the player is the one person who will either min/max or won't. Again, not that system's fault. Player error. And again, its not error if its fun for all. You want to take the impact out of your skill? Role-play a little and point out that a situation like talking to a woman makes your character nervous for a little game mechanic tweak, and have the GM add a little difficulty. JUST FOR FUN, since that's certainly got to be the purpose behind your feeling of loss. Skills never broke the game, not then, not now. They are a means to tackle a challenge.
4E allows you to replace those "X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D" powers and abilities when you level up, to flush out the ones that aren't useful any longer, so that there is no wasted space on the sheet for stuff you "never use" anymore. Do you even REMEMBER the 3.5 sheets? would you like a one page, two page, four, eight, ninety page sheet to make sure all your options are at easy reference in front of you? Please. Seriously, that was never fun. And sure, if you're a combo master, with all your perfect battle sequence of "buttons" to press, you know exactly how to dismantle each monster, especially if your team does its job as well. But, what if you're too busy marking off hit points in a fury of blood and dice, when the rogue and bard have already worked out a plan to talk the entire party around the fight? AND acquiring the magical item you came for without anyone even breaking a sweat? Only to gain the quest item, ALL the precious experience, and the fun of getting a chance to meet your foe again later after insulting him with your brilliance that he never suspected, when he will be more prepared and worth even more possible precious experience? You'll only achieve half of your potential, and while doing so, cost your party the chance for that role-play you were whining about losing.
I simply don't see the downfall there. And if you ever actually read the book before your next judgment, you may not either. I am famous for not doing my reading homework, and overlooking simple facts, but your statements were just empty. Its as simple as that.
I still do like 3.5. But even I will admit its mostly familiarity. I spent a few long years with my best friends learning and building and breaking that particular system, and I see literally hundreds, or even maybe over a thousand dollars invested into that game at Mr. Rock's house that simply collects dust now. THAT is my problem with it. (I know its not my money, but its still a terrible waste.) So I feel at a loss financially, mentally, and emotionally when I see a system that will rarely if ever be played again, simply because its "out of date". I mean 4E is still getting its feet under itself, (quantity-wise anyway) and releasing all of its supplements, and "II" books. So in that respect, I am still struggling to sit in on a game, but I keep checking updates to see if the options I want are coming soon.
Its publishers seduce us with dreams of using its nifty computer and internet tools, only to keep asking us to wait patiently while they figure out whats wrong with it or how to make more money from it. When I first heard about Wizards of the Coast's plan to release a new edition of a game that was JUST revised 5 years before I was just furious. That's hard to get away from. Even without all the delays and changes, I was just getting the hang of building a satisfactory character to play with for 3.5. Grr.
(I don't want this to be a personal hit on anyone, seriously, we're all friends here. But if I'm not allowed to speak my mind to my friends, then why am I here, or for that matter, why are any of you? Play on, like what you like and hate what you hate. But mine (and probably Ryan's) rants are as winded and furious as they are because you seem to have never even played it, or read it, or did much but google how others have reviewed the product. If I judged your best/favorite game the way you just did, you'd defend it to the final blow too.)
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 16, 2009 7:19:41 GMT -5
Thank you Droz for defending my position (which is rarely done in the case of 4e) and adding new points.
The only thing I have to add is that my 3.5 books aren't just collecting dust, they will be mined for information from time to time to further enhance my 4e experience...just as my 2nd ed. books were used to enhance my 3.0 and 3.5 experience and my AD&D books before that. As long as they were used and are being used, albeit in a different function, then I will not consider it a waste.
But again, I thank you very much.
P.S.I like how my Generalized Skill comment for WoD has gone unanswered.
|
|
Lady Masquerade
Journeyman
Look into my eyes. Do you see who I see?
Posts: 174
|
Post by Lady Masquerade on Dec 16, 2009 20:58:08 GMT -5
*tiptoes through the battlefield as corpses litter the ground and watches with simple amusement as the men take up their arms and clash in the name of their chosen game version*
All I can say is I agree with what has been said thus far. So far I have not been a fan of 4e, but that's mostly because, like Droz, I'm familiar with 3.5. It was the system I was brought into the gaming world with and I'm not anxious to part with it. However, having made one of my favorite character concepts in 4e (a halfling fighter), I'd like a chance to do it again, possibly with more success.
In no one's particular defense, now that we have managed to acquire most of the books that anyone could possibly want online via download, I can't use the excuse that I don't want to put the money into the books for a new system anymore, so I'm willing to try it again with, as always, the right group and right DM.
|
|
rlandis
Journeyman
FOR THE EMPIRE!
Posts: 224
|
Post by rlandis on Dec 16, 2009 23:25:05 GMT -5
When 4'th was mentioned that it was comeing out, I liked the idea. I joined the band wagon. I, like the rest, dove straight into 4'th with high hopes.
My first experiance of 4'th ed got me burnt FAST.
Rusty and I even dropped Roleplaying during the event. I have a bad taste in my mouth from 4'th ed.
I don't see myself takeing up the banner of 4'th for a very long time. TO ME, 3.5 just feels more Rp friendly. THATS TO ME, that is my opinion and I think I'm ganna dry hump that opinion for a while. I doubt I'll get the bad taste out of my mouth, but if the day comes and I do take up the 4'th banner. . . I might repent. . .
Till then. . . I'll flame and troll 4'th.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Dec 17, 2009 6:37:07 GMT -5
Instead of taking issue with the religion take issue with the church or pastor...
All I have to say is, don't let one bad experience turn you into an atheist.
I've had bad experiences with most every game...yet, I still enjoy playing them.
|
|