Fenix
Journeyman
Who in the hell do you think I am?
Posts: 162
|
Post by Fenix on Apr 3, 2010 21:19:10 GMT -5
Wow the things I miss cause I don't log in on a regular basis.
I will say this, I for one think playing the same game twice with different mechanics is honestly a plain waste of time. If the story and characters were not that great in one version why would it change with different rules? Do the rules change the "role play" side of the game? What is the benefit? Unless you are just using the systems as combat sims, then I could understand the desire to try the same scenario twice.
It comes down to the player and the Dm of any particular game. If the group works well together then chances are the game will be enjoyable. Testing the simple things to compare two similar items never does the test justice, if you really want to compare system you might as well test everything, otherwise why bother?
I have stated before and will so again. The WOD system is more appealing then dnd to me. Its simple and fairly consistent, but this is a DnD post.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Its why Droz put the effort in to get the forums going.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Apr 8, 2010 5:42:03 GMT -5
Alright, I feel that I should through my two cents in.
My intent is not to flame or anything but the way Xenocide's idea has been treated feels a bit callous, unless I've misinterpreted the emotions behind the written word...which I've done before (I've never met Xenocide so this is definitely not a personal defense of him). His proposal was simple enough, test and compare the systems in a (I'm adding this word) scientific manner. To many of you this sounds like the biggest snore around, but it truly is the only way to settle the argument. Instead of scoffing at someone's idea unless it directly involves you, be constructive in your criticism or just don't leave a comment. You can choose not to press the reply button. We're trying to be friendly and cordial on these boards.
Anyways about the proposal, you'd need to get a group together that has the patience to run through a railroad scenario twice. Something short and simple with few options to not over complicate things and make sure that those options are chosen in each game. Each game should test each of the system's mechanics or run several scenarios so as to test each mechanic objectively.
No, this would not be a conventional game but it was never touted to be one...it is an experiment to test which system is better as far as mechanics are concerned. A 3.5 game with a great story and a great group of characters could be much better than a 4.0 game with neither, even though I'm sure that the mechanics of 4.0 would come up on top in this little experiment. This proposal was never about story, even your character's story, (I don't think, I could be wrong) since story is and always has been paramount to mechanics.
That's it for now...I'm spent. Sorry if I offended anyone with the first paragraph of my reply proper, but I felt that it needed to be stated.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Apr 8, 2010 13:53:45 GMT -5
You're right, science is the only way. That is probably just one more reason to leave me out though.
This probably contradicts a few things I've said before but oh well, here goes: If the story within a game is what makes the game great, then honestly why are we so hung up on which version is played anyways?
If it's about money, then don't spend it. Let someone who is willing to shell out their earnings on new stuff or more old stuff bring the material to you.
If it's about relearning, simply come to the table, tell your GM what you want, and have him/her fill in the paparwork for you the first time, and just play by letting them know what your character would do, and if your GM is worth a spit in the first place, they should be able to choose the best possible actions mechanically from the choices you made together to still give you a healthy game.
To be honest, i'd much rather never have my own sheet for any game, and just roleplay, throwing dice when prompted to. The sheet, the mechanics, the points, and bonuses and all that has always been a big mess and headache to me anyways.
If we played like that, it wouldn't matter what version of whatever we play, it would just be a good time.
Sorry, but the whole idea sounds like playing the Final Fantasy series. It's rarely ever a new story, it's just a new look, and some new names each time, to gradually overcomplicate a very simple story about saving the world from impending doom...again.
If it felt like flaming/trolling, I'm sorry. And if your ideas above work out for you, so be it. I wish you luck, and patience. I personally would rather go to work on gaming night than try that science though.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Apr 8, 2010 15:57:00 GMT -5
I agree that it would be boring and it really wouldn't be for every one. And it really isn't all that necessary for me because I've already done the "science" in my head. This experiment would only be for those skeptics who need proof before they make the leap to 4th, and even then, some people are just stubborn and it wouldn't help anyways.
And yes, story is paramount, but it is in mine and others opinion's that a good story without mechanics for conflict resolution and character advancement is just that...a story, not a game; you might as well just tell ghost stories around a campfire (not that there is anything wrong with that) or, I know that this has become a cliche, play cops and robbers. If you have resolved to play a game, you need mechanics; and when you play a game, mechanics are, to the consternation of some, important. And if mechanics for a game are important, then it is important to pick the best mechanics for the game. This is what the proposal intends to do, figure out what the best mechanics for Dungeons and Dragons are.
No offense to anyone, I have yet to find a story that is good enough for me to totally overshadow the mechanics used. So I place a great deal of importance on mechanics. Now when I speak of this, I don't mean overly complicated mechanics. I mean mechanics that fit the intention of the game. There are an overabundance of mechanics and systems out there, so chose the right one. But I've overstretched the topic of this thread, so carry on.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Apr 8, 2010 21:05:00 GMT -5
I will continue to perceive 3.5 and 4ed as two different entities. I've done the hedonistic calculus and have found that I prefer 3.5.
4ed has many neat qualities that I find quite entertaining but do I find it superior? No. The simplified grappling really grinds my gears, especially when I like to play grapplers and never got to make my grappling master. I'm going to miss all the different ideas had due to the fact that other story tellers will not be playing it, at least it seems. A shield master. A spartan.
You may say, "That all can be done in 4ed." No it can't. I will see the futility of such endeavors with at-will abilities, dailies, and encounter powers that have nothing to do with my fighting style.
Now as I said 4ed does have many neat things about it. I like a lot of it as a player. Don't like DMing it.
|
|
|
Post by labael on Apr 8, 2010 21:14:31 GMT -5
Now world of darkness! That has a grappling mechanic! It's a lot like 3.5's. . . I love WoD. Skills are the whole game. . .4ed simplified skills. . .
Now 4ed is different. Different isn't bad, but when different displaces some other thing that was great, there is going to be backlash.
|
|
|
Post by rjrock85 on Apr 9, 2010 7:30:42 GMT -5
We've gone over this before. Grappling is one of the only things that I find wanting with 4e, but I feel that it has a lot of potential to be better than 3.5's due to its simplicity. Disregarding supplements due to 4e's nascent state as compared to 3.5, the only thing that 4e lacks compared to 3.5 as far as grappling is concerned is being able to pin your opponent, but at least grappling isn't an I Win Button in 4e as compared to a well optimized 3.5 character. Oh, and apparently we were wrong as far as the only things you can do while grappling is maintain and move. community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20182757/What_can_you_do_while_grabbedgrabbing_a_target?pg=1I checked out the grappling rules for WoD and find them to be the best of the three, simple and versatile. I love keeping rolls to a minimum for individual mechanics and it has even more options to it than 3.5 did. Now as far as the Shield Master and Spartan are concerned, I'm not familiar enough with what your intents were for those builds so I can't say one way or another. But, as a knee jerk reaction, it seems to me that a Spartan would just need flavor management, and the Shield Master...well, it was a strange build to begin with and it would probably be just as effective in 4e as it was in 3.5, for what that statement is worth. Finally, skills...Tell me, please, where I went wrong on the first page. I've already shown that all of the skills; excluding Appraise, Concentrate, Craft, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope; are still in 4e. And there are 17 skills in 4e, 24 in WoD, and 35 3.5. Only 24 skills compared to 35 and you can only invest into a skill 5 times (6 if including a specialty) compared to the 24 times at 20th level, not including feats, in 3.5. It would appear to me that WoD is severely lacking in the skill department. Wow, WoD must suck balls by your metric... That's all for now.
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Apr 17, 2010 18:00:36 GMT -5
sorry i have been absent guys, but work tends to get in the way of pleasure. all i originally ment was a simple, single one-shot to test run mechanics. im sorry i got blindsided and felt i needed to defend myself. i only thought that we could examine the mechanics. because as long as you have a good storyteller, the game will be good. and the opposite is true. that is a part of the equation that cant be tested. and to something mister drozgul said in a previous comment, i try to take everyones opinions into consideration, so i can form my own from others that seem as informed or moreso than myself. i didnt mean to attack you in any way, if it felt as such. to mister rjrock85, you seem to be a very nice person, thank you (for what i feel was) defending me. id actually like to enjoy meeting you, it seems we would see our opinions are rather similar.
at heart, i love seeing the mechanics play out, and watching the guys develop characters that fit well in any situation by both rping and stats. i dont get to actually play much because the guys seem to like me as dm. im not sure why, i dont use anything special or amazing for stories, and most the time my greatness is an accident (if it is truely mine, anyway) thanks to everyone for a great debate.
and, to master drozgul, i hope you would decide to join us if we would someday choose to do this, because i do feel everyone's opinions are important.
|
|
|
Post by Drozgul on Apr 24, 2010 1:13:46 GMT -5
I think most of us recall the way the last 4E test ended, with my ranger angered and challenging the entire town guard.
Anyways, rather than thwarting the idea, I strongly suggest you use this as an opportunity to re-engage D&D. In fact, I feel that our monthly gatherings have been thus far unorganized and misused as far as gaming goes.
Use the forum to set up a game, using the ideal number of players (4) and one GM, with perhaps an eagle-eye coach for the entire table to aid them in using each system to test them at their utmost ability. Get with Mr. Rock as well as consult Role-playing podcasts and source materials to learn about and select a variation of player archetypes. Then hand select your "team" and test both systems.
Be sure to prepare your module to allow both rule sets to include same monsters, quests, and so on while keeping the story the same as well. Carefully select players so that you are not merely taking those who are bored enough to play, but those who truly want this opportunity.
Feel free to use our monthly back room battles meeting time to test this so that we can all see it in action. When the testing is done, we can run an actual game of the preferred system (or both with two groups) during our meetings each month.
With all the other things we have done with our meeting times, the one thing we haven't was actually DO any role playing at all. Some warhammer, sure, a little forum-style talk about games, but no real playtime.
This is your golden opportunity, as well as any players who feel they want to prove their side is right. To be honest, I already have a character in mind if I truly fit your mold for this idea just to play out the system, but I can be a rather troublesome entity at the game table at times.
Encourage players to use similar character builds so that it can be closely recorded and analyzed (for instance, playing an evoker wizard in 3.5 and an illusion based one in 4E will not help this test very much) to the point where they really should be mirrored to the best of each system's abilities.
I look forward to seeing some gaming at the BRB Gatherings. If you can't be there, let me know, I will gladly propose it. Hell, to be totally objective, I may even offer to run the thing.
|
|
|
Post by xenocide on Apr 4, 2011 23:50:14 GMT -5
i think i may have found a solution for this arguement. after a long, teidious process of getting 3.5 guys to play 4.0, then getting them to switch back again, we have come acrossed three (3) major points.
1: 4.0 is easier to teach to new players.
while 3.5 is teachable, all (ten+) members of our group where more than willing to admit that when sitting down someone who had never played before, it was easier for the new player to pick up fourth than three-five. one of the biggest things is the skills system. after alot of complaining and, to be honest, bitching and moaning, the guys got the feel of the lighter skill lists and found that it was simpler and less clutter, without so much double coverage (which skill do i use to figure out this magical monster's weaknesses? arcana? nature? insight or perception? how about history to see if i remember another monster that looks similar? we all know of these moments)
2: 3.5 is more flexable.
there are alot of things you simply cant do in 4.0 it is not ment for the person that wants to play a strictly (insert insanely unique class here) but rather makes using all of a classes abilities easy for any player. the feel of playing a rogue who sneaks around dealing damage is, roughly, similar to that of ranger standing back and firing arrow after arrow.
3: its ultimately your choice.
dont like four-oh? dont play. think three-five is too complex? go for four-oh. its really up to your personal opinion. we have guys that play 4.0 because they want to play with ppl that play it, not because they like it more. and thats what really counts; the fun. a dm should be able to, no matter what the system or game, find a happy medium where there is fun and challenge. =)
|
|