|
This is a design question so I thought it would go here.
I was looking at the errata for 4E, I'm one of these people who like to have the most up to date rules, in fact I buy later printings of books just to have them included.
I have noticed that 4E is getting up quite quickly in the number of revisions being made. While it is good they are doing this, I would ask the question is this the price we pay for the "Basic rule" + "Multiple exceptions" design of 4E? With this game design each exception has to be taken on its own and revised if needed. Also after playing a lot more 4E now I wonder if the system will suffer from the "Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition" issues - for those who haven't wargamed (Warhammer at least). They had a similar approach to magic and magic items in 3rd edition. The initial bunch of items were fine but as more were added unexpected "combos" came to light causing massive imbalances in play. Now I understand fully that D&D is an RPG so is something like this happens then as long as it is in the PC's favour who really cares, they are the stars of the show. Still, interested to hear peoples thoughts. Part of me thinks that 4E has gone down the Warmachine/Hordes (Privateer Press) route and decided if you over-power all the PC's then death combos become less important because everyone is already so cool.
Regards,
S.
I suspect that, dealing with your last point first, you might get a reasonable fit using the multiclass rules, which can be used from the off.
That said, I'm not really claiming that you can get an easy fit as such. It requires some thought about what you are trying to do, and the "feel" of the character. I also don't really agree you need an in-depth knowledge of the system - I wouldn't claim to have it. Also, 3e has years of expansions to its name whereas 4e is about a year old, so expecting you could convert every variant class is a little unfair. That gap is gradually being filled with expansions.
All of that is fair to say.
But bear in mind, I wasn't expecting anything out of any fit here. You claimed it wasn't any more difficult to convert a 3e character to 4e, than a 1e to 2e - for example.
I just don't think that is fair.
Feel free to claim it isn't difficult. But fair or not, there are quite a few 3e characters that "don't quite fit." A corner case would be the Wizard / Cleric / Mystic Theurge that wants knowledge of all spells available to him. Where as before 3e, anything like this was almost always pure houserule anyway. Now it is official.
|
I think the difference is that 2e added stuff to 1e (and always struck me as a very minor, almost invisible, in fact, rejig) and arguably 3e added more stuff (feats, skills, prestige classes, etc.) to 2e. So you added stuff to existing characters, to some extent, to convert them (by and large). 4e is different because the character classes work differently, and arguably takes a lot of stuff away, so it is much less a case of retro-fitting or grafting on extra class features or basic elements like feats and more of a fundamental review of what the character does.
So yeah, I probably step back from the claim that it is easier as such - it is very hard if you have a character who hinges off certain 3e rules, like a caster with a favorite spell or a particuler PrC. The role of that character needs to be reviewed so you can come up with what it does in the current rules, not to simply assume you multipy an existing characters level by 1.5 and then be surprised when the character is nothing like it was before. As an example, I had a character be converted from 3.5 to 4.0 who changed class (fighter to ranger) and race (elf to eladrin) in the conversion process.
(I also accept that you probably will struggle to adapt a wizard at all, as they are really very different.)
That said, I remember having one class concept (a fighter/wizard type relying of the various Bull's Strength and other stat analogue spells to self-buff) be completely blown out of the water in the transfer between 3.0 and 3.5 (when they changed the spell durations from hours/level to minutes/level). So (in this admittedly specific example) can be seen that it can cut both ways.
Just because it is traditional it doesn't automatically make it good.I don't have a dog in this fight, but, in the interests of fairness, just because it's new, doesn't automatically make it good. ;)
Sure - it may even be bad but it makes sense to look at the areas which are perceived to have been less useful and try and come up with a way to make them more usable in play.
My feeling is that we have actually been seeing a lot of this from 3rd edition on. 1st editions fluff and cosmology seems pretty much based on the fantasy fiction that was out prior to the games creation. It existed not so much because ideas were good or bad for the game but because they were powerful themes in the literature of the day.
Each edition since has taken these themes and spun them into a package that is less about adherence to fantasy tropes from literature and more about what actually works at the table. I think this especially began to take off with the advent of 3rd edition. If you transfered your game from 1st to 2nd and you played in Greyhawk or Dragonlance you'd mostly not notice the shift to much but this had seriously changed by 3rd edition.
At its root I think the shift comes about because of player choice and the very significant addition of player options on the table. In 1st you, as a player, got to choose from 8 or 9 more or less iconic classes and races. It all slotted into a campaign built around such iconic fantasy elements really rather easily. 3rd editions addition of lots of player options - particularly the ability to play all sorts of different races changed the game significantly in this regards. Now Aasimar were easily available to the players as were Teiflings and various Dragon themed classes and races plus their were Goliaths etc. etc. With their addition the campaign worlds themselves shifted to include large numbers of NPCs that no longer fit the classic fantasy tropes - for example we now have Dwarf mages - a concept that clearly worked against classic fantasy tropes. The cities we see detailed in Paizo era Dungeon APs (or even the Pathfinder APs they currently put out) clearly have lots more Teiflings and other such races then one found in, say, the classic version of the Village of Hommlet or the Keep on the Borderland.
My feeling is that the shift to provide players with many more options, especially the emphasis on allowing players to make 'cool' characters, more or less invalidated the core assumptions that had been put into place in 1st edition. Assumptions that were under siege by the later stages of 2nd (see especially the addition of Planescape material to the game) and were no longer particularly valid by 3rd.
By the later stages of 3.5 the designers of the game had stopped even paying lip service to the classic literature and had shifted focus to creating concepts with an emphasis on making things work in game terms at the table - by which I mean an emphasis on concepts like play balance and a view to making Planes that players can adventure in or trying to include monsters that will see time at the table as opposed to including monsters because they were part of classic fantasy mythology.
Another clear emphasis within rule development was the desire to let the players play with lots of cool toys - 1st edition would never have allowed spiked chains to fly except in the hands of one of the DMs monsters but by 3rd there was an emphasis on letting the players have cool characters. Come to think of it that was probably driven at least in part by the 'literature' as was classic fantasy tropes - its just that todays 'literature' is much more Lord of the Rings the movie (Legolas uses a shield like a snow board while firing half a dozen arrows) then Tolkien the book (Lots of arrows - no snowboarding down flights of stairs on a shield).
There are plenty of lame things in 3.X (Hookah as a musical instrument for dragons, anyone?) but for the most part they're not in the core books.
There certainly are a significant number of changes to the core game that effected the look and feel of the classic worlds compared to previous editions. Three obvious examples are the addition of the Magic Shoppe, the quite dramatic ramp up in power (higher level 3rd edition characters are very powerful) and the idea that any race can be combined with any class.
I'd not call these 'lame' ideas but they are certainly significant departures from what had gone before and were much criticized by at least a minority of the games adherents.
As a final point on changes to fluff: 2e had a series of worlds with wildly different fluff. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and so on. They all had different cosmologies, a different feel. Did they become "not D&D" as a result? I don't really think so.I'm not sure that example is really on point. In the case of the campaign worlds that diverged from the D&D standard in the core rule books, the campaign world was usually upfront about it. It was clear that you'd be diverging by selecting that campaign and the specific divergences, when necessary, were called out.
True - except that, by 3rd, many of the the concepts that had been included in these 'alternative' versions of D&D had shifted and become part of the core game. The Planescape stuff from 2nd in particular had a habit of appearing in 3rd now as part of core Greyhawk.
In any event, the Feywild is just one example. Stripping out true multiclassing is another example; I cannot consistently convert my Rog5/Sor5/Arcane Stalker-4* to the new rules (and I've tried). He just comes out with an almost completely different set of abilities.* like an Arcane Trickster but with more stabbity stab.
You'd face significant issues in this regard if you tried to convert him back into 2nd as well.
These are the little details that made 3rd edition rock! Yeah it sucked having to spend 4 hours to write up the stat-block of that 12th level wizard, but you know what - that was a small price to pay for the hours and hours of fun I would have as the PCs tried to kill him...
Or the players might get a bit lucky and take him out in 4 minutes.
True - except that, by 3rd, many of the the concepts that had been included in these 'alternative' versions of D&D had shifted and become part of the core game. The Planescape stuff from 2nd in particular had a habit of appearing in 3rd now as part of core Greyhawk.As a final point on changes to fluff: 2e had a series of worlds with wildly different fluff. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and so on. They all had different cosmologies, a different feel. Did they become "not D&D" as a result? I don't really think so.I'm not sure that example is really on point. In the case of the campaign worlds that diverged from the D&D standard in the core rule books, the campaign world was usually upfront about it. It was clear that you'd be diverging by selecting that campaign and the specific divergences, when necessary, were called out.
True, but very little of the Planescape stuff was a significant divergence from Greyhawk cosmology in the first place. It was all based on the same Great Wheel, after all. Planescape primarily adds detail and texture, maybe puts an addition on the house. It's not an Extreme Makeover Home Edition.
4e is different because the character classes work differently,and arguably takes a lot of stuff away,
Thank you for posting that.
That is a point I wanted to make, but knew if it came from me it would be "an assault on 4e. An assault that must be defended."
But the truth is, there are some major differences in the way things work. Better or worse doesn't even factor into it. The functionality has changed more so than previous.
And anything else I would post would rehash everything, and it is clear you and I are on, more or less, the same page.
|
|
I think the difference is about the desirability of those changes. I was initially disgruntled with changes to the fighter (I always liked the uber-modularity of the 3e fighter as a concept, even if the feats at high level never really existed to make it a decent reality) but taken as a whole I like the system a lot and so can live with the them. The big changes relate to flexibility, particularly choice of spells for spellcasters, and the impact of convertibility falls heavily on them (the wizard and the cleric cop the biggest changes, arguably) and this changes the feel of certain character classes more than others. But I don't really see easy convertibility as a necessarily very important goal of the edition change - you could argue that a bit of a tweak would not really be worth shelling out the cash for (though I guess we all fell for it with 3.5) and a bold, fundamental change is worthier of the title of "new edition". Once the shock wore off, I was impressed with the breadth, rigour and comprehensiveness of the changes and how they deal with a lot of problems inherent in 3e (which I don't get the feel that PFRPG has necessarily deal with) and created a game which is fun to play and (very important for me - especially as I have to wing a whole session as DM on zero preparation in a few hours) easy to run without literally hours of prep time.
|
Either way 1-roll death at 1st-level is a pretty terrible feature. The guy playing D&D for the first time with his 4 hit point Wizard coming up against the party's first baddie of the night - an orc with an axe - stands a chance of having his night ruined before he even gets a chance to roll a die. This is a good thing to fix.
Hm. Nope. Not necessarily. I understand why some players might get bothered with this, and it's great for them to now have a version of D&D that takes that into account, but that's not automatically true of all players of D&D.
My first game was playing a Wizard with 4HP and a Light spell in an AD&D game. I turned around a corner in some catacombs and was backstabbed by a skeleton... which killed me instantly. I was hooked.
Later, I would have a lot of 1st level characters die. When I finally made it to second level with a character it was an achievement. You see, back then, part of the pleasure of playing the game was to decide when to confront some enemies and when not to confront them (or run outright). It was also about being cautious, looking behind your back, take care of the backs of the other players. In other words, it was a game that was directed towards the players actions, decisions, tactics. If the player failed then the penalty was ultimate.
Now, I'm just telling you: you've got a way to play D&D and not have to fear this one critical hit that will kill you outright. Great for you! I, personally, love to have the Sword of Damocles hanging above my head. I like to be scared for my 1st level PC's life. I too have a game system that gives me that. Lucky me!
Just don't tell me that's objectively some sort of terrible feature of older editions. To you, maybe. Not to me.
My conclusion? Enjoy your game!
|
|
Also after playing a lot more 4E now I wonder if the system will suffer from the "Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition" issues - for those who haven't wargamed (Warhammer at least). They had a similar approach to magic and magic items in 3rd edition. The initial bunch of items were fine but as more were added unexpected "combos" came to light causing massive imbalances in play. Now I understand fully that D&D is an RPG so is something like this happens then as long as it is in the PC's favour who really cares, they are the stars of the show. Still, interested to hear peoples thoughts. Part of me thinks that 4E has gone down the Warmachine/Hordes (Privateer Press) route and decided if you over-power all the PC's then death combos become less important because everyone is already so cool.
Regards,
S.
You have it backawards. Warhammer syndrome, or Warmachine/Hordes route are actually whats referred to as the "magic the gathering" problem. AS mroe cards and sets were added, more errata was needed as combos came up as each new set came out.
*shrug* 4e seems liek they took a page from PP's page 5. Whether thats a good thing or not remains to be seen.
Just don't tell me that's objectively some sort of terrible feature of older editions. To you, maybe. Not to me.
Operating from the standpoint of "Features of the game that turn away more people who would otherwise enjoy D&D than they bring in," it was a terrible feature. That it is gone is good for the hobby.
Operating from the standpoint of "Features of the game that I think turn away more people who would otherwise enjoy D&D than they bring in," I think it was a terrible feature. I think That it is gone is good for the hobby .
Fixed that for you
Fixed that for you
Operating from the standpoint of "Features of the game that I think turn away more people who would otherwise enjoy D&D than they bring in," I think it was a terrible feature. I think That it is gone is good for the hobby .
If you disagree with me, seekerofshadowlight, feel free to tell me so. In fact, also feel free to support your position. I think you'd have a hard time convincing me (or just about anyone) that the prospect of being removed from play before you ever get a chance to engage the game due to a lucky roll on the DM's part actually draws more people into D&D than it pushes away.
And hey, guess what? The designers of the game agree with me! Low-level character death and the fragility of characters you're supposed to form an attachment to is almost universally accepted as counter-productive to actually forming that attachment. It's an example of the game working at cross-purposes with itself, and it was removed because it made the game less enjoyable for way more people than for whom it made the game more enjoyable.
nah man it's just you slam folks for using opinion as fact, and that's what you just did is all. I mean I have been called on it and they needed to call me on it. Nothing against you or 4e.
That's not a fact it's an opinion. I can't say if it's right or wrong really but it is not a fact.
nah man it's just you slam folks for using opinion as fact, and that's what you just did is all.
I didn't say that it was a fact. Careful.
That's not a fact it's an opinion. I can't say if it's right or wrong really but it is not a fact.
I think it is the truth. Objectively, there exists an answer to whether low-level lethality brings more people to D&D or drives more people away. And unless I say something like "This is a demonstrable fact," it should always be assumed that what I claim is based on my understanding - the same goes for you.
That said, it is my experience, WotC's experience, and (from what I can tell) most of the gaming populace's experience that low-level lethality does more harm than good. Feel free to say "I love low-level lethality!" but please understand that your particular likes or dislikes do not translate to what is good or harmful to the hobby (and neither do my own). That has to be evaluated on its aggregate merits, and the only entity capable of doing that with any degree of validity is WotC. They determined that low-level lethality is not good for the hobby, and in that, I agree with them.
|
|
You have it backawards. Warhammer syndrome, or Warmachine/Hordes route are actually whats referred to as the "magic the gathering" problem. AS mroe cards and sets were added, more errata was needed as combos came up as each new set came out.
So young, ah to be that age again! :)
Warhammer predates "Magic the Gathering" by a considerable number of years!
|
|
You have it backawards. Warhammer syndrome, or Warmachine/Hordes route are actually whats referred to as the "magic the gathering" problem. AS mroe cards and sets were added, more errata was needed as combos came up as each new set came out.So young, ah to be that age again! :)
Warhammer predates "Magic the Gathering" by a considerable number of years!
I know. I sold my first and second edition books a while back.
But the army book creep, or rules complexity like that, didnt really occur to 4th, or more likely 5th when books really started churning(second edition warhammer 40K was notorious for that, as does 5th edition 40k).
So in conclusion, young whipper snapper, It didnt really happen with regualarity until magic or later warhammer editions. Warhammer, as a whole game, predates magic. The problem as stated, doesnt quite. ::D
Going from 2nd to 3rd edition wasn't actually all that easy. My 2e character around the time of the transition was a half-elf cleric/wizard; you simply couldn't do multiclassed spellcasters in 3e at first, and even when they started providing options (Mystic Theurge), those options often fell fall short. I wasn't able to capture the same feel without using Gestalt rules (which was okay if youonly had 2 PCs, but those PCs quickly because way over-complicated) or else using the Magister class from Monte Cook's book (but then the cleric-equivalent from that book was not remotely the same, and that meant I had to use the Monte Cook rules with core 3E classes, which got wonky).
I think I'll actually have better luck recapturing the feel of that old 2E character now that there are some added resources for 4E. I can look for a combo of Arcane and Divine classes that both key off the same one or two attributes, and go from there. And eventually, when I get bored with tinkering with all the cool new characters that suggest themselves as I read the new rulebooks, maybe I'll give it a try...
|
|
Can I just point out - DM's kill players, usually my applying the rules too strictly. In a previous example given.
"A skeleton sneaks up on a 4 hp mage - <STAB!> 1 or 2 hp damage (who really cares what the d4 actually said). The startled mage screams for help from his brave adventuring party. The cleric leaps forward presenting his holy symbol forcefully."
Sounds a tad more fun than "Right a skeleton stabs you, and... you are dead". Having said that my first D&D game was as a 4th level Halfling and I got nuked by a white dragon - and I was hooked on D&D...
4E just attempts to codified in rules what DM's have been doing independent of edition - giving players a break in the name of fun. Not revolutionary really. If a DM wants players dead no amount of at-will powers or extra hit points at first level will save them. What 4E has attempted to do (in my opinion) is make the battles more of the DM vs Players as an equal footing "wargame", bring the battle closer to a tactical game rather than descriptive fight where the DM ultimately has more say/control over the affair. This of course is nothing more than a continuation of what 3E started.
2 cents (again),
S.
|
|
Just don't tell me that's objectively some sort of terrible feature of older editions. To you, maybe. Not to me.Operating from the standpoint of "Features of the game that turn away more people who would otherwise enjoy D&D than they bring in," it was a terrible feature. That it is gone is good for the hobby.
I hate to break it to everybody, but regardless of which edition out of 3x and 4e "sold more" in their first run, or over all, AD&D first edition, in sheer volume of books sold and in numbers of players at its peak (mid-eighties) dwarfed BOTH editions. A lot of people seemed to like it. Heck, the second most popular RPG at the dawn of the industry, Traveller, could kill you during character creation.
The high low level mortality rate wasn't a "design flaw", it was a reflection of the type of gamer existed back then. Now players want to be bad asses at first level. It's just a different type of gamer now. Not "better". Not "worse". Just different.
Face it, we're in a dying hobby. Books don't have flashy bells and whistles, and, when you see threads like this, you start to think that kids today don't have what it takes to fully embrace the hobby. No amount of pampering first level characters in the rules is going to change the fact that our society is less literate, less patient, and less willing to have to learn something to play a game than they were 30 years ago.
Sorry, books can't compete with the X-Box, DVD player and internet any more. In ten years, pen and paper will be even more niche than it is now, we just have to enjoy playing with new material while we can.
I hate to break it to everybody, but regardless of which edition out of 3x and 4e "sold more" in their first run, or over all, AD&D first edition, in sheer volume of books sold and in numbers of players at its peak (mid-eighties) dwarfed BOTH editions. A lot of people seemed to like it. Heck, the second most popular RPG at the dawn of the industry, Traveller, could kill you during character creation.
The high low level mortality rate wasn't a "design flaw", it was a reflection of the type of gamer existed back then. Now players want to be bad asses at first level. It's just a different type of gamer now. Not "better". Not "worse". Just different.
You're correct, there is a different breed of gamer out there, and it's here to stay. You're incorrect in that even those gamers probably would have appreciated the removal of the 1st-level lethality problem. D&D was fun, which is why people played it despite the problems with the game (problems which largely existed due to the relatively unexplored nature of the very concept of gameplay). But you're exactly correct, other activities slowly captured imaginations and D&D waned. D&D, however, isn't dying - especially if the sales info we're seeing actually means what it seems to suggest. D&D is adapting, like any form of entertainment ought to. Gygaxian dungeons are dying. Gameplay that leaves out members of the party is dying. Enigmatic rules systems are dying. The things that make Dungeons & Dragons great, though - adventure, kicking butt with friends, owning your own character - are here to stay; just look at how they've been picked up by the video game market! Video games adapted and grabbed a lot of people because much of the time they were better at letting people enjoy the feel of D&D than D&D was. D&D is starting to recapture that crowd, and it looks like they're doing a good job of it.
By the way, if you are worried that D&D is dying, breathe some life into it. Go out, start a new game, and convince a group of five people to try something out.
|
|
I play in a game, but my gaming style is out of sync with the modern gamer. My homebrew exists in all of its naturalistic glory, the players are just a small part of a greater whole. They are the central figures in their story, not my setting's story. So, my homebrew sits on the shelf, collecting dust, and I don't DM beyond the occasional PFS game.
Any fresh blood I get has to be "untainted" by the modern expectations gamers seem to have, and that is a rare thing these day.
Eh, nevermind. Just bring me my Geritol and get offa my lawn!
|
|
Video games adapted and grabbed a lot of people because much of the time they were better at letting people enjoy the feel of D&D than D&D was.
No, they grabbed people who wanted the feel with little to no effort. Which was kind of the point of my previous post. 4e has helped reclaim some of that market by making the game more accessible to the common person, and that is commendable, but if it doesn't act as a gateway to other systems, the way Moldvay/Cook basic did in the early '80s (and I for one am really hoping it does), then it really doesn't do much, ultimately, to expand the gaming universe outside of itself.
You are ultimately right, at least in the short run, that it has infused fresh blood into the hobby, my concern is how it will play out in the long term.
Trust me, I hope beyond hope you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong, but my cynical (Ambrose Bierce definition) side isn't so confident.
|
|
Video games adapted and grabbed a lot of people because much of the time they were better at letting people enjoy the feel of D&D than D&D was.
Unfortunately D&D will never be able to keep pace with this. We now live in a world where for the "1st world" high powered computers with wonderful graphics and sound are the norm. When D&D reached it's peak in the 80-90's there was no alternative because the computer visualizations of the "D&D" game were just plain bad. Having said that I loved playing the SSI games even with crap graphics. But the total number of subscribers to World of Warcraft attest to the fact that there is now an expectation that wasn't previously considerable possible in a fantasy "roleplaying" setting. If I may use a song title to express my opinion "Video killed the Radio Star". This is a natural reaction to technology and WotC have attempted to respond with the "virtual table" idea. But the fact remains that D&D while "possibly" a more rewarding experience is a lot more work than if you and your friends log onto World of Warcraft (or similar) and have an evenings play.
Must be up to 4 cents now,
S.
Catering to the least common denominator isn't good for the hobby. I'm not saying accommodate, or make more accessible, I am saying catering.
For proof of this statement, I point towards any, and all, of Sony Online Entertainment MMO's.
If any of you have played more than one of them, like me, you know full well what I am talking about.
If that is what D&D is doing with 4e, then I pray that it isn't the first Death Throw of the hobby...
Catering to the least common denominator isn't good for the hobby. I'm not saying accommodate, or make more accessible, I am saying catering.
For proof of this statement, I point towards any, and all, of Sony Online Entertainment MMO's.
You're confused. SOE's projects failed because they were poorly executed examples of audience broadening. WoW is, pretty inarguably, the best example of a broad-audience MMO - having engaged in a pretty significant amount of "catering" over the years - and it also happens to be the most successful in history.
4th Edition, it looks like, is also turning out to be a successful example of audience-broadening.
You're confused.
Oh not at all. You're going to find this hard to believe, but I wasn't referencing SOE's attempts at audience broadening at all. But now that you mention it, what they did to SW:G (arguably their best chance at success) to make it "console accessible," and broaden their audience, was horribly managed.
And WoW has nothing to do with SOE, and therefor nothing to do with what I was talking about. Although, I do hear that Blizzard - after the merger with Activision (Acti-Blizzard?) - is starting to act like SOE, so that too may be doomed.
|
|
I have noticed that 4E is getting up quite quickly in the number of revisions being made. While it is good they are doing this, I would ask the question is this the price we pay for the "Basic rule" + "Multiple exceptions" design of 4E? With this game design each exception has to be taken on its own and revised if needed. Also after playing a lot more 4E now I wonder if the system will suffer from the "Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition" issues - for those who haven't wargamed (Warhammer at least). They had a similar approach to magic and magic items in 3rd edition. The initial bunch of items were fine but as more were added unexpected "combos" came to light causing massive imbalances in play. Now I understand fully that D&D is an RPG so is something like this happens then as long as it is in the PC's favour who really cares, they are the stars of the show. Still, interested to hear peoples thoughts. Part of me thinks that 4E has gone down the Warmachine/Hordes (Privateer Press) route and decided if you over-power all the PC's then death combos become less important because everyone is already so cool.
Regards,
S.
IMHO the Issue is not that WoC churns out multiple new Core Books each year but that they do not playtest these book enough (or sometimes at all it seems).
Extensive Playtesting would root out many wonky combinations. Just let a couple of min/max and powergamers have access to the draft for a while and you will see where the new rules are broken or combine to broken combination with exiting rules.|
|
Just because some people enjoy something, doesn't make it a 'good ' feature or aspect of the game.
The reverse is also true: just because some people do not enjoy something doesn't mean it is a "bad" feature or aspect of the game.
You don't enjoy it? I'm sorry you feel that way and happy you found other game systems which avoid this.
Do not tell me that it would objectively constitute "badwrongfun", however (take a taste of your own medicine here - and by the way, I'd appreciate if you were not calling my tastes "retarded". Civility, anyone?).
Oh, by the way: the situation I talked about (turn the corner, died) did indeed involve some tactical acumen on my part: I should have been more cautious, check around corners and such. It was my mistake if my wizard died. Just because it doesn't involve game mechanics doesn't mean there aren't tactical elements to game play. One of the biggest difference between the first editions of the game and later ones is that the tactical challenges were directed primarily at the players, not their characters.
And yes, I'm one of these guys who do not believe in the notion of objective "improvement" of role-playing games. What you've got is an evolution according to the changes in tastes and inclinations of customers which in turn affects these tastes and inclinations and makes them change some more over time. One later system is not an "improvement" over an earlier system. It's just different. It's an evolution to fit the gaming interests of the moment and ultimately? Sell more books./
|
|
Look. I'm going to go a bit further: Here we have an interview of Rob Heinsoo that basically lines up the reasons why there were so many drastic changes to the D&D game.
I find that there is incoherence in, on one hand, acknowledging that there are drastic changes to the game, and on the other hand, refusing to understand that to some people these changes dramatically affect the way the game feels and will ultimately constitute dealbreakers. What is so hard to get here?
Surely we can all acknowledge that to some people, these changes are welcome and at the same time, to other people, these are not welcome. That's the bottom line here. That's all there is to it.
Actually can someone please tell me, is the PHB the end of Martial classes in the core given the Martial Handbook is out or will there be a Martial Handbook 2? We are liking 4E but having now read PHB2 starting to feel like we did when Rolemaster came out with book after book after book - all of them sort of core. Sort of bloat-ware for RPG's. I know "use a computer", but have not and will not. Pen & paper group us, if we want to turn on a computer than we will fire up WoW and have a fun evening "adventuring" in cyberspace.Really what I'm asking is are the "core D&D" rules is there even going to be at an end for 4E? I had no issues with 3 core + supplements - we just never used supplements. But calling anything "core" means we feel that if we don't use it we somehow don't have a complete game. I would have liked WotC coast to do something along the same lines as World of Darkness when it reinvented itself. A "rules books" that covered all the rules minus character making and then an Arcane/Divine/Martial/Primal book with ALL* the "core" classes within each power type, and of course a core MM (supporting all previous "core" monsters). Then everything else as a supplement.
I doubt anyone could definitively answer this, even WotC staff might choose to take a new direction after all. That said my understanding is everything will be core right up until the point when they publish 5th edition.
Obviously any individual group can stop purchasing at any time and simply play with what they have but if you just purchase sporadically you'll find material devoted to classes that you don't have.
If you think about it this makes a fair amount of business sense from WotCs point of view. Essentially they face two choices: #1 support those that just buy the core books to the hilt and #2 support those that buy everything to the hilt.
The problem with having a single set of core books which must work with everything from all follow on supplements is that your essentially punishing players that bought the none core supplements by not supporting the races and classes that came out in these supplements. Essentially WotC has to ask itself "Should we encourage the players that mostly don't give us money (i.e. the ones that only bought the first three books) or encourage the ones that give us all their money (the ones that buy every book)?". It obviously makes more business sense to encourage the players that buy everything - hence it makes sense to support the Avenger in every supplement that comes out from now on so as to encourage the buyers to keep buying more books.
We saw this at the tail end of 3.5 when the books began to include material for classes that had been introduced in the later supplements and this was likely a response to the complaints by players who made scouts and Warlocks that their class never had any more new stuff to play with while basic wizards and sorcerers got new toys anytime any supplement dealt with the arcane.
This is a design question so I thought it would go here.
I was looking at the errata for 4E, I'm one of these people who like to have the most up to date rules, in fact I buy later printings of books just to have them included.
I have noticed that 4E is getting up quite quickly in the number of revisions being made. While it is good they are doing this, I would ask the question is this the price we pay for the "Basic rule" + "Multiple exceptions" design of 4E? With this game design each exception has to be taken on its own and revised if needed. Also after playing a lot more 4E now I wonder if the system will suffer from the "Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition" issues - for those who haven't wargamed (Warhammer at least). They had a similar approach to magic and magic items in 3rd edition. The initial bunch of items were fine but as more were added unexpected "combos" came to light causing massive imbalances in play. Now I understand fully that D&D is an RPG so is something like this happens then as long as it is in the PC's favour who really cares, they are the stars of the show. Still, interested to hear peoples thoughts. Part of me thinks that 4E has gone down the Warmachine/Hordes (Privateer Press) route and decided if you over-power all the PC's then death combos become less important because everyone is already so cool.
Regards,
S.
I don't think this is really part of the exceptions design so much as part of a core philosophy of play balance and integrated rules were, hypothetically at least, nothing new is allowed to break the old system. This means whenever something broken comes up they are, hypothetically again, supposed to look at it and fix it to make sure that its in line with everything else. It kind of goes along with their core mantra that the game is in a perpetual state of evolution.
I have no doubt that new books will introduce new bombs that Design and Development completely missed and that they will counter these bombs, at least in part, by errating material to adjust the play balance back down to a more even keel.
I don't think this is really part of the exceptions design so much as part of a core philosophy of play balance and integrated rules were, hypothetically at least, nothing new is allowed to break the old system. This means whenever something broken comes up they are, hypothetically again, supposed to look at it and fix it to make sure that its in line with everything else. It kind of goes along with their core mantra that the game is in a perpetual state of evolution.
I have no doubt that new books will introduce new bombs that Design and Development completely missed and that they will counter these bombs, at least in...
I don't mean to be snarky, though I am probably going to succeed at sounding it anyway, but you just made it sound as if people are paying to be in a WotC beta test. Not that I think that was your intention. It is just what I get from the facts you presented.
Either way 1-roll death at 1st-level is a pretty terrible feature. The guy playing D&D for the first time with his 4 hit point Wizard coming up against the party's first baddie of the night - an orc with an axe - stands a chance of having his night ruined before he even gets a chance to roll a die. This is a good thing to fix.
Hm. Nope. Not necessarily. I understand why some players might get bothered with this, and it's great for them to now have a version of D&D that takes that into account, but that's not automatically true of all players of D&D.
My first game was playing a Wizard with 4HP and a Light spell in an AD&D game. I turned around a corner in some catacombs and was backstabbed by a skeleton... which killed me instantly. I was hooked.
I think the real goal here from a game design standpoint is to take the guess work out of it.
If your introducing your newbie to the game that player might love dieing or might never play again after the DM kills 1/2 the party with crits. So one shot kills might or might not drive away new players depending on the individual in question but not having one shot kills is very unlikely to drive new players away hence it makes more sense to discontinue the feature.
nah man it's just you slam folks for using opinion as fact, and that's what you just did is all. I mean I have been called on it and they needed to call me on it. Nothing against you or 4e.
That's not a fact it's an opinion. I can't say if it's right or wrong really but it is not a fact.
Unless your citing sources nothing on a message board is fact - its all opinion. Heck even if your citing sources most of the time its still opinion sense the sources are usually biased.
IMHO the Issue is not that WoC churns out multiple new Core Books each year but that they do not playtest these book enough (or sometimes at all it seems).
Extensive Playtesting would root out many wonky combinations. Just let a couple of min/max and powergamers have access to the draft for a while and you will see where the new rules are broken or combine to broken combination with exiting rules.
Here I agree with you - they've started adding more and more content to the DDI and letting the Character Optimizers break it. For the moment it seems like they are only paying very peripheral attention to that aspect - probably because most of the material currently coming out has been in production for a long time and is already pretty much 'set'. We can hope that this will become ever less so in future products and that, eventually, letting the character optimizers and others play with the material for a significant period before it sees print will become the norm.
Personally I think that would be a win-win all around. Its the kind of thing that will bring subscribers on board to DDI (because lots of people love playing in the Beta - and love it if their pet idea sees print) and would improve the quality of the final product (which is good for everyone and is what I personally am most interested in in this regards).
Unless your citing sources nothing on a message board is fact - its all opinion. Heck even if your citing sources most of the time its still opinion sense the sources are usually biased.
Well normally I would agree but he is the first one to bust folks over "no that's not a fact that's your opinion " So if your gonna play fact police and bust folks over not adding an IMHO to every thing they say make sure you don't do it
Nothing personal against Scott but he normally trears folks posts apart line by line stating this is not a fact, this is incorrect and so on.
He stated an opinion as a fact. The same thing he often busts folks over.
You can't have it both ways. If you brake folks down line by line over their opinions not being fact then expect to be called on it yourself is all
|
|
If your introducing your newbie to the game that player might love dieing or might never play again after the DM kills 1/2 the party with crits. So one shot kills might or might not drive away new players depending on the individual in question but not having one shot kills is very unlikely to drive new players away hence it makes more sense to discontinue the feature.
Again, I have to point out, had this actually been a PROBLEM, D&D would have been a "non-starter". It would have never made it to the "Greyhawk" supplement in 1975. And, again, AD&D 1e, which basked in the glory of this "flaw", in sheer numbers of players, was more played, and more popular, by a long shot, than ANY EDITION SINCE. If 2e had the same number of adherents, TSR would probably still be around. And, frankly, there was a lot of "2e is 'dumbed down'" and "written for kids" going around the community when it was released (nothing new under the sun, you know...)
So, to continue beating this dead horse, the new editions aren't "better", they're "different". And none of them are "badunfun", they just cater to different tastes.
Edit: This is strictly my experience, but if dying at first level was such a turn off, I wouldn't be posting here. My first character ever died two rooms into a dungeon, to a fire nozzle trap, and I was completely fascinated by the whole experience, and couldn't wait to roll up a new character so I could play again. Good times...
Second edit: To understand the bold portion of this post, read Dragon magazine from issue one til about the mid-eighties. It took that long for people to really start whining about character mortality...
I don't mean to be snarky, though I am probably going to succeed at sounding it anyway, but you just made it sound as if people are paying to be in a WotC beta test. Not that I think that was your intention. It is just what I get from the facts you presented.I don't think this is really part of the exceptions design so much as part of a core philosophy of play balance and integrated rules were, hypothetically at least, nothing new is allowed to break the old system. This means whenever something broken comes up they are, hypothetically again, supposed to look at it and fix it to make sure that its in line with everything else. It kind of goes along with their core mantra that the game is in a perpetual state of evolution.
I have no doubt that new books will introduce new bombs that Design and Development completely missed and that they will counter these bombs, at least in...
The choices are to either deal with the problem when it crops up, which will increase the size of the errata or ignore all the broken bits and pretend they don't exist. Its possible that DDI subscribers might reduce the amount of needed errata in the future, but they'll never eliminate the need for it.
Again, I have to point out, had this actually been a PROBLEM, D&D would have been a "non-starter". It would have never made it to the "Greyhawk" supplement in 1975. And, again, AD&D 1e, which basked in the glory of this "flaw", in sheer numbers of players, was more played, and more popular, by a long shot, than ANY EDITION SINCE. If 2e had the same number of adherents, TSR would probably still be around. And, frankly, there was a lot of "2e is 'dumbed down'" and "written for kids" going around the community when it was released (nothing new under the sun, you know...)
So, to continue beating this dead horse, the new editions aren't "better", they're "different". And none of them are "badunfun", they just cater to different tastes.
Edit: This is strictly my experience, but if dying at first level was such a turn off, I wouldn't be posting here. My first character ever died two rooms into a dungeon, to a fire nozzle trap, and I was completely fascinated by the whole experience, and couldn't wait to roll up a new character so I could play again. Good times...
My argument is not so much that dying instantly and without having any chance to do anything about it is is always 'badfun' but that its 'badfun' to some people. On the other hand its probably not going to turn anyone off of D&D if it just so happens that they did not die instantly in their first session - presuming of course that the adventure was good and the DM talented.
As it stands Clark will probably add a supplement that will bring this style of gaming back for low levels and of course there are loads of RPGs that will feature this sort of thing but for most newbies D&D will be their entry point into the hobby. Rather not shock them so badly in their first game that they never come back - later when they have more experience they may move on to a system thats a little more brutal and love it - thats good for WotC and everyone else in the industry as well. Hence this might not be a bad feature of RPGs and it might not be a bad feature for 'advanced' versions of D&D using supplements but it is a bad feature for the 'gateway drug' of the RPG industry.
Well normally I would agree but he is the first one to bust folks over "no that's not a fact that's your opinion "
I rarely use this line, and if I do it's so that it can be countered with actual evidence to the contrary. I don't say "Well, that's just, like, your opinion," for the sole sake of reminding the person that it's their opinion. In other words, it doesn't matter that it's an opinion. It matters that it's a bad opinion.
And either way, when you've started focusing on the poster rather than the post you need to tone it back.
And either way, when you've started focusing on the poster rather than the post you need to tone it back.
You do make a good point here.It start off tongue in cheek man just poking fun a bit, as ya your posts have come off like that more then once. So I was just poking back at ya and then you seemed to get all upset about it.
sigh seems like folks round here take things all to serious mores the pity I guess. Then again maybe I just suck at telling jokes.
|
Any fresh blood I get has to be "untainted" by the modern expectations gamers seem to have, and that is a rare thing these day.
Eh, nevermind. Just bring me my Geritol and get offa my lawn!
I think that this is the first time I have ever been referred to as "untainted"... I guess I will just have to work harder.
I have to agree with derek though - in games I played and GM'd the threat of instant death did provide excitement and thrill - not to mention the occasional chance to run through multiple characters. For longer, campaign length games I feel that it is the responsibility of the GM to provide opportunities for character survival at 1st level - with the recognition that the player has every right not to take advantage of such "opportunities" and have their character die.