Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

WotC's big announcement


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

251 to 300 of 514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.

I'm one of them, I'm afraid. I've played every edition since Original D&D.

When I read the 4E books, I could see immediately it was a well-balanced game, and that it would probably run very smoothly. But it was too different. It doesn't feel like D&D to me. Different flavor.

Andoran

I started in '79, and can say I've played every iteration of the game (and some unofficial ones like Arduin). And, nothing changes. Haters gonna hate, b@&*+es gonna b%@#+.

I have a personal fondness for odd numbered editions of "Advanced" D&D (1st and 3rd, so this bodes well for 5th, perhaps), and odd numbered "basics" OD&D, Moldvay and Rules Cyclopedia, I guess. I may dislike the other editions for whatever reasons (or not think much about them at all), but, being inoffensive inanimate objects, I don't bother "hating" them. I may have not enjoyed WotC's marketing and presentation of the latest edition, but I'm not going to trash talk them (much), I just vote with my wallet.

Apparently something happened over the last few years where they think they made mistakes, and they're going to try to repair their relationship with the broader hobbyist base. More power to them, I hope they pull it off, and keep Hasbro from doing what they do (shelving a property until they can generate hype). The industry needs it.

Andoran

Zarathos wrote:

@ houstonderek

Yes, Chainmail was a earlier tactical wargame. Original D&D comprising of 3 small booklets was a supplement to Chainmail. OD&D didn't even have its own combat system. It didn't even make an attempt until the Holmes Blue Box. If you are interested in seeing OD&D + OGL SRD, check out Swords & Wizardry.

Zarathos, I was there, I'm aware :-) And, I'm OSR friendly, trust me.

Qadira

Scott Betts wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.
Right, in the same way that many 2e players had that reaction to 3e.

really cause I never saw that? Not saying it didn't happen, I just did not see an issue until 4th. That being said I have yet to play 4th and it might be a great game. I just have too much money invested otherwise to worry about it or for that matter 5th.


Crimson Jester wrote:
really cause I never saw that? Not saying it didn't happen, I just did not see an issue until 4th.

Yeah, it's really amazing what the internet has done for visibility in the last decade.

Andoran

CJ, I was pretty bad during the 1e to 2e change. I just didn't have a forum like this to b!*!! and moan on. I had to bore the cat with my whining...


Zarathos wrote:
OD&D didn't even have its own combat system.

Actually (he said in a nerdish way), OD&D had an "Alternative Combat System" that was the precursor to the d20 system. Three matrices: "Men Attacking", "Monsters Attacking", and the "Saving Throw Matrix". (Pages 19-20 of Men & Magic)


I griped and moaned about AD&D2. It felt "dumbed down" to me, and I didn't even like the look of the books, definitely not the artwork.


Is that the one with the fat blue swirls in all pictures?


(Sullenly) Yes.


I recently read the preface and introduction of the AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook and DMG. It just makes so sad and disappointed at how far 4th Edition fell from Gary's original vision of the game. I believe he came to terms with 3rd Edition even writing a column for Dragon Magazine and producing 3rd-party material under the OGL.

I am hopeful for 5th Edition but not particularly optimistic. The corporate mentality of WOTC under Hasbro has over time had a withering effect on the game. It is like Paizo is channeling the spirit of TSR, Inc before the advent of 2nd Edition.

@Jerry Wright 307, I forgot about the "Alternative Combat System". I never played it; I just read a pdf copy and I vaguely remembered something after I posted. Thanks!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
They produce an enormous amount of adventure material for fourth Edition, it's just not very good (and is predominantly available through the "online iteration" of Dungeon magazine).
Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure. If you are going to publish adventures, make them at least somewhat interesting or don't bother.

The more recent adventures are better than the intial H1-E3 series (In Dungeon at the moment, they're currently including an adaptation of the G series which is not too bad, plus the monthly adventures have been more willing to move away from the Dungeon Delve format). Even the later printed modules are a step towards story and away from a linear series of combats (though they havent produced much in Paizo's league, in my opinion).


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
(Sullenly) Yes.

*shivers*

The 80's last attempt at refusing to die.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Crimson Jester wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.
Right, in the same way that many 2e players had that reaction to 3e.
really cause I never saw that? Not saying it didn't happen, I just did not see an issue until 4th. That being said I have yet to play 4th and it might be a great game. I just have too much money invested otherwise to worry about it or for that matter 5th.

Back when I first inflicted myself upon the Paizo community, you'd still see an occasional 2e v. 3e flamewar erupt. I'm sure one of the websites dedicated to the older editions will also be chock full of 3e hate. (Probably some 2e hate, but 2e is the whipping boy edition anyway, and hating on 2e as a 1e fan is like hating on 3.5 as a 3.0 fan).

Edit: I missed houstonderek's post - looks like even 2e was contentious for its time.

Andoran

Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You are counting three years prior to a product being released as part of the products life span? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Yora's post (which you quoted, which started this discussion) talked about the period from 3e's development onwards. 3e started development in or around 1997.

If you're going to bother taking exception to something, first understand what it is you're taking exception to.

So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

Keeping in mind 1st and 2nd edition co-existed and were largely compatible, mainly differing in complexity.

Base question is why should there be loyalty to WoTC? They didn't invent the game, they just bought the brand. Then Hasbro bought them.

It isn't the same staff, unless you are arguing re-hiring Monte Cook is like bringing the band back together. It's like when bands have a reunion tour with only one original member, but keep the name of the band on the Marquee.

Andoran

Dennis Harry wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
3.0 was released in 2000. It was revised in 2003 to 3.5, a revision that built on rather than replaced the prior product, just as 2nd edition more or less built on rather than replaced basic.

I don't agree with this assessment. The 3.0 d20 mechanics are very different from the 2ed THAC0 mechanics.

In fact the d20 mechanic reminds me of the game Gemini a Swedish RPG released in 1998. The attacks were based on a d20. For a higher difficulty you could target specific portions of a foes anatomy, ie. add +10 to the roll to strike at the foe for a head shot.

While 2ed did not have the same level of power creep and difficulties to hit stayed within the realm of 2-20 (for the most part).

I did not play 1E but I believe the THAC0 mechanic existed there as well so 1E to 2E you have a similar system whereas 3.0 had a very different mechanic. I have also never played 4E so I am not sure how that is differnt from 3.0.

That is exactly my point. 1st to 2nd edition was more like the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. Similar games upgraded over time.

3rd edition was a major change, but only after the game had been going for over 26 years and drifted into bankruptcy.

4e came less than 10 years after 3.0 was released, while the system was still popular and successful. 5E is now coming out 5 years after 4e.

WoTC is not TSR, and even TSR is just a company. Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name that was purchased by a company that made magic cards who was bought by a toy company.

If I had the money to buy the Dungeons and Dragon name, and I announced I was putting out 5E, what would that mean?

So what does it mean that a company that bought a company that bought a company that created a product in 1977 called dungeons and dragons is putting out a table top game?


There once was a game that dominated its genre. A new edition came out, intended to be both a mechanical improvement and to incorporate new, modern flavor elements into the base game. It was the greatest mistake in RPG history. As a result, the player base was split, there was a significant fraction of people turning back to versions even older than the one immediately preceding the new game, and the copyright holder subsequently scrambled to reunify things and support "all eras" play.

And despite GDW providing such a warning by example with Traveller: The New Era, WotC went ahead and did the exact same thing with D&D 4th edition.

If Hasbro had put somebody good in charge of the WotC unit, somebody willing to study the history of the RPG market and understand what killed previous companies, the whole mess could have been prevented. Instead, WotC's RPG division was left without proper adult supervision, and the designers made the same mistake as GDW's.

Cheliax

Scott Betts wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.
Right, in the same way that many 2e players had that reaction to 3e.

By all accounts some did, but it was a very small minority. Definitely not enough to keep 3.0 from being a smashing success. The transition to 4.0 from 3.5 was a different story. A lot of long time gamers didn't switch. In fact, from what sales numbers we've seen in recent articles, it seems that nearly one half of D&D players didn't make the switch to or quickly left 4E. That is telling. It shows just how dramatically different 4E was from earlier editions. Sure, it had a lot in common with earlier editions. It had hit points, AC, rolling a d20 to hit, etc., but it also had some things that were quite different. The things that were different really mattered because they completely altered the way the game was played, the way the game was perceived, the ability of players to be immersed in the game, how long a session took to play out, etc. The differences were so glaring and dramatic, that they completely overshadowed the similarities. This is what made so many players say , "Meh, I'll pass. I'll stay with 3.5, or try this new Pathfinder thing." The rest is history.


ciretose wrote:


So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

Keeping in mind 1st and 2nd edition co-existed and were largely compatible, mainly differing in complexity.

No, not 6th so quickly. This says, to me at least, more along the lines that 4th edition was nowhere near as popular or as big a money maker as people seemed to believe. I think of all the conventions I went to last year, I saw one 4th edition game being run. At the one nearby gaming store that I knew for sure ran the Encounters stuff, that dried up as well. With 4th, it seems to me that the further from the original release date it has gotten, the fewer active players there are, unlike with 3rd, where it was still going strong when the changeover happened. As for the older editions, I do not remember a drop off in playing at the transition from 1st to 2nd, but I do remember one at the switch from 2nd to 3rd.

As for the comparisons of 1st and 2nd and their similarities, my original gaming group ran a combination of 1st and 2nd because we hated the THAC0 system. We jokingly called our hybrid of the two, version 1.5. lol

Andoran

THAC0 was the same number in the 1e combat chart, and was used for module shorthand at least by '83, I think. All 2e did was formalize it.

Qadira RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor

houstonderek wrote:
THAC0 was the same number in the 1e combat chart, and was used for module shorthand at least by '83, I think. All 2e did was formalize it.

Yep. THACO was even listed for all the monsters in the DMG Appendix (as To Hit Armor Class 0).

Andoran

Yeah, I forgot that, which is crazy because I didn't have a Monster Manual until I had been playing for a year and I ran my monsters out of that appendix.

Cheliax

Just a quick fact check:

I keep seeing people mentioning that WotC was just a card company that purchased D&D.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't Lisa Stevens, you know, the now CEO-like person of Paizo, wasn't she the one who brokered the deal? Wasn't she one of the people who helped create Magic the Gathering? Hell, wasn't she one of the people to create a little game called Vampire: The Masquerade?

Hey, could be wrong. But I swear she said all this herself during 'Auntie Lisa's story hour'.


ciretose wrote:
So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

1e lasted 12 years, 2e lasted 11 years.

Quote:
Keeping in mind 1st and 2nd edition co-existed and were largely compatible, mainly differing in complexity.

No.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
1e lasted 12 years, 2e lasted 11 years.

1e was 1979-1989

2e was 1989-2000

Scott Betts wrote:
No.

What exactly are you saying no to? While 2e added more rules, at its core, 2e was vastly compatible with 1e...

If you mean that they did not co-exist, than I would agree with you. However, there were still many people playing 1e over 2e for much of 2e's existence...

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Even so, PFS scenarios are a roleplaying bonanza compared to LFR (4E organized play)modules, and the sad thing is the LFR modules take much longer to run, because combat in 4E takes so agonizingly long. LFR mods are kill, skill challenge, kill, skill challenge, kill, and the killing part takes so long that can almost run two PFS scenarios in the time it takes to run one LFR mod. Let's hope 5E is much better.

I have only played a couple of LFR games (lack of popularity made me bite the bullet and re-join PFS) and I do remember one was mainly combat, but that was due to the players (one literally said something like "oh come lets skip ahead to the next combat"!!!!)

However if LFR scenarios are as you describe "kill, skill challenge, kill, skill challenge, kill" then that actually sems like a decent split between combat and non-combat encounters. Of course when I see Skill Challenge I often think "roleplaying opportunity", however I know some GMs run it purely in a mechanical sense (which is missing the point IMHO).

Personally I like skill challenges as they can support extended roleplaying scenes.

Spoiler for PFS 3-11 Quest for Perfection Part 2

Spoiler:
I just started reading PFS 3-11 Quest for Perfection Part 2 and in one section the PCs need to get some goods off a druid and some villagers. A deal had already been agreed but a recent storm and other ill omens have convinced the druid that he should not give the PCs the goods.

The options are
a) kill the Druid and villagers (full stats are given with combat tactics and an encounter map)
b) convince the druid to change his mind - a single Diplomacy Check with a +2 circumstance bonus if a PC can control nature in some way
c) steal the goods in the night, simply Stealth checks opposed by sleeping villagers' Perception checks.

For me, the way options b) and c) are writtenwill minimise roleplaying - players will speak their PC's words, or describe what the PCs plan to do re stealing and then a single roll will give a success or failure. That seems to not play to the potential for those situations. A skill challenge here could make things much more involved and interesting. Basically the PF way has as much roleplaying as could be in just a portion of a skill challenge which is a pity IMHO :(

Andoran

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

Just a quick fact check:

I keep seeing people mentioning that WotC was just a card company that purchased D&D.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't Lisa Stevens, you know, the now CEO-like person of Paizo, wasn't she the one who brokered the deal? Wasn't she one of the people who helped create Magic the Gathering? Hell, wasn't she one of the people to create a little game called Vampire: The Masquerade?

Hey, could be wrong. But I swear she said all this herself during 'Auntie Lisa's story hour'.

Which makes WoTC not a card company how?

The point is that it is a purchased brand. The fact that the person who brokered the deal to purchase D&D is no longer with the company that owns the brand, but instead spun off to another company more illustrates than refutes the point.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:


Scott Betts wrote:
No.

What exactly are you saying no to? While 2e added more rules, at its core, 2e was vastly compatible with 1e...

If you mean that they did not co-exist, than I would agree with you. However, there were still many people playing 1e over 2e for much of 2e's existence...

Actually, I believe there were some 1e books still in print for part of 2e's run. I don't have the citation, but it was one thing TSR was criticized for as part of their sloppy business management.

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on what you mean by coexist. We certainly used 1e and 2e manuals at the table for games at the same time because of their compatibility.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

Yes! And the duration between 6th and 7th edition will be a negative number . . . we all just missed 7th edition last year. #U@&!NG blasted multi-dimensional time continuum! Go back in time and step into a different universe, indeed . . .


ciretose wrote:
So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

We went from 6 (1973-1978) to 12 (1978-1989) to 12 (1989-2000) to 8 (2000-2008) to probably 5 (2008-2012).

But the problem is, the reasons for all of the previous editions were to create new opportunities for sales. The reason for the current change is to fix a problem that has even more to do with sales (losing them, apparently).

All of the previous edition changes were voluntary. I don't think this current one is.


Chuck Wright wrote:
4E combat plays like a strategic wargame. I never said 4E was a strategic wargame. Don't add things that aren't being said. You're better than that.

Here is the actual truth of the matter:

4E can be played like a strategic wargame, and some groups enjoy that style of play.

3rd Edition/3.5/Pathfinder can be played like a strategic wargame, and some groups enjoy that style of play.

Both of these games can also be played without as much emphasis on those aspects, in or out of combat, and some groups enjoy that approach, as well.

I mean, I can't comment as much on the earlier editions (as the groups I play with these days are not the same groups I played with then). But one of my groups plays 4E very much with a heavy focus on the wargame aspect - and did the same exact thing when we played in 3rd Edition. Another group plays with less concern over such matters, just as they did in 3rd.

The idea that the system is somehow enforcing these styles on players, rather than it being something determined by the players themselves, is just silly.

Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.


ciretose wrote:

That is exactly my point. 1st to 2nd edition was more like the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. Similar games upgraded over time.

3rd edition was a major change, but only after the game had been going for over 26 years and drifted into bankruptcy.

4e came less than 10 years after 3.0 was released, while the system was still popular and successful. 5E is now coming out 5 years after 4e.

WoTC is not TSR, and even TSR is just a company. Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name that was purchased by a company that made magic cards who was bought by a toy company.

If I had the money to buy the Dungeons and Dragon name, and I announced I was putting out 5E, what would that mean?

So what does it mean that a company that bought a company that bought a company that created a product in 1977 called dungeons and dragons is putting out a table top game?

I am glad we are in agreement then! That is what I get for rushing through what I read and responding!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
1e lasted 12 years, 2e lasted 11 years.

1e was 1979-1989

2e was 1989-2000

Scott Betts wrote:
No.

What exactly are you saying no to? While 2e added more rules, at its core, 2e was vastly compatible with 1e...

If you mean that they did not co-exist, than I would agree with you. However, there were still many people playing 1e over 2e for much of 2e's existence...

I know of at least a few who basically ended up using 2e materials as 1e supplements for their existing campaigns (and are still playing that way).

Andoran

@John Wolford, that's what I did, I ran 1e rules and used the 2e stuff (FR campaign setting materials, Planescape, some modules, etc) and integrated them into my homebrew. No conversion needed, really.

Cheliax

Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.

With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:


Quote:
Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.
With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.

You mean 4e combat, right?

Not 4e in general.

Also oh my god people preserve your quote tags.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Scott Betts wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:


Quote:
Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.
With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.

You mean 4e combat, right?

Not 4e in general.

Also oh my god people preserve your quote tags.

You've got to understand, 4e killed Cory's dog, and he's still bitter. You could copy-paste any random post of his since the announcement of 4e and it will say basically the same (mostly incorrect) things.

Edit: Actually, that's not entirely fair. I'm sure some of the things he's said have been proven correct (e.g., 4e not selling all that well). Why he continues to grind an axe on the incorrect things baffles me. You'd think it'd be enough vindication to have seen 4e doing so poorly, without also making up additional reasons to hate and despise it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

4E kicked me -- and pushed me back 2 squares.

Andoran

An Innocent Puppy wrote:
4E kicked me -- and pushed me back 2 squares.

Is that an encounter or an at will?


houstonderek wrote:
Is that an encounter or an at will?

SEE? 4E is so meta.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

ciretose wrote:
Dennis Harry wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
3.0 was released in 2000. It was revised in 2003 to 3.5, a revision that built on rather than replaced the prior product, just as 2nd edition more or less built on rather than replaced basic.

I don't agree with this assessment. The 3.0 d20 mechanics are very different from the 2ed THAC0 mechanics.

In fact the d20 mechanic reminds me of the game Gemini a Swedish RPG released in 1998. The attacks were based on a d20. For a higher difficulty you could target specific portions of a foes anatomy, ie. add +10 to the roll to strike at the foe for a head shot.

While 2ed did not have the same level of power creep and difficulties to hit stayed within the realm of 2-20 (for the most part).

I did not play 1E but I believe the THAC0 mechanic existed there as well so 1E to 2E you have a similar system whereas 3.0 had a very different mechanic. I have also never played 4E so I am not sure how that is differnt from 3.0.

That is exactly my point. 1st to 2nd edition was more like the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. Similar games upgraded over time.

3rd edition was a major change, but only after the game had been going for over 26 years and drifted into bankruptcy.

4e came less than 10 years after 3.0 was released, while the system was still popular and successful. 5E is now coming out 5 years after 4e.

WoTC is not TSR, and even TSR is just a company. Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name that was purchased by a company that made magic cards who was bought by a toy company.

If I had the money to buy the Dungeons and Dragon name, and I announced I was putting out 5E, what would that mean?

So what does it mean that a company that bought a company that bought a company that created a product in 1977 called dungeons and dragons is putting out a table top game?

And 3rd-edition was saved by someone who helped create the juggernaut that is Magic: The Gathering.

Lisa Stevens.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

Just a quick fact check:

I keep seeing people mentioning that WotC was just a card company that purchased D&D.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't Lisa Stevens, you know, the now CEO-like person of Paizo, wasn't she the one who brokered the deal? Wasn't she one of the people who helped create Magic the Gathering? Hell, wasn't she one of the people to create a little game called Vampire: The Masquerade?

Hey, could be wrong. But I swear she said all this herself during 'Auntie Lisa's story hour'.

Ninja'ed!

Yep. Lisa is one smart, savvy, business woman.

I still don't like that cardboard crack. ;)

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
4E combat plays like a strategic wargame. I never said 4E was a strategic wargame. Don't add things that aren't being said. You're better than that.

Here is the actual truth of the matter:

4E can be played like a strategic wargame, and some groups enjoy that style of play.

3rd Edition/3.5/Pathfinder can be played like a strategic wargame, and some groups enjoy that style of play.

Both of these games can also be played without as much emphasis on those aspects, in or out of combat, and some groups enjoy that approach, as well.

I mean, I can't comment as much on the earlier editions (as the groups I play with these days are not the same groups I played with then). But one of my groups plays 4E very much with a heavy focus on the wargame aspect - and did the same exact thing when we played in 3rd Edition. Another group plays with less concern over such matters, just as they did in 3rd.

The idea that the system is somehow enforcing these styles on players, rather than it being something determined by the players themselves, is just silly.

Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.

Actually, actually...

Tell me how the combat powers that require strategic movement among the squares of a battle mat aren't completely useless when you ditch the battle mat.

With third edition it is much easier to run combat without a visual representation.

Just because I could play Pathfinder like a strategic wargame doesn't mean that I could play 4E or Warhammer combat as a narrative only.

Claiming that you can without heavily deviating from the combat mechanics is just plain silly.


Chuck Wright wrote:

Actually, actually...

Tell me how the combat powers that require strategic movement among the squares of a battle mat aren't completely useless when you ditch the battle mat.

It depends.

When you play without a battle mat, does movement matter?

If so, then those powers will continue to play an important role even without a battle mat.

If not, then yeah, they're probably relatively useless. Of course, in that case, so are a ton of other things.

Quote:
Just because I could play Pathfinder like a strategic wargame doesn't mean that I could play 4E or Warhammer combat as a narrative only.

I could.

Quote:
Claiming that you can without heavily deviating from the combat mechanics is just plain silly.

I feel fairly assured that I could say exactly the same thing of Pathfinder.


Scott Betts wrote:
I could.

I'm curious -- how would you do it? The main idea I've seen is "zones" -- something like (adjacent - close - medium - long) -- but I'd love to hear new ideas. I'm running a Zombie game in Savage Worlds right now and I'm trying to settle on whether or not I want to use a map long-term.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

I just want to point this out right quick-like.

Just because 4E combat plays like a strategic wargame doesn't mean I'm saying 4E players are having wrongbadfun.

It's just the reason that I don't prefer to play 4E. Just like I don't prefer to play Battletech or Warhammer.

Please don't try to refute what something truly is because you feel that I'm making some sort of attack.

In all honesty, I prefer* the Storyteller system from White Wolf (NWoD over OWoD system but I prefer the original Mage to the new Mage) and I have a fond warm-fuzzy feeling in my heart for Shadowrun. Futuristic Urban Fantasy at its finest.

If you then point out things about the system which are true and you do not care for... well, ok. But I'm not going to tell you that a Troll in Shadowrun COULDN'T take a point-blank bazooka blast to the head and survive according to the RAW.

Spoiler:
As in, I have the most fun with and don't care if you like it or not and feel no compunction to make you admit that you like it so I somehow feel better about my own gaming choices.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Scott Betts wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
Just because I could play Pathfinder like a strategic wargame doesn't mean that I could play 4E or Warhammer combat as a narrative only.
I could.

When I say "Warhammer" I refer to "Warhammer 40k". Since that game is nothing but a giant, complex board game. I call shennanigans

Scott Betts wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
Claiming that you can without heavily deviating from the combat mechanics is just plain silly.
I feel fairly assured that I could say exactly the same thing of Pathfinder.

Heavily? Nope. Unless you think "simplifying the concept of AoOs" as "heavily deviating".

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:

Claiming that you can without heavily deviating from the combat mechanics is just plain silly.

I feel fairly assured that I could say exactly the same thing of Pathfinder.

True, both 4e and PF/3.5e are a painful experience of housing ruling what combat mechanics translate into when you don't know exactly to the 5' square where in blue blazers everyone is.

It is fair to say the game designers didn't envision people getting full use out of these rule-sets without the use of figures and a tactical battle-mat. I would say that the original idea from WotC was to generate a rule-set that would also sell their poorly painted plastic blobs they called miniatures. Without this caveat perhaps 3e would have looked very different?

When DM/players come from a non-mat back ground the whole battle-mat things seems to add very little to the game as a whole, only tactical detail to the battle - which as pointed out I want in a miniatures game but would like not to require in an RPG. I don't like the term Table Top RPG, when I have played on the floor, in a car, on a boat, in a box with a fox, er, you get what I mean.

S.


In my 3.5 game we use miniatures without a combat mat. If distances are important, we use a ruler. 5-foot steps and AoOs are easily dealt with. The benefit is that we don't have to worry about diagonals (as opposed to rows and columns). Areas of effect are precise, not dependent on squares. We don't have to change the mechanics at all.

But I have friends who play 4E and they point out that it would be very difficult to run 4E the same way. Squares are too important.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chuck Wright wrote:

In all honesty, I prefer* the Storyteller system from White Wolf (NWoD over OWoD system but I prefer the original Mage to the new Mage) and I have a fond warm-fuzzy feeling in my heart for Shadowrun. Futuristic Urban Fantasy at its finest.

** spoiler omitted **

I prefer OWoD Vampire and Mage for style and fluff (go Templars!) But Forsaken for their mythology over the fuzzy environmentalists of Werewolf. I also wish Appearance as an attribute to die a flaming death.

251 to 300 of 514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / WotC's big announcement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.