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

Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D...


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

151 to 200 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Grey Lensman wrote:
The biggest "WoW-style" mechanic I am able to see in the 4E books is marking an opponent. That one seems a lot like an MMO taunt mechanic to me. The rest of it, not so much.

Ironically, it actually works almost nothing like MMO-style threat management. In an MMO, threat management involves forcing the target to attack you to the exclusion of everyone else. In D&D, marking is simply a way of discouraging a particular opponent from attacking your allies.

EDIT: And that's what I get for replying before I check the next page.


After playing a few hours of Diablo 2 for the first time in a very long time, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that they've added a retraining option! Which makes me even more psyched about Diablo 3. :)

Also, the Wizards team has had a more than passing love affair with Diablo:

Diablo D&D TTRPG and Diablo 2: The Awakening must have been written up the moment WotC bought out TSR because they use AD&D rules! Which I think highlights the absurdity of the "3e is Diablo on paper!" idea.

And then Diablo 2: To Hell and Back and Diablo 2: Diablerie both have the 3e D&D logo right there on the cover.

In conclusion...it's time to stop throwing stones, 'cause everyone's house is looking mighty glassy.

Osirion

houstonderek wrote:
And, damn, Jal, I've missed you man! Welcome back!

Same goes for you HD! Looks like I may have picked a hot thread...

Osirion

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

After playing a few hours of Diablo 2 for the first time in a very long time, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that they've added a retraining option! Which makes me even more psyched about Diablo 3. :)

Also, the Wizards team has had a more than passing love affair with Diablo:

Diablo D&D TTRPG and Diablo 2: The Awakening must have been written up the moment WotC bought out TSR because they use AD&D rules! Which I think highlights the absurdity of the "3e is Diablo on paper!" idea.

And then Diablo 2: To Hell and Back and Diablo 2: Diablerie both have the 3e D&D logo right there on the cover.

In conclusion...it's time to stop throwing stones, 'cause everyone's house is looking mighty glassy.

I do find it funny that the 3rd Edition Diablo II rulebooks often impune or insult core D&D "our magic items are so much cooler! artificially shortened spot distances are more fun! here's a whole bunch of impossible-to-implement options that make the monsters behave EXACTLY like the CRPG!"

Interestingly, the item number on the Diablerie is a TSR item code, while To Hell and Back is WOTC. I'm not sure if this was a case of licence transfers or something, but interesting nonetheless.

Andoran

Here the thing though it's one thing to say negative stuff about 4E when in the right context. Any thread about 5E is not really imo the right context. One does not have to like 5E. For me I'm getting tired of edition trains for any rpgs and unless 5E knockes my socks off so to speak I may not even by the core. If a poster is not interested in buying 5E fine your not interested all one has say is "I'm not interested in 5E". Instead we get that plus any and every excuse to take a cheapshot at 4E. How does that exactly fit into a discussion about 5E in the first place. Sure we are all human yet neither is anyone forcing anyone at gun point to post a anti-4E in any thread either. So to err is human yet were also adults on a forum. If you can't act with a certain level of maturity and class well your lose the right to be offended when your called out on bad internet behavior. Nor is freedom of speech a valid reason either. Once or twice okay yet only so many times one can hide behind that. Post what you want yet remember your responsible for what you post. That applies to myself as well. I'm not always a saint on these boards yet when I screw up on a forum I admit to it.


Digitalelf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
You, and the specific game you like most, do not get to unilaterally declare that something is or isn't D&D-special (whatever that means).

You fought the good fight Scott, but I really don't think you're going to change anyone's mind about 4th edition at this point any more than you could change someone's mind about 2nd edition (because that too was the edition people loved to hate)...

People have indelibly made up their minds...

I don't think Scott was trying to change anyone's mind. I think he was, in a very polite (as usual) fashion telling the edition warriors to shut the &^%$ up already.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
memorax wrote:

Here the thing though it's one thing to say negative stuff about 4E when in the right context. Any thread about 5E is not really imo the right context. One does not have to like 5E. For me I'm getting tired of edition trains for any rpgs and unless 5E knockes my socks off so to speak I may not even by the core. If a poster is not interested in buying 5E fine your not interested all one has say is "I'm not interested in 5E". Instead we get that plus any and every excuse to take a cheapshot at 4E. How does that exactly fit into a discussion about 5E in the first place. Sure we are all human yet neither is anyone forcing anyone at gun point to post a anti-4E in any thread either. So to err is human yet were also adults on a forum. If you can't act with a certain level of maturity and class well your lose the right to be offended when your called out on bad internet behavior. Nor is freedom of speech a valid reason either. Once or twice okay yet only so many times one can hide behind that. Post what you want yet remember your responsible for what you post. That applies to myself as well. I'm not always a saint on these boards yet when I screw up on a forum I admit to it.

Most people's purchasing preferences arent really matters of rationality though. (You're considering not buying 5E because you're "getting tired of edition trains" which isnt something easy to 'defend' it just is).

.
Some people's view of WoTC is inextricably entwined with how they viewed the 4E launch. Using the perceived history of the publisher to inform decisions about whether to buy or not isnt any more or less defensible than any other influence on one's preferences.

Some people really arent going to guy 5E because of some people on the WoTC forums who called themselves 4vengers a few years ago. That's a fact and there's nothing wrong about including that in your reasons.

One problem on the internet is that "I think..." often sounds like "The following is definitively true..." Ultimately though, with admittedly a few exceptions, every statement about 4E on these forums is one of opinion.

Andoran

Steve Geddes wrote:

Most people's purchasing preferences arent really matters of rationality though. (You're considering not buying 5E because you're "getting tired of edition trains" which isnt something easy to 'defend' it just is).

Some people's view of WoTC is inextricably entwined with how they viewed the 4E launch. Using the perceived history of the publisher to inform decisions about whether to buy or not isnt any more or less defensible than any other influence on one's preferences.

Some people really arent going to guy 5E because of some people on the WoTC forums who called themselves 4vengers a few years ago. That's a fact and there's nothing wrong about including that in your reasons.

One problem on the internet is that "I think..." often sounds like "The following is definitively true..." Ultimately though, with admittedly a few exceptions, every statement about 4E on these forums is one of opinion.

Good points. I do like to think that while my edition train is not exactly a good reason to not purchase 5E. Neither am I saying that while I hate new edition than no one should purchase 5E. The 4E mmo comparison still bothers myself and others because usually a poster is not saying for them 4E feels like a mmo. It's that 4E is factually a mmo. I can seperate my dislike of something and not tell a person not to prucahse a product. I dislike the PF gun rules. Neither am I telling other posters not to buy the book they are included.

Ultimally unless hating something can pay the bills, put food on the table or make you rich one should not be spending so much time hating something. For me at least anyway. Same reason why the 4E marketing vidoes while at first bothered me now don't. My dislike was not giving me any benefit in life. It was making my life worse.


So, some thoughts about D&D:Next.......

HERE was an interesting blog about the differences in Paladins vs. Clerics and how their roles in D&D are often similar yet fundamentally different in the scope of the game.

From all the talk on the blog, I'm speculating that Paladins might be alignment based again with their abilities. Monte goes on to describe specific aspects about paladins by using "Smite Evil, detect evil, yadda-yadda vs. Evil" characteristics that pre-4E paladin's have been attributed to. Is this a good thing? Should alignment play such an important mechanical role for D&D:Next? And these questions, of course, go further than just the paladin's abilities. Should they bring back Protection from Evil spells and other aspects along those spell-chains?

For my own sake, I hope they keep the 9-point alignment system and I (as DM-God) can dictate what'll be included or not from that system. That should be the default system, however. I also hope they refrain from putting alignemnt into the mechanics of the system. It's a pretty big let down when the DM tells you your Smite doesn't work against the giant construct destroying your friends, even if that contrust is an obstacle in your quest to serve your God or Values. Or that the DM is getting a bit ticked that the party always has on Protection from X-Alignment spells on them and thus makes all the bad-guys some sort of Neutral to circumvent that aspect.

Andoran

I rather have Paladins of good alignment. By that I mean not strictly limited to Lawful Good. Paladins should also be Chaotic and Neutral Good. I also agree with diffan that they should refrain from putting alignment into the mechanics of the system. Nothing says making your smite feel useless because the construct is not an evil alignment.

Taldor

houstonderek wrote:
Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

You'll have to send me the links, now cook wars : the game seems a good idea.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally I wish they would make the Paladin a theme or prestige class. It never made sense starting from level 1 as a Paladin to me. I do like the flavor and alignment/code restriction the class had. Had it been a prestige class all these years maybe we could have saved ourselves a few alignment threads.


Pan wrote:
Personally I wish they would make the Paladin a theme or prestige class. It never made sense starting from level 1 as a Paladin to me. I do like the flavor and alignment/code restriction the class had. Had it been a prestige class all these years maybe we could have saved ourselves a few alignment threads.

You need B/X/BECM D&D. Paladin (and Avenger, and Knight) were "prestige classes" that a Fighter could enter at 12th level. Champion of a Lawful church, the Paladin. Of course you'd still have alignment arguments. Which Lawful church was left rather more open. And the doctrine you were expected to follow could be quite different.


I just watched the video, and I must say I am intrigued. Being a low magic campaign lover myself, modularity is something I've wanted for a long time. I'm also interested in what an adventure open to several different modules would be like.

Osirion

Diffan wrote:

So, some thoughts about D&D:Next.......

HERE was an interesting blog about the differences in Paladins vs. Clerics and how their roles in D&D are often similar yet fundamentally different in the scope of the game.

From all the talk on the blog, I'm speculating that Paladins might be alignment based again with their abilities. Monte goes on to describe specific aspects about paladins by using "Smite Evil, detect evil, yadda-yadda vs. Evil" characteristics that pre-4E paladin's have been attributed to. Is this a good thing? Should alignment play such an important mechanical role for D&D:Next? And these questions, of course, go further than just the paladin's abilities. Should they bring back Protection from Evil spells and other aspects along those spell-chains?

For my own sake, I hope they keep the 9-point alignment system and I (as DM-God) can dictate what'll be included or not from that system. That should be the default system, however. I also hope they refrain from putting alignemnt into the mechanics of the system. It's a pretty big let down when the DM tells you your Smite doesn't work against the giant construct destroying your friends, even if that contrust is an obstacle in your quest to serve your God or Values. Or that the DM is getting a bit ticked that the party always has on Protection from X-Alignment spells on them and thus makes all the bad-guys some sort of Neutral to circumvent that aspect.

The design team has also gone on record that if alignment in implemented mechanically, they want it to be easily removed with a module. What impact this might have on a alignment-based paladin is uncertain...I can only assume the class would disappear, but hopefully there would be an alternate replacement.

While I love the idea of the LG paladin, I am also a big supporter of "church" based variants. Each major church should have its own unique style of crusader (something they could easily accomplish if 5e is really as customizable at the character creation level as they desire - feats, themes, etc.). A system like that would allow the "Paladin" to function in an alignment-less or reduced-alignment system.

Basically "smite evil" turns into "smite thing that doesn't follow my god" or even "fight thing that doesn't belong to my particular faith/sect/neighbourhood watch group". This fact would obviously have to be balance a reduced power level with ubiquitous use.

One thing I have toyed with is that Paladins can smite evil unlimited times per day (standard action) but if they smite a creature that is not evil, they lose the use of the ability. Because really "I, Heironeous, state that you shall smite my enemies, and the number of your smiting shall be 3" is a bit gamist.


I hope they scrap alignment all together. More often than not it only comes up when a DM wants to control a player's actions "You wouldn't do that you're ...", or a player wants to get away with doing something ridiculous "I would totally do that, I'm ..."

It has led to so many arguments about what is good/evil, or law/chaos, and all of it is based around intent. I also consider having alignment based mechanics a bad idea. Why does an enemy of a particular faith have to be a different alignment? Why can't your enemy also be good, but fighting for different causes? Oh, because with a simple low level spell you know right away whether they are or not, then you change your view.

It seems that the answer to so many, "How do I keep them from knowing the bad guy is really...?" and the answer is inevitably 15 different ways to hide the one mechanic than spells it all out for them. Wouldn't it just be easier to remove the mechanic, and let people take everyone for how they see them act and speak, instead of having a personality label floating above their heads?

Sorry, I hate alignment, and alignment restrictions.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

After playing a few hours of Diablo 2 for the first time in a very long time, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that they've added a retraining option! Which makes me even more psyched about Diablo 3. :)

Also, the Wizards team has had a more than passing love affair with Diablo:

Diablo D&D TTRPG and Diablo 2: The Awakening must have been written up the moment WotC bought out TSR because they use AD&D rules! Which I think highlights the absurdity of the "3e is Diablo on paper!" idea.

And then Diablo 2: To Hell and Back and Diablo 2: Diablerie both have the 3e D&D logo right there on the cover.

In conclusion...it's time to stop throwing stones, 'cause everyone's house is looking mighty glassy.

I do find it funny that the 3rd Edition Diablo II rulebooks often impune or insult core D&D "our magic items are so much cooler! artificially shortened spot distances are more fun! here's a whole bunch of impossible-to-implement options that make the monsters behave EXACTLY like the CRPG!"

Ha, that's cute! Never played any of the pen and paper Diablo games myself.


Jal and Aardvark Barbarian both bring up great points and I too feel that some variants need to exist IN CORE for D&D:Next for paladins if they decided to make alignments an important component in mechanics. I don't think it's a great way of going about it, but if they're simple enought to remove without any problems, then the game will be better for it IMO.

One notion I've entertained in lieu of Detect [u]apply alignment here[/u] spells in 3E/v3.5/PF is the gaining of bonuses to specific skills that are tied to the four big alignments: Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Law. Basically, when you creater your Paladin you choose one alignment to be the dominant one. There are Paladins, for example, who are Lawful Good but support Law when it conflicts with good such as when a homeless orphan is caught stealing. They would still be punished, even if the act itself is to survive. This choice then gives you certain numerical benefits to a specifically tied-in skills.

Chaotic dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Bluff because they could believe that deception can get the job done and possibly with less casualties.

Evil dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Intimidate to get the answers they want and to cower those weaker than themselves.

Good dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Diplomacy, because being a good diplomat can stop wars before they start.

Lawful dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Insight/Sense Motive to ferrit out the Unjust and untruthful.

Just some ideas here that might benefit D&D:Next or even your own games.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or if they don't scrap alignment in 5e then define what a person of a alignment can or cannot do. Rather then leave it vaguely descrobed. If the "is this evil" type threads on this site has shown we need descrobed in detail what a character of a certain alignment can or cannot do. I'm a fan of the Palladium system and to date the only system with alignments I never had trouble with. Every alignment twlls you what you can do in point form. Does your character take prisoners it says so in the alignment. Steal from someone it's written there. I may have issues with the Palladim rule system as a whole yet we never ever had any trouble figuring out what a good, evil, or selfish character could do.


memorax wrote:
Or if they don't scrap alignment in 5e then define what a person of a alignment can or cannot do. Rather then leave it vaguely descrobed. If the "is this evil" type threads on this site has shown we need descrobed in detail what a character of a certain alignment can or cannot do. I'm a fan of the Palladium system and to date the only system with alignments I never had trouble with. Every alignment twlls you what you can do in point form. Does your character take prisoners it says so in the alignment. Steal from someone it's written there. I may have issues with the Palladim rule system as a whole yet we never ever had any trouble figuring out what a good, evil, or selfish character could do.

Back when 3.0 first came out a friend and I sat down, and using the Palladium alignment lists, had created one for each of the core 9. I wish I knew where that was. I have always liked that they spelled it out, so there was no grey area (and the idea that there was no such thing as true-neutral people).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Or if they don't scrap alignment in 5e then define what a person of a alignment can or cannot do. Rather then leave it vaguely descrobed. If the "is this evil" type threads on this site has shown we need descrobed in detail what a character of a certain alignment can or cannot do. I'm a fan of the Palladium system and to date the only system with alignments I never had trouble with. Every alignment twlls you what you can do in point form. Does your character take prisoners it says so in the alignment. Steal from someone it's written there. I may have issues with the Palladim rule system as a whole yet we never ever had any trouble figuring out what a good, evil, or selfish character could do.

The only thing this will achieve is change "is this evil?" threads to "why this is evil ffs!!!" threads.

Interpretation of alignment and related stuff was always down to each individual gaming group due to wildly differing views on morality, just like with any other real-life related issue. Physics and math can be objectified, morality and psychology not so much.


Exactly, which is why it really shouldn't be included in, or have any mechanical bearing on, a game's ruleset.

Andoran

I rather have codified what may charactr can or cannot do. So I know if something is wrong or right depending on my alignment. The problem with leaving up to gaming groups is that group A DM might allow something and Group B DM may not. Group A allows the torture of prisoners while Group B does not. It's all well and good to leave it up to the indivudual gaming group yet that imo causes more problmes then it solves.

As to "why this is evil" threads that may or may not show up on message boards if they do spell out what you can do with alignement they will always come up whther you have a codified or abstract alignement system There will always be a poster who can't understand why it's not morally unacceptable to say kill a prisoner or stealing from the rich to give to the poor and steal it back again. I rather have it all written it out. Imo less of a headache as a DM who has enough to do as is. Not to mention have seen way too many in thr hobby play fast and loose with alignments. I'm in a game right now and one of the players is playing Lawful Good as being too lawful to a stupid degree. Not to mention at least to me it's easier to diffuse a argument about alignment when you can point to the book and say "this is what you can do" as opposed to making a call as a DM. If it's written that you can or cannot do something according to the RAW well you can or can't do it.

Andoran

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
Exactly, which is why it really shouldn't be included in, or have any mechanical bearing on, a game's ruleset.

Agreed and seconded. Not that I see that happening anytime soon.

Osirion

Diffan wrote:


Chaotic dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Bluff because they could believe that deception can get the job done and possibly with less casualties.

Evil dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Intimidate to get the answers they want and to cower those weaker than themselves.

Good dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Diplomacy, because being a good diplomat can stop wars before they start.

Lawful dominant paladins would gain bonuses and benefits to Insight/Sense Motive to ferrit out the Unjust and untruthful.

Just some ideas here that might benefit D&D:Next or even your own games.

I would go even further. In addition to the skill stuff, they should get a unique ability. Evil paladins would get an improving dominate to enslave others. Good paladins would get an improving restoration. Lawful paladins would get an improving zone of truth. Chaotic paladins would get an improving freedom of movement. A Neutral paladin might get an additional immunity for being "pure".

The benefit of improving the ability with advancement is that it allows a paladin to gain an ability for each alignment component, improving at different rates (similar to the 3.5 Ranger favored enemy bonus).

For example, lets say the abilities improve every 5 levels or every 10 levels for your second alignment. A LG paladin with focus on Law would start with a single-target zone of truth, and the standard Lay on Hands. At 5th level, they would gain a full zone of truth, and so on.

At certain points, these abilities should exceed the effects of the spell they are based on - a 20th level zone of truth might replay an event from 1000 years ago the paladin did not witness and has only passing knowledge of, but as if the paladin was a silent observer. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am going to have to disagree with you Memorax. I do not want the rules to tell me what my character will and wont do. No thanks. I prefer leaving that out of the rules. I have found the definition section for alignment to be adequate. My groups love discussing alignment and it rarely causes arguments. I am fully aware it can cause some strife between GM and players in other groups though. With any luck Alignment will be a module dial in 5E.

As for alignment causing differences between DM A and DM B I have to say welcome to the A,B,C,D,E edition of D&D. This modular approach is going to cause no two tables to play alike. Organized play will need to come up with quite the rulebook to keep it straight me thinks. If you think "Is this evil" threads are bad wait for the modular fallout threads weooooo.

Andoran

Pan wrote:


I am going to have to disagree with you Memorax. I do not want the rules to tell me what my character will and wont do. No thanks. I prefer leaving that out of the rules. I have found the definition section for alignment to be adequate. My groups love discussing alignment and it rarely causes arguments. I am fully aware it can cause some strife between GM and players in other groups though. With any luck Alignment will be a module dial in 5E.

We can both respectfully diagree. I'm not saying it needs to ne codefied down to the last detail yet we do need some examples imo of what a character of a alignment can or cannot do. While I like discussing the philosophies of alignments with my group also we do need imo some sort of way of mking sure that players do not found loopholes in their alignement To use my example from before i'm playing with a LG player who refuses to take prioners because according to the group charter were supposed to kill bandits. Which we have been doing up to a point except the LG player is refusing to take prisoner and pointing to the clause in the charter.

Pan wrote:


As for alignment causing differences between DM A and DM B I have to say welcome to the A,B,C,D,E edition of D&D. This modular approach is going to cause no two tables to play alike. Organized play will need to come up with quite the rulebook to keep it straight me thinks. If you think "Is this evil" threads are bad wait for the modular fallout threads weooooo.

I'm fully expecting there to be a few weeks of fallout on this, Wotc and other rpg forums discussing the modular aspects of D&D. Mind you they can reduce that by making certain topics taboo and that cannot be discussed for whatever reason. At the very least threads that are started for the purpose of trolling, flaming or inciting a response should be removed without even a warning to the offending poster. I respond to some not all threads as responding to every thread would just take up too much time. While also saving my sanity.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:

We can both respectfully diagree. I'm not saying it needs to ne codefied down to the last detail yet we do need some examples imo of what a character of a alignment can or cannot do. While I like discussing the philosophies of alignments with my group also we do need imo some sort of way of mking sure that players do not found loopholes in their alignement To use my example from before i'm playing with a LG player who refuses to take prioners because according to the group charter were supposed to kill bandits. Which we have been doing up to a point except the LG player is refusing to take prisoner and pointing to the clause in the charter.

That is why I think the definitions in the rulebook for 3E/PF were adequate. Your miles seem to have varied. We ran into the issue of prisoners and the charter as well. We went with the Law on this one. Bandits cross a line and there is a cost to it. Giving the bandit a quick death and a burial was inline for us. Now I can also see arguments suggesting that killing a defenseless person regardless of their nature wouldn't sit well with a lawful good person. Its these discussions that help us define our characters and why exactly the alignment system is something my group really enjoys using. Neither answer is right or wrong.

I guess it is hard for me to understand the problem since my groups don't try to game the system. We use alignment as a guide or moral compass as you will. Every action doesn't necessarily need to be in line with ones alignment. Things get tricky with Paladins but that just adds to the challenge of playing that type of character. The only time we call someone out is if they start to make regular decisions that are out of alignment. Perhaps I am taking it out of context but it sounds like your player is gaming the system and that's too bad.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:


I'm fully expecting there to be a few weeks of fallout on this, Wotc and other rpg forums discussing the modular aspects of D&D. Mind you they can reduce that by making certain topics taboo and that cannot be discussed for whatever reason. At the very least threads that are started for the purpose of trolling, flaming or inciting a response should be removed without even a warning to the offending poster. I respond to some not all threads as responding to every thread would just take up too much time. While also saving my sanity

I can not see why subjects would have to be banned or not allowed. If people troll well that's why forums have moderators. To be honest I think such discussions will be necessary. I don't think it will be possible to write a rulebook that wont cause debate. I understand you may want to curb some of the arguments here or at your table. However, I don't think its a worthwhile goal for WOTC to worry about.


Pan wrote:
memorax wrote:

We can both respectfully diagree. I'm not saying it needs to ne codefied down to the last detail yet we do need some examples imo of what a character of a alignment can or cannot do. While I like discussing the philosophies of alignments with my group also we do need imo some sort of way of mking sure that players do not found loopholes in their alignement To use my example from before i'm playing with a LG player who refuses to take prioners because according to the group charter were supposed to kill bandits. Which we have been doing up to a point except the LG player is refusing to take prisoner and pointing to the clause in the charter.

That is why I think the definitions in the rulebook for 3E/PF were adequate. Your miles seem to have varied. We ran into the issue of prisoners and the charter as well. We went with the Law on this one. Bandits cross a line and there is a cost to it. Giving the bandit a quick death and a burial was inline for us. Now I can also see arguments suggesting that killing a defenseless person regardless of their nature wouldn't sit well with a lawful good person. Its these discussions that help us define our characters and why exactly the alignment system is something my group really enjoys using. Neither answer is right or wrong.

I guess it is hard for me to understand the problem since my groups don't try to game the system. We use alignment as a guide or moral compass as you will. Every action doesn't necessarily need to be in line with ones alignment. Things get tricky with Paladins but that just adds to the challenge of playing that type of character. The only time we call someone out is if they start to make regular decisions that are out of alignment. Perhaps I am taking it out of context but it sounds like your player is gaming the system and that's too bad.

As long as the mechanics don't interfere with the system in any drastic way, then it's as simple as removing that aspect of the game with no problems. Case in point, 4E's alignment system isn't tied to the mechanics except in a few small ways, so you can add the old alignment system to it and it plays the same or you can remove it alltogether and it'll play the same. I don't think it's as easy as that with 3E and previous editions. So they should keep it as a core element, even going with the 9 points (I'd still remove True Neutral and replace it with Unaligned) and have a side bar saying that it's not required to use this part of the game if a DM so desires.

@ Jal Dorak: Those are some awesome ideas there, which I fully intend on stealing for my own game. Thanks!!


Scott Betts wrote:


I'm a big fan of people trying to describe how 4e is like WoW-on-paper. It starts with the implicit assumption that if 4e has any similarities with WoW, those similarities must be bad, and then it's all downhill from there. It usually goes something like, "But 4e has cooldowns just like WoW!" followed by, "So what? Is there something wrong with cooldowns?" followed by, "They don't belong in my D&D!" followed by, "Sure they do, here's a list of cooldown mechanics in your favorite edition of D&D," followed by gibbering.

4e is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. You, and the specific game you like most, do not get to unilaterally declare that something is or isn't D&D-special (whatever that means).

"WoW-on-paper" is just the current edition war's meaningless go-to attack of choice. We had "Diablo-on-paper" back in 2000, and it was stupid then, too. Here's an idea: if you really played 4e for years and have enough experience with it to identify its strong and weak points, then you ought to have enough wherewithal to describe those weak points instead of hitting it with a WoW-sized bludgeon.

Late to the discussion, but heck, I'll bite.

4e feels like WoW on paper, in my opinion. This is not an insult; I play lots of MMO's, so if I make that connection in my head, it's not meant as an insult. The following has been spoilered for sheer wall of "OMG not this again..." so, unspoiler at your own risk. Hopefully I've said at least a little something new.

Spoiler:

On the "MMO comparisons..."

Thing is, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. And, this isn't meant as an insult either. In fact, it's funny, because my friends whom play 4e take great offense to the MMO comparisons, but don't even play MMO's themselves. They don't even understand the comparisons, all they hear is "video game = bad!" when often times it's not the case.

I play the ever-loving hell out of video games. Video games are what brought me to table top RPG's since 1990. I've played MMO's pretty seriously for the past 14 years, starting with Ultima Online in the late 90's. If I make a comparison to a video game, it's a pretty high compliment.

You can call it whatever you want, but tomato sauce, melted cheese, and pepperoni on baked bread still smells a lot like pizza to me. And I like pizza... I'll get back to this.

In my experience, what rattles a lot of grognards bones about 4e is the feel of the game. Mechanically, it's not that different from any other edition. What 4e did was standardize the game mechanics and make them more transparent, more "game-like" if you will. Whereas previous edition measured "cooldowns" in real-world units like minutes, hours, days, with "rounds" being the only game-specific time measure, 4e broke it down in a cleaner, more efficient language but instead of real-life time units, they put more emphasis on game terms, with "daily" being the only real-world measurement. I've seen a lot of "3e=simulation, 4e=video game" arguments stem from this right here; simple game language. Mechanically practically identical, just using different words.

By replacing "minutes, hours, days, feet/meters, etc" and replacing it with "per encounter, squares, etc" they traded real-world terminology for game terms. Mechanically they are the same damn thing, but the change in language alone was enough to drive off more than a fair share of old-school gamers.

Another big one that comes from MMO-land especially, is the heavy use of "roles" that are tied into the classes. Most MMO's I've played have a very heavy emphasis on roles like Tank/Defender, Damage Dealer/Striker, Controller, Healer/Support/Leader, etc. These roles have also always existed in out table-top games, but just as with the terms used above, they just weren't spelled out so specifically in older editions. 4e took great strides to hammer home EXACTLY what a class was meant to do.

This is seen as a good thing to some, bad to others. After a flurry of useless, directionless splatbook classes in 3e(Dragon Shaman I'm lookin at you), some players were happy to get to the point and be told what a class is supposed to do. Other players, myself included, didn't like the pigeon-holing. Personally, I like the freedom of taking a class and making it fill the role I want it to fill, not be told what role it's going to fill automatically. I've played front-line melee wizards and support/healer rangers in 3e, and those are not easy to pull off in 4e. So, 3e had much more freedom, but with that freedom came reckless imbalance. 4e cleaned up the balance and un-blurred the lines and job roles of the classes. When you roll up a 4e wizard, you are pretty much written into a specific role right from the get go. Good for some, bad for others.

tl; dr:
4e doesn't do much all that different from previous editions, mechanically, at all, but it's change in game-language disassociated it with the game's previous real-world connections. The Heavy use of gamey terminology just so happens to have a lot in common with video game RPG's game terminology, MMO's in particular. I don't think it's a coincidence, but I don't think it's a bad thing either.

The change in language to a more gamey-style of terminology led to a more video-gamey feel for a lot of players. That's it. It's a feel thing, and a lot of grognards just don't like the way that feels.

One person's cashmere is another person's burlap.

Anyway, the actual mechanics of 5e don't concern me at this point. I've heard enough from the dev's about it that I know it includes things I like(Vancian spellcasting, 3e multiclassing, at-will magic).

My concern for 5e is how they are going to deliver the feel of it; are they going to continue to use abstract gamey language like 4e, or return to vague and breakable real-world language like previous editions?

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
My concern for 5e is how they are going to deliver the feel of it; are they going to continue to use abstract gamey language like 4e, or return to vague and breakable real-world language like previous editions?

Depends on what your definitions of "abstract" and "vague" are.

I'd argue that saying something is 10 feet away is as far from vague as you can be without using scientific units. Saying something is 2 squares away means NOTHING to anyone except the players of the game. It takes one extra step of reasoning for the player to immerse themselves into their character.

Here's the thing: 3rd Edition and 4th Edition fundamentally altered the mindset. If a player asks "Wait, how many orcs did I actually get with that fireball?" it doesn't really matter whether the DM picks a random number, determines one in the best interests of pacing/story, rolls a pre-determined die, or carefully measures out the radius/obstacles/distances. The common element is that the DM is making the decisions. If the DM measures and the fireball kills every orc, he can just add more! If the DM decides arbitrarily that the fireball killed no orcs, that is the same result. The point is that as long as a DM is being fair and consistent, you can gleefully ignore any rule you want. How many groups simply ignore encumbrance because it is too time-consuming? How many of those DMs kill the party because their combined weight collapses a bridge?

Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.


I'm more fond of Pathfinder than 4.0 primarily due to the fact that it is easier to roleplay a variety of characters in Pathfinder than it is in 4.0. If they want to win Pathfinder players, they will need a more flexible system. As to whether they will succeed at that goal remains to be seen. As for other D&D settings, I'm not too bothered by their absence in Pathfinder as Golarion provides a decent backdrop for most games I run and play. On the other hand, it definitely doesn't replace niche settings like Dark Sun or Eberron, but there are enough fan threads around that converting said settings isn't an issue.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


The D&D experience trancends editions. It's how you play, not what you play.

Stop complaining about the system and recognize it's the playstyle you hate.

This is as much as saying the game doesnt matters. Its the people who matters.

People matters a lot. Makes all the difference.

So is the game and what it offers to the people. Why are we debating editions if what doesnt matters?

It does matters.

Diffan wrote:
Healig surges work similar to the situation I just provided. They're a gamist element to represent a person's innate ability to "forge on" even when they're in a great deal of pain.

Except theyre called healing surges. So, healing surges does not heal, right? I know that suspention of disbelief is relative to the person as well I know that people who care to immersion are not buying this. Sounds forced up. Like a bad plot movie that people does not believe in and needs to be backed up. Sure, the guy who is watching for the special effects wont care, but the other folks will go out of the movie less than satisfyed.

Diffan wrote:
Then why do people still like to argue and make it a point to come to the 4E sub-forums just to say how much they dislike 4E or that 4E is a Pen-Paper MMO or well.....half a million other reasons that it doesn't suit their fancy?

You know, I asked myself exactly this and this question is what brought me here to post again, despite the fact that I ll be called a preacher again (boy that one really hurts).

Why so many threads and anger and some deleted offensive posts about 4E?

Why is wizard$ making a new edition?

Why is paizo so sucessfull?

What keeps me typing on 4E forums?

Go figures. =/

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
JoãoFalcão wrote:
So is the game and what it offers to the people. Why are we debating editions if what doesnt matters?

Because we haven't learned that it doesn't matter. We cling to the idea that it does, that our favorite edition is the best, when in reality we only think that because it is our favorite.


Josh M. wrote:
4e doesn't do much all that different from previous editions, mechanically, at all, but it's change in game-language disassociated it with the game's previous real-world connections. The Heavy use of gamey terminology just so happens to have a lot in common with video game RPG's game terminology, MMO's in particular. I don't think it's a coincidence, but I don't think it's a bad thing either.

See, what I understand you're saying here is that 4e inched a little closer to the way video games present games. That's cool, I totally agree. Some of the differences between 3e and 4e are due to the ever-developing games industry and schools of game design, and tons of that development is happening in video games. They are developed quickly, continuously, and insanely competitively, and as a result they are constantly looking for new ways to push the medium and the very concept of what makes a game a game. Video games have seen more advancement and innovation in the last ten years in terms of gameplay than tabletop RPGs have seen in the whole of their existence.

And, of course, at the same time video games are inching closer to tabletop games. The explosion of the popularity of "Western"-style RPGs and the resurgence of story-based co-op play is a testament to this.

But the problem is that some people are looking at those inches and declaring that those inches make the RPG feel like a video game, where, presumably, no such feeling was had previously. I mean, we're talking tiny changes to the game - as you noted, they're not even mechanical changes! And yet we get people who act like some games are not video games on paper, while other games are, even though on the great scale of how games could be designed, they're right next to each other.

The impression I get is that certain people (clearly not you, Josh) have the following thought process.

1. Tabletop RPGs and video games are separate things.
2. Tabletop RPGs are inviolate, and any mixing with video games degrades them.
3. 4e (and 3e before it, and presumably 5e after it) is more like a video game than 3e (or 2e, or 4e, or whatever).
4. Therefore, 4e is a poor RPG.

The impression that I get is that it doesn't matter how significant point #3 is. For a certain group of people, even superficial changes like those you discussed mean that the game must be a video game on paper, and the scoffing can begin.

Let's be honest, we all know the "WoW on paper" claim is a rubbish statement - even you know this. If D&D were really WoW on paper, it would be painfully obvious because it would be called WoW: The Tabletop RPG and it would have all sorts of uniquely-WoW features and bits rolled into it. What "WoW on paper" is really is a crutch argument for a certain group of people to use against D&D because it's inflammatory, topical, and holds a couple superficial kernels of truth.

There is perhaps some academic ground to be stomped out over the examination of how video games and tabletop RPGs influence one another. Those would be cool discussions, and I think that many game designers have already started them behind the scenes, years ago. But it seems there are still a lot of gamers in the fan base who can't get past the "They put vidya games in my D&D!" kick. I'd really love to not have to deal with that particular segment when 5e hits.


Jal Dorak wrote:
I'd argue that saying something is 10 feet away is as far from vague as you can be without using scientific units. Saying something is 2 squares away means NOTHING to anyone except the players of the game. It takes one extra step of reasoning for the player to immerse themselves into their character.

But removes an extra step from the math. If very little in the game, mechanically, happens at distances of less than 5 five but greater than 0, it makes good mathematical sense to reduce the units for ease of presentation. I daresay the number of times people have had to divide feet by 5 to figure out how many squares away someone's at is far greater than the number of times people have had to multiply squares by 5 to figure out how many feet away something is.

I'm not saying that one is necessarily a better unit for the game than the other, but clearly there are advantages to using squares that were being glossed over.

Quote:

Here's the thing: 3rd Edition and 4th Edition fundamentally altered the mindset. If a player asks "Wait, how many orcs did I actually get with that fireball?" it doesn't really matter whether the DM picks a random number, determines one in the best interests of pacing/story, rolls a pre-determined die, or carefully measures out the radius/obstacles/distances. The common element is that the DM is making the decisions. If the DM measures and the fireball kills every orc, he can just add more! If the DM decides arbitrarily that the fireball killed no orcs, that is the same result. The point is that as long as a DM is being fair and consistent, you can gleefully ignore any rule you want. How many groups simply ignore encumbrance because it is too time-consuming? How many of those DMs kill the party because their combined weight collapses a bridge?

Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.

It's not a worthless lesson, though. The truth of the matter is that the complexity and learning curve of becoming an adequate DM was high in previous editions of the game. You didn't just need to learn the rules. You needed to learn the exact same arbitrary set of play-it-by-ear guidelines you mentioned above, and for many people that took years. I can't tell you how many less-than-awesome DMs I've played with because they didn't know how to manage those calls. 3e and 4e codified things so that DMs had explicit guidelines for how to handle certain scenarios. Have five PCs? Here's what you can throw at them and expect them to overcome. 6th level character? Here's a DC he can probably beat. These are good tools, because they remove some of the paralyzing (and sometimes game-souring) guesswork from the DM's job. Unfortunately they had an unintended side-effect of arming many players with the knowledge of what was expected of them at particular points in the game, and with it the ability to catch on when things stretch outside those guidelines. I think the benefit outweighs the downside, and I think there are ways to mitigate the latter anyway.


Jabborwacky wrote:
I'm more fond of Pathfinder than 4.0 primarily due to the fact that it is easier to roleplay a variety of characters in Pathfinder than it is in 4.0. If they want to win Pathfinder players, they will need a more flexible system. As to whether they will succeed at that goal remains to be seen.

Out of curiosity, what character can you play in Pathfinder that I can't play in 4e? Outside of a firearms-wielder or a non-adventuring individual, I can't really think of any.


JoãoFalcão wrote:
Except theyre called healing surges. So, healing surges does not heal, right? I know that suspention of disbelief is relative to the person as well I know that people who care to immersion are not buying this.

I care about immersion, and I think they're just fine.

I think the difference is that I don't care about immersion so much that I'm going to purposefully avoid a game just to demonstrate to everyone else how much I care about immersion.

You're smart enough to tell yourself that healing surges don't necessarily have anything to do with mending physical wounds, just as an individual's health is often discussed in terms other than battle wounds. How often do we hear about "overall health", in real life? Or "mental health"? "Spiritual health"? "Sexual health"? "Dietary health"? Or discuss someone's healthy sense of humor? Or healthy amount of courage? Why do you insist on holding the idea of healing surges up to this idea that they must refer to physical wounds mending when you've already accepted that the word "health" and the concept of healing are not limited to battle wounds mending in real life? You're telling that it's the word getting in the way, but no one is putting it in the way except you, and you're doing it on purpose.

Quote:

Why so many threads and anger and some deleted offensive posts about 4E?

Why is wizard$ making a new edition?

Did you really just type those out right next to each other? You wonder at how people could get inflamed over 4e, and then proceed to immediately post something inflamed about 4e/5e?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
I'd argue that saying something is 10 feet away is as far from vague as you can be without using scientific units. Saying something is 2 squares away means NOTHING to anyone except the players of the game. It takes one extra step of reasoning for the player to immerse themselves into their character.

But removes an extra step from the math. If very little in the game, mechanically, happens at distances of less than 5 five but greater than 0, it makes good mathematical sense to reduce the units for ease of presentation. I daresay the number of times people have had to divide feet by 5 to figure out how many squares away someone's at is far greater than the number of times people have had to multiply squares by 5 to figure out how many feet away something is.

I'm not saying that one is necessarily a better unit for the game than the other, but clearly there are advantages to using squares that were being glossed over...

And in complete fairness 1st edition measured movement in inches, so really 4e just brought that back.

Andoran

Scott Betts wrote:


I think the difference is that I don't care about immersion so much that I'm going to purposefully avoid a game just to demonstrate to everyone else how much I care about immersion.

You're smart enough to tell yourself that healing surges don't necessarily have anything to do with mending physical wounds, just as an individual's health is often discussed in terms other than battle wounds. How often do we hear about "overall health", in real life? Or "mental health"? "Spiritual health"? "Sexual health"? "Dietary health"? Or discuss someone's healthy sense of humor? Or healthy amount of courage? Why do you insist on holding the idea of healing surges up to this idea that they must refer to physical wounds mending when you've already accepted that the word "health" and the concept of healing are not limited to battle wounds mending in real life? You're telling that it's the word getting in the way, but no one is putting it in the way except you, and you're doing it on purpose.

Agreed and seconded.

Scott Betts wrote:


Did you really just type those out right next to each other? You wonder at how people could get inflamed over 4e, and then proceed to immediately post something inflamed about 4e/5e?

Then posters wonder why it bothers me so much. Pretending to not understand why certain posts about 4E cause a negative reaction. Then delibrately post something that is going to bother some posters. You know how much flak I would get if I posted $aizo or $athfinder. Then some still wonder why gamers still don't get taken seriously. I wonder.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Let's be honest, we all know the "WoW on paper" claim is a rubbish statement - even you know this. If D&D were really WoW on paper, it would be painfully obvious because it would be called WoW: The Tabletop RPG and it would have all sorts of uniquely-WoW features and bits rolled into it. What "WoW on paper" is really is a crutch argument for a certain group of people to use against D&D because it's inflammatory, topical, and holds a couple superficial kernels of truth

It goes beyond that Scott. The MMO argument carries the weight of a heavy insult. I have no idea why but many table top gamers absolutely loathe MMOs. They blame them for everything they perceive is bad about their games. I can't even count how many times I have read on the forums "MMOs turned my players into munchkins!11!!!!11!!" "MMOs killed roleplaying1!!!!111!!!." Hell one guy even said something along the lines of "I am a psychologist and adults who play MMOs are poorly adjusted to life." So yeah its no wonder people really get going about the "WoW on paper" argument.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jal Dorak wrote:

Here's the thing: 3rd Edition and 4th Edition fundamentally altered the mindset. If a player asks "Wait, how many orcs did I actually get with that fireball?" it doesn't really matter whether the DM picks a random number, determines one in the best interests of pacing/story, rolls a pre-determined die, or carefully measures out the radius/obstacles/distances. The common element is that the DM is making the decisions. If the DM measures and the fireball kills every orc, he can just add more! If the DM decides arbitrarily that the fireball killed no orcs, that is the same result. The point is that as long as a DM is being fair and consistent, you can gleefully ignore any rule you want. How many groups simply ignore encumbrance because it is too time-consuming? How many of those DMs kill the party because their combined weight collapses a bridge?

Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.

Interesting that you should make this observation. One of my players is an older gentlemen who quit playing back in the 2E days. He returned to fantasy gaming when Pathfinder launched. He is not pleased with what he is hearing about 5E. What you are saying in the quote is precisely why. I believe he said "going back to the days of rulings vs. rules oh hell no!" Which for me is interesting. I was a late gamer and started with 3.5E. I have no experience with 1E/2E and was looking forward to seeing what exactly the designers have been talking about.


Scott Betts wrote:
Jabborwacky wrote:
I'm more fond of Pathfinder than 4.0 primarily due to the fact that it is easier to roleplay a variety of characters in Pathfinder than it is in 4.0. If they want to win Pathfinder players, they will need a more flexible system. As to whether they will succeed at that goal remains to be seen.
Out of curiosity, what character can you play in Pathfinder that I can't play in 4e? Outside of a firearms-wielder or a non-adventuring individual, I can't really think of any.

This has inspired me to craft a Hexagunner for 4E. I'm thinking primary Striker with a secondary role with Leader or Controller......nice!

And to comment on this:

Quote:

Here's the thing: 3rd Edition and 4th Edition fundamentally altered the mindset. If a player asks "Wait, how many orcs did I actually get with that fireball?" it doesn't really matter whether the DM picks a random number, determines one in the best interests of pacing/story, rolls a pre-determined die, or carefully measures out the radius/obstacles/distances. The common element is that the DM is making the decisions. If the DM measures and the fireball kills every orc, he can just add more! If the DM decides arbitrarily that the fireball killed no orcs, that is the same result. The point is that as long as a DM is being fair and consistent, you can gleefully ignore any rule you want. How many groups simply ignore encumbrance because it is too time-consuming? How many of those DMs kill the party because their combined weight collapses a bridge?

Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.

I've only ever DM'ed 3E and 4E but I've never been constrained to the rules as a straigh-jacket EXCEPT when it came to crafting NPCs and Monsters with levels. There have been SOO many times I've wanted an NPC to have such-and-such ability or a Monster to be bigger or stronger or whatever YET still be a challenge to the PCs going by the CR rating. What I got, well.......either a simple encounter where the PCs ate the guy in 3 round or a total party kill. Of course, it wasn't like that ALL the time, but in the beginning......yea after a few sessions I just stuck with the monsters in the books because at least they were balanced a bit.

As a player of both 3E/PF/ and 4E, yes I'm going to distrust a DM who isn't fair or who is shifty on his rulings. Case being, why are we playing by rules if the DM is just going to break them? How can I know a tactic like Blowing up Orcs is something I should remember for next time when his judgement about this wavers by allowing it one session and then saying they're completely immune a session later? Codified rules keeps things in check. It keeps DMs honest (there's some room to fudge, which is good) and players honest as well. And really, with how ambiguous some of the spell descriptions read......well lets just say NO one should be able to ferret out completely hidden people with hide checks in the 20's with a Detect Magic spells just because they're wearing magical items. For one, it takes like 3 consistant rounds of concentration to pin-point the location and for another, it's only in one specific 60-ft cone. Yet time and time again, DMs i've played with use it like some magical-item tracking device.


Jal Dorak wrote:


Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.

I actually had the opposite experience with my games, my players would look at all the stuff they could do on their character sheet and assume that was ALL they could do. Despite repeated reminders that I actually liked improvisational play, my players, many of whom are self professed improvisational role-player, just couldn't see past that list and always picked off that list.

While I'm on the subject- they often picked poorly, because as it turns out my players 1- couldn't be bothered to try and learn to work together under the new rules or 2- be bothered to learn what their actual power selections did.

At first I thought the problems that led to the games discontinuation was their fault (and honestly I still think they're partly to blame- they did spend about as much time complaining about the new edition as they actually did playing it), but I've come to realize the problem was largely one of presentation on 4e's part. The system was so transparent they just couldn't suspend their disbelief and get into character.

Despite much of what happened from game to game being functionally the same, 4e broke the fourth wall in a very drastic way with it's presentation, and my players just didn't like it (which is fine, and understandable really, I just didn't need the fifty dozen rationalizations of why the system didn't encourage role-playing).

Also- the change from a game with a light veneer of tactics, to a game with some serious tactical elements was WAY more abrupt than they were prepared for. Instead of seeing additional ways for expressing their character's personality in combat situations, they just saw a game that was all combat.

Just my personal experiences, hardly universal I'm sure.


All that to say, I think pretty clearly 4e had some really really good ideas that were really poorly implemented, along side some just plain bad ideas, that blotted out the ability of some people to see any some the actually well implemented stuff (especially since most of the really good stuff was on the DM's side of the house).

What really boggles my mind though is that many people who were the most upset that 4e had so many issues, are crying foul now that WoTC are closing the door on such a problematic edition and trying to start fresh...


Scott Betts wrote:
Let's be honest, we all know the "WoW on paper" claim is a rubbish statement - even you know this. If D&D were really WoW on paper, it would be painfully obvious because it would be called WoW: The Tabletop RPG and it would have all sorts of uniquely-WoW features and bits rolled into it. What "WoW on paper" is really is a crutch argument for a certain group of people to use against D&D because it's inflammatory, topical, and holds a couple superficial kernels of truth.

I agree for the most part. I think "WoW" gets used most often simply due to its familiarity and popularity compared to other MMO's. I've seen a few comparisons to Everquest, and in my own instance I find more similarities to Final Fantasy XI Online, but simply because I have several years and thousands of hours invested in that game. In my own experience, I've found 4e haters coin the WoW term who've never even played WoW, just going from what they think a MMO is.

Even in the MMO community, WoW gets bashed a lot for it's cartoony look, less-serious approach and fat loots, when in reality it's every bit as deep and technical as any other MMO out there. That the dev's at Blizzard actually have a sense of humor(location names, etc) downright offends some MMO players, and I can tell you first hand that FFXI is especially lacking in the humor department(it tries, but cross-language humor is hit or miss). Point being, I lost count of the times my fellow FFXI players would bash WoW for this or that reason, when FFXI wasn't really much better...

That, and as I've said numerous times in the past, most people forget that WotC actually made WoW d20 TTRPG already.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:
That, and as I've said numerous times in the past, most people forget that WotC actually made WoW d20 TTRPG already.

WotC had nothing to do with the WoW D20 game (other than releasing the SRD and OGL).

That's an Arthaus/Swords & Sorcery product. Arthaus (and Swords & Sorcery) is an imprint (was an imprint?) of White Wolf.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
That, and as I've said numerous times in the past, most people forget that WotC actually made WoW d20 TTRPG already.

WotC had nothing to do with the WoW D20 game (other than releasing the SRD and OGL).

That's an Arthaus/Swords & Sorcery product. Arthaus (and Swords & Sorcery) is an imprint (was an imprint?) of White Wolf.

Aw crud, you're right. I keep forgetting that. Still, my point being that WoW: the TTRPG already exists.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

That it does. As does Everquest (and even Everquest 2) in TTRPG format.

But, does that mean that the TTRPG's based on the MMO properties are MMO-inspired, any more or less so than the game that's being debated?

Specifically, once you remove the subject matter (the WoW "Campaign Setting" if you will), are there rules in that RPG designed to mimic concepts or evoke the feel of the MMO as has been argued transpired with 4E?

151 to 200 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D... 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.