And on that account, I would never want to be a public DM, in reference to hind sight, second guessing, etc. So on that front I can admire Chris. Even if I may disagree on specific approaches or rulings.
4E is great from a uniformed rules perspective and expected behaviors in reference to roles, class, themes, races, powers, skills, conditions, etc. Rules were isolated and build upon each other. But it went to far in locking choices down to class, like removing mulitple attacks, or offering variance of choice like the essentials mage versus the 4e wizard. And where it had great potential with rituals, martial practices and alchemy sections, nothing was done to make those systems more robust. So Essentials should have been an effort to expand 4E, instead of pulling back to a more simplified format. It is my preferred system overall to date for the ease of developing adventures as a DM.
To be honest I rarely paid attention to who writes or develops the rules or adventures starting with 4E, or Pathfinder, and going all the way back to 1E. There is only so many ways to re-package D&D, and all the hard work has been done. If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E. I always thought it was odd bringing him on, when he appears to be fixated on older editions of the game and never supported 4E. The idea behind D&D Next is to bridge the generations of the game, and truely, that will be very hard to accomplish with everyone drawing lines in the sand and digging trenches. If you are going to be a lead designer, or any type of developer for 5E, and have a vested interest, then you are going to need a flack jacket and a thick skin just to make it through the play test. With a little bit of faith, an ear to the forums, and a bit of luck, perhaps 5E will meet it's intended purpose.
It is just easier to make the comparison that 4E supports online gaming better, or is a board game, just because it is a streamlined system, or it is based on tactial movement. Basically the rules are easier understand, and it is easier to make a comparison based on the fact. The most recent computer games have been simplified from a mechanics and graphics standpoint, because it appeals to a broader audience. Pathfinder shares all the qualities of the above statements on 4E, but you may be disuaded to state it supports online gaming, or board game qualities. For instance, Dungeon and Dragons Online doesn't support the entire rule set found in 3.5, and therefore you may state 3.5 was not written for online games. But I expect any recent computer games has roots in the very first edition of D&D and it's successors. So most the time, the term "computer game" or "board game" is taken as a negative connotation for roleplaying games, but all us roleplaying geeks are much more intelligent to accept that fact; or drive it as a point, because we would be criticizing the games we like to play. But overall, you can roleplay with either system, and whatever comparisons you make, the same qualities can be found in either system. And trying to have a online game, board game, or roleplaying game appeal to a broader audience is a goal if you want to have any type of longevity when considering the multimedia choices present today.
It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments. You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite. But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.
Actually, I would recommend GURPS and FATE since part of the character creation process is to create flaws (great for roleplaying). For an optimizer, this is a bonus, because to gain more "power", they have to choose more flaws. I disagree on the comments about GURPS being complicated "for math purposes", but it is more complicated for character generation, for the reasons stated above, and since it is a point buy; and everything is accomplished through individual skills. But once again, it sounds like it is the group. So whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck.
I don't think the game system is the problem or the answer in this case, it is more about the players and the DM. Whether you optimize or not, if the story telling is on the side, or a secondary thought to the majority of people at the table, then a discussion on mechanics becomes mute. By switching to another game system, this may be temporarily displaced as you imagine everything that can be done with it while you create a character or an adventures, but once you are at the table, you realize the group is the problem.
I would hope both WOTC and Paizo would issue tokens as a distinct and seperate product. Keeping up with miniatures is too expensive, especially for the rare creatures that are used only a couple times.
As long as no one considers breeding gnomes with humans and going into gnoman's land, we are good.
I think line of site, spell area affects, concealment, cover, i.e. anything that discusses range affects and how to determine if something can be done, or how to modify attack rolls, etc. can all benefit from a simple diagram. I also understand in any rulebook the text available is at a premium. I have played D&D and related games for at least 20 years, and I am surprised sometimes when I go back to a rule or diagram only to discover I was making the wrong interpretation. I was really disappointed by some of the responses, and I could see how a player new to game would think twice about asking a question again, even if most think the answer is obvious. |
