No matter what improvements 4th Edition will bring for others, I can't imagine it will do anything to "fix" D20's inability to be cinematic.
After some thought, I truly think that no game mechanic can make a game cinematic. The two are anathema. Mechanics can be put in place to encourage cinema, but it cannot create it <i>ab nihilo</i>.
The cinematic quality of the game is primarily determined by the DM, and then by willing players. I have played in games that were nearly pure tactics (try an eight-hour 1st edition battle versus Tiamat and her consorts using weapon speed and armor type adjustments "ending" with the last PC survivor using a card from the deck of many things to literally start again just outside the portal to Tiamat's lair). I have also played in games that were nearly all cinema (I LARPed for a while; in DnD, I also had a DM who was a fantastic story-teller, but did not have a strong sense of tactics; the cinema veritas of his style more than made up for some of the battles, and he can certainly set up some powerful scenes). In short, if the DM wants a cinematic game, and the players are willing to play a more cinematic version of the game, then it works. But mechanics alone cannot improve the quality of the game.
I suppose one thing I have liked about 3.5 is the very adaptive nature of the game. If one wants tactics, they are there. If one wants munchkinesque power-gaming, it is there. If one wants flavor , there is no dearth of settings. Good players make the game fun for everyone.
After reading many of the responses and opinions about DnD, my own feelings about the coming change are clarifying. I do not feel we need a new edition of the game to make the game better; I feel we need to make players better. And that happens through play, through compassion, through taking the time to calmly explain the ideas and aims of campaigns, gaming philosophy, etc.
Too often I think the stereotype of the asocial gamer geek comes through and prevents good communication (look at some examples from WotC's boards). To advertise a new edition to fix what many would dub character flaws of the players is ludicrous. I would rather see some creative ways to introduce new players to the game, to attract a larger customer base and to shed the dork label that plagues DnD fans.
|
Damn -- failed my Will save.
It happens to the best of us. Plus, some posts are masterworks of idiocy, which makes them much harder to resist than normal posts.
I noticed that "brain" is back -- basically saying that 4e is going to be crap and that 3.5 is the bomb -- then saying that the same crappy people that brought us 3.5 are bringing us 4e.
Brilliant logic. You got to love the support he has brought the industry.
"Damn -- failed my Will save"
That is one of the most frustrating part of the game when your well prepared character fails the roll, but that is part of the game and part of the life. Haven't you never said "bad luck" when your "roll" fails in your daily life and "good luck" when everything comes as you wish. Want it or not the dice is one of the most exciting part from the game. OK it is not so good to say "Damn -- failed my Will save"
but what a good thing is to say "Yes!, I did it!" and later hug all the members of your party. That is the game buddy.
but what a good thing is to say "Yes!, I did it!" and later hug all the members of your party. That is the game buddy.Yes, Group Hug don't say you don't shout of happiness when a death or live roll success, I won't believe you!
Yes, Group Hug don't say you don't shout of happiness when a death or live roll success, I won't believe you!
I would rather see some creative ways to introduce new players to the game, to attract a larger customer base and to shed the dork label that plagues DnD fans.
Silence this one. He is thinking outside the box.
To shred the dork label you'd have to do away with the recognizable as such dorks who game, and that ain't gonna happen. The gaming engine is fueled by dork power.
Heathansson:
"Hey, so's mah lady."
I miss him when he's not here so I'll have to proxy-quip.
I feel we need to make players better. And that happens through play, through compassion, through taking the time to calmly explain the ideas and aims of campaigns, gaming philosophy, etc.
Now that is the heart of the situation.
Looking at things in that new perspective, reveals a lot.
The clamor for fixes to 3.5 aren't necessarily calls for fixing the system...
But more for "fixing" the players that the champions of the new system are exposed to.
That makes a great deal more sense. It would be considered much easier to rewrite a game system to fit an individuals ideology of how their fellow gamers should play, rather than actually interact with those players and help them evolve into better players.
Very deep. That explains a lot.
Well, either way, the skill system as it is now is terrible. One of the things about 3.0/3.5 that has always annoyed me. The whole concept of "cross-class" is just silly to me. Yes, some classes should be inherently better at things (rogue/stealth, wizard/lore, etc...), but why is it in a world where customization is encouraged do we have cross-class crap? If your fighter wants to learn knowledge (arcana), why not let him pump his points into it? It doesnt make as much sense as, say climb, but if he wants to spend his time going over arcane lore, why restrict him? Same for the paladin/disable device, wizard/heal or whatever combination u want to come up with. And while I'm on it, WTH is with "speak language" being cross class for all but the bard? No way is it any harder to learn for one person than another, yet the bard is the only one smart enough to do it?
In any case, the skills system needs a dramatic fix. Maybe certain classes get inherent bonuses to "related" types (ie: rogue classes get minor bonuses to stealth and such) to show that they are, IN GENERAL, better at them. But in no way should a 20th level fighter have to spend the same amount of points on "heal" as a cleric and be half as good. Hey, part of military training is combat medical stuff. Why should he not be able to staunch a wound or tie a tourniquet?
It happens to the best of us. Plus, some posts are masterworks of idiocy, which makes them much harder to resist than normal posts.
Damn -- failed my Will save.
Actually, the post in question inspired me with a mechanic to resolve player requests for "Called Shots", something I have always found incredibly distasteful.
Funny.
Silence this one. He is thinking outside the box.
Bwaaahaahaahaaaa! I am the mighty subatomic particle, tunneling outside your feeble box. Let the other _-ons sit inside your energy well, but none of my transitions shall be forbidden.
Was I the one advocating shedding the dork label? Mayhap I should have clarified by saying instead, attracting enough "normal" people as players so that there would not be such a large stigma attached to being a fan of DnD. That has been happening over the past few decades...
The previews of Star Wars SE that were posted look promising to me. I noticed that only installments 1-4 were linked to previously (thanks for those links btw) but there's actually a total of 8 such articles in that series:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview8
Since I know that many of us here haven't been overly impressed with the 4E playtesting reports on wizards.com, it's worth noting that parts 5 and 7 of the Saga preview both deal with combat in great depth. I must say, if this is a taste of what's to come in 4th Ed then I'm feeling quite optimistic.
I even noticed that they standardized what I felt was an anomaly in 3.x — it appears that a defender's saving throws are now a constant number just like AC. Thus the attacker is the one who make the d20 roll rather than the defender. In 3.x, the fact that saves were rolled by the defender whereas checks to beat SR were rolled by the attacker always struck me as very 2nd Edition (i.e. sometimes in 2nd Ed it was better to roll high, sometimes better to roll low.) To me, consistency in *who* rolls is just as important as consitency in what You *want* to roll. Bravo!
In 3.x, the fact that saves were rolled by the defender whereas checks to beat SR were rolled by the attacker always struck me as very 2nd Edition (i.e. sometimes in 2nd Ed it was better to roll high, sometimes better to roll low.) To me, consistency in *who* rolls is just as important as consitency in what You *want* to roll. Bravo!
Oh this is a thorny issue.
I know a few people that can't stand D&D because there are no "dodge" rolls. And now the rules might take away their resistance rolls too?
Yes, I know it sounds a bit silly. I agree. But these people don't like to have the fate of their characters in any ones hands but their own.
If that is the way 4th Edition is going to be, these people will fall firmly into the camp that 4th Edition was "dumbed" down.
And spell resistance rolled by the attacker always made sense to me. The attacker is trying to get past the "magical" AC of the target.
Exactly for the attacker to roll spell resistance when an attacker roll to-hit for physical attacks and to beat a DC on a skill check, etc. makes sense to me too — it is consistent. For saves to be exactly the opposite not only goes against that BUT it greatly compounds the complexity of resolving magical attacks during combat.
Before I go further though...
"A character's defense scores are equal to 10 + her heroic level + the relevant ability modifier. Additionally, each class provides a small bonus to defense scores. For example, the soldier class provides a +1 class bonus to Reflex Defense and a +2 class bonus to Fortitude Defense." —Defend Yourself!
We can clearly see that there is a base of 10 in there meaning that for players who prefer to roll their own save, a DM could easily allow them to substitute a d20 roll for themselves in place of that 10. Personally, from what I know of martial arts it makes sense to me that the system allows everyone to Take 10 on their AC/Defense and not on attacks but hey, this is a game and I can understand their sentiment. I just think it makes combat too spastic when both the attacker and defender roll to resolve a single attack — a 20 point random spread is one thing but up to a 40-point spread (even if there does enter a bell-curve factor there)?
Still, unless You've got a group of nothing but noobies, players rolling their own saves doesn't detract from the speed of play significantly. This is obviously because all of those checks are made pretty much simultaneously. Furthermore, the excitement of who passes or fails their saves could even be considered "worth it".
The slowdown comes in when the party starts laying down mushroom clouds upon groups of enemies. Having to perform separate save rolls (or at minimum a single roll and then addition for each enemy) and THEN comparing results to the DC is just a huge waste of my time as the DM. It would be easier to just have the caster make a roll that sets the DC and compare that to static save numbers for each monster.
Come to think of it, I'm actually going to adopt that resolution method as a mechanical change for my own current 3.5 game. From here forward I'll let the players roll to set the DC and let monsters take 10 on their saves. I'm just kicking myself that I didn't think of it before WotC... ;)