Good evening,
I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:
Does it even matter?
For me, what matters is a good story and a good backdrop to play this story against. The game system in itself is not relevant in my opinion. To prove this assertion I would like to point out 2 things:
- I do not know of any DM who does not tweak the rules of 3.5 in some way, which tends to prove that this edition is far from perfect
- I do remember very fondly some fantastic games with AD&D 2.0 (or even worse Rolemaster), which tends to prove that you still can have fun with a dog of a system (in my very personal opinion).
I think everyone should relax.
Best regards
Good evening,
I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:
Does it even matter?
For me, what matters is a good story and a good backdrop to play this story against. The game system in itself is not relevant in my opinion. To prove this assertion I would like to point out 2 things:
- I do not know of any DM who does not tweak the rules of 3.5 in some way, which tends to prove that this edition is far from perfect
- I do remember very fondly some fantastic games with AD&D 2.0 (or even worse Rolemaster), which tends to prove that you still can have fun with a dog of a system (in my very personal opinion).
I think everyone should relax.
Best regards
I'd say it does because I'd only want to sink money into a game that I enjoy running and/or playing.
The best campaign I ever ran was in 2nd edition BUT that wasn't because of the game system. I roleplayed with 2 guys I hadn't seen in years and our game just happened to connect on all cylinders. In that instance, as long as the rules didn't get in the way, we were going to have a great time.
With Rolemaster, I LOVED character creation but the rules actually got in the way of my having a good time.
That said, I've found that 3rd edition fits the bill for being a fun, flexible game (the trick with 3rd edition is to use only the books you need for your game). I've sunk too much money in it to invest in what looks to me to be an inferior game.
That's why I want Paizo to stick with 3.5. I don't mind tweaking the material they put out, so that I can use it in my campaign world BUT don't want to overhaul the mechanics to conform with 3.X from 4th edition. That defeats the purpose of buying a game aid...
- I do not know of any DM who does not tweak the rules of 3.5 in some way, which tends to prove that this edition is far from perfect
- I do remember very fondly some fantastic games with AD&D 2.0 (or even worse Rolemaster), which tends to prove that you still can have fun with a dog of a system (in my very personal opinion).
Hmmm, a "tweak" to the rules makes it "far" from perfect. One of those words doesn't mean what you think it means. Never mind the strawman implicit in that.
WotC should use your second point as the tagline for 4E: "Sure, it sucks, but you might have fun anyways!"
|
I think the system does matter to a degree, depending on the campaign type.
One shots, I can generally enjoy regardless of system. Even 3e.
For longer running campaigns, system choice becomes more important to me because I don't want to be continually agitated by an aspect of the system that I dislike.
First, it matters to my group -- 3.5 seems to have nailed our (arguably atypical) preferences pretty well -- but we like a certain degree of complexity. While an improved, simplified version is a good thing, it might not be for us.
More generally, for many it's not just playing, but playing in a certain setting (just as some people like reading Forgotten Realms but not Dragonlance). If a new version isn't reasonably compatible with the setting of choice, there's little point in buying it.
For what any of this is worth :)
Good evening,
I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:
Does it even matter?
For me, what matters is a good story and a good backdrop to play this story against. The game system in itself is not relevant in my opinion. To prove this assertion I would like to point out 2 things:
- I do not know of any DM who does not tweak the rules of 3.5 in some way, which tends to prove that this edition is far from perfect
- I do remember very fondly some fantastic games with AD&D 2.0 (or even worse Rolemaster), which tends to prove that you still can have fun with a dog of a system (in my very personal opinion).
I think everyone should relax.
Best regards
If what you say is true, which you seem to believe that it is, then why even use rulesets at all. Why not just sit around and just tell cooperative stories?
That way you wouldnt have to come on a board like this one and basically try to tell people what should and should not be important to them.
Obviously, the rulesets are important to a lot of people hence that posts on those particular threads on this board and many others including ENWorld and RPGnet.
There's a big difference between tweaking something to get it to work the way that you want it to and gutting the entire thing because almost nothing works that way that you want it to. Every table is different no matter what ruleset is being used and to use gamers fixing or modifying to their particular needs is not black mark against the rules.
If what you say is true, which you seem to believe that it is, then why even use rulesets at all. Why not just sit around and just tell cooperative stories?
You mean free form rpg? I've tried it once and didn't like it much. As a DM, I prefer the randomness that come with playing a game. I know however some very good DMs that free form a lot. I guess it is a question of style
There is a lot of discussion on these boards on whether Paizo should convert to 4.0 or stick with 3.5? My point is that I think this is a wrong question.
The right question is in my opinion: Do you have a good stories to tell?
Knowing the quality of Paizo's work I am pretty convinced they will continue to deliver the goods whether its' in 3.5 or 4.0
Also, for all their money grabbing antics, WOTC is far from stupid. I am pretty sure that it will not entirely gut the D20 mechanics. If they streamline it and bring back to the table a new generation of gamer (who will later become the future grognards without any doubt) then I say so much the better.
Nothing could be worse for my hobby than being stuck with a ageing and dwindling player base.
By the way, I had nearly forgotten: Happy new year to all the RPGers out there...
|
Knowing the quality of Paizo's work I am pretty convinced they will continue to deliver the goods whether its' in 3.5 or 4.0
Absolutely, but I want it to be in the medium that I'd prefer. Which is 3.5 (or Paizo-modified 3.5). I have no interest in 4E anymore and every time Michele Carter says something I lose a little more.
Paizo is going to bring the awesome regardless, but the difference between 3.5 and 4E is a vast a difference as if they suddenly switched to video games or a saturday morning cartoon show to deliver their story. I want to enjoy D&D in the way it was established by Paizo, my group pretty much has all the WotC 3.5 books and if they're going to stop producing them AWESOME, now we can spend ALL our money on Paizo and other OGL producers that Paizo is drawing material from.
WotC should use your second point as the tagline for 4E: "Sure, it sucks, but you might have fun anyways!"
That was the tagline for 3.5.
Heavens! Of course the system matters. I'm surprised something like that is even up for debate. (Well, it won't be debated with me, in any case, as there is absolutely no question that it matters for us.)
Simply put - my players and I won't play a system that sucks. (Less simply put - my players and I won't play a system that doesn't meet our specific needs, and what we find to be fun.)
"Good stories to tell" isn't anywhere near enough - as another poster put it, one might as well do some sort of (creepy, according to my players) cooperative storytelling session. No thanks.
|
My favorite gaming experience was playing Boot Hill. The game wasn't that great but the passion that the GM had for the wild west combined with his ability to make it come alive and make us all laugh made it a truly awesome game.
The rules matter but not as much as the social dynamics between the players and the GM.
Knowing the quality of Paizo's work I am pretty convinced they will continue to deliver the goods whether its' in 3.5 or 4.0
While that might be true, it should also be stated that the edition still makes a difference. So what if Paizos products are six stars of five, if no one buys the rules they will still go belly up.
Now I'm not saying that no one will buy 4e, acctually as the release draws nearer I hear more and more people jumping on tha band wagon, but I'm saying that Paizo still need to know if the trade-off is worth it. Perhaps it could even be benificial for them to continue 3.5 rules if they manage to steal enough customers from WotC.
I mean, good stories are great, but rules sell them.
There is a lot of discussion on these boards on whether Paizo should convert to 4.0 or stick with 3.5? My point is that I think this is a wrong question.
The right question is in my opinion: Do you have a good stories to tell?
Sure. And I will tell them to the appropriate audience (my children) at the appropriate time and place (bedtime, in their rooms). When I sit down to play a game, however, I want some decent rules for it.
And yes, I had some great times playing 1e, even though its rules absolutely suck when compared to 3e. Those great times were not the result of anyone having a "great story to tell," however. The great stories were a result of us playing what was, at the time, a great game, unlike anything else that was available back then. They happened without anyone planning for them to happen, because the rules (sketchy as they were) provided a framework in which they could happen.
IMO, the worst thing a DM can do for his game is have a "great story to tell." When I play D&D, I want to create my own destiny, not sit and watch some DM reveal it to me.
|
|
Sure. And I will tell them to the appropriate audience (my children) at the appropriate time and place (bedtime, in their rooms). When I sit down to play a game, however, I want some decent rules for it.
And yes, I had some great times playing 1e, even though its rules absolutely suck when compared to 3e. Those great times were not the result of anyone having a "great story to tell," however. The great stories were a result of us playing what was, at the time, a great game, unlike anything else that was available back then. They happened without anyone planning for them to happen, because the rules (sketchy as they were) provided a framework in which they could happen.
IMO, the worst thing a DM can do for his game is have a "great story to tell." When I play D&D, I want to create my own destiny, not sit and watch some DM reveal it to me.
I totally, entirely, 200% agree with this whole post.
There's a huge difference between having some encounters, NPCs and potential situations worked out before hand by the DM and having a "story to tell". The game itself isn't about "telling a story". The "story" is what a player can tell somebody else after the game is over.
|
|
There's a huge difference between having some encounters, NPCs and potential situations worked out before hand by the DM and having a "story to tell". The game itself isn't about "telling a story". The "story" is what a player can tell somebody else after the game is over.
Some campaigns work well that way. Some DMs prefer not to create a story arc for their campaigns.
But some campaigns do tell a story and the GM or mod writer provides the framework for the story to play out.
There is nothing wrong with that. In fact some of the best mod series had a story arc planned out in advance - the Witchfire Trilogy and the Rise of the Runelords come to mind.
|
Good evening,
I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:
Does it even matter?
Yes, sadly it does.
While wisdom would caution me to agree with you, experience has shown me that nothing pollutes more a game than a badly/unclean written rule, and there will always be someone to complain and spoil the fun.
This is one of the only good points of 4e that I see so far : the only players interested so far are the rules lawyers type. So if everything works well, come June we will be freed from our disruptive elements.
The great stories were a result of us playing what was, at the time, a great game, unlike anything else that was available back then. They happened without anyone planning for them to happen, because the rules (sketchy as they were) provided a framework in which they could happen.
There are a couple of different ways to play though.
In some campaigns, the purpose of the game is enjoyment of tactical skirmish battles using the d20 rules.
In other campaigns, The game IS to make a story. It's not the DM's story though. Everyone at the table has a story to tell. Each person brings a character with a backstory, a personality and goals; the coistered, monastic cleric exploring life, the half-elf ranger trying to find his elven people to prevent his half-brother from destroying the forest, the dwarven crafter who's wife was enslaved by orcs, etc. In these campaigns, stories are not just for 'bedtime with your kids'. The DM's job is to introduce unknown plot elements into these backstories and give players choices. In many cases, these choices ("Should we kill the lizardfolk chieftain or ask him to ally with the local lord?", "Do I sell the location of the smuggling tunnels to the Scarzni or let Sheriff Balock know about them?") have nothing to do with the ruleset.
We've had a lot of roleplay sessions that have little to no combat, and IMO it really wouldn't have made a difference whether we were using 1st edition rules or 3rd or something homebrew. Understanding and enjoying the basic assumptions of the campaign world (like "Are there horses?") is IMO much more important than whether you have triple hit points at first level or you cast 10 spells per day or 50.
In some campaigns, the purpose of the game is enjoyment of tactical skirmish battles using the d20 rules.
I will agree that it is possible to have a campaign with no greater purpose than this, but it wouldn't be what I consider D&D.
In other campaigns, The game IS to make a story.
I can't really agree with this, either. The purpose of the game (and here I mean what I consider to be D&D) is not to make a story, either. A story winds up being created/told, but that is merely an incidental by-product of playing the game.
We've had a lot of roleplay sessions that have little to no combat, and IMO it really wouldn't have made a difference whether we were using 1st edition rules or 3rd or something homebrew.
My experience is different than yours. I have role-played in combatless 1e sessions and combatless 3e sessions, and the rules do make a difference. As a simple example, in 1e, the success or failure of a PC's efforts at diplomacy depend entirely upon his own ability to charm and persuade (as judged by the DM), while in 3e, the PC's success or failure most likely depends on his Diplomacy skill.
Understanding and enjoying the basic assumptions of the campaign world (like "Are there horses?") is IMO much more important than whether you have triple hit points at first level or you cast 10 spells per day or 50.
I don't disagree, but you seem to be embracing a false dichotomy here. There's no reason that players cannot understand and enjoy a campaign world and prefer one set of rules for that world over another.
I will agree that it is possible to have a campaign with no greater purpose than this, but it wouldn't be what I consider D&D.
Let me sub the word "purpose" with "primary focus of gametime", whether it's intentional or not.
For example, in some tables a lot of time is spent discussing rules, talking with each other out of character to discuss the best tactical solutions and building characters with a preference for mechanical fun over bringing something with roleplaying depth. There are other campaigns where players spent less time debating over whether something "really should have happened" per RAW, speak in character more often and choose characters that may not offer a variety of interesting options in combat but are built with just as much thought an effort into their backstories and dreams.
In other campaigns, The game IS to make a story.I can't really agree with this, either. The purpose of the game (and here I mean what I consider to be D&D) is not to make a story, either. A story winds up being created/told, but that is merely an incidental by-product of playing the game.
D&D, at its basics, is a role playing game. Here is the definition of a roleplaying game per Wikipedia:
"A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. "
While I know it's not the best source, Wikipedia seems pretty popular.
We've had a lot of roleplay sessions that have little to no combat, and IMO it really wouldn't have made a difference whether we were using 1st edition rules or 3rd or something homebrew.My experience is different than yours. I have role-played in combatless 1e sessions and combatless 3e sessions, and the rules do make a difference. As a simple example, in 1e, the success or failure of a PC's efforts at diplomacy depend entirely upon his own ability to charm and persuade (as judged by the DM), while in 3e, the PC's success or failure most likely depends on his Diplomacy skill.
I'm not talking about simple skill checks. I'm talking about making choices that determine what happens in the story other than "we beat the bad guys" or "we get them to do what we want". Do you stay in the village, or travel to the city? Do you take prisoners back to the village or do you execute them? Which NPCs do you choose to ally with? Making these decisions depends on your character's motivations and roleplaying within the party, something that even in 3E there are no checks for.
Understanding and enjoying the basic assumptions of the campaign world (like "Are there horses?") is IMO much more important than whether you have triple hit points at first level or you cast 10 spells per day or 50.I don't disagree, but you seem to be embracing a false dichotomy here. There's no reason that players cannot understand and enjoy a campaign world and prefer one set of rules for that world over another.
Like our earlier discussions on running 1E modules for 3E, I think the rules are really only as critical as the table's 'enjoyment' of them seems to be. The majority of an adventure deals with NPC backstories, maps, room descriptions, plot hooks, monster purposes and illustrations.
Look at the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer for 3E. There are very, very few rules listed in that book. And even looking back at the AD&D World of Greyhawk box set, there is far more flavor over crunch.
The question is, at your table is the emphasis on the group contributing more flavor or is the focus on crunch? I think the OP is asking if the flavor is really good (and the flavor that EVERYONE brings to the table, not the DM) then does it really matter what the crunch is? That depends on what you're playing. If it's a lot of dungeon crawls, then crunch probably gets the most spotlight. If it's a lot of urban or smaller dungeons, and the focus is on a freeform game of exploration or intrigue, then your 1E games will probably look a lot like your 2E, 3E and probably 4E games as well. (Assuming of course the setting hasn't changed.)
|
|
I've seen a few thread regarding the supposed merits and the flaws of 4.0 on this forum. My question is very simple:
Does it even matter?
Yes, because we are seeing that 4E is a different game.
You could draw a comparison between D&D 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 3.5 editions and Football in High School, College and NFL. You could even add in Arena Football, Flag Football, Canadian Football and the XFL. They all share the same basic rules and are essentially the same game. Someone who knows how to play one of these can learn quickly to play any of these.
4E is English Football, you know Soccer. It is a different game, and it is not a game I grew up playing and watching, so I find it boring. Yes, some of the terminology is the same, but "Offsides" in the NFL means something different than it does in English Football.
And that is the problem with 4E, words do not mean the same thing (Eladrin, Death Knight, Ice Devil), basic aspects have changed (Magic, Devils, Elemental Planes) and much of what I consider "must have" for my game is missing (Psionics, Eberron, Gnomes, 7 Schools of magic, Bards). Sure they will eventually get around to adding them, but be honest, would you buy a video game that promised you a needed update 2 years from now? (Remember E-Tools?)
They are step by step invalidating my knowledge and experience of playing and DMing D&D, they are invalidating every PC I have every played and they are invalidating mine and everyones Home-Brewed Setting.
My confidence as a Player or a DM is based on my knowledge of the game and changing what things mean will only cause confusion. And telling me I should just throw all my old PCs, DMs notes and Home-setting in the garbage just causes anger.
But as on another 4E thread, my anger has moved on to depression and is now becoming acceptence to the fact that they just don't care.
By 4E's release, I should be ready for Revenge!!
4E is English Football, you know Soccer.
Wow. I have never seen a more perverted analogy.
The football analogy is interesting, however, football does not have the story elements that D&D has. A better analogy might be a roleplaying game based on a sports movie. Could you have told the same story of Rudy if he wanted to be a basketball player? How many kids sports movies have the same formula despite the rules of the game being very different? (Washed out coach proves himself by taking a ragtag team to stardom.)
One could also argue that 3E is far more of a revolution of the 'sport', and for the mechanical aspect it's not high school vs college but instead it's rugby. Terminology like armor class, saving throws, skills, attacks of opportunity and spells have very different meanings in 3E.
And those are terms related to the ruleset. The other terms mentioned, like eladrin or ice devils, are related to one particular setting. For example, drow have very different appearances in the Realms, Greyhawk and Eberron. The disconnect you're seeing is a departure from Greyhawk as core and a transition to a new Known World, which IMO is more true to the original game. (Using a backdrop that isn't fully fleshed out makes the game as mysterious and new as when it was first presented.)
The ruleset may have changed, but because you can still play Greyhawk (even if it means slightly modified material, like Dark Sun and Spelljammer and Planescape needed when 3E came out) it's still the same story.
|
|
4E is English Football, you know Soccer.
off-topic
One could also argue that 3E is far more of a revolution of the 'sport', and for the mechanical aspect it's not high school vs college but instead it's rugby.
I disagree. Everything that was different in 3E had already been ‘revolutionized’ by another system. You could say 3E brought the revolution to the masses, but other RPGs had been there and done that.
To continue the derail…the rest of the world calls soccer football; not just England. Once again, America is the rebel without a clue.
Everything that was different in 3E had already been ‘revolutionized’ by another system. You could say 3E brought the revolution to the masses, but other RPGs had been there and done that.
The same could be said about 4E with Bo9S and SWG. The original point was the ruleset terminology is very different in 4E (granted, we don't have the rules yet) to which I added that it is also very different in 3E.
I'd also like to add that the Rise of the Runelords has a conversion document for True20, which in some ways may be more different from 3E than 4E will be (dropping AC and damage altogether, replacing ability scores with modifiers only, etc). Yet no story elements have changed, and you could play Runelords with either ruleset and play out the story with the same outcomes.
I would not be surprised to see 4E conversion material available for the Runelords campaign in six months from now. Time will tell.
The same could be said about 4E with Bo9S and SWG. The original point was the ruleset terminology is very different in 4E (granted, we don't have the rules yet) to which I added that it is also very different in 3E.
Na, 4E is like taking the XFL and making it the NFL. It might look "cooler" and "edgier" and made up of the next best thing, but there's a reason why a classic remains a classic; the classic is better, and the classic will outlast this whim (esp if the whim flops).
Na, 4E is like taking the XFL and making it the NFL. It might look "cooler" and "edgier" and made up of the next best thing, but there's a reason why a classic remains a classic; the classic is better, and the classic will outlast this whim (esp if the whim flops).
Every classic begins as something different.
I would not be surprised to see 4E conversion material available for the Runelords campaign in six months from now. Time will tell.
I am running Runelords with Hero now. I do not need 3.5 or 4E. When D&D catches up with progress, it can call me.