The overpriced minis is actually one of the more offensive parts.
If I want a good custom painted mini, it costs 30-35 dollars. There are PLASTIC minis that cost more than that, and they don't look nearly as nice compared to a custom miniature when they come back from the painter.
I was able to go to Ebay and find many figures that represented characters in my group for minimal costs compared to buying a rare D+D mini.
It was actually fairly sobering to know that even if I can't paint miniatures, Wizards is still ripping me off.
One thing I never got are people that play D&D and will never consider playing any other game (regardless of the reason).
Well you were doing fine until this point. You asked me a question, but then went straight to the assumption that I or my wife haven't tried something else.
Further, your underlying assumption is that your version of D&D is, well D&D and what I and others are looking for is not.
No. You're reading into my post more then what is there. I did not include you in that statement for a reason: I don't know you. If you wish to assume I was talking about you, I can't help that. But I wasn't. I have met to many people in my time that tried D&D, refuse to try any other game, and complain about D&D because they don't like it. Me? I spent more time in non-D&D style RPGs then I have in D&D so I am a big advocate of other companies and indy games. So my comment to you about, "Have you tried other games?" was merely a helpful question, not a test of your bredth of RPG knowledge.
And I never make the assumption that my game is better then anyone else's game. I do, however, make the assumption that my game is better then other games for me. I did not make that assumption about you and if you had never tried another game, I'd certainly recommend other games. But since you have tried other games, then there is no need for me to.
I have delved deep into the rules and found stuff that lacks, finesse (and some that is just down right ugly). Do I hate 3e, no. In fact I have a lot of fun judging it today. I might continue for the rest of the year at 3.5, but I want something better because I am not satisfied.
Good for you. I have as well. My biggest complaint about d20 is that it uses a single d20. I prefer a game where the dice mechanic assumes that an average performance is more common then a nat 1 or a nat 20. Believe it or not, I'd be ok if they made it a 2d10 game over a 1d20. But that's just me.
I hope 4E is all you want it to be and more. I won't be joining you.
I get it. You don't like what you see so far. I am good with that.
Good. Then why are we having this discussion again?
Please quit telling me that I am wrong for liking my game the way it is and mocking what I call fun.
Um, I never said you were wrong.
For the past 3 sessions her PC has contributed about zilch to the combat (partly due to die rolls but mostly because Paladins don't really come into their own until 5th or 6th level, depending on build). She basically stands in the way of monsters and takes damage. Wow, that's fun.
Sounds like mocking my idea of fun to me. I understand that you were walking about your wife not having fun, but your phrasing had a mocking tone to it.
Basically your statement is, suck it up and play the loser or play something else (either a different class or a different game).
No, I said in no uncertain terms, "I hope that 4E is all you want it to be and more. I hope you enjoy it."
In my opinion, Paladins should receive mounted combat as a class ability. Maybe design in a combat feat tree for the paladin, like the one that the ranger has for two-weapon fighting or archery. Something like Foot or Calvary. One makes use of Mounted feats, the other gives you Combat Expertise or Power Attack? Again, I don't know.
That's the problem. You should know. It's YOUR game. WoTC is NOT sending people to our house to make sure we adhere to the rules, and they intentionally turn a deaf ear when we say something isn't working right because they can crank out another game later on down the road with new rules that once again will not work for everyone("Don't worry. I've only taken 30 points of damage. I'll heal in 6 hours when my bones reset of their own free will." *snort*). As much as I hate 4e, I don't mean this as an insult- EVERY company does that simply by nature of being a business. As the CEO of Sarenecus Industries, you should trump WoTC and give your wife your OWN version of the Paladin- something you will like a whole lot more than anything 4e has to offer.
That's the problem. You should know. It's YOUR game.
[snip]
As the CEO of Sarenecus Industries, you should trump WoTC and give your wife your OWN version of the Paladin- something you will like a whole lot more than anything 4e has to offer.
QFT! What if you two designed a Paladin variant for her own god. YOu could have everything in the class that she wants and "finds useful" right from the get go.
|
Yeah, I don't really get it either. Has wizards' staff been coming by people's houses to drag them out and make them buy all the new books they put out? Why do people get angry about them adding new books to support their prodcut? If you like it enough you buy it, if you don't you keep your money in your wallet; what's hard about that?
I think many players are upset by the fact that books they would want to buy will no longer be produced.
|
I might make Paladin a prestige class like in UA(?) but I don't know yet.I get that you are looking to 4th Edition to alter this trend. But I'm gonna toss out some thoughts that leaped into my head as I read this as an alternative/emergency kit if you need it.
I'd like to say that the above, making Paladin into a prestige class, works very well. I've had trouble with the RP aspect of Paladin's in the past, and that really really helped.
My main point, though, is much different. I'd like to start out that I am not attempting to say you aren't DMing correctly, and that I am only right 50% +1 of the time, so I could be very very wrong here. But when the group created characters, it sounds like no one stepped up to mention that perhaps, based on the roles taken, there would be overlap in what everyone is doing.
And by this, a Paladin, a Favoured Soul and a Cleric all in a group are all fighting over who gets to fight, who gets to heal and who gets to cast some crazy buff or evocation spells. I mean, the Cleric gets to stick out with undead, the favoured soul sticks out with spontaneous spells and fighting bonus with his favoured weapon, and the paladin.... well, she seems to have been divided up by the other two, thus leaving her with nothing to do.
That being said, was there something said when the group was formed? Not to the point of you, the DM saying "Someone has to change", but perhaps extra care being given so that the skills (at the very least) were different.
Also on that trend (and I know this is hard because most DM's plan well in advance, myself included), have there been situations geared towards the Paladin rather than the Favoured Soul and the Cleric? Is that even a possibility at this point, and thus yet again the system has perhaps left you without that? If there has been such a situation, why did they work or not work? Are you running an AP, and thus feel a bit less inclined to change the encounters?
Yet again, this post is not meant to attack you Saracenus. Rather, I'm wondering how it came to be and giving any insight I've had. I've run undead heavy games where the Rogue had the same problem.
BUT I did tell the rogue (who wanted to go Invisible Blade) that it was Undead heavy, and that he may not get what he wants. He decided he still wanted to play the class, and eventually changed his character. I did give him some time to be the invisible blade cage fighter, and after that his abilities didn't work, so he changed classes. Am I saying that was an appropriate answer? No, it wasn't. I should have been more adamant. But that situation doesn't mirror yours exactly, so that's why I've asked all the questions. Perhaps at the end of the day, for your situation, June can't come quick enough.
/threadjack
|
I read the fluff review. I'm not impressed. Making some inane cartoony statements like "that very next minute I packed up 90% of my 3.x book and RAN down to the locak used book store to offload them" seems quite exagerated to me.
As for the ongoing unfortunate battle here let me say that I think the paladin sub-partial build is partially at fault for her not having fun. It's the players and DMs job to help each other remain on the same page with PC strengths.
The fact that 4e seems to be making the game such "extreme fun" and easy for everyone takes away some of the enjoyment DMcoy and I appreciate: that without occassional failure the successes don't seem as sweet. If you are always effective, where's the darn CHALLENGE?
I now step out of the way and go on with my opinions on 4e, which haven't changed.
-DM Jeff
|
("Don't worry. I've only taken 30 points of damage. I'll heal in 6 hours when my bones reset of their own free will." *snort*).
HP don't represent real damage. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this to new players like yourself. Otherwise there would be some sort of actual impact to performance. HP represent the character's ability to *avoid* broken bones. Hence why they go up as you increase in level.
Other rpg's use the condition track concept where you do get actual dings to performance because of damage. This is more "realistic" but has it's own problems because of speed of gameplay.
Pete
And by this, a Paladin, a Favoured Soul and a Cleric all in a group are all fighting over who gets to fight, who gets to heal and who gets to cast some crazy buff or evocation spells. I mean, the Cleric gets to stick out with undead, the favoured soul sticks out with spontaneous spells and fighting bonus with his favoured weapon, and the paladin.... well, she seems to have been divided up by the other two, thus leaving her with nothing to do.
Oh yeah. These three classes definetly should not walk into a bar together- they'll become the butt of every joke of the evening. Even though I'm playing a Favored Soul now and really don't have anything against the class itself, I don't allow it in my games. I think the entire idea would have been much better used as an alternate class ability, prestige class, or some other option- NOT as a base class.
|
|
As for the post and the original thread, I'd have to say that this poster starts out really well. He explains that he wasn't always a fan of 4.0, that he had every reason to be angry. But then he said the following:
Much like many of you out there, the 3.5 partial reboot just five years ago pissed me off. But we’ve spent 8 years now with the better part of this system. And hell, even 5 years is a long time.
See, he starts out saying that yes, the reboot pissed him off, but then disregarding any idea that 3.5 was a different game from 3.0. Or that it really mattered, because we had the better part of the system. So, which was it? And no, 5 years is not that long of a time. It's a fifth of my life at this point, and I still don't believe that!
Okay, so I didn't agree with his statement. Agree to disagree. Differing opinions.
So I do appreciate that he tackles that yes, the DI isn't need. Good to hear. But then he makes his article sound useless by the following:
What’s about to follow is a three part story. But it’s not about the details. What they changed here or what isn’t there. After this weekend every gaming forum out there will be flooded with details. This is going to be about the experience.
So, it's more of what we've been hearing (based on what he said here). He sells himself short. Yes, his post is mostly what we've heard before (albeit with the word Cool not used another 55 times), but he does add a little more than he's giving himself credit for.
All in all, the other posts don't bother me all that much. It isn't that new or different.
Jumping ahead, the only point that jumped out at me was the following:
And amid the rule changes comes the racial and class changes. While there’s been much ado about these concepts, the new focus of the game places a lot on the role playing and direct play aspect of race and class. There is a difference between a 6th level Eladrin ranger and an Elf ranger. One gets to reroll one attack every combat and ignore difficult terrain while shifting (making a 5 foot adjust) and the other can teleport 5 squares once a combat.
Let me tell you, there’s a big difference. Dwarves are more than just short guys with low Move rates and a +2 to CON. They make great fighters for a reason, not just because the fluff says so. But at the same time there aren’t any disadvantages to playing against type. No one will roll their eyes at a Dwarf Rogue or (once they’re out) Half Orc Sorcerers. There are benefits to playing WITH type, but never penalties for against. And that makes a WORLD of difference. Race in 3.X was all about what it did for you at 1st level and what it did to your stats. After that, it rarely mattered. Now it’s also about what it does for you at 6th or 17th or whatever.
See, perhaps it's the examples he gives, but why in the sweet f*&^ is two races so different based on a single racial ability? And no, before, dwarves weren't just great fighters because "the fluff [said] so". This person lost me right there. The entire dwarf race has bonus' geared towards fighters. Yes, perhaps they aren't scaled, but they are more than just the bonus to con and low movement rates.
By the way, if you are playing a dwarf fighter and wearing full plate, your movement rate is HIGHER than a comparable human fighter. As for dwarven rogues being somehow odd, I can only assume that 4.0 dwarven rogues aren't as viable as 3.5 ones.
Sorry, that was angrier then it need to be. My point is twofold: Why are they different? OTHER than one ability based on movement. Secondly, his statements state to me that somehow my view of the 3.5 rules were different from his.
("Don't worry. I've only taken 30 points of damage. I'll heal in 6 hours when my bones reset of their own free will." *snort*).
HP don't represent real damage. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this to new players like yourself. Otherwise there would be some sort of actual impact to performance. HP represent the character's ability to *avoid* broken bones. Hence why they go up as you increase in level.
Other rpg's use the condition track concept where you do get actual dings to performance because of damage. This is more "realistic" but it has it's own problems because of speed of gameplay.
Pete
I've been playing D&D and a number of other RPGs for well over 15 years(holy crap) now. Every time I've ever used a hit point system, I've had them indicate damage to a person, as opposed to luck, avoiding injury, or how well your armor is taking the punches for you that day. Just because our perceptions differ does not mean I am any less or more experienced than you.
All sarcasm aside, they are screening these guys. Only people who they believe will say nice things are being allowed to speak and those people who are allowed to speak are coached on what to say and how.
Frank, could you please post a link to some proof for the claim that they are preventing people from saying bad things? Not just an email asking them to say good things, but something with actual teeth.
This is the second time I've heard this rumor here on the Paizo boards, but there has been no proof posted that WotC was ordering people they released from the NDA to say only good thing. I'd like an actual news story backing this up from gamer website.
I wouldn't put that kind of thing past a marketing department, they do some sleezy things, but I have only seen rumors of this not any actual proof. Does anybody has some?
|
|
I've been playing D&D and a number of other RPGs for well over 15 years(holy crap) now. Every time I've ever used a hit point system, I've had them indicate damage to a person, as opposed to luck, avoiding injury, or how well your armor is taking the punches for you that day. Just because our perceptions differ does not mean I am any less or more experienced than you.
Indeed! And I apologize for assuming that was the case based upon your comment. (I started playing in '77 - 30+ years - "Holy Crap!")
HP have always been abstract. Oh, you can be "cinematic" about the character bleeding all over the floor and all but in reality they're able to perform the same functions all the way down to 0 HP when they suddenly keel over. <shrug>
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.
I've used both systems. And you should too. You should use whatever works for you, and your players. You shouldn't try to force more complexity on your players then they want to put up with, or you aren't a good DM. Trust me from personal experience. :-)
I'm sure that someone (either WotC or a third party) will come up with a wound/vitality system or some such for 4E PDQ.
It's a *game*. Use whatever system you feel simulates the "feel" that you're going for with *your* game.
-Pete
Indeed! And I apologize for assuming that was the case based upon your comment. (I started playing in '77 - 30+ years - "Holy Crap!")
Okay, you started playing the year before I was born. Holy crap indeed!
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.
I doubt very much that most rational people view it as just one or the other. I mean how many people say, "You get hit by the orc's greataxe ... you feel 20 points less lucky." They can very well represent real damage as well as abstract concepts.
'power level' stuff may be a bit misleading. My kid preferred yu-gi oh over MTG because the monsters in Yu-gi oh had attacks of 3000 instead of 3 and creatures had life force of 4,500 instead of 4.
It is all relative: At 1st level if you have 25 hp and damage is 5/blow it is the same as having 5 hp and damage being 1 per blow.
But that wouldn't be the case here would it? Otherwise the heartiness is illusionary.
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.I doubt very much that most rational people view it as just one or the other. I mean how many people say, "You get hit by the orc's greataxe ... you feel 20 points less lucky." They can very well represent real damage as well as abstract concepts.
I am so saying that next game. "Im sorry Timmy, the orc's spear stabs you powerfully in the spleen and bruises your self worth."
:P
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.I doubt very much that most rational people view it as just one or the other. I mean how many people say, "You get hit by the orc's greataxe ... you feel 20 points less lucky." They can very well represent real damage as well as abstract concepts.
No, but I have used descriptions like: "The orc's greataxe smashes into your shield, numbing your arm. Pain snaps up into your shoulder and radiates down into your back. You lose 20 hit points."
I don't like using hit points as only luck, never have, but they don't always represent gaping wounds (though they often can).
With this system I'll play it more through description and common sense. Even with full hit points, after several days of adventuring without prolonged rest I'll just describe the characters kind of like Bruce Willis at the end of one of his movies: Still standing, still kicking, still able to leap tall buildings with a single Check, but covered in a bloody dirty wife-beater and looking like death with a meth addiction.
I think it can still work easily. I just have to change a bit of the focus of my description (which has become habit over the last 20+ years).
<snip>
HP have always been abstract. Oh, you can be "cinematic" about the character bleeding all over the floor and all but in reality they're able to perform the same functions all the way down to 0 HP when they suddenly keel over. <shrug>If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.
I've used both systems. And you should too. You should use whatever works for you, and your players. You shouldn't try to force more complexity on your players then they want to put up with, or you aren't a good DM. Trust me from personal experience. :-)
I'm sure that someone (either WotC or a third party) will come up with a wound/vitality system or some such for 4E PDQ.
It's a *game*. Use whatever system you feel simulates the "feel" that you're going for with *your* game.
-Pete
Very true.
In fact for most people hit points are a mix of luck, will and physical damage. The damage is usually more pronouced as the HP get lower. (From what I have seen/heard.)Edit: For an example see the post by AZRogue above mine.
|
|
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.I doubt very much that most rational people view it as just one or the other. I mean how many people say, "You get hit by the orc's greataxe ... you feel 20 points less lucky." They can very well represent real damage as well as abstract concepts.
Oh that's just silly. Of *course* you go into great detail about the blood/guts/sinew that the giant two-headed troll is whacking away from your fighter! Then they pull it together and save the day in spite of one arm dangling by a stray ligament.
But, still, with all that grand hoo-haa, if you're playing HP *as written* (and as Gygax described since 1st edition) that damage being absorbed isn't actually having any sort of detrimental effect on the character's performance.
If you want to add that in (and many do) then you use a modified system - whether it be wounds/vitality or something else.
And as for "rational people" -- HA! That ain't me! I'm wasting time at work debating HP simulation on a game company messageboard. And enjoying it! I'm only as rational as the company I keep! :-)
-Pete
Second part of the review can be found HERE.
No, but I have used descriptions like: "The orc's greataxe smashes into your shield, numbing your arm. Pain snaps up into your shoulder and radiates down into your back. You lose 20 hit points."
I don't like using hit points as only luck, never have, but they don't always represent gaping wounds (though they often can).
With this system I'll play it more through description and common sense. Even with full hit points, after several days of adventuring without prolonged rest I'll just describe the characters kind of like Bruce Willis at the end of one of his movies: Still standing, still kicking, still able to leap tall buildings with a single Check, but covered in a bloody dirty wife-beater and looking like death with a meth addiction.
I think it can still work easily. I just have to change a bit of the focus of my description (which has become habit over the last 20+ years).
Exactly my point. Most people, at least most that I have personally met, use it as a hybrid between real damage and abstract. I mean anyone who has ever hurt their back knows that is real, even if you don't have a gaping wound and can still get around, though painfully.
Oh that's just silly. Of *course* you go into great detail about the blood/guts/sinew that the giant two-headed troll is whacking away from your fighter! Then they pull it together and save the day in spite of one arm dangling by a stray ligament.
*looks around* Are you responding to my comment or to a strawman? I said that most use a hybrid, that doesn't mean that limbs and guts are flying all over the place. But that can mean that there is some real damage represented by hp.
But, still, with all that grand hoo-haa, if you're playing HP *as written* (and as Gygax described since 1st edition) that damage being absorbed isn't actually having any sort of detrimental effect on the character's performance.
Gygax does not run my games, Gygax did not make the current version of D&D that I am playing, and frankly from what statements I have seen from Gygax I am quite happy that D&D has moved on without him.
If you want to add that in (and many do) then you use a modified system - whether it be wounds/vitality or something else.
I don't have to modify jack or squat, and jack just left, to have hp represent both abstract ideas and real damage, all I need is a little, very little, imagination.
Oh, and in response to the second article, I'm kind of disappointed that I can't have a halfling rogue in my backpack. Ah well. Back to reading.
EDIT:
Better article this time around, IMO. He calmed down on some of the hyperbole and mentioned a few key points:
1. You can, and do, gain XP without combat and can gain levels without ever swinging a weapon.
2. Feats are passive character options, abilities are options that can be taken during encounters (figured this one before, but now confirmed).
3. Damage/challenge seems to scale well so that many low level monsters are as much of a threat as a smaller number of higher level monsters, which never worked that well before once you left the 3 level or so "sweet spot" of the party's level.
Still not finished yet. Back to reading more.
Quotes of concern for me from part II:
" This is going to be a big change for some folks, as the weekly “Who do we have to pay to get raised this week” becomes much less frequent (until Epic, when pretty much everyone can Res for free, on a daily basis. You get abilities that let you do cool things when you die. Swear to Pelor. Epic is weird.)"
"That lame idea of reward for attendance gets outweighed by the reward of everyone being equally useful. Besides, loot for attendance works just as well."
And something that sounds rather nice:
"The great thing is that most of your preparation doesn’t involve books and math. It involves brainstorming and figuring out how to make encounters unique, fun and, yes, devilishly effective.
Then of course you have to figure out loot. Who doesn’t love loot? Well, in 4E there’s a hell of a lot less of it. It also doesn’t affect a lot of the things it used to. But it is still as important as ever. The loot rules pretty much give players a new magic item every level. And the gear gives you new abilities, protection from abilities or simply modifies your attacks or defenses. There are no more stat bump items, nor are you expected to have magic loot at certain levels. The result is a system that allows low or no magic campaigns without a lot of heartache or rule tweaking."
Okay, finished. I like this one much more than the first one. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's article where he goes into some of his complaints. His rhetoric is winding down, at least.
What's REALLY funny are the posts below where the AICN posters make fun of him for being a nerd for playing DnD. Wow. Disconnect much? I mean, they're posting on AICN! Yeah. In between hitting the clubs and hanging with Usher and 50-Cent, these marvels of the modern social dynamic have somehow found the time to ridicule the DnD nerd in their midst. It's pretty funny stuff, to be honest. Do they realize that they're on AICN for s$*!'s sake?
Why is every time I tried to read this guys reviews, I always hit one line that tells me "walk away. You don't care what this guy thinks."
For part two that was:
Rangers SUCK. Not in the 3.x way in which they’re silly and underpowered.
It seems to me this guy doesn't know enough about D&D (or computers from part 1) to really make any judgment calls worth reading.
I can't wait to find out what he writes that stops me from reading part 3...
Read it and I'm still not impressed with 4e. Hell, I'm more worried about how some people have been playing 3.5 than anything else. Rangers? Silly? Underpowered? Those three words don't belong in the same sentence- the character needs time to grow, as does ANY character, but once they do, they whip some in the right situation. The idea that 3.5 somehow punishes people for thinking outside the box struck me as ludicrous. Has anyone here had a DM kick them out of the game because a fighter decided to read a book or a wizard ended up shoving a knife into someone? Sure, maybe you're not the BEST at it, and you may end up paying some serious repercussions for overestimating your own skills(fighter mispronounces a key phrase at the wrong time, the wizard gets a broken spleen) but no one and nothing is keeping you from doing it. Have gamers today become so reliant on stereotypes and so afraid of failure that they refuse to do anything that falls outside of character? Furthermore, quest experience points are nothing new in my game or in anyone else that I play with regularly, and (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) 3.x rewards people heartily for DEFEATING an opponent of similar level, not necessarily pureeing their internal organs. *sigh* Maybe tomorrow's post will be more to my liking.
Futhermore, check out the "Smells Funny" reply to the original article on their messageboard. Guy curses like a sailor, but he's got a few good points.
Futhermore, check out the "Smells Funny" reply to the original article on their messageboard. Guy curses like a sailor, but he's got a few good points.
I don't advocate reading it (I'm not saying avoid it), but it is kind of hard to track down, so here is a link to get you straight to the comment mentioned.
During our first game, my intrepid game designer buddy decided to throw a monkey wrench into the works by having his character dive under a table and kick it out from under two guys fighting on top of it. He smiled devilishly, looked at me and asked “How are you gonna rule that…DM?” I glanced at the book for a moment and realized “Strength check against their reflexes.” Huh. He shook his head. Made sense.
I gotta introduce this guy to a player one of the rules lawyers/group instigator/munchkin in my group that will argue for a half hour about why it should be their weakest defense. Not to mention how he'll argue about how those NPCs are definitely worth more XP then what the DM assigned them.
And I like XP/level/ability loss. Why? It scares players. No fear of losing level or ability scores means the PCs are much less afraid and will do more crazy stuff.
One of the things the rules stress in the DMG is to get used to saying “YES” to players.
*chuckles* Yea. Like a new DMG that says "say yes to players" is going to change my crappy, railroady DM. And saying yes to the above group instigator/munchkin all the time means that at level 2 he'll be more powerful then most epic level characters. PAAAALEEEEEASE!
All in all, the game plays and runs very differently than before. It still has that classic D&D feel,
Wow! that is the first person that I have heard to make this claim. No one yet has said that it feels like Classic D&D. Sorry if I don't remain doubtful.
My take: Puff piece and nothing more.
Donovan Vig wrote:
It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now.
Oh, come on. You know, I've always been pro-4E, because my players are very much so, but I don't go around insulting people who don't like what they've seen. I've been cautious and haven't liked all I've read, but I find myself posting in its defense more than I would have thought possible because of posts like these.
So, if I like 4E I have ADHD and am a 13-year old WoW addict? I'm a sheep, not known for my brains?
You said it not me ;) Though the rest has a nice sound to it. Your sheepiness is obviously going to be a personal decision, and CWM, I noticed the link to an adult website didn't bother you, so kindly pipe down.
My rant, as there is no other description that can aptly describe it, was a mite rougher than intended. I refuse to apologize for having an opinion, however. If you believe you are a sheep, then you are a sheep...good luck with that and avoid smiling sheperds.
My intent was not to be trollish, though I'll admit that I have had to fight the temptation a time or two. You folks are all awesome. Even Sebastian and CWM...maybe someday we'll actually agree on something. This is evidenced by the fact that:
1.)You game
2.)You care about what is going on in the gaming world
3.)You care about the game itself
My opinion is that 4E will suck big hairy...spiders. BIG ONES. It is my opinion. It is shared at least to some degree with (polls say) a slight majority of the community here. I hope you like it, I just don't see how.
3.5 has warts. Nobody will dispute that fact. Removing warts is generally a good thing. However, amputating warty limbs, when it is unneccessary, typically is NOT a good thing.
I see a shiny new edition being rolled out due to:
1.)mechanics changes (due to broken rules, too much splat)
2.)major fluff changes
3.)new direction for product line
4.)new core demographic
Unfortunately, the reasons given for the big shift don't jive. Rodney thompson says several times that it was due to too much supplemental materials, i.e. "rules bloat". He qualified this further with the whole too many books with too many different mechanics argument.
This is nonsense. Any takers as to how long it will take before this "problem" rears it's ugly head again? I posted an abridged list of releases for the next 12 months or so. There has been allusion that there will be a couple more announced later. Do the math. You all game, so I will assume you can. Add the re-releases of the really cool 3.X stuff (BoVD, BoED, Fiendish codex, the inevitable Divine caster and rogue splatbooks for a start) and how has the problem been fixed? They arent even being shy about it...Just not calling attention to it.
I am hopping mad because the game I happen to be sold on was supplanted for a cash grab. I dislike being played by corporate stooge types. I put up with it when I don't have a choice, but I sure as hell don't have to be silent about it. While I do apologize to those innocent bystanders who get sprayed with my vitriol (DC 15 reflex save, washes off with wine or vinegar) I feel as justified as you do being here and complaining, venting, ranting, yes...even a little trolling. BECAUSE I CARE.
AZrogue, CWM, you are decent intelligent folks. You happen to be wrong, but thats only in MY opinion. Agree to disagree? Better yet, truce?
I'm not one to turn down an olive branch and don't mind a truce. I don't come here to fight with people. I DID take offense to some of your generalizations and (needless) comments against people who happen to like what they've been seeing. I like a lot of what I've seen from 4E, as do my players, and I don't have ADHD, am not a sheep, and, contrary to all logic, don't particularly like WotC (I didn't buy 3.5 for "cash-cow" reasons). I really try to avoid attacking people for loving 3E so I just would appreciate at least a roughly equal measure of consideration. So, if that was an apology, than I'm more than happy to drop it and forget it.
My opinion is that 4E will suck big hairy...spiders.
Congratulations, you win the "most memorable mental image on the thread" award.
During our first game, my intrepid game designer buddy decided to throw a monkey wrench into the works by having his character dive under a table and kick it out from under two guys fighting on top of it. He smiled devilishly, looked at me and asked “How are you gonna rule that…DM?” I glanced at the book for a moment and realized “Strength check against their reflexes.” Huh. He shook his head. Made sense.
And what is keeping me from doing this in 3.x again? I *just* had something similar to this happen in the last game I played, and you know what happened? Practically the same thing that happened here- guy doing the pushing makes a strength check, the result is the Ref DC the person on the other side of the table needs to keep from falling prone(no damage, though). Why do I need 4e again?
One of the things the rules stress in the DMG is to get used to saying “YES” to players.
This is my problem with gaming nowadays in a nutshell. DMs are far too afraid to say no to their players, and players are far too afraid of hearing it from their DMs. The scales started to tip in the direction of the players with 3.5 (aww, what do you mean I can't use feat/race/character class X? It's in this book right here! You're being unfair! I HATE YOU! ::stomping off to their room without dinner::) and now it seems that in 4e the DM's job is to let the players run roughshod over them. Even the reviewer said that the DM has to be on his toes since players can abuse the rules. I guess that's a problem in ANY game system, but it seems to be the rule of the day in 4e.
I'm not one to turn down an olive branch and don't mind a truce. I don't come here to fight with people. I DID take offense to some of your generalizations and (needless) comments against people who happen to like what they've been seeing. I like a lot of what I've seen from 4E, as do my players, and I don't have ADHD, am not a sheep, and, contrary to all logic, don't particularly like WotC (I didn't buy 3.5 for "cash-cow" reasons). I really try to avoid attacking people for loving 3E so I just would appreciate at least a roughly equal measure of consideration. So, if that was an apology, than I'm more than happy to drop it and forget it.
Well actually looking at his comment:
It is exactly the dumbed down, made for ADHD racked 13-year old WoW addicts game I have been expecting for months now.
Just because it may be designed to attract and keep such individuals does not mean only those individuals would be attracted to it. That is sheepish ADHD young WoW addicts might like it, but so might other that don't meet any of those descriptions. It just might make sense to design it for the abilities of the "least capable" potential customer.
DMcCoy1693,
I just sat down last Saturday with my group of 7 players. -snip-
I do not want to sound condescending but I think the problem does not lie with the current edition of the game but with the DM.
Most Players will try to get an edge over other Players. Either through mechanics or through roleplaying.
It is only human that you want to have power in a group.
Tharen, while you don't want to sound condescending you did a fine job of it. Blow it out your rear. When you have to start your sentence with that phrase you are just excusing yourself so you can do just the thing you are pre-apologizing for.
Apology not accepted.
Despite my mad hate for this kind of post, I will indulge you and actually respond.
The DM IMHO is the arbiter that has to prevent Players/PCs becoming to dominant in the game.
On the roleplaying side this can be achieved through simple plot devices in giving the PC with less "power" important clues for the adventure or so. Agreed that is not very easy and has to be done with care to not dicriminate other players.
On the mechanics side the DM has to be the one who knows the rules and how his players will use them to get more power. He is the one who has to see if this race/class/prc/feat combination makes a PC too powerful compared to other players. If that is the case, the DM can simply disallow using non-core stuff. If he gave the PCs a carte blanche to use all Books available he should not wonder that some PC are more powerful than others.
Wow, you totally missed the boat. You assume my wife is mad because other players are overpowered, she is not. We have a full range of player types and power levels and the problem is quite frankly that low-level paladins suck in 3.5.
You also assume that I don't know the rules and am not in control of my game. The very fact that I am making adjustments to the general rules and specific ones to address problems like the Paladin speaks about my deep involvement in my game. I give it a lot of thought and I do major prep so that my player's are challenged.
I have seen just about every type of abuse there is in 3e. 6 years of playing and judging Living Greyhawk gives you a front row seat to the inequities of the 3e system. Now that I am doing my own home game I have a chance to fix broken crap as I go, the way I want to.
Here is the kicker. The fact that I have to devote so much time thinking about game balance and the mechanics of the game, is interfering with the fun of it, for me and now for my wife.
While you blithely quip I should make up for the shortfalls in the system with my superior DM skillz I see this as a design flaw that takes time away from the more important work of prepping for next months game. I have limited time as do all my players. Where I should be thinking of the next challenge for my players to overcome and introduce a new combat rule or think about the location, I am having to figure out how to make the paladin "work" or help my wife make a completely new PC. Not Fun.
And lastly preparing the adventure the DM has to cater for his group. To all players.
DMing is not just throwing monsters at the PCs.
Tharen, I am going to cut you slack on this one. You have only seen a sliver of my campaign, and its just the stuff I am struggling with right now. You don't know the rich background I have used for the "internal consistancy" of the dungeon. Or how I have cannibalized ideas from other campaigns and sources to present it to the players without tons of exposition. Your default assumption that the judge is to blame not the mechanics is wrong and insulting. Why not try to ask some questions before you assume.
My Two Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
My opinion is that 4E will suck big hairy...spiders.Congratulations, you win the "most memorable mental image on the thread" award.
figured if I would come back and play nice, I'd try and do it with style. Meanwhile, the Lolth worshipers now want my head due to the random oral assault being perpetrated upon their holy icons...I just can't win.
|
|
What happened to keep it civil?
Did you even read the sticky post at the top of the forum?
The very first post in the thread was all 'haters prepare to be dissapointed!'
I'm pretty sure civility never entered the building.
And nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, takes away XP anymore. No more level loss. No more XP to fuel abilities or make magic items.
I've hated level drain since 1st edition. This sounds nice.
Also the bit about organizing the books better. The current organization is a little spotty. (I can never seem to remember where the heck Turn Undead is in the 3.5 PHB!)
Seriously though. I won't take sides in the ongoing argument of the relative merits of the Paladin. Personally, We homeruled years ago a paladin was a title earned and bestowed on worshippers that had the same outlook/ideals (read: Alignment) as the deity in question. Can you imagine a heavily armored, warhorse riding, paladin of Mielekki? Shouting about the glory and good of trees and unicorns? Better yet, of Olidmarra? New PrC...Prettyboy of Sune! lol.
No. A Paladin of Mielekki is a ranger (edit: or a druid). Olidmarra's are either talespinners (bards) or deed-doers (rogues). It's not in the rules, but it makes sense. Makes it harder to spot the Blackguards and anti-paladins too ;)
I wont patronize you with the credentials you listed. If she loves the fluff, but hates the crunch, improvise! Okay, back to my rock. Hope I helped.
P.S. To all still smoldering, I officially retract my earlier 14-yo WoW addict flame. It was uncalled for. Play what makes you happy. With my blessings....Though the whole faster, faster, faster theme of 4E does reek of ADHD...LOOK! a puppy!
You also assume that I ... am not in control of my game.
I'm not ganging up on you, merely stating my observation.
I got the same impression from reading your post, the impression that some of your players are running over others. Knowing your side of the story, I'd just chock it up to either poor phrasing or lack of tone when reading internet text and let that point drop.
|
AZrogue, CWM, you are decent intelligent folks. You happen to be wrong, but thats only in MY opinion. Agree to disagree? Better yet, truce?
How about you stop the baiting first.
You know - I have ADHD, take ritalin, play WoW, and I like 4E.
I have also had my work on web navigation published by O'Rilley, work as a senior information architect for a Fortune 500 company, run my own company, and qualify for membership in Mensa.
So when people like you say that 4E is for idiots ... you just don't know how wrong you are.
I will agree to disagree and even welcome some hearty dialogue once you stop hurling insults as a means of communication.
You also assume that I ... am not in control of my game.I'm not ganging up on you, merely stating my observation.
I got the same impression from reading your post, the impression that some of your players are running over others. Knowing your side of the story, I'd just chock it up to either poor phrasing or lack of tone when reading internet text and let that point drop.
DMcCoy,
Your quote pull was from a post aimed at someone else, not you. If you feel a sympathetic vibration from it, that is from you, not from me.
What this really boils down to is a philosophical difference in DMing style. I have zero patience for rules that do not make my life easier as DM and fails to facilitate fun for my players.
I do not see it as my job to redesign a game so one person at my table is happy, it is not an efficient use of my time and distracts from my goal of making adventures for everyone at the table happy.
To take a page from my Micro Econ class in order to produce X (rules changes) I pay an opportunity cost and sacrifice Y (adventure construction). I have limited resources and the more I have to spend time doing X the less I have for Y.
Furthermore, the current state of the art in 3.5 is not very efficient in producing Y. I am forced to make complicated math decisions to make encounters work. It is more art than science. Again, distracting me from time I could be dreaming up "cool" stuff for my players to do in my limited time.
So while I sure being an Uber DM can make up for short falls in a game, when I am pressed for time and I have to make decisions about what I am going work on, sub-optimal rules just chap my hide.
I guess I can ignore those rules (like I am doing with grapple right now) that are too much of a bother and everyone can stick to real basic combats but I am trying to get the most out of the system we have and show people there is more than run up an beat the monster till its dead.
In that regard I have been successful. My players love Bull Rush, they have pushed foes down pits, off the side of mountains, and used doors to slam their foes into the walls behind them. There are countless other examples in my game where the players are cutting loose and taking the cinematic route... something I have been encouraging.
Now I am going to circle back to the 4th level Paladin. The class as written just doesn't have much going for it in terms of cinema. Its not really a feat monster (fighter) or a Damage Sump/Striker (Barbarian) at levels 1-4. It is a class that is caught between too many roles and it doesn't do any of them well right now.
That is a design problem, not a DM problem. So basically I have to either redesign the class (too much work, taking me away from production Y) or tell my wife, I am sorry but you need to suck it up for 1 or 2 more levels when you start to do "fun" things (or, go ahead and build another design because I can't accommodate your desire to be a paladin right now)
No where in my posts do I say that the problems are the other players. No where do I say in my post that my wife resents them. She hates not being able to do anything with her current character.
This brings us to the Part 1 post most people have been poo-pooing because of all the 4e hate out there, what he describes at the table is exactly what I am looking for. Quick combats with lots of things to do. Adventure design is less about math and more about concept. If the rules are pretty well balanced that gives me back time to do things I want to do for my players. So, this makes me hopeful that 4e might be something good. If not, I will continue tweaking 3.5 until it hits the right notes lamenting the fact that I could be doing fun stuff for my players rather than fixing short falls.
In conclusion, if you want fill in the blanks of sub-optimal design and you have the time, more power to you. Just don't expect me to be happy about it in my own circumstance.
In Service,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
2 Edits: One was a poor word choice, the other was to add a paragraph on why I am hopeful for the utility of 4e. Gods, microeconomics has infected my brain... ugh.
So when people like you say that 4E is for idiots ... you just don't know how wrong you are.
I am in no position to talk about others ranting...
But I'd like to make a side point here. 4th Edition could be for idiots, but that doesn't mean intelligent people can't enjoy it.
Kind of like how Lego Star Wars was for kids, but damn fun to play even as an adult. (Although, that is less insulting for sure.)
Now please, continue. It is a bit chilly in my apartment and reading this thread helps me save on heating. ;-)
To the puddle it is quite amazing how perfectly the depression was made to fit it.The wisdom of this quote is glorious. Where is it from? And how very, very appropriate...
It's a reference to a speech by Douglas Adams about the dangers of assuming that coincidences have meaning. But the original quote is much longer than the phrase I wrote:
Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in-an interesting hole I find myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!
In the instance of the review, we are very much in puddle territory. The only people who can write reviews are Playtesters who the design team have decided to allow to write reviews. Since the design team actually have access to all the feedback that the playtesters have written, it is reasonable to expect that the team would choose playtesters who have lots of positive things to say.
So we know ahead of time that any review we see written at this time is going to fit WotC Marketing's script very closely. They choose who writes the reviews just as they choose who writes their rules supplements. If one of the reviewers went off script at this point that would be really weird.
Just as it would be really weird to find a puddle which did not properly fit into a depression in the ground.
-Frank