As a player of the original incarnations of D&D for many years in my youth before my life (or, I should say, the decisions I made in my life) got in the way, I would like to present an alternative perspective on the whole 4E debate. But first, some disclaimers:
1) I in no way, shape or form intend to belittle those among you who have either come to know this fantastic hobby through 3E/3.5 or who have succesfully transitioned from the older editions to the 3E/3.5 version and find it to be the pinnacle of the game's long and storied evolution.
2) I love Paizo, the quality of their products, and their responsiveness to their customers.
3) I only speak for myself and the conditions I find myself in and do not intend to imply that this positionis representative of anyone but myself. That being said, it is MY position that I will discuss. And I am sure, despite the fact that many in my position probably don't lurk on these or other boards, there is a whole segment of the gaming market that I represent.
I'm 40 years old. While wholly well-versed in all the editions of D&D up to 3E, I had not played the game for the better part of 20 years because - well - life got in the way. I got married, I got divorced, I was in the Army, I remarried, I had three kids, I became a firefighter, I moved to rural America - what does it matter? For a variety of reasons, I left this hobby I had grown to love in my youth and hadn't looked back.
Along comes 3E (and later 3.5). Despite the fact that I live in the sticks and can't find anyone to rekindle my love affair with the game, I do have two teenage sons and their friends who are dying to give it a try. So here we go. I pick up the 3E core rulebooks and give it a whirl.
Grappling, polymorphing, AAoO - I'm trying to wrap my head around these new rules in the absence of more experienced minds (I don't have the luxury of a LGS - it's 70 miles away in Austin) to learn from. THEN, I'm trying to impart their use in the game to new young players. THEY see stalls in the game that rip them, screaming and kicking, out of the supended reality that makes the game fun to begin with. THEY say, "the game would be better if..."
When new, virginal players can identify hiccups in a rules system right off the bat it doesn't bode well for a game's future and the recruitment of new players.
Now along comes 4E and I like what I'm seeing based solely on the streamlining of the rules set. I'm no idiot, but I don't want to have to engage in the same effort it would take to obtain a PhD to master the basics of a rule set. Companies like Paizo do a great job of taking the basic rules set and expounding upon it (haunts, for example) and have done so for a great many years. I'll continue to rely on them (or others like them) to do so and will selectively choose which expansions I adopt. But if I can't master the basic system and impart it to my sons and their friends, what's the point? The hobby just... dies.
I want my D&D to be fun, first and foremost. Next I want the basic system to be easy to master and impart on new players. Beyond that, I will concede styles of play to others who have more time to contemplate such issues and am willing to pay my hard-earned dollars to do benefit from them. Paizo is an example of just such an entity.
But it doesn't change the fact that 3E is "rules-burdensome," I don't care what anyone says. Try figuring out what Erylium's stats are if she polymorphs into her raven form in RotRL 1. Yeah, it's not identified as her preferred option in the encounter's tactical layout, but what good is even mentioning it in her stat block if it's going to require a half hour's worth of research work and the development of a whole new stat block just to make it happen? Open-ended flexibility for flexibility's sake is no great selling point. While it sounds great in theory, it doesn't translate well to the gaming table.
The D&D I remember was pretty easy to learn and maybe I've just got so much of "life" competing for brain space that the 3E/3.5 rules set just hasn't had the opportunity to take root and grow. Whatever the case may be, I'm open to WotC's efforts to address these sort of issues and hope that Paizo is as well.
Doug
|
Grappling, polymorphing, AAoO - I'm trying to wrap my head around these new rules in the absence of more experienced minds (I don't have the luxury of a LGS - it's 70 miles away in Austin) to learn from. THEN, I'm trying to impart their use in the game to new young players. THEY see stalls in the game...
I understand you. It's not necessarily the fact that there IS a new edition coming, it's how it is implemented, and the actual content that is causing me a problem for instance.
I have plenty of reasons, but I especially don't like the lack of backwards compatibility for instance. if every little part of fluff keeps changing, my collection of adventures is obsolete and I don't like it. Not because of the system change, because of the fluff change.
I wouldn't care about the rules themselves that much (except monster obsolescence), but still, after reading the previews, I don't think at all that they will be simpler, or easier to teach. I think they will just have different problems than 3.X.
Sure, you can houserule them, but what's the point ? You can houserule 3.x too.
So I feel like it is a case of using a tactical missile to swat a fly. Instead of taking the edition problems, and solving them, and sure it was possible, this edition is creating a bunch of new ones.
One thing in particular : powers per encounter, per day, .... are fine when you have a computer to track them in a MMO. I am highly skeptical of how good they will be in game.
Other reasons of course, but that's enough for tonight.
In short, I feel like trading my old trusty Harley for a Vespa.
Good gaming anyways.
However, I really don't have anything to say regarding your post. I only skimmed it because it was 4e related and I'm passing on that topic for a little while. Sorry, but it's probably for the best. I'm sure you'll get the usual rogues gallery to swing by shortly and push this out to 3-5 pages, provided they don't get caught up in blasting me for being a grammar facist.
He's correct. (and I'm hoping they just leave the grammer thing alone, it's not like they should be surprised.) 4th Edition is not popular here, and chances are someone might try to convince you that you're wrong. It's highly subjective. With such a long break between editions, and a relatively low investment in 3.5 financially, 4th Edition should be reasonably attractive to you.
It is to me sometimes. That's why I'm pretty neutral, or rather why I go back and forth.
The catch is what to do with the setting if that doesn't convert.
Wow I love how this has become a debate about whether this guy literally lives in the wilderness or not. I really kind of got that he did ACTUALLY live in the wilderness, yes, but leave it to Sebastian to find something irritating to derail a whole thread. Yay!
Anyway I'm in agreement that there's some rough parts to D&D that mess up suspension of disbelief. But then most of them are rollovers from earlier editions. Grapple for example, is an attempt to tidy up subdual in earlier games. Guys have gotten polymorphed into weird stuff from near the very beginning of the game. There's a load of things that just don't really make tons of sense as written. The whole Attack of Opportunity thing is a mess. That said 4e doesn't look to be improving that end of things. Mind you I really am digging 4e, but yeah the steps they're taking don't seem to be headed toward making in game things make more sense. Not their priorities unfortunately.
My advice? Take the stuff that doesn't make sense and streamline it however you like. Don't get too hooked up on the details of the rules, just write up your houserules so you don't have to keep ruling on the same hiccup every time it comes up. Best thing is to put it down on a post-it and slap it right into the book.
Doug, I see your problem, I think. If I were 20-odd years without playing and would then start again with D&D3, I would have serious trouble as well, I guess. And if the youngsters point out things they don´t like, great! It means more work for you, of course, to correct these things. But it also means that you have a bunch of intelligent and astute players there not content with whatever the rules throw at them.
If you take a look at 4e and find it better suited to your gaming style, by all means use it. It would be a shame to have such talent as your players seem to be to go waste over a rules system not fitting to your needs.
If folks here are negative towards 4e, try to ignore them. I don´t like what I´ve seen from 4e so far, but that is more a matter of taste and of WotCs less than stellar marketing, not to mention their brilliant move to take away the toys from the boys - cancelling Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine in print and trying to replace them badly-managed online versions still has many folks soured about it, me included.
Do whatever it takes to have a fun game, and don´t worry about some grognards complaining on messageboards. And I think that paizo will do what they need to do to continue telling their stories. This might be not what you are looking for, but I guess that paizo will have something to offer that is interesting for nearly everybody.
Stefan
It's a pet peeve and I'm completely unreasonable about it; my original post was intended to more silly than mean. Thank you for humoring me, apologies for being a bastard, and bygones.
No sweat, Sebastian. Always willing to accept constructive criticism. I'm looking for friends, not seeking enemies.
To all the other posters since the great "wilderness debate" - I understand that 4E isn't popular here in the Paizo boards. Hell, it stands to radically alter Paizo's Golarion campaign world drastically. I would ideally like to see Paizo's take on the whole realignment of the planes thingee.
Anyone else notice the cherry-picking by WotC of some of Golarion's (to borrow another WotC term) conceits? Hmmm, a vanished empire founded by humans that devolved after consorting with fiendish powers? The reimagining of fey? Hell, even the Far Realm. Paizo hit all these elements in their Golarion setting. Either they've got a great industrial espionage unit or they're the trend setters and best minds regarding what D&D players and DMs want and like in existence.
I just haven't got a better venue to speak with other casual or returning-to-the-game gamers. I envy the familiarity many of you have with the 3.5 system. I just don't have it and I'm sure I'm not alone. I haven't made my mind up yet about the transition. I just wanted to put my two cents in as a guy who comes from a little bit of a different perspective.
Oh, and just to keep us on topic -
"The Shack Outside La Grange" is a reference to the ZZ Top title "La Grange" which is, in turn, a reference to the Chicken Ranch brothel for which the nearest town of La Grange is best known. Unfortunately, it was closed down long before my settling here ;)
I have plenty of reasons, but I especially don't like the lack of backwards compatibility for instance. if every little part of fluff keeps changing, my collection of adventures is obsolete and I don't like it. Not because of the system change, because of the fluff change.
I wouldn't care about the rules themselves that much (except monster obsolescence), but still, after reading the previews, I don't think at all that they will be simpler, or easier to teach. I think they will just have different problems than 3.X.
I see your points, Sebastian. Perhaps it is the lure of getting in "at the ground level" that is most appealing and I am not closely examining the totality of the product.
I, too, would have preferred a new edition that addressed the specific problematic areas while leaving what was known and understand (and worked) intact. I really don't like the idea of casting my substantial library of 3E products away. While I can respect the right of WotC to pursue the business end of their endeavors, I too strongly dislike the apparent lack of backwards-compatability I'm sensing.
A world (such at FR) can only undergo so many world-shattering events before it loses the flavor that made it popular to begin with. I don't want to so Golarion suffer that fate.
|
Along comes 3E (and later 3.5). Despite the fact that I live in the sticks and can't find anyone to rekindle my love affair with the game, I do have two teenage sons and their friends who are dying to give it a try. So here we go. I pick up the 3E core rulebooks and give it a whirl.
Grappling, polymorphing, AAoO - I'm trying to wrap my head around these new rules in the absence of more experienced minds (I don't have the luxury of a LGS - it's 70 miles away in Austin) to learn from. THEN, I'm trying to impart their use in the game to new young players. THEY see stalls in the game...
As opposed to my experience, teaching 3rd to my 6 year old (at the time) daughter, my wife, and our friends as I learned it. No problems with rules, no problems with suspension of disbelief, and a hugely favorable opinion vs. second edition.
Maybe it's because we've never had a campaign go passed 10th level (and rarely passed 7th.) Third edition is perfect for us. It's funny, but my daughter would be labelled a "3.5 edition Grognard" by some people around here.
For those disatisfied with OD&D/AD&D/2nd/3/3.5th edition or whatever, 4th Edition may just be the right fit. There are, however, many of us that find the earlier editions a great fit already.
I hope you find what you and your family/friends are looking for in 4th Edition.
But because of what me and my family/friends have already found in 3.5, I hope Paizo also stays 3.5. Call me selfish, I'll agree. But I won't change.
...But because of what me and my family/friends have already found in 3.5, I hope Paizo also stays 3.5. Call me selfish, I'll agree. But I won't change.
I'll refrain myself if you agree to do so as well when I hope they switch to 4E! :P
To address concerns of the 4E generic fluff changes affecting Golarion, I'd say Paizo probably wouldn't have to change much at all. I've seen designers say it would be easy to re-create the Great Wheel in 4E using the new default fluff, and (fluff being fluff) I'd expect you could drop the new default fluff and stick the old default fluff right back in.
Here's looking forward to 4E with you! Cheers! :)
|
|
...But because of what me and my family/friends have already found in 3.5, I hope Paizo also stays 3.5. Call me selfish, I'll agree. But I won't change.I'll refrain myself if you agree to do so as well when I hope they switch to 4E! :P
To address concerns of the 4E generic fluff changes affecting Golarion, I'd say Paizo probably wouldn't have to change much at all. I've seen designers say it would be easy to re-create the Great Wheel in 4E using the new default fluff, and (fluff being fluff) I'd expect you could drop the new default fluff and stick the old default fluff right back in.
Here's looking forward to 4E with you! Cheers! :)
I'd say it depends on how much the GSL allows them to reforge the Crunch to support their fluff. There's a threadjack there, so I'l leave it at that.
Hopefully when Paizo stays 3.5, you'll find it easy to "upconvert" :P
Seriously, however, I expect they will convert, I just hope they don't. And yes, I respect your right to hope they do.
|
As a Yukoner and another voice in the wilderness (leaving aside the literal or figurative aspects of that statement) I'd tend to agree with the OPs concerns. I started playing back in 2e and hadn't touched D&D for many years until just prior to the 3.5 release.
Well I like alot of 3.5 but it did take a significant time to really master and not spend copious times flipping thru the books. Like anything else it does get easier with practice though hordes of modifiers and iterative attacks remain a headache.
I'd probably welcome 4e for those reasons but what I've seen has not yet convinced me that gameplay will be any faster or 'intuitive'. Changes to the style of play and the forced changes to the conceits of the background... well at the very least I'm nonplussed.
Re 3.5 one thing is the recently published Rules Compendium. A player picked that up in my group a little while ago and I have to say its quite well laid out and is a handier reference than the PHB. He's gotten a fair amount of use out of it and it might help others just getting acquainted with 3.5
afd1366 I think you make a good point , in fact probably the best point to make a switch.
I have some similarities to you- longtime player (kept playing a bit of 1st ed during 2nd ed years rather than change but it was a trickle) came back to 3ed. I do however still have plenty of adult players but I also have children who I want to teach and I am not sure about the current rules.
However I look at what I have seen of 4ed and it doesnt seem to do the job- I think I am likely to get it and make my decision in June- probably to cherrypick 4e. However I already use house rules that deal with most problems.
My question is if someone.. say paizo.. released a rulebook which presented simple alternative rules for things like polymorph, grapple and AoO (and worked from a base of the d20SRD only - ie way less prestige classes which tend to go in all the wrong directions)would this be what you were after or in your opinion is 3.5 so broken you need to get a whole new edition?
I started 3.5 a little over a year ago, having played other games during your 20 year interregnum.
I may or may not switch, it really depends on what Paizo does.
I have a similar situation, I think. I would say I'm in the same boat, but I'm not in a boat, nor are you, so there would be hell to pay.
I played 1st edition, and then was totally out of, and ignorant of, the game until Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon got me to start picking up newsstand copies, and then when the plug got pulled, I didn't want to lose that connection, and so subscribed to Pathfinder.
But this was just to read. I'm not as far from a FLGS as the original poster, but it's still a haul, and where I am, a lot of the FLGSs don't have a lot of F, if you know what I mean.
I understand why a lot of people hate 4e. A lot of crappy things have been done, ranging from the termination of the publications, to unflattering comments about previous editions, to sitting on the new game license. But the game design of it is what actually made me think I could play again, rather than just reading adventure paths. My girlfriend is really enthusiastic about what she's heard, and when her nephews are up this summer, we're going to have a go at it.
What can I say? It looks fun. I want to try it.
I haven't talked much about the new edition here, because I really feel for the people being hurt or feeling upset over the damage to their game by what's going. Still, the situation of the OP was close enough to things I have been thinking that I had to chime in.
Literally. ;)
|
|
I wanted to respond to the OP and commend him on it. I enjoyed your post because I've felt that same way regarding "3.5". I personally don't like all the changes that occurred from 1E to 2E to 3E to 3.5E. Some are great, some are not so great.
I thought the AoO rules bog down the game and turned it into too much of a battlemat exercise. I think this has cut down some of the role playing, especially for some of the new players. At times it's almost like a board game with extra talking bits. Of course, it all depends upon the DM and the players and what they do with the game. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that gets any better with 4E. Sigh.
The other thing that concerned me with 3.5 has been the rules bloat. What is "3.5", really? The OGL? With the splat books, or not? I'm playing in one group that just uses the standard OGL plus a couple prestige classes. That's it. Another uses all sorts of extra stuff that I hadn't even heard of, frankly. Two *verrry* different games, yet both "3.5".
(btw, anyone who's upset with 4E "powers" ought to go read the dragon shaman more closely cause that caused me a double take when I saw it for the first time. You heal us every round? Huh?)
I too am looking forward to 4E not necessarily as a "replacement" for 3.5 (although it might get there at some point) so much as an alternative to the current rules. Plus, honestly, I just like reboots of systems. It's fun. New books, new artwork, new stuff. Or as my wife likes to say every 4-5 years - "time for new paint I think, just because".
Pete
|
They appear to have changed what needed changing but also appear to have changed more that was just fine and did not need to be changed.
So, I find myself now planning on sticking with 3x in the face of 4e.
You've hit on my very own train of thinking. Weird, its almost like you were channeling me....
|
|
Grappling, polymorphing, AAoO -
I've never had a problem with grappling and AoO's, but enough people do that Mike Mearls tagged them as boring things that needed to be pruned, so I'm fine with that.
But I'm really wondering how they are going to make Polymorphing less burdensome than it is in 3.X. The HUGE problem with Polymorphing (and Summoning, Wild Shaping, etc.) is that these systems put NPC / Monster abilities in the hands of PCs, and the rules for the two aren't 100% compatible. A PC that was quite balanced, suddenly turns into a creature with an ability (Pounce, or +10 NA, for instance) that is very much not balanced for PC use.
4E is going to make PC and NPC/monster statistics *less* compatible, and make it even less possible to have shapeshifting or creature summoning function in the D&D game. (No doubt they will introduce a form of summoning similar to the Summon Astral Construct power, which will do away with the whole issue, since a Summoner will never be able to Summon anything that uses pesky NPC-only powers that might not be balanced for PC use. Shapeshifting will likely work similarly, like the Shapeshift Druid variant, instead of the flexible Wild Shape / Polymorph rules.)
I see very real issues with Polymorph and Summons, and the 4E changes sound like they are going to make them WORSE, from their own description. The 4E Summoner / Wild Shaper will be *less* able to summon / turn into beasties from the Monster Manual, as they will be even less compatible than they are now.
It's moving alright, but in this one specific example, I think they are going full-steam in the *wrong* direction.
In other aspects, I think they are going in the right direction (no PrCs, just 'paths' that let you customize a class, like the alternate options for Monks or Rangers), and in still other aspects, I think they are going *too far* in the right direction (instead of no Vancian spellcasting, which I personally loathe, I'd prefer for it to remain an option for those who have spent 20 years loving it's tactical / strategic nature and aren't quite ready for *every* class to become a Warlock-wannabe with at-will powers).
As for title of your post, never expect the target audience to be subtle enough to understand or appreciate clever use of language. Despite a degree in English and experience teaching, I never really saw the use for pedantry (or disqualifying an entire argument based on spelling or grammar).
Sadly there is no /ignore function on these boards, as there are users that have admitted flat out that they were trolling me, and I'd like to never see their posts again.
|
|
Interesting, attention-deficit thread here. I can appreciate the first post but there's plenty to say. First and foremost I understand the difficulty he may have had getting in on 3.5's rules after such a long break. I began with D&D in 1980 and the longest stretch I've even had since then is about 6 months. I picked up 3E (as did my players) right off the bat.
I simply don't beleive the full hardcover D&D is a game that's supposed to be opened and set out on the table and played straight off. There's a reason it was originally referred to as a "hobby game". It's not chess. Gygax palyed all those games and wanted to move beyond them.
This isn't a loathesome "intellectuals should be elitist D&D gamers" talk in the slightest (I hate that stuff). I just think the darn game requires a little more investment in your time, like a hobby is supposed to, than some board game. In a recent article on Gygax the writer mentioned:
"Dungeons & Dragons isn't a straightforward board game like Monopoly or Clue. It's more like an operating system, an elaborate framework on which players can build their own scenarios."
The D&D basic set WotC released for 3rd edition was the game you no doubt need. My daughters started with it at 6 and 10 and are still playign it 4 years later. Of course they have their invested dad to help out.
My players and I appreciate the 3.5 rules as they are. We play great games with no struggles or bum clutches and find "rules heavy" talk doesn't seem to apply as much to those invested more in the game.
-DM Jeff
|
Wrote a number of excellent things.
I couldn't agree more. D&D is a hobby, not a board game. It takes some time and effort to get into it and is not really accessible to someone buying it off the shelf. In an effort to grow the market and allow the game to be played right off the shelf, WotC seems to be removing the very things that make it a hobby in the first place and turning it into an elaborate (and expensive) board game. This may make things better for some people and some new players, but it removes the very heart of the hobby and will drive enthusiasts away.
I liken the change to Rydell (is it Rydell?), the model manufacturing company, doing market research and finding that no one buys those paint-glue-decal scale models anymore because "they are too complicated" and so they move to pre-painted snap together parts and plenty of stickers to customize the outcome. I suppose from a business standpoint it would make sense, but the soul of the hobby is removed and the output as a form of art is gone. The same could be said of D&D.
What WotC needs to do is refine the 3.5 ruleset (I don't know of anyone that says 3.5 is perfect but they may be out there) and release an enhanced Basic Edition that is simple to play right out of the box and couple that with a full court press on the MMO players via a glossy marketing campaign that points out the grind and limitations of the MMO world and promises endless variety and adventure with the world's greatest roleplaying game. Get people playing the game, introduce them to the rules with the Basic Set and then draw them into the fold of the main game. Heck, include a pamphlet on how gameplay differs from the Basic Game so players entering the hobby can be directed to the proper places in the rules. Oh and include a Rule 0 right there on the pamphlet so newcomers approach the game's rules with the right attitude.
Off topic I know. Oh well. Sorry about that.
I couldn't agree more. D&D is a hobby, not a board game. It takes some time and effort to get into it and is not really accessible to someone buying it off the shelf. In an effort to grow the market and allow the game to be played right off the shelf, WotC seems to be removing the very things that make it a hobby in the first place and turning it into an elaborate (and expensive) board game. This may make things better for some people and some new players, but it removes the very heart of the hobby and will drive enthusiasts away.
I liken the change to Rydell (is it Rydell?), the model manufacturing company, doing market research and finding that no one buys those paint-glue-decal scale models anymore because "they are too complicated" and so they move to pre-painted snap together parts and plenty of stickers to customize the outcome. I suppose from a business standpoint it would make sense, but the soul of the hobby is removed and the output as a form of art is gone. The same could be said of D&D.
What WotC needs to do is refine the 3.5 ruleset (I don't know of anyone that says 3.5 is perfect but they may be out there) and release an enhanced Basic Edition that is simple to play right out of the box and couple that with a full court press on the MMO players via a glossy marketing campaign that points out the grind and limitations of the MMO world and promises endless variety and adventure with the world's greatest roleplaying game. Get people playing the game, introduce them to the rules with the Basic Set and then draw them into the fold of the main game. Heck, include a pamphlet on how gameplay differs from the Basic Game so players entering the hobby can be directed to the proper places in the rules. Oh and include a Rule 0 right there on the pamphlet so newcomers approach the game's rules with the right attitude.
Off topic I know. Oh well. Sorry about that.
This is slightly tangential to your post here Lich, but I'm pretty sure there IS a product pretty similar to what you describe. I think my buddy has it. A boxed set, came with some minis and some quick-play rules. Anyone else ever heard of it/have it?
Cheers! :)
|
|
This is slightly tangential to your post here Lich, but I'm pretty sure there IS a product pretty similar to what you describe. I think my buddy has it. A boxed set, came with some minis and some quick-play rules. Anyone else ever heard of it/have it?
Sure sounds familiar :)
In all honesty, I wonder why the Basic Edition was not seen as a valuable gateway to the game. I mean, were people playing the Basic Edition and then not moving forward into 3.5 because 3.5 was too complicated? Did the Basic Edition simply not sell? It seems to me that this is where you would want to put your efforts, but I am admittedly an outsider and a fan, not a marketing guru like the folks at WotC.
Sure sounds familiar :)
In all honesty, I wonder why the Basic Edition was not seen as a valuable gateway to the game. I mean, were people playing the Basic Edition and then not moving forward into 3.5 because 3.5 was too complicated? Did the Basic Edition simply not sell? It seems to me that this is where you would want to put your efforts, but I am admittedly an outsider and a fan, not a marketing guru like the folks at WotC.
Personally, I wouldn't buy something like that, especially if I saw a non-Basic version of the same game nearby. I try not to let my head inflate too big (my glasses might pinch!) but I still think of myself as pretty smart. Faced with a basic vs non-basic choice, I'll generally go for the non-basic on the assumption I can handle its more advanced intricies.
I think my bud only bought it for the minis (he's a mini-fiend) but he also has two young sons so maybe he wanted to play with them?
|
|
The old boxed set rules (sometimes called Basic D&D) was, at its end, far more complicated than any other D&D ruleset.
I miss those rules. If there was a system that had the depth that those rules had but the character customization options of 3rd/4th edition, I'd start a company that produced supplements for it.
Ahh yes, that is what I used to play as well. I may be getting my names wrong but I was referring to the big boxed (Basic for lack of a better word?) Edition that was on store shelves a while back. It looked like a board game and was published within the last few years.
Sorry for any confusion.
Thanks to all for the input and commentary.
I have given thought to the complexity of the older editions and my seeming ability to grasp them with little problem, but I wonder - because 3e was such a departure from previous editions, am I just suffering from not having "got in" when the edition got off the ground? I have already conceded that most of my problems with 3e/3.5 would probably have been hammered out had I been able to share a gaming table with other experienced gamers on a regular basis, but that just wasn't the case. I only recently gained the option of affordably engaging in on-line D&D as a player. I'm pretty sure that part of my problem with those 3e rules I identified is, for lack of a better term, lack of exercise.
I think perhaps (and in all honesty), my knee-jerk attraction to the WotC salemanship of 4e may simply be a desire to "be there" from the ground up so that I can benefit from maximum access to discussions and clarifications of the rules and learn the game in the company of others.
I harbor no ill will toward any of you folks who might fear that I off-handedly will dismiss your comments as those of an "elitist gamer." Hell, I would like nothing more than to once again be able comment as intelligently, effectively, and knowledgably as many of you do about this hobby/game we all seem to love so much.
4E might not be in the cards for me. I haven't decided. I just thought it might be interesting to pick the brains of some of the strongest, brightest 3.5 advocates I know of regarding my particular situation in an evironment that's historically pretty damn welcoming to folks.
And yes, I realize that it's a hobby and that it requires (at least for me as a GM) a lot of research and prep work to make the playing experience exactly how I want it to be for my players. Believe me, my wife'll tell you I'm not struggling for lack of effort in terms of time investment.
Geez, maybe I'm a closet gamer snob myself.
Nah . . . just a little anal.
Doug
|
The boxed basic set wizards put out is Really handy for new gamers.
Pre-rolled characters, nice big dungeon tiles. Clear goals (smash and grab). Nice minis. If you wanted to use this sort of thing on an ongoing basis, you would probably have to update the character sheets yourself or possibly help kids/inexperienced folk.
I think getting in on the ground floor is a draw, too. I've been playing 3rd edition on and off since the day the 3e phb was released, so I have a lot of investment, emotional and monetary.
As a player of the original incarnations of D&D for many years in my youth before my life (or, I should say, the decisions I made in my life) got in the way, I would like to present an alternative perspective on the whole 4E debate. But first, some disclaimers:
1) I in no way, shape or form intend to belittle those among you who have either come to know this fantastic hobby through 3E/3.5 or who have succesfully transitioned from the older editions to the 3E/3.5 version and find it to be the pinnacle of the game's long and storied evolution.
2) I love Paizo, the quality of their products, and their responsiveness to their customers.
3) I only speak for myself and the conditions I find myself in and do not intend to imply that this positionis representative of anyone but myself. That being said, it is MY position that I will discuss. And I am sure, despite the fact that many in my position probably don't lurk on these or other boards, there is a whole segment of the gaming market that I represent.
I'm 40 years old. While wholly well-versed in all the editions of D&D up to 3E, I had not played the game for the better part of 20 years because - well - life got in the way. I got married, I got divorced, I was in the Army, I remarried, I had three kids, I became a firefighter, I moved to rural America - what does it matter? For a variety of reasons, I left this hobby I had grown to love in my youth and hadn't looked back.
Along comes 3E (and later 3.5). Despite the fact that I live in the sticks and can't find anyone to rekindle my love affair with the game, I do have two teenage sons and their friends who are dying to give it a try. So here we go. I pick up the 3E core rulebooks and give it a whirl.
Grappling, polymorphing, AAoO - I'm trying to wrap my head around these new rules in the absence of more experienced minds (I don't have the luxury of a LGS - it's 70 miles away in Austin) to learn from. THEN, I'm trying to impart their use in the game to new young players. THEY see stalls in the game...
I can fully appreciate your concerns. I don't have a whole lot of time to play so when I do I try to keep the rules as simple as possible and hopefully 4E will deliver on that promise (although it is looking more and more like something I am not interested in). Have you looked at Castles & Crusades, True20, the Basic Fantasy RPG? You might find some decent alternatives until 4E is out and fully supported.
@Doug - I'm an Austinite - you're not THAT far out in the Wilderness. :)
As a rule I avoid this forum due to the vitriol, but here goes.
I stopped playing 3x years ago because of the exact issues you've mentioend. Mind you, 3x got me back into gaming after almost a decade out. I was excited by the new edition, and excited to get back into gaming. That lasted about a year, until the group I was DMing got to about 5th level, and DMing became increasingly a chore and decreasingly fun.
We stopped playing D&D. It pains me, because I started playing with a Red Box almost 30 years ago, but we stopped. We didn't stop gaming, though - we just switched systems. We started playing Savage Worlds and have dabbled with Castle & Crusades (which is a lot more like the D&D of our youths). We've never looked back, and our gaming group just gets bigger and we have as much fun as always. And we might check out 4x, but I doubt we'll play it.
Here's my rub with 4x. First, its produced by Wizards, and as a company I don't trust them anymore (for various reasons). I certainly won't invest in any product that they have version control over again (I still buy their tiles and their minis, but those are for _my_ games). Second, for all the game seems simpler, I don't think its really going to be. The complexity will just shift from one aspect (the crunchy rules) to another (the vast laundry lists of powers/feats/do-dads you'll have to learn). They have to sell books after all.
But thats just me, and us (my group). If you think 4x is interesting, explore it. While you're waiting for it to come out, I'd recommend you go look at a couple of other systems and see what you like (Savage Worlds and C&C among them, since they are more rules-lite games - but obviously I'm biased). This is just too cool of a hobby to pass up just because one system - regardless of how popular or well-supported it is - doesn't work for you.
(Quick note - one thing I love about Paizo is that their material is well written enough that is quite worth it to convert to other systems. And because of their focus on the story, with the stuff and the mechanics secondary to that, their modules and APs are pretty easy to convert, too.)
@Doug - I'm an Austinite - you're not THAT far out in the Wilderness. :)
Nah, not really. I'm actually more precisely located near the thriving metropolis of Muldoon. But family commitments and the travel distance does hamper my ability to just pop-in over at the Dragon's Lair anytime I want or hang-out till all hours of the night (or weekends)with a good gaming group in Austin. As a DM in years past, I always hated unreliable players. That's all I'd be with three kids and their extracurriculars. Right now, they're just a priority.
|
|
I'm really wondering how they are going to make Polymorphing less burdensome than it is in 3.X. The HUGE problem with Polymorphing (and Summoning, Wild Shaping, etc.) is that these systems put NPC / Monster abilities in the hands of PCs, and the rules for the two aren't 100% compatible. A PC that was quite balanced, suddenly turns into a creature with an ability (Pounce, or +10 NA, for instance) that is very much not balanced for PC use.
One way would be to forget about giving the players a copy of the MM and having them dither about the optimum creature to be.
Give them a pool of 'Polymorph Points' (scaled by caster level?), and let them buy specific abilities from a list (and work out specific builds between sessions). Flight or water breathing might use up a huge chunk of the points, stat increases, natural armour, special attacks, all have their own cost.Try to build 'something like' the creature you want to emulate, and don't worry about whether you match it exactly.
You might be able to change to a rhino with full charge option, but only afford half the armour. No big deal. You might be able to become a pouncing big cat, but not be able to afford all the stat or damage increases. So you're an immature adult version.
This also encourages shapeshifting druids and wizards to actually have decent physical stats, to build on, and not min-max them down, because they get 'replaced'.
Most of the time, I have a specific ability in mind when I change, and it doesn't need a lot of number crunching. "I need to get from this island to that island. If I turn into a giant owl, can I get there in 10 minutes?", "Yes", "Done". I'll worry about my attack bonus if I get attacked on the way.
This would also mean PCs and monsters didn't need to be built the same way.
I suspect they are going to deal with polymorph by getting rid of it and replacing it with spells like aspect of the wolf or those investiture spells from FCII. Spells that allow you to take on some of the traits of a creature, but that doesn't give you carte blanche.
I'm really wondering how they are going to make Polymorphing less burdensome than it is in 3.X.
Polymorph/Shapeshift/Wild Shape is dead (in 4e). Long live Aspect of Nature (or something similar)! I can see each aspect getting it's own "power" title for the 4e druid. WotC has stated that shapechanging is going to be a core ability of the druid, so other classes will lose it (similar to Enchantment spells and psions).
4E isn't popular here in the Paizo boards. Hell, it stands to radically alter Paizo's Golarion campaign world drastically.
No, it's not. :P
Seriously:
Paizo subscribes to the idea that the rules must serve the game world, not the other way around.
If they can't make a 4e version of Golarion without altering the world drastically (or even moderately), they won't make it at all.
So you won't see Golarion being cut up to fit 4e. There won't be massive global catastrophies to make it more "Points of Light", elves won't suddenly and magically split into elves and eladrin, and their lifespan won't suddenly drop to a third of the original.
Paizo subscribes to the idea that the rules must serve the game world, not the other way around.
Yup, KaeYoss, you're right - I just hadn't really thought of it from that perspective. I really like Paizo's stuff, I just wish I'd gotten hold of it sooner. I came in sort of late in their reign as publisher of the Dungeon and Dragon mags, but they were definitely my initial draw to the company.
Whichever way I go on the whole 3.4/4e thing, Paizo will remain a primary source for me. I'm one of those guys who has come to trust their staff's ability to maintain the "freshness" of D&D. Anyone (and I speak of Erik specifically) who was so devoted to Greyhawk that he could make the oldest campaign setting in the D&D world feel new and alive on a near monthly basis is a credit to our whole community. Imagine what he and his gifted staff will do not that they've created their OWN campaign world.
I don't want to see the 4e debate result in a schism that fractures the precious few folks that are enlightened enough to see D&D (in all its incarnations) for what it really is - a uniquely cool face-to-face pastime that engages the minds of all participants in a way that will never be rivaled by any MMORPG. But I fear that if we can't be open-minded in our discussions amongst ourselves, we play right into the hands of those who ignorantly criticize us even when we agree.
So you won't see Golarion being cut up to fit 4e. There won't be massive global catastrophies to make it more "Points of Light", elves won't suddenly and magically split into elves and eladrin, and their lifespan won't suddenly drop to a third of the original.
While I would be happy to see 4e modules from Paizo, there are some very large philosophical gaps between what I have seen so far of 4e and Golarion (and, of course, the rest of the 3e world), ranging from combat expectations to the fact that WotC wants to (from their point of view) de-clutter everything from pantheons to spellbooks to genies. This may result in a nice, tight universe, but seems fairly inhospitable for 3rd parties with expansive visions.
I guess it might be possible to make a 4e-compatible Pathfinder, but the terms of the GSL would have to be in a vastly different direction from everything I have seen come out so far regarding 4e's philosophy.
In short, though I will be playing 4e games, I haven't posted anything to encourage a changeover of Pathfinder, as I am guessing that may prove to be a very, very hard row to hoe.
While I would be happy to see 4e modules from Paizo, there are some very large philosophical gaps between what I have seen so far of 4e and Golarion (and, of course, the rest of the 3e world), ranging from combat expectations to the fact that WotC wants to (from their point of view) de-clutter everything from pantheons to spellbooks to genies. This may result in a nice, tight universe, but seems fairly inhospitable for 3rd parties with expansive visions.I guess it might be possible to make a 4e-compatible Pathfinder, but the terms of the GSL would have to be in a vastly different direction from everything I have seen come out so far regarding 4e's philosophy.
This is one of my main concerns about 4e:
The stuff we know about 4e doesn't seem even similar to Golarion, or even remotely compatible.
While in the past, you could just change the flavour, I have the feeling that the new flavour is ingrained in the rules (see the new races: You keep getting abilities every level or so, and those abilities are tied to the 4e version of elves), so it's either be a lot of work to change that stuff (basically writing up all new races) or to change Golarion's races to fit the new rules.
The rules are another problem. They seem to encourage a style of play I cannot imagine using with Golarion. It's like playing a band of CE hobbit frenzied berserkers in middle earth.
And that all asumes, of course, that the GSL will even allow changes like that to be made. We know it's not Open any more, that some things that the OGL allowed, the new forbids. It may "just" be GSL RPGs, It maybe changes to races or introducing new races or classes, or even just introducing races and classes that aren't in the game yet, but have been in 3e core and might be in 4e some time - whether they're usable by third party companies or not.
It could be that when they get to see the GSL, and subsequently the rules, that there's really no need for a decision, because Golarion just can't work with 4e. I can even see them not even bothering with seeing with the rules because the GSL itself is out of the question. And I still trust Paizo enough not to go with 4e even if it means butchering Golarion.