Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?


4th Edition

201 to 250 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

The Red Death wrote:


By implying that anything that isn't "fun" can be looked over, ignored. "On with the fun": According to the rulebooks, meeting with town guards is not worth spending time on since it's mundane. Nevermind that some of the most exhilarating/hilarious/memorable/i.e. "fun" moments of roleplaying may and do actually occur during "mundane" encounters. Nevermind the inherent unpredictability of the game itself, and thus of seemingly mundane encounters on paper that happen to be the best, most entertaining moments of the game play.

The structure of the rules themselves gloss over anything that would be non-dramatic. The list of Skills, and Skills that have been nerfed from 3.x to reach this current one, is just an example of this. Anything that doesn't relate to a/ combat or b/ any aspect of dungeon exploration simply isn't needed because it's lame, boring, an obstacle to the "real fun", according to this game.

I think it's fairly accurate to call this a fact. Now, some can love these changes because they define the fun of the game on the same terms as its designers, but others might and will disagree.

Lets examine this claim.

4E DMG wrote:

Fun!

Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how
much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations...
.. Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun...

In fact, I could type the entire first chapter of the DMG, which is wholly devoted to good DMing skills, as evidence against your claim. It notes different types of players and suggests ways to tailer the game to each, and it stresses again and again that the important thing is to have fun. If your group wants to roleplay talking to the guards everytime they come back to town, trust me, the 4E DMG BEGS you to do it!

Cheers! :)

The Exchange

AZRogue wrote:
3E can treat the rules as physics, if you choose. 4E doesn't make it easy and the designers have said themselves that they deliberately slanted the game more towards gamist concerns than simulationist concerns.

I can see that. However, calling 3e more simulationist than 4e is like saying the Flintstones is closer to an accurate portrayal of family life compared to the Family Guy because Pebbles doesn't talk but Stewie does.

AZRogue wrote:

Some people want goblins to be detailed to the point that we can imagine how they interact with each other, the world, and life in general, all without any PC interaction.

4E takes the game in another direction: If the PCs aren't there, what does it matter what that goblin is doing? He's doing whatever the DM thinks he's doing and he is capable of doing whatever the DM thinks he should be capable of doing.

Okay, I can understand why folks might feel that way, but I see almost as much fluff about goblins in 4e compared to 3e so I'm not really sure what I would be missing.

AZRogue wrote:
That's the way I look at things and I die a little bit inside each time I contemplate the game rules being treated as the physics of a world, but some people play that way and so are not going to appreciate 4E the way I do.

Yep. I agree 100%. I played RuneQuest (nearly exclusively) for 10 years. If folks want to see actual simulationist gaming they should give it a try. And that is not just the crunch I am talking about - the fluff too. Glorantha is an incredibly detailed setting. I would dare say it is more fleshed out than any other game setting out there.


crosswiredmind wrote:

I can see that. However, calling 3e more simulationist than 4e is like saying the Flintstones is closer to an accurate portrayal of family life compared to the Family Guy because Pebbles doesn't talk but Stewie does.

LMAO! Great analogy CWM! :)


crosswiredmind wrote:
Okay, I can understand why folks might feel that way, but I see almost as much fluff about goblins in 4e compared to 3e so I'm not really sure what I would be missing.

Sorry to interject here but, what? 4e has as much fluff as 3rd edition in the Monster Manual? Now I really do like 4e. I really do. But one of my biggest dissapointments here has been with the little snippets of prose in the new Monster Manual. Granted the goblin fares better than most--since the monsters that a catchall for a number of sub-monsters tend to get a nice intro blurb, in this case a respectable four paragraphs of it, followed by a nice fat block of lore rolls. I wish all of the entries were like that.

The aboleth gets three sentences and two tidbits of lore.

The Banshrae gets two sentences and two bits of lore.

The Balhannoth gets ONE sentence.

The Cambion gets ONE sentence.

The Chuul gets ONE sentence.

I really really would have much liked less (or at least more interesting) variants and another half page a pop to let me know what these creatures are and how they fit into the world. The 2nd Edition Monster Manual is what sold me on D&D as a hardcore World of Darkness player. I loved all the flavor, and all the cultures out there. This one is so skimpy it makes me cry.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:
AZRogue wrote:
3E can treat the rules as physics, if you choose. 4E doesn't make it easy and the designers have said themselves that they deliberately slanted the game more towards gamist concerns than simulationist concerns.
I can see that. However, calling 3e more simulationist than 4e is like saying the Flintstones is closer to an accurate portrayal of family life compared to the Family Guy because Pebbles doesn't talk but Stewie does.

<sigh> I knew it would digress to this, which is why I previously linked about being internally consistent - but I guess you missed that.

Just in case you still don't follow the link, here's the important part:

Särkijärvi's Law wrote:


I therefore present Särkijärvi's Law, in echo of Godwin's Law: As a discussion about realism in a fantasy setting grows longer, the probability of someone claiming the irrelevancy of realism in the presence of magic approaches one.

"Just because it’s fantasy, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to be realistic. Third edition Dungeon Master’s Guide author Monte Cook terms this realism ‘verisimilitude’, the property of a setting being believable through internal consistency. It makes the game fair as well as improving atmosphere."

The Exchange

Count Buggula wrote:
<sigh> I knew it would digress to this, which is why I previously linked about being internally consistent - but I guess you missed that.

I did not miss it I just don't see it as being relevant to the comparison of 3e and 4e.

I do not see either one of those two systems as being any more or less internally consistent.

I would also say that fact that it is high fantasy has nothing to do with it. Relative to each other, 3e and 4e may be at different levels of abstraction. 3e may seem to be more simulationist relative to 4e but when compared to a system like RuneQuest which is a simulationist rules set, the differences in the level of abstraction seem to be minimal. That was my point hence my animated analogy.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:
Count Buggula wrote:
<sigh> I knew it would digress to this, which is why I previously linked about being internally consistent - but I guess you missed that.

I did not miss it I just don't see it as being relevant to the comparison of 3e and 4e.

I do not see either one of those two systems as being any more or less internally consistent.

I would also say that fact that it is high fantasy has nothing to do with it. Relative to each other, 3e and 4e may be at different levels of abstraction. 3e may seem to be more simulationist relative to 4e but when compared to a system like RuneQuest which is a simulationist rules set, the differences in the level of abstraction seem to be minimal. That was my point hence my animated analogy.

You know, for all your talk, I honestly think you're just trying to provoke people into arguing about 3vs4e.

You ask a question, why do people think RP has no place in 4th edition, which in itself was a very slanted rewording of the original statement that 4th edition didn't lend itself to roleplaying, and reworded in a manner specifically intended to provoke.

We provided our explanations, at which point you say "I don't see what you're implying, give examples of why you think that."

So we give examples and you say "Well, that's not really a fair statement" or "that's totally irreverent."

If you're gonna ignore the evidence that's provided, just quit the discussion. Because at this point you're just troll-baiting.


crosswiredmind wrote:


Not sure I get that. How is 3e simulationist?

Well, I didn't try to infer it was, just that those into making a sim out of the game would probably like it better. It's just like the '4e is too video-gamey to be dnd' argument. It might well be very gamey, but so is 3e people are just used to it.

The Exchange

drjones wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


Not sure I get that. How is 3e simulationist?
Well, I didn't try to infer it was, just that those into making a sim out of the game would probably like it better. It's just like the '4e is too video-gamey to be dnd' argument. It might well be very gamey, but so is 3e people are just used to it.

Got it. Understood.


AZRogue wrote:
Some people want goblins to be detailed to the point that we can imagine how they interact with each other, the world, and life in general, all without any PC interaction.
crosswiredmind wrote:
Okay, I can understand why folks might feel that way, but I see almost as much fluff about goblins in 4e compared to 3e so I'm not really sure what I would be missing.

AZRogue makes a good point here, and it's not about goblins -- it's about the 4e Monster Manual.

See if you can make the same claim about gnomes. In the vast majority of cases, MM entries are overwhelmingly about combat performance. Far more so than 3.5.

Grimcleaver makes the same point -- very well.

The Exchange

Count Buggula wrote:
You ask a question, why do people think RP has no place in 4th edition, which in itself was a very slanted rewording of the original statement that 4th edition didn't lend itself to roleplaying, and reworded in a manner specifically intended to provoke.

Actually I did not ask that question - Fletch started this particular thread.

Count Buggula wrote:
We provided our explanations, at which point you say "I don't see what you're implying, give examples of why you think that."

Am I not allowed to ask for clarification when a post is vague?

Count Buggula wrote:
So we give examples and you say "Well, that's not really a fair statement" or "that's totally irreverent."

I never said anything about a statement not being fair - that was David Marks.

I did say that the link you posted is irrelevant to the 3e as simulationist vs 4e as gamist comparison because ... well ... it is irrelevant. I have not used the argument that the presence of the fantastic negates the possibility of a realistic simulation.

My statement was, is, and will be that relative to each other 3e may seem more simulationist when compared to 4e but that comparison is exposed as invalid when 3e and 4e are compared to rules systems that actually are simulationist in nature like Runequest or Harn Master.

Count Buggula wrote:
If you're gonna ignore the evidence that's provided, just quit the discussion. Because at this point you're just troll-baiting.

I am not ignoring anything - I am disagreeing with the very foundation of your position. I do not see how 3e is somehow simulationist and therefore internally consistent when compared to 4e. I am willing to listen to your reasoning but so far I am unconvinced.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
See if you can make the same claim about gnomes. In the vast majority of cases, MM entries are overwhelmingly about combat performance. Far more so than 3.5.

True. That is a valid point. The question is why did they do it that way? I don't think they intended to eliminate fluff from their products. It seems to me that they have tried to create a generic core much like AD&D. I think you will see the fluff multiply in the different campaign settings and in places like Dungeon and Dragon.


crosswiredmind wrote:
My statement was, is, and will be that relative to each other 3e may seem more simulationist when compared to 4e but that comparison is exposed as invalid when 3e and 4e are compared to rules systems that actually are simulationist in nature like Runequest or Harn Master.

I think you're trying too hard to win. This statement (unless I misunderstand your point) makes no sense.

Relative to each other, calculus is more difficult than algebra -- that is a fact that is not invalidated by the existence of a considerably more difficult course (say, differential topology).

The Exchange

The Red Death wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
4e doesn't forbid non-dramatic scenes, but certainly discourages it, and thus indirectly discourages character development.
Where and how does it do that?
By implying that anything that isn't "fun" can be looked over, ignored. "On with the fun": According to the rulebooks, meeting with town guards is not worth spending time on since it's mundane. Nevermind that some of the most exhilarating/hilarious/memorable/i.e. "fun" moments of roleplaying may and do actually occur during "mundane" encounters. Nevermind the inherent unpredictability of the game itself, and thus of seemingly mundane encounters on paper that happen to be the best, most entertaining moments of the game play.

... and in that same section they talk about making the game involved and intricately played if that is what the players want. I see this as an acknowledgement that different play styles require different pacing and levels of detail.

The Red Death wrote:

The structure of the rules themselves gloss over anything that would be non-dramatic. The list of Skills, and Skills that have been nerfed from 3.x to reach this current one, is just an example of this. Anything that doesn't relate to a/ combat or b/ any aspect of dungeon exploration simply isn't needed because it's lame, boring, an obstacle to the "real fun", according to this game.

I think it's fairly accurate to call this a fact. Now, some can love these changes because they define the fun of the game on the same terms as its designers, but others might and will disagree.

I actually agree with you to some extent. The skill list is far too short for my taste but i also do not think the presence of craft and profession actually added all that much to 3e. I would have liked to have seen a slightly expanded list to give a character a bit more tangible expression of difference. For example - thievery. What if I want a rogue skilled in disarming traps but crappy at picking pockets. I can't do that in 4e. On this particular issue I think Wizards went too far towards simplification, but i certainly have no desire to go back to the 3.5 skill system.

But I do not see this as limiting roleplaying at all. I started playing when a PC fit on one side of an index card - including spells and equipment. There was no lack of roleplaying back then and we had far fewer mechanical differentiators to work with.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
See if you can make the same claim about gnomes. In the vast majority of cases, MM entries are overwhelmingly about combat performance. Far more so than 3.5.
crosswiredmind wrote:
True. That is a valid point. The question is why did they do it that way? I don't think they intended to eliminate fluff from their products.

Then I suppose it was done accidentally -- because it is gone.

crosswiredmind wrote:
It seems to me that they have tried to create a generic core much like AD&D.

It seems to me that the tried to create a combat guide with little more information than you would find in a miniatures rulebook. My interpretation happens to be supported by the evidence.

crosswiredmind wrote:
I think you will see the fluff multiply in the different campaign settings and in places like Dungeon and Dragon.

Maybe, but that isn't supported by any evidence. I'd call that blind, faith, against which I doubt I can make any useful points.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Relative to each other, calculus is more difficult than algebra -- that is a fact that is not invalidated by the existence of a considerably more difficult course (say, differential topology).

Its even finer a distinction than that. It is more like saying that accounting is better than simple addition at modeling complex physics equations. Sure accounting is more complex than addition but are either actually capable of modeling string theory?

3e is not a simulation, neither is 4e - in the full scope of gaming they are both abstract rules sets.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I think you will see the fluff multiply in the different campaign settings and in places like Dungeon and Dragon.
Maybe, but that isn't supported by any evidence. I'd call that blind, faith, against which I doubt I can make any useful points.

Part of it is faith, but it is faith built on past behavior. WotC will not be able to restrain the desire to pump out product. We have already had a glimpse of this with the Warforged article and in the product roadmap.

Oh, the fluff will be here. Of that I have no doubt.


4E is as internally consistent as any other edition of DnD. It's just not as complex.

Now, if internal consistency is taken to the extreme where the rules used to adjudicate PC actions are used, instead, to try and form some sort of model for the physics of the world, that's different. I don't believe they were intended to do such a thing and so no consideration for possible outcomes (swarms being able to be struck by arrows, for instance) was taken.

Not that this is different from previous versions of the game.

I still believe that this argument comes down to the system being different in some ways then before combined with the fact that some people liked the old complexity and miss it.


crosswiredmind wrote:

Its even finer a distinction than that. It is more like saying that accounting is better than simple addition at modeling complex physics equations. Sure accounting is more complex than addition but are either actually capable of modeling string theory?

3e is not a simulation, neither is 4e - in the full scope of gaming they are both abstract rules sets.

Point taken. I misunderstood.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Part of it is faith, but it is faith built on past behavior.

I imagine this is where a great many of us are disagreeing.

For you, WotC's performance with 3/e (rightfully) engenders a great deal of confidence and faith.

For many others, there is a justified sense of abandonment from a company that has spurned thirty successful years of D&D -- and they don't want that to end.

I think both sides are justified in their feelings. I also think their's little hope of convincing people on points they've already decided. Thousands of posts are showing that is true :(

Regards :)

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Part of it is faith, but it is faith built on past behavior.

I imagine this is where a great many of us are disagreeing.

For you, WotC's performance with 3/e (rightfully) engenders a great deal of confidence and faith.

For many others, there is a justified sense of abandonment from a company that has spurned thirty successful years of D&D -- and they don't want that to end.

I think both sides are justified in their feelings. I also think their's little hope of convincing people on points they've already decided. Thousands of posts are showing that is true :(

Regards :)

Oh, I am not saying the fluff will be great. I am not saying that it will conform to past notions of the same fluff. I am just saying that the WotC machine will crank it out. I don't see the possibility of WotC keeping 4e a fluff light version of D&D.

Liberty's Edge

Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Part of it is faith, but it is faith built on past behavior.

I imagine this is where a great many of us are disagreeing.

For you, WotC's performance with 3/e (rightfully) engenders a great deal of confidence and faith.

For many others, there is a justified sense of abandonment from a company that has spurned thirty successful years of D&D -- and they don't want that to end.

Um...WotC most certainly did not spurn 30 successful years of D&D. They took over rather recently after the demise of TSR, pumped out a new version of D&D - 3rd (which some would say was too hasty), invalidated much of that by putting out 3.5 only a few years later, and now are completely throwing away everyone's stock of 3.x books for another new version that's completely incompatible.

Let's take a look at the history:

1974 (D&D Original)
1977–79 (AD&D 1st Edition)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd Edition)
2003 (D&D v.3.5)
2008

So when WotC took over, we went from over a decade between versions to releasing 2 new versions in 8 years. That alone is enough to alienate many players and make them feel like WotC is just trying to pad their pocketbooks.

And that, I think, we can all agree is a valid argument.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:
See if you can make the same claim about gnomes. In the vast majority of cases, MM entries are overwhelmingly about combat performance. Far more so than 3.5.
crosswiredmind wrote:
True. That is a valid point. The question is why did they do it that way? I don't think they intended to eliminate fluff from their products.
Then I suppose it was done accidentally -- because it is gone.

I hope they did intend to eliminate fluff. It encourages people to try doing something different, rather than doing something a particular way just because the rulebook says so or because "it's always been done that way". I'd much rather see an original take on something (like Golarion goblins) than yet another rehash of things that I'm going to do my own way anyway. At least if there's no particular fluff involved I don't have to tell people I'm changing it.


Hello - I saw this thread and wanted to contribute. I recently bought the 4ED players handbook and took it back to the shop the next day.

Quick intro - I am an avid role-player, and most often the DM. I never converted to 3ed as a DM, although I have experienced it for moderate lengths as a player. I love creating dramatic scenes and memorable NPCs. My campaigns will always contain dozens of key NPC's, each with photos or paintings as visual aids and distinct personalities.

Elaborate character sheets with many fields will never work for me. The hours involved in NPC creation would be horrendous. Also I want my players to be thinking about the horror, humour, stakes of a scenario - immersed in the moment, not staring at their character sheet calculating numbers.

For me, drama stems from the risks and stakes involved in a situation, bitter rivalries and determining responses based on the personality of the imaginary character. In our group we enjoy this more than having a great many tactical skills to choose from.

I recently started a new group with six 'virgin' players. I dumbed the system down, even by AD&D standards to make for the most fluid gameplay while managing a fairly large group with no rules familiarity. This worked a treat - at least for me. Thrusting 3ed or 4ed on six new role-players would have been fun-suicide imho.


If you prefer simple rules that don't get in the way of what you, the DM, is trying to do, I think 4E would actually be a good choice. The game actually does play differently than it reads, which is a point I wish was mentioned more. It's great at the table.

But if you already have a system set up to do what you want then that's great. As long as we're all having fun. None of the editions can be everything to everyone. :)


The funny thing is that I've always considered the 3E system as anathema to roleplaying thanks to the skill system of 3.x.

Grand Lodge

Bleach wrote:
The funny thing is that I've always considered the 3E system as anathema to roleplaying thanks to the skill system of 3.x.

How so? I mean take a skill like intimidate. Sure you can just say to the DM; "I use intimidate on him, I have a +6!" So yeah, in that example, there is no RPing involved...

But what if the player actually converses with the NPC in a threatening manner (in character)? The skill is still used, but the player gets into the role...

My point is, you're one person playing several (as DM), each is supposed to have differing thoughts, opinions, and personalities... If someone offers up a line of complete BS to YOU, someone else may buy it hook line and sinker! And that is where the skills are supposed to come in...

Just my thoughts...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


For me, it's the wide disparity between skilled and non-skilled.

Let's say for example I have a party with a fighter, cleric, bard and wizard. If I set-up a roleplaying encounter that uses many of the social skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, pretty much only the bard can take part.

Whereas if it is a pure hack and slash encounter, at least 3 out of 4 people at the tabe will be actually taking part in the battle.

So guess which one DMs will default to use mostly?


Count Buggula wrote:


Um...WotC most certainly did not spurn 30 successful years of D&D. They took over rather recently after the demise of TSR, pumped out a new version of D&D - 3rd (which some would say was too hasty), invalidated much of that by putting out 3.5 only a few years later, and now are completely throwing away everyone's stock of 3.x books for another new version that's completely incompatible.

Let's take a look at the history:

1974 (D&D Original)
1977–79 (AD&D 1st Edition)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd Edition)
2003 (D&D v.3.5)
2008

So when WotC took over, we went from over a decade between versions to releasing 2 new versions in 8 years. That alone is enough to alienate many players and make them feel like WotC is just trying to pad their pocketbooks.

And that, I think, we can all agree is a valid argument.

I am not disputing any of the facts presented above. (with regards to timelines, or with the lack of compatibility between 4e and pre-4e versions)

What I've nver been able to understand is how mad people seem to be getting with WotC for coming out with the different versions. It is a business...I would much rather have them putting out versions every few years than having them stop putting out product.

No one has ever forced me to switch versions. Sure, the switch to 4e means that they won't produce 3.5 products anymore, but who cares? If I loved 3.5 enough, I would focus on developing my own changes. I would look for like-minded individuals to keep that version alive. Lots of posters have admitted that they never even made the switch to 3.x and have been playing older version for years, so I am assuming this is all doable.

Now if WotC showed up at my door and asked for all of my 3.5 books back now that they are officailly 4e, that's a different matter :)

Any initiative that could open the door to more people enjoying D&D, or RPGs in general, is good in my books.


Arcane Joe wrote:


Elaborate character sheets with many fields will never work for me. The hours involved in NPC creation would be horrendous. Also I want my players to be thinking about the horror, humour, stakes of a scenario - immersed in the moment, not staring at their character sheet calculating numbers.

Just wanted to note, in 4e when you make an NPC you do not need to fill out a character sheet unless you really want to. You can stat up NPC with just as much info as is needed to make them interact with the PCs, so if it's an innkeeper you might decide what their insight skill is to detect bluffs in negotiating the price but that and their personality/look/mannerisms is all you need.

Even if the PC are going to fight them there is a (imo) very simple process for making NPC 'monsters' with class/race features that does not involve making a PC like character. And even making a PC does not take an large amount of time once you do a couple.

Liberty's Edge

Larry Latourneau wrote:


I am not disputing any of the facts presented above. (with regards to timelines, or with the lack of compatibility between 4e and pre-4e versions)

What I've nver been able to understand is how mad people seem to be getting with WotC for coming out with the different versions. It is a business...I would much rather have them putting out versions every few years than having them stop putting out product.

No one has ever forced me to switch versions. Sure, the switch to 4e means that they won't produce 3.5 products anymore, but who cares? If I loved 3.5 enough, I would focus on developing my own changes. I would look for like-minded individuals to keep that version alive. Lots of posters have admitted that they never even made the switch to 3.x and have been playing older version for years, so I am assuming this is all doable.

Now if WotC showed up at my door and asked for all of my 3.5 books back now that they are officailly 4e, that's a different matter :)

Any initiative that could open the door to more people enjoying D&D, or RPGs in general, is good in my books.

All that's well and good if you've already got all the books you need, but what if you don't? What if you have a new player that wants to join you but can't buy any of the books anymore? For instance my wife recently got into playing, and has started gravitating towards the arcane magic user role. I can't go to the local game store anymore to pick up a copy of Complete Arcana for her. I also can't get it on ebay - a quick search provided me with a grand total of ONE copy for sale, and they've been going for far above retail. Seems like we're not seeing masses of 3.x players selling their books to convert to 4th like was expected. And the new player? Unless he can get the whole group to convert to 4e he's screwed.

Thank goodness for Pathfinder.


Bleach wrote:

For me, it's the wide disparity between skilled and non-skilled.

Let's say for example I have a party with a fighter, cleric, bard and wizard. If I set-up a roleplaying encounter that uses many of the social skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, pretty much only the bard can take part.

Whereas if it is a pure hack and slash encounter, at least 3 out of 4 people at the tabe will be actually taking part in the battle.

So guess which one DMs will default to use mostly?

The 'social encounters' in 4e are designed to try to work around this by letting a wider variety of skills come into play in non-combat. But you might just be talking about 3e?

I agree with your initial point though. I still make my players RP their interactions with NPCs, the die rolls for diplomacy etc. just influence the response up or down a few notches.


Count Buggula wrote:


All that's well and good if you've already got all the books you need, but what if you don't? What if you have a new player that wants to join you but can't buy any of the books anymore?

Just check any Half Price Books store. They should have tons of 3.5 D&D books at half price. I know all the stores in my area do.

Also I just did a search on E-Bay.

78 items found for: dungeons and dragons 3.5


Count Buggula wrote:

Let's take a look at the history:

1974 (D&D Original)
1977–79 (AD&D 1st Edition)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd Edition)
2003 (D&D v.3.5)
2008

So when WotC took over, we went from over a decade between versions to releasing 2 new versions in 8 years. That alone is enough to alienate many players and make them feel like WotC is just trying to pad their pocketbooks.

And that, I think, we can all agree is a valid argument.

But, what would we be playing without WOTC? TSR's practices put them out of business and the game out of production. So no, the argument is not valid becuase it assumes an equal level of success on the parts of both companies. While WotC run on D&D is not over, and time may prove certain decisions (removing the magazines from print) mistaken, judging them by a history that would see the game out-of-print is invalid.

Liberty's Edge

Lensman wrote:


Just check any Half Price Books store. They should have tons of 3.5 D&D books at half price. I know all the stores in my area do.

Also I just did a search on E-Bay.

78 items found for: dungeons and dragons 3.5

Did you not read the rest of my post? I CANNOT buy a copy of Complete Arcana anywhere. I already checked the local used book store - they've got junk. I don't live in a super big city so that's my only local option - that and the one game store in town.

The Exchange

Amzon has it. 3.5 books will be readily available for years to come.

Liberty's Edge

Michael Brisbois wrote:


But, what would we be playing without WOTC? TSR's practices put them out of business and the game out of production. So no, the argument is not valid becuase it assumes an equal level of success on the parts of both companies. While WotC run on D&D is not over, and time may prove certain decisions (removing the magazines from print) mistaken, judging them by a history that would see the game out-of-print is invalid.

Whether it's out of print because the company goes under or out of print because the company refuses to print more is the same in my mind. WotC might as well be dead for all I care at this point - and they certainly won't ever be getting another penny out of me.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:
Amzon has it. 3.5 books will be readily available for years to come.

Nice try. Amazon says:

Temporarily out of stock.

Edit: never mind, they do have some in the section right below where they say it's out of stock. I really wish they fixed that so it wasn't so misleading.


Count Buggula wrote:


All that's well and good if you've already got all the books you need, but what if you don't? What if you have a new player that wants to join you but can't buy any of the books anymore? For instance my wife recently got into playing, and has started gravitating towards the arcane magic user role. I can't go to the local game store anymore to pick up a copy of Complete Arcana for her. I also can't get it on ebay - a quick search provided me with a grand total of ONE copy for sale, and they've been going for far above retail. Seems like we're not seeing masses of 3.x players selling their books to convert to 4th like was expected. And the new player? Unless he can get the whole group to convert to 4e he's screwed.

Thank goodness for Pathfinder.

As for Complete Arcane, I was able to find this :

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-9780786934355-1

after a quick search. Complete Arcane for 19.95.

But you are correct, the books will be harder to get as time goes by. That's when you need to start developing your own stuff, or start to rely on the D&D community. People seem to have been playing 2e for years without new 'official' content. All you really need are the core books...everything else is fluff.


Damn dirty ninjas!

Grand Lodge

might also want to give The Hit Pointe a try for used books: Here.

Sovereign Court Contributor

Count Buggula wrote:
For instance my wife recently got into playing, and has started gravitating towards the arcane magic user role. I can't go to the local game store anymore to pick up a copy of Complete Arcana for her. I also can't get it on ebay - a quick search provided me with a grand total of ONE copy for sale, and they've been going for far above retail.

I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly, just helpful. The problem is that the book is called Complete Arcane, not Complete Arcana. EBay has a boatload of them, and at a quick glance, the cheapest I saw was $8.

Scarab Sages

David Marks wrote:

Lets examine this claim.

4E DMG wrote:

Fun!

Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how
much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations...
.. Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun...
In fact, I could type the entire first chapter of the DMG, which is wholly devoted to good DMing skills, as evidence against your claim. It notes different types of players and suggests ways to tailer the game to each, and it stresses again and again that the important thing is to have fun. If your group wants to roleplay talking to the guards everytime they come back to town, trust me, the 4E DMG...

To which I answer:

4E DMG, p. 105 wrote:
Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun.

Like it or not, 4E does frame the concept of "fun" very narrowly. But really, you can look at the Skill array, the effects of the vast majority of powers - it's all about tactical encounters. What isn't tactical isn't deemed fun, interesting or worth spending time on in 4E. Unless you have Skill Challenges, potential roll fests, that is.

I'm sure a veteran DM can make great sessions out of 4E. It's a solid, coherent system in and by itself, it seems. But encouraging role-playing at the expense of tactical encounters? Acknowledging the potential blast that seemingly mundane events in the game can provide in terms of role-playing (which was the point of my first post)? It doesn't.

Liberty's Edge

Rambling Scribe wrote:
Count Buggula wrote:
For instance my wife recently got into playing, and has started gravitating towards the arcane magic user role. I can't go to the local game store anymore to pick up a copy of Complete Arcana for her. I also can't get it on ebay - a quick search provided me with a grand total of ONE copy for sale, and they've been going for far above retail.
I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly, just helpful. The problem is that the book is called Complete Arcane, not Complete Arcana. EBay has a boatload of them, and at a quick glance, the cheapest I saw was $8.

Aha! Thank you - well that was certainly a mistake on my part. Funny I never noticed it, and I've been calling it that for ages.

Oops!


Count Buggula wrote:


Nice try. Amazon says:

Temporarily out of stock.

Edit: never mind, they do have some in the section right below where they say it's out of stock. I really wish they fixed that so it wasn't so misleading.

Ever since 4E was announced, I've been finding AWESOME deals from Amazon on 3E stuff. Books for under $10 AFTER shipping! Even relatively new ones! Heck, I only paid $15 for my Rules Compendium!

Even if I wasn't shifting over to 4E, I'd be happy that you can pretty much get a complete 3E library at over half-off what you'd have paid for it new. But other posters are correct that you better get with the buying while you can. The books will become rare over the years, and hopefully some day down the road I'll see some old 3E books and feel the same sense of nostalgia and "ooh must have" that I get when I see old 1E/2E books now.

Cheers! :)


The Red Death wrote:


To which I answer:

4E DMG, p. 105 wrote:
Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun.

Like it or not, 4E does frame the concept of "fun" very narrowly. But really, you can look at the Skill array, the effects of the vast majority of powers - it's all about tactical encounters. What isn't tactical isn't deemed fun, interesting or worth spending time on in 4E. Unless you have Skill Challenges, potential roll fests, that is.

I'm sure a veteran DM can make great sessions out of 4E. It's a solid, coherent...

Wow...I must admit I didn't see that part in the DMG (still working my way through it). They do seem to have framed the concept of fun very narrowly.

Now if you change their wording from "isn't fun" and "aren't fun" to "may not be fun", then I can get behind the statement entirely. I run a hack and slash type game. Not stating that it's a better style...just that it's my style. I am working on the social encounter aspect of the game, but I find it difficult. So in my games, we do tend to rush through the interactions with the guards, or the bartenders, etc. Sometimes, if the mood strikes, we spend a bit more time doing it, but not usually. So we do fastforward through that part. Reading the boards, I realize that there are some groups that live for that stuff. I don't see (despite what the DMG might actually say :) ) how 4e limits this from happening.

Sure, they amalgamated a lot of skills. I , personally, won't miss the craft skills. If one of my players wanted to have a craft skill, they could work it into their backstory. We could work out details on how he wanted to use it. If they didn't, and all of a sudden whipped out a convenient craft skill at 12th level, Iw might question it, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it either. Just because 4e doesn't have a specific rule for a situation, doesn't mean it therefore doesn't allow it. I think it's the complete opposite. A lack of concrete rules around craft skills opens it up to intrepret it as you wish. If your dwarf fighter wants to be a master baker, let him. Work it into an adventure. Have a somehat indifferent NPC completely switch his attitude when he discovers that the Dwarf is the one who makes the honey-cakes that his girlfriend likes. Let him help influence the Goblins they are negotiating with by offering them tasty, tasty muffins....mmmm....muffins.

Just a thought :)

Scarab Sages

4E really seems to do tactical encounters well. I've read some criticism about the bookkeeping that isn't any lighter with all the modifiers involved through the use of powers during combat, but I think it mostly has to do with gamers not being used to them yet. This will change.

Really, it does the hack n'slash well, as far as I can tell from reading the core books. (and it is not a bad thing. I personally love hack n'slash dungeon delving done well)

It glosses over other aspects of the game, however. I did appreciate the passages about character personality and such: they are well written, and point out that part of the appeal a character has that would not described by mechanics. But it also devotes the vast majority of its pages to tactical elements. It's what it does.

Basically, if you're a veteran DM or player, you'll still be able to build a consistent personality and role-play a memorable character, for sure. But then again, a veteran DM could play tactical encounters with Vampire The Masquerade or Immersion Role-playing with D&D if s/he wanted to. A veteran player could make other people cry at the game table while playing Toon.

What matters is what the noob does with these rules. And clearly, town guards aren't fun, encumbrance isn't fun, mundane, non-tactical elements to the game aren't really fun. He will do as the DMG tells him: "on to the fun", the fights, the tactics, the Skill challenges.

But then again, when you consider the encounter with the town guards at the city gate, how can you know if it isn't fun if you don't play it in the first place? By skipping time and time again to the tactical challenges of 4E, a DM might just skip the most memorable parts of traditional game sessions.


The Red Death wrote:

To which I answer:

4E DMG, p. 105 wrote:
Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun.

Like it or not, 4E does frame the concept of "fun" very narrowly. But really, you can look at the Skill array, the effects of the vast majority of powers - it's all about tactical encounters. What isn't tactical isn't deemed fun, interesting or worth spending time on in 4E. Unless you have Skill Challenges, potential roll fests, that is.

I'm sure a veteran DM can make great sessions out of 4E. It's a solid, coherent system in and by itself, it seems. But encouraging role-playing at the expense of tactical encounters? Acknowledging the potential blast that seemingly mundane events in the game can provide in terms of role-playing (which was the point of my first post)? It doesn't.

I've seen that quote before and it took me two read throughs to actually find it (the first time I saw it, it didn't come with a handy page reference). I don't have my books on me (at work, stupid need to eat!) but if I recall that quote comes at the very end of a chapter on running tactical encounters, and that one paragraph is the only spot in the book (that I saw, books still new) that comes close to defining fun.

Compared to the first chapter, for example, which stresses again and again that the DM should include anything in his game that him and the players find is fun. Details about how to think up encounters and scenes that appeal to powergamers, yes, but also to actors and storytellers (to use what I can remember of their terms). I'm pretty sure if you read the section on actor players or storyteller players, one of them talks about roleplaying out their interactions with bartenders/shopkeeps. But again, no books available to provide quotes.

Cheers! :)

The Exchange

If all you ever read (or quote) is that one paragraph you will miss the larger point - fun is relative and you should play in whatever style your particular group defines as fun. They are being descriptive not prescriptive.


People use encumbrance?

201 to 250 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.