|
(...)
CPEvil, you basically are one of these guys I was referring to who are looking at the shelves of Barnes & Nobles and drawing erroneous conclusions out of it.
You do really care how many books sell. I don't. What I see is that the stories the most popular are about farmboys who learn they're special. You can sell all the crap you want to people starved for fantasy in their world. That only will make it popular because people will go for the flashy cover while twenty different books might fill their needs much better but are in the back of the shelf.
|
PRPG is dungeons and dragons and does reflect those tropes. I also charge that those who have gone 4e can still weave those elements into the game without requiring "houseruling." IMHO you use the name dungeons and dragons and houseruling incorrectly, sir.
You do know you're setting yourself up for a fall here, right?
Houseruling is setting norms and agreements that deviate from the established rule set, or implied setting. Those "tropes" as you call them are part and parcel of what is D&D.So, let's establish some baselines here. 3.0 was still D&D, right? And 3.5 was still D&D?
Thus, in essence Pathfinder is no longer D&D - it's just Paizo's reimagining of the system and is thus as much D&D as, for example, True20 Fantasy. That's not to denigrate it in any way, I'm just following your logical path here.
If you're playing a game without them, then it is not D&D. As millions of gamers will agree, this is just one aspect that makes 4e the genetically engineered bastard child of the game the rest of this community still plays, i.e. Pathfinder or 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.0, OD&D. All of these games have been and will continue to be dungeons and dragons.But Pathfinder isn't D&D, because it's houseruled.
WOTC may own the copyright and brand this new game accordingly, but does not own what this community describes as dungeons and dragons any more than the NFL owns what players call the game of football. D&D was the first creation of its kind, the grandfather of the genre itself, and let's not ever say that "dungeons and dragons no longer reflects those tropes..."The 'community' playing Pathfinder will be substantially smaller than the 'community' playing 4E.
You do know that this sort of thing got said back when 3E came out, right? And minorities of people went on forums to rant and complain about how the game was changed and how terrible the new...
CPEvilref...Youre making an aweful lot of assumptions here. I put forth to you that in all actuality, the community playing Pathfinder will be greater than the community playing 4e (which will never inherit the name D&D among the fans) within 5 years...and WotC will be scrambling to try and put the genie back in the bottle...as someone whose played D&D for over 30 years (and am only 1 of thousands) and as one who has influence over at least 40 gamers.....and has the ear of at least another 200.....and has brought more than 500 players into RPG's over the years.....all I can say is wait and see....wait and see.
*Puts on turban and grabs crystal ball* I forsee a year with 4e gaining market share...then Pathfinder is released and many whove become bored with a tactical game....turn back to a game of endless choices and back to the familiar....and were there to welcome them with open arms...saying "welcome back to D&D" ;) and gradually 4e goes to the computer...and just like many good game systems that have died down....it dies down without the support of the LOYAL FANBASE THAT KEPT IT GOING.
This is the biggest chink in everyones plans. Noone at WotC nor all you current 4e fan boys are taking into account whove kept D&D alive all these many years. Us old timers. Many many times there've been crisis' that could have caused the game to go the way of the buffalo. We didnt let it. Now I could be wrong, but I dont sense much of the tried and true loyalty that exiists in us old timers in the younger 4e crowd. Not the kind of loyalty that will buy every book put out BECAUSE its D&D....Not the kind of loyalty that kept the game strong even in the face of better systems...Not the kind of loyalty that wont change to the new whatsis because to change is to give up the sacred cows (man how i love my sacred cows ;) )
Noone even factored in the Fan....but they will...you can bet they will for they will see.
:D
...Us old timers...
Not to discount your hopes, I think you'll find most of the outspoken 4e supporters here are old-timers who have either been here all along or migrated from "younger-majority" boards to be around people their age (obviously a horrible generalization itself but there you go).
An example, me=old timer of ~29 years. Open to 4e, fan of Pathfinder, still like playing older editions. Don't think of myself as a "fan boy", don't really think of myself as a "boy" anymore, period. Like I said, I don't want to discount your hopes and I share your overall hopes for Pathfinder, but basing your argument on "old timers" in this forum weakens it a bit.
|
|
hehe point taken...by the term 'old timers' Im more referring to the loyal fanbase. Obviously youre not among that fanbase. Which is your choice, and as Ive said elsewhere...I will never put someone down for playing their RPG of choice. My beef isnt with the players..but the corporation. Im not so much anti 4e as I am anti WotC...Theyve lost me. and I will do everything in my power to persuade every single player I know to not annoint their coffers with our well earned dinero. Am I Overly passionate about this? Probably...but it wasnt that long ago that I was defending them at every opportunity.
Hows the saying go? There is no greater enemy than a lover scorned? well replace the lover with gamer ;)
I'm not so sure that that's what's changing the nature of the beast. I think it's a LOT more that the focus gaming has changed (particularly on consoles) where the point of a game is always to win it, and not to enjoy playing it. The very concept of playing a game for the sake of enjoyment ALONE will get confused looks from a lot of 'hardcore' gamers these days.
Think this isn't part of 4E? Well, 4E is the first version of the game that explicitly tells you that you've won when you reach 30th level. Even the infamous 'Immortals Set' didn't go quite that far.
Now, is this really true of what gamers WANT? Hard to say. 'Hardcore' games are usually dwarfed in sales by casual games. Lego Indiana Jones is a top-seller, and though you can 'solve' it, the point is to play it and have fun... I'm not convinced that the regular gamer WANTS to 'beat' what they are supposedly playing, per se... but the hardcore guys? The ones that - for instance - dominate Wotc's M:TG crowd, definately do.
LOL. I had this image in my head as I read your statement of a group of sweaty gamers, down in the basement, finishing up a 5 year campaign by reaching 30th level, jumping up and down, hugging each other and saying "We finally won, now we can go back to playing on XBox!" :)
Can't say I agree with you on this one. I've never put much stock in the "opinion" that is included in the rules write up, and while I remember the passage you're talking about re: winning in 4e, my take on it was different probably owing to a different impression of the context. I do recall thinking "They can't make me stop if I want to go to level 32", though.
You're making the declarative statement that the most popular stories are all about farmboys who think they're special. I'm telling you that sales figures and market research don't back you up. To which your response is in essence 'you're wrong, i'm right'.
I dont recall reading any fantasy media where it starts out with a lowly farmboy becoming a great hero. This is not a snipe, or sarcasm: I really CANT.
For that matter, I dont know how you could have done this with 3rd Edition: none of the classes were representative of a farmer.I know someone tried to pitch this as a "reason" why 4th Edition sucks, which I dont agree with, unless the majority share of your campaigns are amount farmers.
|
|
Right, i'm going to break this down for you in small words.
I'm going to break it down in small words for you, too.
Majority of books published =/= popular. If that's the majority given that:
Star Wars = Farmboy
Harry Potter = Farmboy
Lord of the Rings = Farmboy
The Hobbit = Farmboy
Which leads to ALL sorts of spinoffs and so on. You can have a look at library catalogs and sales figures.
Books are published because the publisher "thinks" it will sell. Not because it will.
I will post about whatever I want, whenever I want, barring moderation. You are free to read my posts. Or not.
That said, I post about 4E because:
- I don't hate it.
- It's the prominent product on this hobby's market at the moment, and I'm just as much part of it as you are.
That is all.
I dont recall reading any fantasy media where it starts out with a lowly farmboy becoming a great hero. This is not a snipe, or sarcasm: I really CANT.
Classic trope, doesn't "exactly" have to be a farmboy, but sometimes.
Consider:
Frodo of Lord of the Rings
Luke Skywalker of Star Wars
Harry Potter
Garion of the Belgeriad
Eragon
Main character of Baldur's Gate computer game
Rand in Wheel of Time
Superman
Ged of Wizard of Earthsea
Haha! Vance & Red Death beat me... but I have more! =P
The roles and characters are the same, but they're operating in different terrain. And overall that's changing the landscape of the game.I'm not so sure that that's what's changing the nature of the beast. I think it's a LOT more that the focus gaming has changed (particularly on consoles) where the point of a game is always to win it, and not to enjoy playing it. The very concept of playing a game for the sake of enjoyment ALONE will get confused looks from a lot of 'hardcore' gamers these days.Care to back up this assessment? I've had a lot of fun playing many games. Not all games have a "victory" point. Games like Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, God of War, and Uncharted have numerous smaller scale battles. To this you could argue that there are countless "win" points to the game, but there can still be fun had during the battles as well as a sense of achievement for not dying.
After awhile, however, I tend to stop noting that I defeated a band of bad guys and focus on the overall story of the game: I like a dose of story and action.Think this isn't part of 4E? Well, 4E is the first version of the game that explicitly tells you that you've won when you reach 30th level. Even the infamous 'Immortals Set' didn't go quite that far.I dont think that a lot of gamers are able to quickly get from level 1-30 fast enough to maintain interest if "winning" is all they care about. There are many games that sell incredibly well that take quite awhile to complete: if someone is looking for a "win", they are better off with short mission-based games such as Team Fortress 2 or Dawn of War. Role-playing games and even many action games are not going to satisfy them.
One of the main things that keep gamers interested is a reward mechanic, which role-playing games tend to offer in terms of levels and items. Thats nothing new, of course.Previously, 20th level was basically the end point to a D&D campaign, but you could houserule beyond that point if you wanted until Epic Level Handbook came out for 3rd Edition.
Still, you can houserule past 30th level here as well. I dont see how claiming that you have to, "no matter what you say," quit playing at level 30 (if you even ever GET that high) is a valid point to making the game A) less fun, and B) a "winning" game, or whatever.Now, is this really true of what gamers WANT? Hard to say. 'Hardcore' games are usually dwarfed in sales by casual games. Lego Indiana Jones is a top-seller, and though you can 'solve' it, the point is to play it and have fun... I'm not convinced that the regular gamer WANTS to 'beat' what they are supposedly playing, per se... but the hardcore guys? The ones that - for instance - dominate Wotc's M:TG crowd, definately do.Again, D&D has never really been a "winning" game. Its utterly impossible to run a game from level 1-30 as fast as you could a more casual, mission-type game. Board games, card games, first person shooters, and most RTSs are far more ideal.
hehe point taken...by the term 'old timers' Im more referring to the loyal fanbase. Obviously youre not among that fanbase. Which is your choice, and as Ive said elsewhere...I will never put someone down for playing their RPG of choice. My beef isnt with the players..but the corporation. Im not so much anti 4e as I am anti WotC...Theyve lost me. and I will do everything in my power to persuade every single player I know to not annoint their coffers with our well earned dinero. Am I Overly passionate about this? Probably...but it wasnt that long ago that I was defending them at every opportunity.
Hows the saying go? There is no greater enemy than a lover scorned? well replace the lover with gamer ;)
You're right. If I think about it, I'm not a loyal fanbase to 3.5. I bought just about every WOTC book for it and 3.0 except for a few (and some of the recent stock at used bookstores has helped fill holes). But in my heart, I really only consider 1e AD&D to be "the real" D&D, and everything since (2, 3.0, 3.5, 4) to be its children (Yes I played Basic from the Blue book first but most of my adolescence was with 1e. Whoah! Flashback to the Forum in Dragon, too many arguments Basic vs. AD&D!). The link does keep me fond of all the kids. If I'm a loyal fanbase to anything in this world though, it's Paizo. When they took over Dragon and Dungeon, they kept the 1e feel alive and I still feel that in their design of Golarion. I think one of the futures of D&D is in good hands with them.
I dont recall reading any fantasy media where it starts out with a lowly farmboy becoming a great hero. This is not a snipe, or sarcasm: I really CANT.Let's see...
The Hobbit
Lord of the Rings
Belgariad
Star WarsAnd those, of course, are literal farmers. This is to say nothing about a whole myriad of series in media where the 'typical guy' is thrust into a world bigger than him and has to grow into it.
Don't forget The Wizard Lord by Lawrence Watt-Evans. The Rover by Mel Odom. Etc, Etc, Etc
I dont recall reading any fantasy media where it starts out with a lowly farmboy becoming a great hero. This is not a snipe, or sarcasm: I really CANT.Classic trope, doesn't "exactly" have to be a farmboy, but sometimes.
Consider:
Frodo of Lord of the Rings
Luke Skywalker of Star Wars
Harry Potter
Garion of the Belgeriad
Eragon
Main character of Baldur's Gate computer game
Rand in Wheel of Time
Superman
Ged of Wizard of EarthseaHaha! Vance & Red Death beat me... but I have more! =P
See, I was thinking of literal farmers and not of an "everyday" man. I never read Belgeriad, Eragon, Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, or Wizard of Earthsea. Likewise, I never played Baldur's Gate.
See, I was thinking of literal farmers and not of an "everyday" man. I never read Belgeriad, Eragon, Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, or Wizard of Earthsea. Likewise, I never played Baldur's Gate.
Really? In that case, I recommend them all very highly! Several fun new worlds of adventures to explore and enjoy! =)
See, I was thinking of literal farmers and not of an "everyday" man. I never read Belgeriad, Eragon, Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, or Wizard of Earthsea. Likewise, I never played Baldur's Gate.My list was literal farmers.. are you honestly going to use such an authoritive tone about 'no one in fantasy starts out as a farmer' when you admit you haven't either read or seen most of the staples? And, more importantly, when the book series that was the greatest inspiration for Dungeons and Dragons itself defies you?
I'm pretty sure I said that I couldnt think of a any fantasy media where a character starts out as a "lowly" farmer. Honestly, I really couldnt. This is not the same as saying that it didnt exist, or that since I couldnt think of it that obviously its not a popular trope.
Primarily, it was because I was actually just trying to think of literal farmers that became heroes. I've read a lot of fantasy, just not what you might like, or even what might be considered classics. I HAVE read Lord of the Rings, but overlooked Frodo (and even Bilbo) because as a said: I was mentally scanning for actual farmers.
Now, I disagree that D&D defies the "ability" to have a character that started out as a farmer: that sort of background can be put IN your character background. Whether that makes it more or less "legit" depends on you and/or your group.
To be fair, to remotely emulate an average person you would need to play a NPC class, which made survival even more swingy than it already was.
I would also say that it greatly depends on your perception of the character's capabilities. Do you think its "super-powered" or over-the-top for a fighter to be able to knock a bad guy back when he hits, or trip someone with his sword? I guess from my point of view it doesnt seem that extreme at all. For things like hit points, I dont consider the ramped up HP power inflation because everything else gets it as well.
See, I was thinking of literal farmers and not of an "everyday" man. I never read Belgeriad, Eragon, Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, or Wizard of Earthsea. Likewise, I never played Baldur's Gate.Really? In that case, I recommend them all very highly! Several fun new worlds of adventures to explore and enjoy! =)
At this point I'm more content to just watch the Harry Potter movies and listen to my friends gripe about the differences. I've heard a lot of bad about Eragon (such as that its largely a rip off of Lord of the Rings), and a lot more bad about Wheel of Time. I think that if I were to go for any of them, it would be Wizard of Earthsea.
Though I've never played Baldur's Gate, I DID play a lot of Fallout and managed to complete Planescape: Torment several times (eventually with the "best ending").
I really dont get a whole lot of free time, so I would prefer to read books that arent as...expansive, as WoT or Harry Potter. :-P
I have seen numerous people who only get enjoyment from a game when they declare they've beaten it. If you really need proof, check out IGN sometime... or the M:TG forums... or any of the 'optimum build' threads on Gleemax.
I'm sure many people get enjoyment out of a game from completing it, but the longer a game takes to actually complete, the less likely you're going to play it if you only enjoy it to complete it. Really, if thats the case I'd argue that its just to much effort when a shorter game can easily and reliably provide a "win-fix".
I think a more accurate idea is that some people will play a game to achieve every achievement, or item, or whatever counts as a collectible in said game (for example, you could say that in FF12 that his is completing all the Mark Hunts).I think that a lot of people will still play the game to wrap up the plot. Some might focus on the side quests (or get to those later), but I dont know how you could determine which percentage of the gaming population plays it for that purpose.
Now, D&D isnt a digital game. There isnt a menu or list of items to get, item crafts to complete, or monsters to slay. I suppose there could be, but I suspect that would be an incredibly rare model for a group to follow. There might be players who want to try all the races, and all the classes (or perhaps legitimately level up all the classes to 30 or somesuch), but since its much harder to get a D&D game rolling that it is to fire up your console or PC, again, probably a very rare case.
M:tG really doesnt qualify for this because its a different type of game. Its incredibly easy to get a game rolling and finish it. Players who play to succeed are going to get more enjoyment out of that type of game.
Finally, character optimization. This isnt really a case of "winning" since you really cant "win" the game just by making the ultimate character. Character abuse was easier in 3rd Edition, but a DM could always say, "no, you cannot make your kobold uberdeity with demi-god squirrel servants."
Most of the CO board is about finding out what sort of builds are ideal, or how to make the mechanically best character at a certain level. The latter isnt really intended for actual play. I guess I dont understand how you can win at D&D just because you made a very mechanically powerful character build.
Well, one of the preview articles actually said that they expected people to go up a level or two every scenario. If that's really the case, then getting to level 30 in a regular group is only three to five months (playing one session a week).
Scenario is not the same as session. We play two different games bi-weekly and managed to finally get ourselves to level 2 (in Keep on the Shadowfell) and 3 in the other game (which had some XP fudging as people introduced new characters).
To be fair, I think what they are doing is designing "official" modules to push 2 levels every time, not that every session will see you through those two levels.Ultimately how fast you level depends on how long your sessions are, how focused your group is, and how well everyone plays. Feasibly, I would say in most best cases it would be one level per session.
You're right the that same players would likely do more for that 'winning fix' in another game... but I wouldn't count on it. I've been around a long time, and I've seen some of these guys... they're out there. They've always been out there.
D&D isnt about winning, as the players arent against eachother. Heck, they arent even against the DM. Its not a game with winners in the traditional sense. Really, either the entire group succeeds at the adventure or they fail at the mission. Its not conducive to the guy that plays games to "pwn n00bs" or grind loot in raids.
Yeah, but the rules more or less said, "We don't really expect you to get here normally, but if you do.. just extend as follows". They didn't say "You win. Hang up your character."
The idea has merit at providing a logical endcap to the story. There is nothing wrong with that, and if you didnt stop at level 20 in previous versions, I dont see why this would stop you.
See, I was thinking of literal farmers and not of an "everyday" man. I never read Belgeriad, Eragon, Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, or Wizard of Earthsea. Likewise, I never played Baldur's Gate.Really? In that case, I recommend them all very highly! Several fun new worlds of adventures to explore and enjoy! =)At this point I'm more content to just watch the Harry Potter movies and listen to my friends gripe about the differences. I've heard a lot of bad about Eragon (such as that its largely a rip off of Lord of the Rings), and a lot more bad about Wheel of Time. I think that if I were to go for any of them, it would be Wizard of Earthsea.
Though I've never played Baldur's Gate, I DID play a lot of Fallout and managed to complete Planescape: Torment several times (eventually with the "best ending").
I really dont get a whole lot of free time, so I would prefer to read books that arent as...expansive, as WoT or Harry Potter. :-P
Farmer Giles of Ham by J R R Tolkien.
Short & light (and purportedly for children, but nevertheless fun for all ages).Edit:
Amazon link
I dunno...I've been considering the Simarillion, but I'd heard it read more like a history book. Currently I'm in Perdido Street Station (whic will be followed by the Dun Lun, or Lun Dun, or whatever), Dragon Force, and an equally nerdy co-worker recommended a fantasy series about griffons (I left the book at work, so I dont remember the title).
After that its back to Battle Angel Alita: Last Order before I order more China Meville and one of the Eberron trilogies.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
My list was literal farmers.. are you honestly going to use such an authoritive tone about 'no one in fantasy starts out as a farmer' when you admit you haven't either read or seen most of the staples? And, more importantly, when the book series that was the greatest inspiration for Dungeons and Dragons itself defies you?
Taran from the Chronicles of Prydain should go on the list. An assistent pigkeeper is a variety of farmer, after all.
|
|
The rules of 4e as written do not support the rise of the hero from humble beginnings. It would not be very hard to work up some quick rules to make it work.
Give the PCs their starting stats, basic attacks, no feats, no powers, and 1+CON bonus in healing surges, their starting HP could be equal to their CON score. They can start with half or one quarter the amount of GP. I am sure a quick XP scale could be created to get them to their feats, powers, etc. You could set it up to get them to 1st level in one, two or three "sub-levels".
So even though it is not in the rules it seems that the rules can be made to accommodate the rise of the hero from humble roots trope.
Previously, 20th level was basically the end point to a D&D...Yeah, but the rules more or less said, "We don't really expect you to get here normally, but if you do.. just extend as follows". They didn't say "You win. Hang up your character."
I dunno, I remember someone from Paizo once talking about how in previous versions of D&D, there was this unstated idea that your character was eventually supposed to become a god. This led to the idea of that one gate... there's something in Golarion, I forget exactly what it was, but you go into it and if you come back you come back a god (the paladin deity is the most recent one to do so).
4e also seems to follow this idea of achieving god-like status with your character, which I like. Not to mention it's meant to be a springboard for a new character to start a new campaign. Maybe your character reached level 30 as a demigod and reached godhood. Your new character is a cleric or paladin, or a very devout follower of your previous character. Or maybe your last character was an eternal seeker, and your new character met them once and was inspired to become an adventurer. Okay, I'm getting too much into this, don't mind me.
With kits (*cough* PrCs *cough*) and all.
Jeremy goes off on a tangent (as he is so want to do):
Kits arn't PrCs. I actually wish they were. Kits told you a lot about who your character was 'before' they became adventurers. PrCs tell us a lot about what your character is going to become at some point while their adventurers.
I found kits extremely useful in creating an interesting campaign world. PrCs are nearly useless since the lowest level I can access them is usually around 6th. I can't use a PrC to define a culture of gun toting Amazons or animistic hunter gatherers living in a temperate forest but I sure can use a kit for this sort of thing.
I've been watching all the ranting and raving and screaming on both sides, but this is the first time I've made my voice known outside of quiet talks with friends.
I work in promotions to clarify where I get all this from, and the first step to selling any new product is to either identify or create a need. Since RPGs are entertainment, the need must be created. While the execution left a lot to be desired, the videos and podcasts and posts that many found so offensive did a legitimate job in creating the need. The second step is minimizing backlash. Whenever a new version of an old product is released, there's backlash and most companies employ diplomatic staffers in order to deal with direct customer complaints and well-spoken wheelers and dealers to handle it in the media. WotC seems (I'm not on staff, I can not speak for their intent, only the apparent results) to have chosen the more direct method of ridiculing and silencing naysayers where they have the power. There are a lot of tiny steps in between, but the next big one is to claim success, no matter what the actual results were. I have not seen numbers, but I choose to take WotC on their word in their claims that they have outsold every other edition's initial release. In this, I applaud their marketing success. They did very well for themselves and marketing students should take a look at how a apparently poorly run campaign that stirred up controversy and vitriol on both sides can sell a lot of product.
From that standpoint, they abandoned nothing. Their only contract with fans was to put out a product. The fans take it from there.
Now, to step away from being rational and logical about all this, do I feel abandoned? No. I feel ignored, stepped on, and generally black and blue after the treatment that something I have allowed to become a large part of my life has received. While the game mechanics are not so bad, and do indeed have some things that interest me, it's the giant bleeding hole that they left of Forgotten Realms that most hurts. Then, when I yet had hope that 3rd party publishers might salve the wounds, the GSL was released. I would more generously open my arms to a rampaging owlbear than embrace 4E at this point, and while I'm sure that I'll eventually get over it, not yet.
For everyone that is playing and looking forward to playing 4E, I wish you the best of luck and lots of enjoyment in your future games.
Right, i'm going to break this down for you in small words.
You've got a good point but this part was completely unnecessary.
It's not a scam at all. And you branding it so doesn't make it one."To use the word lightly", meaning I don't think it's scam if everyone involved knows what's going on. Besides, none of the games you cite, and none that I actually can think of, have had such a radical edition change as 3.5 to 4E.
NONE of them said "Throw out all your old books and buy replacements for your entire library". You can, for instance, grab the newest copy of GURPS and still play your old GURPS campaign with little change. Even Vampire's 'new world' change didn't require the pulp machine.
I think the change from 2nd to 3rd pretty much did require this. Thats not to say that you could not upgrade modules. I personally have used a ton of 2nd edition modules in 3.5 but your going to have to restat everything. It actually gets kind of extreme past 10th level because what 3.5 characters can do past 10th is pretty stunning compared to 2nd edition. Having done this for 2nd to 3rd and now doing from 2nd to 4th I've not really, so far, noticed any extreme differences though 4E is, usually, a faster system to stat up.
In fact I'd say that converting from 3.5 to 4E is usually much easier then converting from 2nd to either 3.5 or 4E. The biggest areas I have difficulties with in these endeavours is usually translation to the table top. 2nd edition is not a table top RPG while 3.5 and 4E definitly are. 2nd Edition adventures are full of all sorts of things that require quite a bit of thinking in order to make them work on a table top grid. Things in 2nd edition often happen just because the DM says so while in 3.5 or 4E the DM needs to input physical mechanics. A good example of this is the adventure example in the 3.5 DMG where a spider falls from the roof and lands on one of the players. Same example was used in 2nd and 1st IIRC. Well 3.5 gamely adjudicates this example but thats the first and last time I ever saw a spider fall from the roof and land on a players shoulder in 3.5. Most spiders in the game are either swarms or take up a whole square. The rules for them landing on your shoulder are not really there - certianly not in the manner that was played out in the example of play.
You're making the declarative statement that the most popular stories are all about farmboys who think they're special. I'm telling you that sales figures and market research don't back you up. To which your response is in essence 'you're wrong, i'm right'.I dont recall reading any fantasy media where it starts out with a lowly farmboy becoming a great hero. This is not a snipe, or sarcasm: I really CANT.
Your missing out.
When they [Paizo] took over Dragon and Dungeon, they kept the 1e feel alive and I still feel that in their design of Golarion. I think one of the futures of D&D is in good hands with them.
Odd. What made me a Paizo fanboy was a feeling that they were (and are) the only company that was really pushing the boundaries. Everyone else was making adventures that had the 1st edition feel and it was so tired.
I like WotCs rule sets but I've yet to see really great adventures from them not made by a freelancer. Even the other 3PPs were basically stuck in ho-hum dungeon crawls. Paizo's stuff was (and is) constantly evolving. Massive dungeon complexes have their place but one can do an adventure set in a city and full of sub encounters. In fact in a lot of ways thats usually a better way to convey a story. You just did not see a lot of innovation like this from anywhere else that I am aware of. Dungeon has historically been the only other major outlet due to their 'cream rises to the top' and 'you have 1 minute and 30 seconds to blow our minds away with your innovative proposal and after that we junk it' model. We may yet see this sort of thing again in Dungeon once it hits its stride.
...And, more importantly, when the book series that was the greatest inspiration for Dungeons and Dragons itself defies you?
If your thinking Tolkien here you'd be wrong. Gygax never finished Tolkien, could not get through it as he felt it was unbelievable bore.
Well, one of the preview articles actually said that they expected people to go up a level or two every scenario. If that's really the case, then getting to level 30 in a regular group is only three to five months (playing one session a week).
I think by 'scenario' they mean an adventure. Figure 3-5 weeks to play each adventure depending on session length and such.
The Silmarillion in my opinion, is very much a mythic history, with treachery and oaths and elves fighting a war against Sauron's master in which they have no final hope of victory (because the methods which they have used have cursed their cause). (My copy of the The Silmarillion does at least provide several helpful family trees at the back to aid the reader keep track of exactly which relationship certain major characters have to one another.)
My favourite of Tolkien's work though The Hobbit is a close second and...umm...I've only otherwise read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy so I guess its my least favourite.
Think this isn't part of 4E? Well, 4E is the first version of the game that explicitly tells you that you've won when you reach 30th level. Even the infamous 'Immortals Set' didn't go quite that far.
Well, actually it did. Granted, the conditions were much tougher (DM's Guide to Immortals, pg. 5): "If any player character succeeds in the great journey, not merely acheiving Hierarch status but proving his or her superiority by doing it twice*--well, no higher goal can be attained, and no reward is too great. The player wins and his character vanishes."
*-Playing from a 1st level mortal to Full Hierarch immortal twice with the "same" character
I've never put much stock in the "opinion" that is included in the rules write up, and while I remember the passage you're talking about re: winning in 4e, my take on it was different probably owing to a different impression of the context. I do recall thinking "They can't make me stop if I want to go to level 32", though.
"My character sheet goes to level 33. Because, sometimes, you know, you want a little something extra." ;-D
|
|
If your thinking Tolkien here you'd be wrong. Gygax never finished Tolkien, could not get through it as he felt it was unbelievable bore.Whether or not Gygax finished the books is irrelevant. You can't look at D&D, particularly the earliest editions, and claim that Tolkien wasn't a profound influence. Remember what the original name of Halflings were?
I think it was ... the smurf.