|
Actually asthetic assessments shared across an audience can have can have pretty friggin objective reality.
For Example
I think Michelangelo is a hack
and I would be wrong.
Asthetics and Subjectivism in general have to some form of objectivism inherant in them, or else they descend into solipsism and skepticism
statements like I don't believe in , or other self report statements are really a way of sayign It is not, because quite frankly we don't give a damn what you think, I don't beleieve people because of what they think, and I certainly don't change my mind because of what I think. Self report statements,due their statment natures are declarations about reality, and the second you hide behind the "that's just what i believe" or "that's true for me" you've lost, really irrovocably lost because you are no longer even talking about the subject of your first declaration and are instead talking about yourself.
Aesthetics are ultimately about the experience of pleasure. This is inherently subjective. To say otherwise is to attempt to define what value another places in their personal experience. A subject is a rich and vibrant medium through which experiences travel and are determined.
I do not see it as productive or useful to attempt to define or limit another's experience of pleasure unless it personally harms me or another. Thinking 4.0 or any other system is great does not materially harm me or impact the greater, political and material world in any meaningful way.
I think that Monopoly is the best DnD Ever!That's Wrong,
while their are not always sufficient and necessary conditions for determining these kinds of things (such as whether or not 4th edition is dnd or not) it by no means requires that their are no conditions for determining it, and there that it is infact a matter of opinion (generally it means that their are sufficient and/or necessary conditions for the record). This is family resemblence.
Some of the conditions that may be important for this are for example, the DnD logo, the presence of iconic races and classes, it being a tabletop game, it having a connection to previous incarnations of the game... All things that the op brings up.
To have this dismissed as " arguing about opinion " is about the biggest frickin lie out their. These are things that we can and cannot proove. (and people will disagree about the importance and actuallity of these thigns ) but by no means does it mean that everyone makes an opinion and it is somehow true for them, even if it is for no one else.
My Apologies for the rant, but honestly if its only true for you why are you bothering sharing, only true for you means not true for others.
Those of you interested in morethoughts along this line might be interested in Wittgenstein and Kripke's Wittgenstein.
This is, however, very much about arguing over opinion and experience. It is an attempt to take a subjective experience, develop consensus, and thereby translate it into some greater objectivity.
My point is that pleasure, like the sort of pleasure derived from a game, is intensely personal, difficult to define in a way that can be isolated from the subject, and is generally pointless to debate.
Can a particular set of aesthetics be used to inflict harm on a populace, absolutely, as aesthetic systems are often about the manipulation of symbols and these can often define power relationships. However, in this case, we are talking about a game.
Let me become focused and material; we are talking about a game. It is a game where people tell each other stories, and where they pretend to be heroes. While this a great source of pleasure for me, I am more than willing to let any individual define this in whatever manner makes them happy, as their pleasure is personal, and in the grand scheme of things, there is very, very little at risk here.
On the personal level, this discussion is too often pointless, antagonistic, and hurtful.
I am glad you have studied philosophy, btw. It is important.
|
I know when I first made this post, I was tying myself to the stake to get burned at. I wanted to make a point that people shouldn't say that 4th is not D&D. I've read all the remarks and comments and posts about the feel of a game or the lack thereof. But it's not the rules that make the game fun. We've all house ruled things - added rules and taken them away.
I love 4th. I love 3.5. I like Pathfinder. I think all of them have room for improvement. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, supporters and detractors. Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo. It doesn't make me evil. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think WotC is evil. I think they've made mistakes, but so have we all. No one is perfect. No company is perfect. No game is perfect.
So, I'm ready to let this go. I just felt a need to make a point that has obviously been beaten to death. I didn't expect this to go on the way it did. I'm sorry if it bothered people and I apologize. I knew people would be passionate and I knew I was going to get a lot of heat. But I've learned a lot from this thread. One of which is a good piece of advice. Much like the advice of, "Never mess with another man's religion," there is now, "Never mess with another man's D&D."
Arovyn
|
|
Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo.
"When I was a young man, I worried about what others thought about me. When I attained middle age, I didn't care what others thought about me. Now that I am old, I realize they weren't even thinking about me at all."
All right. fair enough. I suppose I'll just have to go back to silently disagreeing with the negative reviews and leave it at that. I enjoyed it, apparently no one (and i mean i havn't found a single person other then my brother) else did. although i suppose i can understand the having expectations thing. I certainly had them when the dune miniseries came out a few years ago. And i suppose the acting was fairly bad (compared to some better performances i guess), but isn't it a little harsh to say that it isn't DnD? couldn't it just be DnD with a bad DM? or one with his own world and rules? maybe in that setting the monsters are all dumb and the serious threat comes from the NPCs and theives?
I really don't know what i'm trying to get at here, so i'll just stop.
Well now you have found another person. I liked the D&D Movie. I have no problem saying that. Was it everything that I wished that a D&D movie would be? No. Could it have been better? Yes. Still though it was a decent fantasy film. It was no Lord of the Rings by any stretch of the imagination but it wasn't a bad fantasy film. Actually the biggest thing that I didn't like about the D&D Movie was Damodar's (I think that was his name) blue lipstick, he was a decent bad guy even with the blue lipstick but without it he would have been so much better. Profion was a decent villain, and the final battle scene was pretty good too. We see a few recognizable spells in the movie and the main character wasn't to bad as a rogue, Snails was just comic relief until he got kilt. Anyway it wasn't to bad in my opinion.
Charles
I know when I first made this post, I was tying myself to the stake to get burned at. I wanted to make a point that people shouldn't say that 4th is not D&D. I've read all the remarks and comments and posts about the feel of a game or the lack thereof. But it's not the rules that make the game fun. We've all house ruled things - added rules and taken them away.
I love 4th. I love 3.5. I like Pathfinder. I think all of them have room for improvement. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, supporters and detractors. Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo. It doesn't make me evil. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think WotC is evil. I think they've made mistakes, but so have we all. No one is perfect. No company is perfect. No game is perfect.
So, I'm ready to let this go. I just felt a need to make a point that has obviously been beaten to death. I didn't expect this to go on the way it did. I'm sorry if it bothered people and I apologize. I knew people would be passionate and I knew I was going to get a lot of heat. But I've learned a lot from this thread. One of which is a good piece of advice. Much like the advice of, "Never mess with another man's religion," there is now, "Never mess with another man's D&D."
Yeah but at this point Pathfinder is the only one that is making an active open effort to listen to the feedback of the community in order to do something about its "room for improvement" which i think is growing smaller all of the time.
Charles
Arovyn
I know when I first made this post, I was tying myself to the stake to get burned at. I wanted to make a point that people shouldn't say that 4th is not D&D. I've read all the remarks and comments and posts about the feel of a game or the lack thereof. But it's not the rules that make the game fun. We've all house ruled things - added rules and taken them away.
I love 4th. I love 3.5. I like Pathfinder. I think all of them have room for improvement. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, supporters and detractors. Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo. It doesn't make me evil. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think WotC is evil. I think they've made mistakes, but so have we all. No one is perfect. No company is perfect. No game is perfect.
So, I'm ready to let this go. I just felt a need to make a point that has obviously been beaten to death. I didn't expect this to go on the way it did. I'm sorry if it bothered people and I apologize. I knew people would be passionate and I knew I was going to get a lot of heat. But I've learned a lot from this thread. One of which is a good piece of advice. Much like the advice of, "Never mess with another man's religion," there is now, "Never mess with another man's D&D."
Arovyn
Oops totally messed up my previous reply by getting it mixed in with the quote. So here goes again...
Yeah but at this point Pathfinder is the only one that is making an active open effort to listen to the feedback of the community in order to do something about its "room for improvement" which i think is growing smaller all of the time.
Charles
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But then the rules were just as significantly changed from the red box to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They were changed in 2nd Edition. They were overhauled for 3rd. And they were overhauled again for 4th.
D&D Basic/Expert were actually different products which was the source of the difference between D&D and AD&D. They co-existed as products and AD&D wasn't a revision of D&D as it was called back then. Also, the game play experience changed very little from 1E to 2E; the rules were better organized. Very little was hacked and chopped away until 3E.
I've not myself stated that 4E isn't D&D but it's definately not my D&D. If I want to play a computer or card game I'll play a computer or card game, both of which have influenced the development of 4E. If I want to play a role-playing game I'll play 3.5 or the Pathfinder RPG.
I can't BELIEVE it's not butter.
Haha! Nice.
Did you guys know that you can (and right now EVERYONE does) - sit down for this - play D&D 4th Edition without a computer! Still sitting? Good, because you don't use cards, either!
It's this old style thing where we use characters sheets - yes, real paper! Just like the rule books. It's totally retro and insane! And we use pencils and pens, too. I know, right?! We even physically roll dice - real ones that you hold, blow on, shake in your hand and physically drop on the table. It's crazy, like a trip to 1984 or something. We don't use keyboards or a mouse or anything like that. Is this new game dark ages or what?
It goes on! Not a single card is brought to the table, either. Call me crazy, but we don't shuffle, cut, deal or otherwise use a single card in D&D 4th Edition. We don't even need THESE. But, I have a suspicion that using THOSE would somehow be okay and not considered "a card game" to the folks around here.
So, welcome to the same old, table-top style of D&D we've known for thirty years. I hope this low-tech, non-CCG business does not turn anyone off. It's a great game. It'd be a shame to miss it because you've adopted someone else's preconceived notion without honestly trying it yourself with an open mind.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
It could just be me ... but that last paragraph sounded nothing like D&D to me.
|
It could just be me ... but that last paragraph sounded nothing like D&D to me.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
It wasn't just you.
I can't BELIEVE it's not butter.
Tim Tebow *can* believe it's not butter.
(Go Gators!)
"What do you mean you can play a dwarf that is a wizard? Dang kids and their fake 'D&D' games. In my day, being a dwarf was a race AND a class, and we liked it!"
|
|
...I think people get too hung up on a particular mechanic or class or race - and if it changes it ruins the whole thing. In 2000 it was the end of THAC0 and today its powers...
I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. The change from 2e THAC0 mechanics to 3.5 wasn't really all that drastic - the calculations and game mechanics actually stayed exactly the same. All they did is reorganize the math to make it make more sense. There's an easy direct conversion possible between all those THAC0 calculations and the more modern D20 roll to hit - so it plays exactly the same. It's just easier to work out the math in our heads (I never figured out what THAC0 was really about until much later when I was playing 3.5 - I went back and looked at the old rules and went "Ahh! That's how it worked!").
In 2e all characters had a natural armor of 10. Same in 3.x. In 2e an armor class of 0 (which of course is what THAC0 is based off of) is the equivalent of 3.x armor class of 20. It all works, the math is the same, it plays the same, and more importantly, it's easily compatible. With little work you can convert 2e stuff to 3.x.
I defy you to do the same with 3.x - 4e.
I have been reading the boards for a while now, and I've finally decided that this is worth posting. I'm tired of seeing, "4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons." Fortunately or unfortunately, it is. For those who think it isn't, obviously you don't like the direction it took, but there are some facts you have acknowledge, even if you don't like it.
There is a Dungeons & Dragons logo on it. Inside the books you will find iconic races, classes, and monsters. No, they're not quite the same as you remember them or want them to be, but you can't really change the fact they are in there and you can't change the fact it *is* Dungeons & Dragons. The rules are significantly different than before. But then the rules were just as significantly changed from the red box to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They were changed in 2nd Edition. They were overhauled for 3rd. And they were overhauled again for 4th.
Yes, Pathfinder, and several other books out there using the SRD, their own rule sets, and the OGL also have iconic races, classes, and monsters. However, no matter how you look at it, there is no logo on them. WotC made 3.0 and 3.5 and no one is currently saying it is not D&D. But they have the rights to the name and the logo, and no matter how much you may dislike it, 4th Edition is Dungeons & Dragons for the foreseeable future.
The biggest complaint I've read is that 4th is a video game on paper. That's not a good assessment. It has the feel of an MMO in some regards, but let's keep something in mind here. The up and coming generation of gamers, and even some old veterans, play games like that. What's a good way to attract a new base? Have something similar. Personally, I think the change is for the better. Everyone has different powers and abilities, but I love the sense of balance I get from the game. Everyone has a fixed number of abilities they can use. So do the monsters. It all plays nice, and you don't have the huge list of abilities that over time simply won't be used.
But the biggest point I can make...
4e D&D has little in common with the game that E. Gary Gygax created over 30 years go. It is a completely different game, and if Hasbro/WOTC were being honest, they should rename it to Dragon-Quest-Rune-Fighters or something. It is a video game RPG, and you are better off just playing Warcraft or a similar computer game. I have heard that WOTC are having layoffs, and they deserve it. I hope they layoff everyone there who is responsible for creating this corruption of Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, as we know it, is dead...
|
|
4e D&D has little in common with the game that E. Gary Gygax created over 30 years go. It is a completely different game, and if Hasbro/WOTC were being honest, they should rename it to Dragon-Quest-Rune-Fighters or something. It is a video game RPG, and you are better off just playing Warcraft or a similar computer game. I have heard that WOTC are having layoffs, and they deserve it. I hope they layoff everyone there who is responsible for creating this corruption of Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, as we know it, is dead...
I hate 4E, really I do, but even I can't get behind this kind of attack.
The game is different than the original, it most certainly isn't a game for me, and frankly I too agree that it plays more like magic the RPG or a World of Warcraft BUT it is an actual physical game, and frankly in my mind at least that in its own right makes it better than playing a faceless computer game (which don't get me wrong, I also enjoy). The mechanics play more like a board game to me, and there are even some situations (notably tournaments) that I think that 4E has a real place. Heck if it had been marketed as the board game alternative to the more "complicated" 3E system I'd have actually probably enjoyed it more (since they'd still be supporting the RPG system I enjoy).
That all being said, saying that the everyday employees at WoTC "deserved" being laid off because you disagree with the corporate decision to make more money is a little short sighted. The vast majority of the people that are going to be laid off are everyday people like you and me who are simply trying to pay their mortgage. Many of the people were doing their jobs, and although you and I may not think that the game that they developed is "worthy" of the D&D moniker, it still is a game, and frankly they don't deserve this level of anger over it.
Enjoy the fact we have Pathfinder as an alternative and let the 4E people go and do what they like to do. It's not worth getting that angry over.
4e D&D has little in common with the game that E. Gary Gygax created over 30 years go. It is a completely different game, and if Hasbro/WOTC were being honest, they should rename it to Dragon-Quest-Rune-Fighters or something. It is a video game RPG, and you are better off just playing Warcraft or a similar computer game. I have heard that WOTC are having layoffs, and they deserve it. I hope they layoff everyone there who is responsible for creating this corruption of Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, as we know it, is dead.
And 3rd edition had little in common with the game that Gygax helped to create as well. See the quote from him on the previous page about his view about 3rd edition. If we want to get all Gygax-fanboy on this issue then we better start by slamming 3rd edition and all of its derivatives, including PfRPG. Hackmaster is the only "true" inheritor of "D&D" in that case.
I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. The change from 2e THAC0 mechanics to 3.5 wasn't really all that drastic - the calculations and game mechanics actually stayed exactly the same. All they did is reorganize the math to make it make more sense. There's an easy direct conversion possible between all those THAC0 calculations and the more modern D20 roll to hit - so it plays exactly the same. It's just easier to work out the math in our heads (I never figured out what THAC0 was really about until much later when I was playing 3.5 - I went back and looked at the old rules and went "Ahh! That's how it worked!").
In 2e all characters had a natural armor of 10. Same in 3.x. In 2e an armor class of 0 (which of course is what THAC0 is based off of) is the equivalent of 3.x armor class of 20. It all works, the math is the same, it plays the same, and more importantly, it's easily compatible. With little work you can convert 2e stuff to 3.x.
I defy you to do the same with 3.x - 4e.
Bug, in 4E it still works the same as in 3E. Your base AC is still 10 + mods, and to hit you roll a d20 + mods; totaling higher than the target's AC means you hit. Simple (which is why I liked it when they first changed it in 3E).
There are lots of differences between the two, but the base mechanics are exactly identical.
|
|
...I think people get too hung up on a particular mechanic or class or race - and if it changes it ruins the whole thing. In 2000 it was the end of THAC0 and today its powers...I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. The change from 2e THAC0 mechanics to 3.5 wasn't really all that drastic - the calculations and game mechanics actually stayed exactly the same. All they did is reorganize the math to make it make more sense. There's an easy direct conversion possible between all those THAC0 calculations and the more modern D20 roll to hit - so it plays exactly the same. It's just easier to work out the math in our heads (I never figured out what THAC0 was really about until much later when I was playing 3.5 - I went back and looked at the old rules and went "Ahh! That's how it worked!").
In 2e all characters had a natural armor of 10. Same in 3.x. In 2e an armor class of 0 (which of course is what THAC0 is based off of) is the equivalent of 3.x armor class of 20. It all works, the math is the same, it plays the same, and more importantly, it's easily compatible. With little work you can convert 2e stuff to 3.x.
I defy you to do the same with 3.x - 4e.
Actually, Crosswiredmind has a good point. If you look at product reviews and blogs from 2000 regarding D&D 3rd you will see very similar arguments about this being the end of D&D. They complained about the end of Thac0, which to me was one of the most bizaree calculations you had to do before 3rd. The idea that you needed a chart to tell you if you hit someone. Rediculous. They were also upset about any race playing any class and endless varieties of multiclassing available. Those weren't the only changes, I don't remember there being a system of feats in previous editions. They added 2 classes (barbarian and sorcerer)brought back an old class (monk) and made prestige classes whhich used Assassin (previously a main class.
The point being, everyone cried the about the end of the world with intro of 3rd and many cried foul when 3.5 showed up. Now, due to the OGL, you have the option to continue playing 3.5 with support from various companies. 2nd edition basically died after 3rd was introduced. I would be willing to bet money, that the vast majority of people that cried the end of the world for 3rd edition are now playing it, and some are are the ones currently throwing a fit.
Play the version you like. They are both D&D. Some like one, some like the other, some see the value in both, some still play the original box set. As long as people are still keeping the genre alive, I don't see the problem.
|
|
I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. The change from 2e THAC0 mechanics to 3.5 wasn't really all that drastic - the calculations and game mechanics actually stayed exactly the same. All they did is reorganize the math to make it make more sense. There's an easy direct conversion possible between all those THAC0 calculations and the more modern D20 roll to hit - so it plays exactly the same. It's just easier to work out the math in our heads (I never figured out what THAC0 was really about until much later when I was playing 3.5 - I went back and looked at the old rules and went "Ahh! That's how it worked!").
In 2e all characters had a natural armor of 10. Same in 3.x. In 2e an armor class of 0 (which of course is what THAC0 is based off of) is the equivalent of 3.x armor class of 20. It all works, the math is the same, it plays the same, and more importantly, it's easily compatible. With little work you can convert 2e stuff to 3.x.
I defy you to do the same with 3.x - 4e.
Bug, in 4E it still works the same as in 3E. Your base AC is still 10 + mods, and to hit you roll a d20 + mods; totaling higher than the target's AC means you hit. Simple (which is why I liked it when they first changed it in 3E).
There are lots of differences between the two, but the base mechanics are exactly identical.
Right...only he wasn't just talking about THAC0, he was comparing the death of THAC0 from 2e to 3.x to the new powers in 4e. My point was that THAC0 didn't really die, it just became easier to use, while there's no way to convert a vancain spellcaster to a 4e using powers. They just aren't at all similar, so it wasn't a fair comparison.
That's all I was trying to say.
Right...only he wasn't just talking about THAC0, he was comparing the death of THAC0 from 2e to 3.x to the new powers in 4e. My point was that THAC0 didn't really die, it just became easier to use, while there's no way to convert a vancain spellcaster to a 4e using powers. They just aren't at all similar, so it wasn't a fair comparison.That's all I was trying to say.
Ah, ok. I didn't know which post you were referring to so only went by the quoted bit you had, which made your whole post read like you were just talking about THAC0 -> BAB.
That said, I think you can convert a vancian caster over fairly well, between Rituals and the Wizard's Spellbook. After taking the Extended Spellbook Feat (or whatever the feat is that gives you an extra Daily per Daily level) my current Wizard has a TON of spells, and he's only 4th. If I were to actively hunt down new Rituals to scribe into my book, I'd have even more.
Cheers! :)
Not really. Not that I am any fan of Vancian Casting (because I'm not) but simply because what you just said simply isn't so.
Even with Expanded Spellbook (a very weak feat btw), the fourth level wizard has a grand total of 6 spells in his book (3 daily first and 3 utility second). Rituals do not count as spells since everybody but his uncle can do rituals for the low, low price of one....two at most....feats. What's worse many of these spells aren't really adequate choices for their level. For example at first level, you have Sleep and Flaming Sphere....and the rest of the choices suck. At second you have Shield and Expeditious Retreat and the rest of the choices suck.
For all it's problems, that wasn't so with Vancian Style casters. First level casters in 3.5 (and Pathfinder) start with more spells in your book than a 4E wizard will ever see in his career even with expanded spellbook!
-Polaris
Notice I specifically went out of my way to prefix my post by saying I think. From my PoV, in 3.5 most Wizards at 4th might have more spells in their spellbook, but most were useless and never memorized. As for declaring Rituals don't count because anyone can use them ... uh? In which way does opening up the ability to use Rituals deprive a caster of the fact that they are available?
I'll admit I was approaching the idea of Vancian Casting from the angle of having a large assortment of affects to choose from every day. If you're looking at it more as a fire-and-forget type system, then no, of course you can't really bring that into 4E. Even going out of your way to pick as many Daily abilities as you can, you could never blow all of your magic for the day, since you'd always have At-Wills and Encounters left (at least, if you got a chance to rest ... I suppose if you were involved in some long drawn out running battle you could be reduced to only At-Wills, which is pretty close to a tapped out Vancian Wizard ... hmm ... Maybe I'll have to rethink my second point)
Cheers! :)
Fact is that in flavor (if not mechanics) 3.5 played very much like prior editions of DnD.
So all the different classes and racial combinations that we see in 3.5 was common in earlier editions? Anybody could be a paladin in earlier editions? Dwarves had no limitations on what class or classes they choose to go into?
Sorry, but the "fact" is that much of the "flavor" of earlier editions changed in 3rd edition. Maybe the things that changed didn't matter to some people or they had already houseruled similar changes, but many of the core assumptions did change.
4e D&D has little in common with the game that E. Gary Gygax created over 30 years go. It is a completely different game, and if Hasbro/WOTC were being honest, they should rename it to Dragon-Quest-Rune-Fighters or something. It is a video game RPG, and you are better off just playing Warcraft or a similar computer game. I have heard that WOTC are having layoffs, and they deserve it. I hope they layoff everyone there who is responsible for creating this corruption of Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, as we know it, is dead...I hate 4E, really I do, but even I can't get behind this kind of attack.
The game is different than the original, it most certainly isn't a game for me, and frankly I too agree that it plays more like magic the RPG or a World of Warcraft BUT it is an actual physical game, and frankly in my mind at least that in its own right makes it better than playing a faceless computer game (which don't get me wrong, I also enjoy). The mechanics play more like a board game to me, and there are even some situations (notably tournaments) that I think that 4E has a real place. Heck if it had been marketed as the board game alternative to the more "complicated" 3E system I'd have actually probably enjoyed it more (since they'd still be supporting the RPG system I enjoy).
That all being said, saying that the everyday employees at WoTC "deserved" being laid off because you disagree with the corporate decision to make more money is a little short sighted. The vast majority of the people that are going to be laid off are everyday people like you and me who are simply trying to pay their mortgage. Many of the people were doing their jobs, and although you and I may not think that the game that they developed is "worthy" of the D&D moniker, it still is a game, and frankly they don't deserve this level of anger over it.
Enjoy the fact we have Pathfinder as an alternative and let the 4E people go and do what they like to do. It's not worth getting that angry over.
If you were being honest with yourself, you would get behind my attack, because it is the truth. 3rd edition as an improvement over 2nd and 1st, but it was still D&D. It was still recognizable. 4e is not D&D. They deserve a very high level of anger over it. At least 20th level.
Also, I am standing by my statement that the employess of WOTC deserve to be laid off. I have been laid off before. In my case I did not deserve it, because I did not help to destroy one of the greatest RPG's off all time. Thank the gods for the Pathfinder RPG; Paizo will save the game that E. Gary Gygax created.
It could just be me ... but that last paragraph sounded nothing like D&D to me.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.How is this any different than saying:
"Now, please excuse me. My cleric has to help our party's rogue recover some hit points with Cure Light Wounds (hope I don't roll a 1 and feel like I wasted the spell!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to help our fighter hit the goblin hexer. I'll try and talk the paladin into using Smite and his most powerful attacks while Recitation is up."
Does the different names of abilities really make that much difference? Is it somehow bad that a healer can heal while also taking an active part in the combat? I'm really unsure what the problem is here.
Now, it might just be a difference in playstyle - perhaps you would have described it without resorting to strict game terms:
"Magnus Axenhammer, the furious dwarven warlord, looked the ranger in the eye. 'Dammit, elf, the battle's not yet over. Keep at it, and these gobbos will be done for!'
So saying, the dwarf hurled himself into the fray, making for the vile shaman that led the rabble. Magnus knew his own attacks might not strike down the foe - but Sir Rayven already had the beast threatened, and all Magnus needed to do was provide a proper distraction. A roar and a shout got the hexer's attention, and a quick nod from Magnus gave Rayven the go ahead to launch a...
? What were you expecting my response to this to be?
Seriously, I simply said the original post didn't sound anything like the D&D games I've played in. All the twisting and turning (and rewording of the game description I was actually referring to) doesn't change that fact.
It makes me chuckle that on the one hand here (this thread I mean not your post) we have people damning the complaint/comment that is heard so often about 4e; 'it feels like a mmorpg/wow/ etc etc', and saying there's no validity whatsoever to this belief/feeling. Yet then going on to state that it's understandable WotC set out to borrown stuff from mmorpgs, for obvious financial reasons. It can't be both, either it has borrowed stuff from online rpgs, and thus to some degree has aquired some of the feel of such games, or it has no similarities, or aspects, in commong with such games.
Anyway, I think I'm gonna stop getting drawn into these endless circular discussions. I'm never gonna be convinced 4e is a system I will enjoy, and it's pointless me wasting time moaning about it.
I'll just join those Bruce Banner like throngs hitchhiking away down the road, shifting my backpack on my shoulder, as the sad theme music kicks in and Paizo's new car approaches, slowing down to pick me up ...
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
Can I get a translation into D&Dinglish? I'm so tempted to go 'pewpewpew' right now. Ooops.
|
|
Anyway, I think I'm gonna stop getting drawn into these endless circular discussions. I'm never gonna be convinced 4e is a system I will enjoy, and it's pointless me wasting time moaning about it.
I'll just join those Bruce Banner like throngs hitchhiking away down the road, shifting my backpack on my shoulder, as the sad theme music kicks in and Paizo's new car approaches, slowing down to pick me up ...
Hey fella! Need a lift? I'm headin' ta Golarion, Magnimar to be more specific. Ye can be ridin' up in the cab here if ye want. Be ready with a starknife in case we get attacked....
|
|
I'd like to lock this thread. I started it, I know, but I think I'm going to quote a great Japanese admiral. "We have awakened a slumbering giant." I think it needs to be put back to sleep. The circular arguments aren't going to stop. No matter how many times it's going to be said across the boards it will always be the same.
You will either like or love 4th and call it D&D.
You will either dislike or hate 4th and say it isn't.
In between those statements is a set of beliefs and opinions as to why that is. Unfortunately, it's also dragged in beliefs about people and companies and about how they save us or damn us all.
Starting this post is definitely the greatest mistake I have ever made on these boards. Once again, I apologize, and can anyone tell me how to get this travesty locked so we can move on?
|
|
Hey fella! Need a lift? I'm headin' ta Golarion, Magnimar to be more specific. Ye can be ridin' up in the cab here if ye want. Be ready with a starknife in case we get attacked....Anyway, I think I'm gonna stop getting drawn into these endless circular discussions. I'm never gonna be convinced 4e is a system I will enjoy, and it's pointless me wasting time moaning about it.
I'll just join those Bruce Banner like throngs hitchhiking away down the road, shifting my backpack on my shoulder, as the sad theme music kicks in and Paizo's new car approaches, slowing down to pick me up ...
are you insane? never let a hitchhiker up front with you if they're armed! and never let them out of your sight. and if they're hot, insist on patting them down. but don't invite them to sit beside you with a weapon!
You will either like or love 4th and call it D&D.
You will either dislike or hate 4th and say it isn't.
I'm somewhere between dislike and hate, but I don't recall ever saying 4e "isn't D&D." If you enjoy it, that's great. I'm just glad there's a place for those of us who didn't want to switch over.
Arovyn--
No worries, this thread is actually pretty tame. In fact, even though the players and arguments haven't changed much, I must confess to reading them (minus the flames) over and over. When 4E came out I felt compelled to change like I have through all the previous editions, but this one hasn't yet felt right to me. and by reading all of the various pro and anti 3.5 and 4E stuff its actually made me feel ok about not liking 4E and not wanting to change this time...
So, I don't really feel the thread is wasted.
D
Besides. With Player's Handbook II, smurfs (a.k.a., Gnomes) will be returning to D&D. So it is all good.
|
|
Arovyn--
No worries, this thread is actually pretty tame. In fact, even though the players and arguments haven't changed much, I must confess to reading them (minus the flames) over and over. When 4E came out I felt compelled to change like I have through all the previous editions, but this one hasn't yet felt right to me. and by reading all of the various pro and anti 3.5 and 4E stuff its actually made me feel ok about not liking 4E and not wanting to change this time...
So, I don't really feel the thread is wasted.
D
I changed over to 4E the day it came out. My FLGS sold out 3 times over. It's pretty well supported where I live, but there are also a lot of people at my FLGS playing Pathfinder. I plan to support both.
I don't see how liking one means hating the other. I don't like being told that because I love 4th, I'm evil or supporting an evil company. I don't like the idea that I'm being stereotyped or pigeon-holed because I love a particular game. I hate the idea that there will be people who are never going to respect me simply because I choose to play a particular game or a different edition of one. I get more than enough of that from people who have zero interest or a hostile interest in this hobby we all love. Getting that from people who share my interest and love of the hobby is a little much for me to swallow.
In a year or so, maybe less, it's not going matter. PF and/or 4E will thrive or it will fall by the wayside. Either way, I want to be able play what I love and not have to take flak for it. But until more time passes, people are still going to carry pitchforks and torches and look for the next person to lynch. People are still going to cheer others losing their job in a time they're going to have a very hard time supporting themselves and their families over a freakin' game, and I think that's wrong on such a deep fundamental level, it makes me sick. The moment I saw that post in the thread I created, I felt I did something wrong. That hasn't changed.
Arovyn
|
I've purposefully stayed away from making any kind of assessment or comment about 4e. This was due largely to the fact that in my mind, 3.0/3.5 still has alot of life in it and therefore it was too soon to bring forth a new edition. It wasn't perfect, but then what system truly is? (purely rhetorical, BTW)
I'm a grognard. I've played the game in almost all of its iterations and loved every one of them. I have fond memories stemming from each edition and have no regrets.
So what is it about fourth edition that has caused me to not be so accepting this go around? Mind you, I had the same feelings about the advent of 3.0, but in the end, put them aside to see for myself. Could i not do the same for 4th? Well, I've looked it over, scrutinizing the system in every way. And found that though there were some good things about the system, in the end it just what wasn't what I wanted from the game. I'm not alone in this very assessment.
I've never played WOW (I find that I prefer the original Warcraft strategy games) and will most likely never do so (though any future inclusion of Pandarens may change that for me). But from everyone I've talked to that has played both the MMO and fourth edition, this newest incarnation of my favorite game sounds more like WOW than D&D. Which is all the more amusing since alot of the folks over at Blizzard are in fact fans of D&D, citing it as an inspiration for what they do.
If 4E is your thing, then fine. So be it. That is your choice. And in the end, as always, that is what it will come down to: choice. I choose not to support 4e. I choose to support Pathfinder. I've made my choice and find myself the happier for doing so.
I'm not going to try and convince anyone which edition of the game is better. This was not my purpose. To be honest, I'm not really sure what that is yet. All I know is that some of you really loathe 4th and some of you really love it. Express yourselves. Stand up for what you believe in. Be nice to each other for as long as you can while doing so, because while we may have our own opinions, we are all gamers. The edition shouldn't matter so long as we have the fun we're trying to achieve. That to me is the most important thing.
You will either like or love 4th and call it D&D.
You will either dislike or hate 4th and say it isn't.
Or you are like me, you don't really care about 4e either way. It isn't what I'm going to play, not because I think it sucks though. It is just that I've been playing 3.5 and it does everything I want it to do. I haven't felt like I was missing anything that I needed to switch to a new version (whether 4e or PfRPG). And I call 4e D&D, just not my prefered flavor. Just as Spelljammer was D&D, just as Eberron is D&D, just as alot of different things with different flavors is D&D.
|
|
Besides. With Player's Handbook II, smurfs (a.k.a., Gnomes) will be returning to D&D. So it is all good.
What I'm really curious about, Lord Fyre, is whether or not Gnomes and Half-Orcs really were ever intended for 4E/PHB II or not. It's a "neither here nor there" question meaning that I don't really need to know the answer, but to be honest, the gut feeling I had based upon all the inferences from WotC to that point was "Nobody plays them, they're sucko races, lets move along to something interesting." I back this up with thread after thread of "No Gnomes/Half Orcs?" on the WotC boards and the enternal responce (as given by Arovyn just below your post) that if you really needed to play them, there was a writeup in the Monster Manual.
I just have this feeling that they took some backlash for that decision and may have backpedaled (not a bad thing - it shows responsiveness to customer concerns). Just curious is all.
|
It could just be me ... but that last paragraph sounded nothing like D&D to me.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
Nope....wasn't just you.
:(
|
|
It could just be me ... but that last paragraph sounded nothing like D&D to me.
Now, please excuse me. My warlord has to help our party's striker recover some hit points with Inspiring Word (hope I roll high on my d6 to add to his healing surge!). Then, I am gonna move into a flank to give our fighter combat advantage against the goblin hexer. Last, I'll use Commander's Strike to give the same paladin two chances to hit this round. Maybe I can also talk to the paladin into using an Action Point so he can add 5 to his THIRD attack this round from my Tactical Presence. Gonna be a busy round for me. Should be fun, I still have my encounter powers and my dailies. Good times to be a warlord.
Ok. Go back to 1977 and tell people about flanking, spring attack, sunder, diplomacy checks, five foot steps, and attacks of opportunity and they will say the exact same thing.
|
|
I don't think this is a fair assessment at all. The change from 2e THAC0 mechanics to 3.5 wasn't really all that drastic - the calculations and game mechanics actually stayed exactly the same.
Actually that is exactly why people were up in arms about 3e - go check out the thread from 2000 linked upthread.