Man, I don't care whether James says "PFRGP is better than 4th Edition" or "I feel PFRPG is better than 4th Edition". That's neither here nor there. Inserting the word "feel" (even though he didn't) doesn't suddenly make it more of an opinion and less of a fact - it was always his opinion, just like it would be WotC's opinion to say the opposite. And I'm not getting on James' case, he has every right (as does WotC!) to believe his game of choice - or game he designed - is best. But saying "If WotC started claiming that 4th Edition was better than PFRPG people would have a right to get upset," but doing nothing when the same happens with a company that the individual happens to be particularly infatuated with strikes me as a double-standard. To be honest, nothing should happen in either case, but it seems like people are prescribing unnecessarily heinous standards to WotC that they're unwilling to hold Paizo to.
I know you don't care about what James said. However I'm merely noting what I perceive to be your deviation of standards for information that you present to support your arguments and the information other people present on their side.
I brought it up more because you are arguing that the other people are doing that exact thing that you seem to be doing yourself. Applying different standards to the different companies, or at least arguments about the different companies.
Ignoring the following sentence Jame made with "feel", still*, doesn't really detract from my argument, rather, I think strengthens it.
Man, I don't care whether James says "PFRGP is better than 4th Edition" or "I feel PFRPG is better than 4th Edition". That's neither here nor there. Inserting the word "feel" (even though he didn't) doesn't suddenly make it more of an opinion and less of a fact - it was always his opinion, just like it would be WotC's opinion to say the opposite. And I'm not getting on James' case, he has every right (as does WotC!) to believe his game of choice - or game he designed - is best. But saying "If WotC started claiming that 4th Edition was better than PFRPG people would have a right to get upset," but doing nothing when the same happens with a company that the individual happens to be particularly infatuated with strikes me as a double-standard. To be honest, nothing should happen in either case, but it seems like people are prescribing unnecessarily heinous standards to WotC that they're unwilling to hold Paizo to.I know you don't care about what James said. However I'm merely noting what I perceive to be your deviation of standards for information that you present to support your arguments and the information other people present on their side.
I brought it up more because you are arguing that the other people are doing that exact thing that you seem to be doing yourself. Applying different standards to the different companies, or at least arguments about the different companies. Ignoring the following sentence with "feel", still, doesn't really detract from my argument, rather, I think strengthens it.
If you'd like. The double standard is something I've observed a lot. As for any double standard I might hold myself, feel free to call me on it. So far I think I've treated both companies pretty equitably (given that I've said precious little about Paizo itself to begin with, since this board is about a WotC game).
|
If you're considering running Paizo adventures converted to 4th Edition, I run a little website that you might find helpful.
Already found it helpful. (and already recommended it to some of my german fellows quite a while ago). :) I probably won't run RotRL for a third time but I guess there's a lot to learn of how to do conversions.
|
I haven't yet seen a change made between 3rd and 4th Edition where justification for the change doesn't exist. You may not agree with that particular justification, but I don't think change-for-the-sake-of-change has ever cropped up. Tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition, however, is a mindset that seems to be far more notable in those who dislike 4th Edition.
That my friend is why its tradition... Rules should change, evolve, and develop but the underlying principles like Orcs are bad and Elves are Good should stay. The point that was being made was where is the line draw on the changes to these principles?
And I do agree with another of your posts - this should be about 4E not 4E as it compares to others games - however philosophy changes and why would be nice to see. I'm not talking rule mechanics, or map boards, or powers, but Unicorns and their place in the world. Tradition (not just D&D but mythology) says that Unicorns are Good - why are they Unaligned now?
S.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
And I do agree with another of your posts - this should be about 4E not 4E as it compares to others games - however philosophy changes and why would be nice to see. I'm not talking rule mechanics, or map boards, or powers, but Unicorns and there place in the world. Tradition (not just D&D but mythology) says that Unicorns are Good - why are they Unaligned now?
I suspect you'd get a song and dance about how now unicorns can be used as foes, without having to shoehorn in a plot about the unicorn being confused about the party's motives. Same reason metallic dragons turned into jerks.
There's even some point to that, if you believe the point of the game is to provide a wide range of potential combat challenges for the PCs, as opposed to write a good fantasy story. If you're focusing on the story aspect, tradionally good critters should probably stay that way.
As far as evil unicorns go, remember when that painter brought the Vulgar Unicorn to life in Sanctuary? Eeek!
The Black Unicorn is an old trope in fantasy. There's nothing wrong with having an evil unicorn the opposite of everything a good unicorn is (though it may get a bit silly if you go for the opposite of a virgin to ride one) but making them unaligned just tosses tradition out the window for no good reason. It's like putting the hooker made out of scarabs in the book and saying she's a lamia. Say what? Call her a Scarab Queen or a Bug Ho or whatever, but don't take the name of a perfectly excellent mythological creature and paste it on something you made up over a bag of Cheetos.
|
|
And that defenders of 4E are the reasons people are having issues with the article outlining what was changed for our good by Rob. I have agreed with many of the 4E points made about the games mechanics and removing such things as "save or die" - points made so well in some cases I now agree with them. But this wholesale destruction of core D&D mythos and the "real world" mythology it was built on, surely even the most ardent defender of 4E can't agree with this without any reservation? This does little to improve the game, be honest.
But as will no doubt will be pointed out - keep your old monster manuals for monster descriptions/motivations and use the stats/mechanics from the 4E MM. Problem solved!
S.
PS: Played a little more 4E - the mechanics are growing on me...
|
|
But as will no doubt will be pointed out - keep your old monster manuals for monster descriptions/motivations and use the stats/mechanics from the 4E MM. Problem solved!I love it when answers like that are brought out, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...
[/end snark]
I was actually being serious, seems a good compromise to keep the flavor of the original critters but use the 4E game system. Indeed it what we have started to do. Other than needing to cart a couple more books around, no real down side.
S.
|
Other than needing to cart a couple more books around, no real down side.
While I see your point, those answers are usually (but not always) given just to shut the opposition down. They might as well just say, "I don't see what your problem is. I don't have any problem with it, so why should you!"
Which really does nothing to help the issue...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I haven't yet seen a change made between 3rd and 4th Edition where justification for the change doesn't exist. You may not agree with that particular justification, but I don't think change-for-the-sake-of-change has ever cropped up. Tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition, however, is a mindset that seems to be far more notable in those who dislike 4th Edition.That my friend is why its tradition... Rules should change, evolve, and develop but the underlying principles like Orcs are bad and Elves are Good should stay. The point that was being made was where is the line draw on the changes to these principles?
And I do agree with another of your posts - this should be about 4E not 4E as it compares to others games - however philosophy changes and why would be nice to see. I'm not talking rule mechanics, or map boards, or powers, but Unicorns and their place in the world. Tradition (not just D&D but mythology) says that Unicorns are Good - why are they Unaligned now?
Probably because the designers felt that they wanted unicorns to serve less as shining creatures of good and more as mysterious steeds of the Feywild.
But you know what? This shouldn't prevent anyone from picking up 4th Edition. If you feel it's a problem that the unicorns in the Monster Manual are unaligned, making them good requires changing all of one word.
|
|
But you know what? This shouldn't prevent anyone from picking up 4th Edition. If you feel it's a problem that the unicorns in the Monster Manual are unaligned, making them good requires changing all of one word.
You keep writing your posts as if those of us that have issues (note the use of the plural form of the word) with 4e, as if we only had the one issue with the game that you remark upon...
If I had to change "all of one word" in the 4e books that I have issue with, I might as well make up my own version of D&D...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like putting the hooker made out of scarabs in the book and saying she's a lamia. Say what? Call her a Scarab Queen or a Bug Ho or whatever, but don't take the name of a perfectly excellent mythological creature and paste it on something you made up over a bag of Cheetos.
The lamia has such a varied and inconsistent mythological history that its particular form is, in my eyes, pretty unimportant. There is no single accepted account of what a lamia is or isn't.
But you know what? This shouldn't prevent anyone from picking up 4th Edition. If you feel it's a problem that the unicorns in the Monster Manual are unaligned, making them good requires changing all of one word.You keep writing your posts as if those of us that have issues (note the use of the plural form of the word) with 4e, as if we only had the one issue with the game that you remark upon...
If I had to change "all of one word" in the 4e books that I have issue with, I might as well make up my own version of D&D...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm just pointing out that a lot of these issues that end up being individual nitpicks with minor details of the game are not something worth throwing the system out over. They do not require any particular effort or skill to change if they are not to your liking. There are significant elements of the game's design that I can certainly see as dealbreakers if you dislike them. Quibbles like the alignment of a unicorn or which dragon uses which breath weapon are not. They shouldn't even be straw piled on a camel's back. Stefan Hill has it exactly right.
|
|
They shouldn't even be straw piled on a camel's back.
Let us say just for the sake of simplicity, that the Monster Manual only had 100 monsters in it...
Now, 25 of those monsters have been altered in some minor fashion...
What if every monster had some minor change or tweak?
Where is the line drawn? Because in addition to the monsters being changed there are actual rules and mechanics changes as well...
When does change become too much (no matter how minor each change is on an individual basis), making you want to just throw up your hands and say “Enough!”
-That One Digtalelf Fellow-
They shouldn't even be straw piled on a camel's back.Let us say just for the sake of simplicity, that the Monster Manual only had 100 monsters in it...
Now, 25 of those monsters have been altered in some minor fashion...
Where is the line drawn? Because in addition to the monsters being changed there are actual rules and mechanics changes as well...
When does change become too much, making you want to just throw up your hands and say “Enough!”
As long as the mechanics themselves are sound, I really couldn't care less how many monsters they make minor changes to or re-flavor in some way. Not only do I usually not care, since I know that in general WotC makes pretty solid design choices and it's not going to suddenly ruin my game or make it less fun in some fundamental way to encounter a horrifying swarm of sentient beetles in the guise of a beautiful woman as opposed to a half-serpent, half-woman monster, but even if I did care the design of the game itself is so significant an improvement over previous editions in my mind that I'm more than willing to invest a few seconds tweaking a monster to my liking (which, if you follow my conversion project, ends up happening quite a lot as I've committed to redesigning a number of monsters unique to the adventure paths, or which don't already have 4th Edition counterparts).
To put it perhaps more succinctly, bucking an exciting tradition for something exciting and new does not make it automatically worse. It just makes it different. And given that you now possess fluff material for both the traditional and non-traditional versions of whatever you're fretting over, you now have more options for the kinds of experiences your players can have.
|
|
As long as the mechanics themselves are sound, I really couldn't care less how many monsters they make minor changes to or re-flavor in some way.
So, taken to an extreme, if the 4e MM had come out with every single monster in it that was originally in an older edition was somehow tweaked, you would have been just overjoyed and not cared one bit?
I know that the above would never have even been considered, and that just the thought of it is ridiculous, but I hope you can see my point...
So I ask you again, when is enough, enough? Or is that your answer, that as long as monsters are concerned, never?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
As long as the mechanics themselves are sound, I really couldn't care less how many monsters they make minor changes to or re-flavor in some way.So, taken to an extreme, if the 4e MM had come out with every single monster in it that was originally in an older edition was somehow tweaked, you would have been just overjoyed and not cared one bit?
Yes, that's right. I don't know if "overjoyed" is correct, as I don't think that a particular designer's interpretation of a monster's fluff is something to get "overjoyed" about, but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I know that the above would never have happened, and that just the thought of it is ridiculous, but I hope you can see my point...
I can see why it would matter to someone concerned about tradition for its own sake, doesn't want to put in the effort to change it to his liking, and above all doesn't think the system itself is worth using, but then we're right back to my original point: if you don't think the system itself is worth using, why gripe about the monsters' fluff?
So I ask you again, when is enough, enough? Or is that your answer, that as long as monsters are concerned, never?
As long as fluff is concerned, there's no such thing. D&D is designed to be completely malleable in the fluff department. And as long as the fluff given for the monsters isn't bad in some way I'd probably even use them without alteration at all. As I said, it's not going to make my games any less enjoyable.
I'd say my issue with 4e is that it feels too much like a boardgame /combat game like Battletech or Descent , to me.
Thats not that I don't like Battletech (I'm very fond of it) ;
However, I wouldnt want to play it every week.
In addtion for me as a GM what makes a game succesd or fail is the ability to inspire ideas for scenarios, backgrounds, npcs and the like. The changes to the rules make sense in many ways- I think the "Expanding the sweet spot" is a good aim - but the overall changes and approach taken have made the whole feel too bland.
Not that 3.5 ed didnt have extremely tactical combats - but it felt like it supported roleplaying outside of combat far more strongly that 4e does.
What we older gamers do need to recognise as a community is that we need to attract new blood and their needs will be different from ours. To give you a similar situation from another hobby ; I used to dance salsa to a moderately high level , and there was continual agitation from the expert dancers that some classes were "Dull and boring" or "too many classes just pandered to too many beginners"...
...forgetting that if there were no beginners there'll eventually be no hobby.
4e vs 3e...well, as long as we have Pathfinder, we 3e preferers have a system we can play with, and the new players have something more accessible.
Think of it this way guys/gals - we broke up with the ex ...we have a new squeeze and so do they. Really deep down, we're all happy with the new ones and wouldn't go back to the old ...so, y'know, time to move on.
So,thanks for the memories TSR/WotC, and good luck with the new relationship, but me, I'm looking forward to my future with Paizo now...
Not that 3.5 ed didnt have extremely tactical combats - but it felt like it supported roleplaying outside of combat far more strongly that 4e does.
I'm always curious: what support for roleplaying outside of combat was lost in the transition for 3rd Edition to 4th Edition?
|
|
Yes, that's right. I don't know if "overjoyed" is correct, as I don't think that a particular designer's interpretation of a monster's fluff is something to get "overjoyed" about, but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
So, there you'd be, just happy as a clam slaving away, converting monsters that you really shouldn't have to be converting in the first place, because you bought a book of monsters that should have already been converted "properly" to begin with (but hey, the rules are sound)...
if you don't think the system itself is worth using, why gripe about the monsters' fluff?
Because we are talking about the philosophy of the games design, and monsters are a part of that design...
As I said, it's not going to make my games any less enjoyable.
Well, you didn't have to worry about changing anything from the 4e MM (just the PF stuff). And that's great, but not all of us have that much time to devote (which has nothing to do with wanting to "put in the effort to change it to his liking")...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Not that 3.5 ed didnt have extremely tactical combats - but it felt like it supported roleplaying outside of combat far more strongly that 4e does.I'm always curious: what support for roleplaying outside of combat was lost in the transition for 3rd Edition to 4th Edition?
Its that horrible word ; "Felt".
Inspiration for scenarios and characters sometimes just comes from artwork or even a structure of how a book is laid out rather than rules mechanics...or even just the rules mechanics themselves may be perfectly reasonable but are presented in a way that feels intrusive during gameplay.
To my mind (and many of the people I've discussed 4e with) the new mechanics feel just that - mechanical. Yes, we always had the "I can cast 4 of these a day" mechanic, but the new at "per encounter" stuff feels more intrusive...for me (and most of the gamers I know) at least.
An example : Day/night is a natural cycle we deal with every....uh, day - per encounter is a purely artificial concept to the game. Perfectly reasonable mechanic, but artificial feel, IMO.
As a result it feels bland and very boardgame-like to me ... whereas a RPG should seek to inspire and excite.
Some people have similar problems with other systems (like Champions for example) - I personally like HERO alot, but others just dont get past the "Forget energy blast, wheres the hell is the "Produce fire" ability ?".
It doesn't make it a bad system - just one that doesn't inspire certain tracts of people. In 4e case, many of the people who it doesnt inspire is older gamers - or at least where I live. *Shrug* .
Its wrong to demonise 4e in the way some have. However, I think its valid to constructively criticise it.(and 3.5/PFRPG as well ! )
It may be that WotC will come out with a background book (or similar) that may eventually reverse that... but right now, no.
However ,if 4e inspires you and your players- why not play it ? THe hobby is FIRST AND FOREMOST about having FUN after all.
Because we are talking about the philosophy of the games design, and monsters are a part of that design...
We're also talking about the philosophy of the game's design with regard to legacies and continuity.
We're also talking about the philosophy of the game's design with regard to legacies and continuity.Because we are talking about the philosophy of the games design, and monsters are a part of that design...
I can well appreciate your disappointment with WotC in that respect, and a perfectly valid comment.
However, thats not necessarily a flaw in the 4e mechanics per se - thats a flaw in WotCs treatment of their long standing consumers...
...but a perfectly understandable disappointment, and one I share.
Its that horrible word ; "Felt".
Inspiration for scenarios and characters sometimes just comes from artwork or even a structure of how a book is laid out rather than rules mechanics...or even just the rules mechanics themselves may be perfectly reasonable but are presented in a way that feels intrusive during gameplay.
They sometimes also come from a list of a creature's non-combat powers or NPCs (or PC's) list of skills. And those options are curtailed in 4e compared to previous offerings.
So, there you'd be, just happy as a clam slaving away, converting monsters that you really shouldn't have to be converting in the first place, because you bought a book of monsters that should have already been converted "properly" to begin with (but hey, the rules are sound)...
I wouldn't be "slaving" away, nor would I be "converting" anything. I see no reason to alter the mechanics, and if I have a problem with the monster's fluff because it doesn't agree with the previous edition's fluff, then guess what? I just use the previous edition's fluff!
You're making this out to be a big issue, I think, because you want it to be a big issue. It isn't.
Because we are talking about the philosophy of the games design, and monsters are a part of that design...
The monster's mechanical elements are part of the game's design, yes. The monster's fluff elements are part of the campaign setting's design. 4th Edition provides a default campaign setting along with some fluff to use with it. If you don't like it, use your own. People have been doing that for decades.
Well, you didn't have to worry about changing anything from the 4e MM (just the PF stuff).
On the contrary, I've modified many monsters from 4th Edition supplements to use in my conversion. Not only have I made slight alterations to things like languages and weapon choice when they didn't line up with the original, but I've taken official monsters and upgraded them to elite or solo monsters many times. The former is no big deal and takes a couple minutes, and is something I would've had to do no matter what game I converted the adventure to. The latter is just an element of 4th Edition encounter design that has nothing to do with fluff.
And that's great, but not all of us have that much time to devote (which has nothing to do with wanting to "put in the effort to change it to his liking")...
Again, the minor changes I'm talking about that are necessary for the fluff to line up with what you like take practically no time. In fact, most of it can just be done on the fly - if you want the unicorn you're using in the adventure to be good, it's good. Done.
An example : Day/night is a natural cycle we deal with every day - per encounter is a purely artificial concept to the game. Perfectly reasonable mechanic, but artificial feel, IMO.
Powers with a duration of "encounter" actually last five minutes outside of combat. It has a finite time limit. So did most spells in 3rd Edition. The fact that X First Level Spell in 3rd Edition lasted 10 minutes didn't bother you?
It may be that WotC will come out with a background book (or similar) that may eventually reverse that... but right now, no.
I think that's the intention of their campaign setting books. Have you taken a look at the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting? Ignoring personal opinions on the nature of the changes to the Realms, there's plenty of potential inspiration in that book. I'm sure the same will be true for the Eberron Campaign Setting. Heck, Open Grave and the Draconomicon have some great sources of inspiration in them.
Also, have you considered using inspiration from other sources to shape your 4th Edition games? Previous editions contain a ton of material that fits your need, and there's nothing preventing it from being used with 4th Edition.
|
|
You're making this out to be a big issue, I think, because you want it to be a big issue. It isn't.
You are correct, it isn't. And I do not wish it to be, nor am I making an attempt to make it so...
Going back to monster design...
Not all of the changes made to monsters were fluff. Sure, alignment is fluff, but abilities are not! A green dragon spouting lightning is certainly not a change in fluff...
You're making this out to be a big issue, I think, because you want it to be a big issue. It isn't.You are correct, it isn't. And I do not wish it to be, nor am I making an attempt to make it so...
Going back to monster design...
Not all of the changes made to monster were fluff. Sure, alignment is fluff, but abilities are not! A green dragon spouting lightning is certainly not a change in fluff...
I'm not sure which game you're talking about. It's not 4th Edition.
Tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition[/b], however, is a mindset that seems to be far more notable in those who dislike 4th Edition.
There is certainly a question of continuity in a product...whatever that product is.
Customers who buy your product because it looks and feels a certain way may well object if you change that look and feel, and go buy something else.
For example - Traditionally, Ford cars are available in multiple colours.(note, I'm english, we use a "u" for that word. Blooming colonials nd their wierd spelling ideas...)
Ford changes t. You can only buy it in Barbie Pink.
Many old customers will leave, many new customers will arrive. It neither makes the leaving customers wrong or the arriving customers right.
Their needs from the product are different.
However its perfect valid for the leaving customer to say "I don't like the fact you've changed the colour scheme." It has no change to the practicality of the car, but hey, I wouldn't be seen dead owning a barbie pink car.
<Incidentally, other brands are available.I drive a Toyota...but if Ford would like to sponsor me, a non-pink car free of charge would be acceptable>
I'm not sure which game you're talking about. It's not 4th Edition.Was only trying to pose an example... Poor choice I suppose...
Even if there was a green dragon that spewed lightning in 4th Edition (there isn't; green dragons have a poison breath weapon), it takes all of five seconds to grab the equivalent black dragon's acid breath weapon and change its damage type to poison.
At the risk of being terribly dull ;
There is certainly a question of continuity in a product...whatever that product is.
Yes, there is. The designers of 4th Edition made it very clear that they were not creating a game that was simply a revised version of a previous edition - they were creating a new game, and it would play quite differently. I don't think there were any expectations to the contrary.
Customers who buy your product because it looks and feels a certain way may well object if you change that look and feel, and go buy something else.
They may.
For example - Traditionally, Ford cars are available in multiple colours.(note, I'm english, we use a "u" for that word. Blooming colonials nd their wierd spelling ideas...)
Ford changes t. You can only buy it in Barbie Pink.
Many old customers will leave, many new customers will arrive. It neither makes the leaving customers wrong or the arriving customers right.
Their needs from the product are different.
That's certainly true. Of course, in your example this pink Ford ought to have had a lot of substantial changes to it that affect the driving experience and not simply its appearance. You're always going to please some people with a change and lose others. That's inevitable. But that doesn't mean that there are quite a few gamers out there who rejected 4th Edition for reasons which aren't really reasons. In my experience (and, granted, I don't know anyone personally who has rejected 4th Edition, so this is all from my experience online) there are quite a few people who either a) believe things about 4th Edition that aren't true, b) don't understand why the game is designed the way it is, or c) didn't give it a fair shake to begin with because they were too busy being angry at the edition switch in the first place. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, and it probably doesn't apply to many people in this thread, but it's an issue.
However its perfect valid for the leaving customer to say "I don't like the fact you've changed the colour scheme." It has no change to the practicality of the car, but hey, I wouldn't be seen dead owning a barbie pink car.
Me neither. I don't think anything quite so emasculating would happen if someone gave 4th Edition a shot, though.
Incidentally, other brands are available.I drive a Toyota.
Probably a good idea. But do you drive a Toyota because of its handling, dependability and ease of maintenance, or because it comes in more than one color?
|
|
it takes all of five seconds to grab the equivalent black dragon's acid breath weapon and change its damage type to poison.
I get that you do not mind changing statistics, but is it really so hard to concede that maybe, just maybe, others do mind? And that perhaps, the fact that they do mind does not make them lazy?
Again, my issue is not just monsters. But they certainly do add to the fact...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Even if there was a green dragon that spewed lightning in 4th Edition (there isn't; green dragons have a poison breath weapon), it takes all of five seconds to grab the equivalent black dragon's acid breath weaponI'm not sure which game you're talking about. It's not 4th Edition.Was only trying to pose an example... Poor choice I suppose...
One of my frustrations with these sorts of debates is everyone gets hung up on them being **RULE**books. They're guidelines.
So, dislike 4e as I do, I'm with Scott on this example.
Are my players looking ? No? Well, here's a secret...
it takes all of five seconds to grab the equivalent black dragon's acid breath weapon and change its damage type to poison.I get that you do not mind changing statistics, but is it really so hard to concede that maybe, just maybe, others do mind? And that perhaps, the fact that they do mind does not make them lazy?
I have difficulty seeing it as anything but laziness if you have an easily fixed problem with a very specific mechanic and don't bother to fix it, and instead decide to play a completely different game. That's like playing Monopoly, hating all the little pewter play pieces it comes with, and instead of grabbing one of your favorite LEGOs to use instead, saying "Screw it, let's play Scrabble."
That's inevitable. But that doesn't mean that there are quite a few gamers out there who rejected 4th Edition for reasons which aren't really reasons.
ACtually you kinda contradicting yourself here.
However, we are debating the pro's and cons of why people do/don't like 4e, and I felt it important to point out that "I just dont like the fluff" is a perfectly acceptable reason for not liking the game.
It doesnt make them lazy, (to use my example : Am I lazy because I don't want to respray my car? Let me put it this way- I work a 60+ hour week,I have a family and other hobbies - I don't HAVE time to do changes, except on the fly. I don't want to spend hours converting stuff or coming up with my own background - I would love to, but I just don't have the TIME)
....but at the same time it doesnt mean those who don't mind the change in fluff (or will happily ignore it and write their own) are Evil incarnate.
Except GMs . They're always evil.
Even if there was a green dragon that spewed lightning in 4th Edition (there isn't; green dragons have a poison breath weapon), it takes all of five seconds to grab the equivalent black dragon's acid breath weaponI'm not sure which game you're talking about. It's not 4th Edition.Was only trying to pose an example... Poor choice I suppose...One of my frustrations with these sorts of debates is everyone gets hung up on them being **RULE**books. They're guidelines.
So, dislike 4e as I do, I'm with Scott on this example.
Are my players looking ? No? Well, here's a secret...
** spoiler omitted **
Heh, don't get me wrong, I appreciate that rule books have rules in them. Games have rules for good reasons, not the least of which is to foster a sense of internal consistency. But what Digitalelf was talking about was something that 4th Edition is specifically designed (quite well, I might add) to allow you to fix easily and effectively. It's less that you're ignoring the rules and more that you're taking advantage of their conveniently modular nature.
That's inevitable. But that doesn't mean that there are quite a few gamers out there who rejected 4th Edition for reasons which aren't really reasons.Yes, you're quite correct. However, we are debating the pro's and cons of why people do/don't like 4e, and I felt it important to point out that "I just dont like the fluff" is a perfectly acceptable reason for not liking the game.
I think it's a perfectly acceptable reason for not liking the fluff. I don't think it's a perfectly acceptable reason for not liking the game unless for whatever reason it has been made impossible or prohibitively difficult for you to replace that fluff you don't like with fluff you do like.
4th Edition is, in my mind, a role playing game system that also happens to provide you with a default set of fluff to use with it if you don't want to come up with it yourself or don't really care. Then again, so was 3rd Edition. And 2nd Edition. But maybe I'm seeing it very differently from how you are.
4th Edition is, in my mind, a role playing game system that also happens to provide you with a default set of fluff to use with it if you don't want to come up with it yourself or don't really care. Then again, so was 3rd Edition. And 2nd Edition. But maybe I'm seeing it very differently from how you are.
No, actually I'm broadly in agreement with you.
I think its a perfectly decent set of mechanics, I just dont find it INSPIRING personally for various reasons.
(see above for a longer treatment).
But if **you** do, more power to you, and why not play it if you do.
Where I also agree with you is that I do think the debate between 3e and 4e has become unnecessarily twisted by an emotional concept of "Its changed, I don't like change", and "its new and I love new"... but I wanted to make the point that you were debating whether "I don't like the fluff" was as an unfair criticism.
Sounds to me like we agree that in some circumstances it *is* a fair criticism....not a problem you share (which is cool), but that its understandable that some people do find it a problem ?
|
|
That's like playing Monopoly, hating all the little pewter play pieces it comes with, and instead of grabbing one of your favorite LEGOs to use instead, saying "Screw it, let's play Scrabble."
I like that analogy, lets continue with it for the moment...
You see, they changed my favorite pieces, the car and the top hat, into a skateboard and an Easter Bonnet. But they didn't stop there! No, they changed Boardwalk's name to "The Lower East Side", and Park Avenue to "The Ghetto". Then they went and changed the rules for landing on those two pieces of real-estate...
See what I'm getting at?
It's not just a couple of changes to a couple of monsters. Nor is it a couple of changes to the game's mechanics...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
4th Edition is, in my mind, a role playing game system that also happens to provide you with a default set of fluff to use with it if you don't want to come up with it yourself or don't really care. Then again, so was 3rd Edition. And 2nd Edition. But maybe I'm seeing it very differently from how you are.No, actually I'm broadly in agreement with you.
I think its a perfectly decent set of mechanics, I just dont find it INSPIRING personally for various reasons.
(see above for a longer treatment).But if **you** do, more power to you, and why not play it if you do.
Is this lack of inspiration from the game system really preventing you from getting use out of it? It's kind of a foreign concept to me, and I think it's the first I've heard of it as a reason. It strikes me as a pretty good reason to avoid a system if it's true, but is turning to another source for inspiration to use in a 4th Edition game something you're not comfortable doing?
Yawn...4E sucks. 4e is god of gaming an you don't understand yada, yada, yada......More blood is needed on the altar.
Hands out swords to everyone
That's like playing Monopoly, hating all the little pewter play pieces it comes with, and instead of grabbing one of your favorite LEGOs to use instead, saying "Screw it, let's play Scrabble."I like that analogy, lets continue with it for the moment...
You see, they changed my favorite pieces, the car and the top hat, into a skateboard and an Easter Bonnet. But they didn't stop there! No, they changed Boardwalk's name to "The Lower East Side", and Park Avenue to "The Ghetto". Then they went and changed the rules for landing on those two pieces of real-estate...
See what I'm getting at?
Yes, but I've already acceded that if you don't like the changes to the game system itself you probably have a valid reason to avoid the new edition. If they changed the rules of Monopoly and you don't like it, and it's not something you can easily fix, then yeah, go back and play the old game. But if you like the new changes to the game system and just hate the name "Lower East Side", the reasonable solution seems to be changing "Lower East Side" back to "Boardwalk".
Do you see what I'm getting at? If you like the new system, it's probably a good idea to use the new system and spend a couple seconds to apply your choice of fluff. If you don't like the new system, why bother worrying about its fluff? Either way, the fluff isn't determinant in whether or not you play the new game.
Yawn...4E sucks. 4e is god of gaming an you don't understand yada, yada, yada......More blood is needed on the altar.
Hands out swords to everyone
I actually think we're having a pretty interesting discussion here, and so far it hasn't devolved into edition-wars tomfoolery. Let's keep it that way, yeah?
Is this lack of inspiration from the game system really preventing you from getting use out of it? It's kind of a foreign concept to me, and I think it's the first I've heard of it as a reason. It strikes me as a pretty good reason to avoid a system if it's true, but is turning to another source for inspiration to use in a 4th Edition game something you're not comfortable doing?
4th Edition is, in my mind, a role playing game system that also happens to provide you with a default set of fluff to use with it if you don't want to come up with it yourself or don't really care. Then again, so was 3rd Edition. And 2nd Edition. But maybe I'm seeing it very differently from how you are.No, actually I'm broadly in agreement with you.
I think its a perfectly decent set of mechanics, I just dont find it INSPIRING personally for various reasons.
(see above for a longer treatment).But if **you** do, more power to you, and why not play it if you do.
Partly,converting stuff over and/or replacing fluff with stuff I do fuind interesting...well, it comes down to time.
<Addendum: When I used to have the time, I used to do stuff like run Traveller using the HERO system , Skyrealms of Jorunme with RQ, and write my own backgrounds and such - unfortunately middle-age sucks for any time for that.>
60+ hours a week work, plus family commitments plus other hobbies.
However, I also find the mechanistic nature of the game (which I freely admit may just be down to the way the rulebook is presented) just bland and dull in play (yes, I have played it) .
I have other games/ruels systems that inspire and excite, so I play them instead.
But like I say, if you have the time and/or are inspired by it , I honestly think thats excellent news and would eactively encourage you to play it.