bah, You guys are no fun. I mean ...ya know just a little blood...Just a little. It gets the succubi in a good mood if ya know what I mean
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.
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.
I think that's fair enough.
bah, You guys are no fun. I mean ...ya know just a little blood...Just a little. It gets the succubi in a good mood if ya know what I mean
Meh.
Ok then lets try this one.Elves:
Have become over cliche'd in Fantasy roleplaying and should be revamped in 4th edition to be disgusting drooling imbeciles and kin to Ogres. Discuss.
What, me, a dwarf ? what gave you that idea ?
Meh.
Ok then lets try this one.Elves:
Have become over cliche'd in Fantasy roleplaying and should be revamped in 4th edition to be disgusting drooling imbeciles and kin to Ogres. Discuss.
But the Important thing is, Do they still taste good if grilled? I mean elf some BBQ sauce and Hot damn your good to go. Add some beer, and a few drunken demons and yall got a party.
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.
Actually, the fluff sometimes is the determinant. Why would I play MERP rather than Rolemaster? Because of the campaign-based fluff more than the mechanics which are virtually the same.
D&D's default fluff over the years is one of the things setting it apart from other class-based RPGs. Sure, mechanics matter too, and they probably matter more to most people. But if I was content with the fluff I had and maybe even liked it, 4e's mechanics are going to have to be that much better in order to win me over and make it worth the effort to convert the fluff to use in the campaign I've largely been able to run for over 25 years of AD&D editions.
And, quite frankly, I don't think they are that much better. For every step forward, I'm finding a step backward as well. If the mechanics come out a wash, the fluff can be quite the deciding factor.
Plus, there's the issue of design philosophy. And we started to see this coming in the 3.5 patch when feature creep led to more spells being changed than not, even the ones that weren't broken. But it does seem the adage "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" doesn't seem to have much weight at WotC. Or, I suppose you could call some of the changes a solution in search of a problem.
|
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.
I do see what you're getting at...
Which is precisely why I still use 3rd Edition (I prefer the fluff and the mechanics of 3e over 4e) :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Given that MERP is based on Rolemaster, this is more akin to playing 4th Edition in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting because you like its fluff than it is to playing 3rd Edition instead of 4th Edition because you like its fluff.Actually, the fluff sometimes is the determinant. Why would I play MERP rather than Rolemaster? Because of the campaign-based fluff more than the mechanics which are virtually the same.
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.
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.
Oh hogwash. You're stretching, Scott.
The popular Victorian image is woman from the waist up, serpent from the waist down. There's also the medieval lion-centaur beast woman which has a woodblock in Topsell's History of Four-Footed Beasts. And there are various vampire spirit and shark myths going back to the Greeks.
Give me a citation from any book of folklore, any Victorian painting, hell, even any 20th century film or literature calling the bug lady a lamia and I'll buy your argument. But otherwise, it's just something you're making up to suit yourself.
I've been collecting bestiaries and books of folklore for over twenty years and I've yet to see a bug lady lamia anywhere except the 4e MM.
I'm not sure which game you're talking about. It's not 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 monster were fluff. Sure, alignment is fluff, but abilities are not! A green dragon spouting lightning is certainly not a change in fluff...
Vampires no longer being destroyed by running water (rivers streams and oceans), or being repealed by holy symbols or garlic. oh and yes I understand that very powerful vampires (Dracula) were immune to sunlight just made weaker by it but these were extremely rare. also just to go off on the whole mythology aspect beside what was already mentioned how about the taking the form of a wolf or a bat. or even the ability to call the children of the night (rats, wolves, bats etc...)
oh and just so its not said "that's only one case"
Minotaur's never getting lost in mazes like in the actual myth.
and their are others but it is late and I am tired. having said that I have played in a 4th edition game and am doings so even now. I play mostly so my friend has some one who actually role-plays in their group. but as for running I will stick with 3.5 or pathfinder (haven't decided yet) because they let me tell the type of stories I like.
before you ask (i use mechanics like sunder, disarm, trip, and even skill checks while combat is taking place to make the adventure fun and enjoyable to my players and myself) these things I do while Incorporating role-playing in to the action.
one last thing the opposite of the unicorn has always been the nightmare.
--Remember the imagination is the greatest gift we have--
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.Oh hogwash. You're stretching, Scott.
The popular Victorian image is woman from the waist up, serpent from the waist down. There's also the medieval lion-centaur beast woman which has a woodblock in Topsell's History of Four-Footed Beasts. And there are various vampire spirit and shark myths going back to the Greeks.
Give me a citation from any book of folklore, any Victorian painting, hell, even any 20th century film or literature calling the bug lady a lamia and I'll buy your argument. But otherwise, it's just something you're making up to suit yourself.
I've been collecting bestiaries and books of folklore for over twenty years and I've yet to see a bug lady lamia anywhere except the 4e MM.
I never said the bug lady version has popped up in mythology before. You'll kindly back off on this aggressive tone. What I did say, and which is true is that there is no universally accepted identity for what a lamia is. I know of at least four distinct mythological portrayals for the lamia, some of which you mentioned. Given that there's no universally accepted physical appearance for a lamia, and that the only traits they share in common are a female appearance and ultimately evil, deceptive nature, what's the harm in Wizards creating their own interpretation of what a lamia looks like? That's what everyone else has done for hundreds of years.
Vampires no longer being destroyed by running water (rivers streams and oceans), or being repealed by holy symbols or garlic.
Vampires in previous editions were not destroyed by running water; they simply could not cross it, just as they could not cross into a private building without being invited in. And, as I've already said above, if these things bother you, change them. It doesn't bother a lot of people, but if it does it takes all of five seconds to say "These vampires are repulsed by garlic."
And yeah, Vampires are still repulsed by holy symbols; it's called turn undead/any implement power that deals radiant damage.
oh and yes I understand that very powerful vampires (Dracula) were immune to sunlight just made weaker by it but these were extremely rare.
Vampire Lords (the only vampires in 4th Edition who aren't destroyed outright by sunlight) are equally rare if you say they are.
also just to go off on the whole mythology aspect beside what was already mentioned how about the taking the form of a wolf or a bat. or even the ability to call the children of the night (rats, wolves, bats etc...)
If you want your game's vampire to have the ability to turn into a wolf, he has it.
oh and just so its not said "that's only one case"
Minotaur's never getting lost in mazes like in the actual myth.
Is a complete waste of space in a Monster Manual. Minotaurs are more interesting than "guard-a-maze-all-day" creatures, and giving them an ability that is so ridiculously situational is just bad design. Stick something useful in that space.
and their are others but it is late and I am tired. having said that I have played in a 4th edition game and am doings so even now. I play mostly so my friend has some one who actually role-plays in their group. but as for running I will stick with 3.5 or pathfinder (haven't decided yet) because they let me tell the type of stories I like.
That's weird, I haven't yet discovered a story I can't tell in 4th Edition. I must be doing it wrong, because 4th Edition shouldn't be letting me tell certain stories.
before you ask (i use mechanics like sunder, disarm, trip, and even skill checks while combat is taking place to make the adventure fun and enjoyable to my players and myself) these things I do while Incorporating role-playing in to the action.
Why would I ask?
one last thing the opposite of the unicorn has always been the nightmare.
Okay. If you want the opposite of the unicorn to be the nightmare, the opposite of the unicorn is the nightmare. Heck, they're close enough to each other in level that you could have a pitched battle between the two, just to show your players how totally opposite they are.
This is getting ridiculous.
I still think some of the responsibility for the paradigm shift of "red shirt 1rst and 2nd edition" to "heroic 3rd and 4th edition" lies in the novels produced by TSR (and WotC, but it started with TSR). In the early editions, you were a red shirt, you made a character knowing and expecting he would die horribly, possibly only minutes after making him.
But towards the end of 2nd, in time to be cemented into 3rd edition design, and passed on to 4th, came this idea that all PCs are special, and stat generation methods and ability score minimums for characters all changed/dissapeared to accomodate this.
PCs were now heroes, with heroic destinies waiting to be discovered. I saw the mentality shift at the game table, and the rules shifted to acommodate it.
While I think your broadly accurate in the idea that the novels and such were effecting the game I think there was more to it then just TSRs novels and I think your time line is off.
I'd argue that we begin to really see this shift from the tail end of 1st edition and that its well established by the time we are into the early stages of 2nd. If we look at the fare being offered by Dungeon in the years right around the first edition switch you'd probably notice a real lack of 'Dungeons'. At this point there was a pretty obvous switch in emphasis from gritty dangerous places to adventure in and a swing to story heavy environs. The story heavy adventures would, of course, feature combat but combat was usually only a piece of the plot line - something that got in the PCs way while they were off trying to accomplish some other goal. Previous to that fighting stuff often was the plot.
Maybe the most extreme example of this is the introduction of the original Dragonlance adventures and Dragonlance Novels that came out right near the end of 1st. Here, pretty much for the first time, we had an example of a large, plot driven, campaign. Whats more we now had some kind of baseline to judge lethality against. The novels told us the story of the modules and, in the novels, we learned how often players die - in this case I think only Sturm died. Certainly I don't believe that this necessarily represented some kind of a 'correct' level of lethality for a campaign, nor do I believe it was ever intended to by TSR, but it was some kind of a baseline where, before we had had none.
Furthermore it was roughly correct for the Dragonlance modules - your campaign would probably fall apart if the lethality was really significantly higher then what was portrayed in the novels. Once the game becomes more then a series of very loosely interconnected series of adventures it starts to become apparent that high lethality levels are a bit of a problem.
See, for example, how often the issue was raised by DMs during AoWs and the other really tough dungeon era APs. If all the original party members are dead there really is a danger of the campaign unravelling as the threads that link the first adventure right through to future adventures are broken and the players realize that it makes ever less sense for their characters to continue to bite the plot hook because their characters don't have the specific experiences that were formed in the initial adventures of the AP (A DM thats careful with new character backgrounds can very significantly mitigate this however).
|
|
a lot of interesting and insightful things about 4e
Your knowledge and enthusiasm about the system certainly shows :-)
Let me ask you this: Why do you think the designers stepped so far away from tradition, creating essentially, a wholly different game?
I know what Mr. Heinsoo says in the article, but there are a lot of things he did not address...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'd argue that this is not really important to how either you or I play the game since strangers ought to be able to play in whatever kind of game they want -And that's my point...
You and I are old codgers when it comes to D&D (and gaming in general), and can change or tailor things to suit us based upon experience and personal preference. But the "new blood", only has the RAW.
Somebody decided for them what was and what was not considered fun (and TELL them so, in no uncertain terms)...
"Oh, but that's exactly what they did with all of the previous editions!"
No, not exactly. Even with the big changes that happened from 2e to 3e, most everything was still recognizable from past editions (the way spells worked, the way the multiverse worked, the monsters were still familiar (a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon), etc...
I'm not following your line of reasoning...
As old codgers we can change the game to suit whatever tastes we desire - sure.
The new blood does only have RAW to tell them how to play the game - sure.
Thing is that was true in every edition - RAW always defines how the game is played by new blood in every edition. Why does it matter to an old codger that the whippersnappers don't realize that the mage is Always the First to Die?
I never said the bug lady version has popped up in mythology before. You'll kindly back off on this aggressive tone. What I did say, and which is true is that there is no universally accepted identity for what a lamia is. I know of at least four distinct mythological portrayals for the lamia, some of which you mentioned. Given that there's no universally accepted physical appearance for a lamia, and that the only traits they share in common are a female appearance and ultimately evil, deceptive nature, what's the harm in Wizards creating their own interpretation of what a lamia looks like? That's what everyone else has done for hundreds of years.
The harm is to their own mythology, and to the shared mythology of the game. The more lame world-building calls that are made, the less it resonates with myth and legend, and the less useful it is on the whole for storytelling.
This is not to say there haven't been poor decisions in previous editons--the 3.5 shaedling with the rolling pin breasts, the Belt of Michael Jackson in the Book of Vile Darkness, the 1st ed Fiend Folio's flumph and tirapheg. And certainly 4e has gotten some things right--the inclusion of the Feywild and the Shadowfell in the cosmology has been overdue for far too long. But bad folklore research and poor world building is something that's annoyed me whatever edition I've seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But bad folklore research and poor world building is something that's annoyed me whatever edition I've seen.
Poor world-building is a judgment call. I actually like the points-of-light style world that 4th Edition defaults to. I can run any kind of adventure I want in that setting and still leave from for anything I may want to do further down the line.
Bad folklore research isn't something I think you can pin on WotC here. I seriously doubt that Mearls and Wyatt are ignorant of the lamia's mythological roots, for instance. Rather, it represents a concerted design effort to change a few things around in order to freshen up their reality a little. Now, in previous editions of D&D the serpent-bodied lamia was referred to as a Lamia Noble. We may still see that in the future of 4th Edition. But I'll be honest: the lamia in the Monster Manual is cool. A swarm of sentient beetles is awesome, and the fact that they take over the bones of dead eladrin is morbid icing on the cake. If you don't like that they're called lamia because it treads on the toes of previous mythology (which, in turn, treads on the toes of others who have imagined lamias differently) then it's easy to call them something else. Heck, when I converted the bestiary from The Skinsaw Murders I created a 4th Edition version of a Lamia Noble (albeit with the Pathfinder-flavored abilities of Paizo's Lamia Matriarch). You can find the stats here. Now you have an "authentic" lamia and a bonus scarab-swarm creature that you can call whatever you'd like.
On the other hand, there are a few 4th Edition design choices that I think are worth criticizing. Over-promising DDI was a big one, and it's something that WotC should have been on the look out for. But those things have been hashed out a million times and, to be perfectly frank, WotC is handling themselves pretty well at the moment. They're delivering consistently on the new set of goals they've set forth for DDI; the Character Builder and Compendium are probably the greatest digital tools ever designed for D&D. Their supplements are selling well. They haven't made any significant PR blunders in the past couple months (although really, expecting WotC to manage their PR as deftly as a large corporation does is wishful thinking; they're a bunch of tabletop gamers and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic). Rob's interview seems to be taken generally as a sign that WotC understands that the community could use some insight into design choices.
a lot of interesting and insightful things about 4eYour knowledge and enthusiasm about the system certainly shows :-)
Let me ask you this: Why do you think the designers stepped so far away from tradition, creating essentially, a wholly different game?
I think it boils down to them concluding that sticking with tradition too much was going to cause the hobby to stagnate. It's always been an uphill battle keeping D&D afloat in a way that is financially sustainable and palatable to the gaming community. We're not particularly generous with our cash, we don't tend to spread the game around because of its (outdated, but still perceived) social stigma, and we're not as forgiving as we should be. I think WotC's decision was spot on. Not only are they making significant strides in the professionalism of D&D publishing, but they're looking forward to making the game appealing to a new generation.
That, and I think the designers genuinely think they built a fun game that people will enjoy playing.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
This is getting ridiculous.
This is absolutely true. "Ridiculous" accurately defines this thread. Especially since you are now putting words into the game designers' mouths regarding why they named creatures a certain way, how they interpret mythological creatures, and why they chose to change creatures' in-game abilities and weaknesses. If you know these things for a fact, please cite your source. Otherwise, it's just an opinion that isn't any more valid than any other poster's opinion. There's no need to belittle others for feeling the way they do about a change that was made in 4E.
Your defensiveness regarding every post that disagrees with you is unnecessary. People feel how they feel. If it's different than your viewpoint, why can't you just let it be rather than dissecting each person's post and posting your opinion about how wrong they are for feeling that way? Is there a burning need to make people understand and (more importantly) AGREE with your viewpoints regarding everything 4E?
Regardless, your arguments start to ring hollow after awhile, especially this one that you have used throughout this thread: "If you don't like it for your game, change it." Isn't this the same "solution" that led to the game changing from 3.5 to 4E. If the same concern is cropping up in 4E, doesn't it indicate that 4E faces the same problems that prior editions face?
In any case, I'm sure you'll pick this post apart and tell me how wrong I am in my opinion, and that there's no logical way I should feel the way I do. So, have at it! (just don't expect me to respond to it).
*exits thread*
|
I'll save Scott the bother. What is "ridiculous" is people coming on to this thread to rehash the old anti-4e arguments. This thread was originally about an article written by Heinsoo that set out some of the philosophy concerning the design of 4e. It has since been derailed (as usual) into a general discussion of the merits of 3e v 4e, or WotC inept marketing, or whatever. Now, it is certainly the case that people are entitled to their views. But since there are a sizable chunk of us who like 4e, it might be nice occasionally for us to be able to discuss the 4e rules without having to justify their very existence.
(I have also noticed that Scott is making a very concerted effort to moderate his tone, which is very welcome. Given his excellent understanding of the 4e rules and all the hard work he has put in to converting RotRL to 4e (which, in the long run, can only be good for Paizo) I think he should get cut a little slack. I think your comments are wide of the mark.)
|
I'll save Scott the bother. What is "ridiculous" is people coming on to this thread to rehash the old anti-4e arguments. This thread was originally about an article written by Heinsoo that set out some of the philosophy concerning the design of 4e. It has since been derailed (as usual) into a general discussion of the merits of 3e v 4e, or WotC inept marketing, or whatever. Now, it is certainly the case that people are entitled to their views. But since there are a sizable chunk of us who like 4e, it might be nice occasionally for us to be able to discuss the 4e rules without having to justify their very existence.
(I have also noticed that Scott is making a very concerted effort to moderate his tone, which is very welcome. Given his excellent understanding of the 4e rules and all the hard work he has put in to converting RotRL to 4e (which, in the long run, can only be good for Paizo) I think he should get cut a little slack. I think your comments are wide of the mark.)
I'm gonna agree here, it's just as easy to ignore his active defense. Hell, I'm not a 4e fan, I'm predominantly a 3.x player, yet I come to this board because I know players like my wife and some friends who would honestly prefer 4e to 3.x so I keep up with it so that if I wind up in a 4e game I'm not lost (because in the end this game is about being with friends, not editions). And while scott does get broken record with his defense of 4e it's only because he keeps having to "defend" against broken record sniping of how the whole edition is flawed. I don't think he's ever responded defensively to any of my posts and on the whole, I don't really like 4e that much either. So how come I'm able to come to the 4e boards and post without getting his active defense, but others can't?
Scott, when the tread starts to become less about the topic and more about the way in which *you* respond to the topic, that is a clue that some introspection on your part is in order.
Are you really helping the discussion move along, or are you more interested in semi-snide generalizations and scoring "points" who disagree with you?
Frankly, I try to avoid topics where you are one of the main people involved in the discussion, because invariably at some point part of the discussion becomes about you, and while I mean no offense, I am not interested in you.
The only advice I can give is to try to ratchet down the snideness, the generalization about those who disagree with you, and don't think that you must be the defender of all that is 4e - which is your reputation currently.
Take the high road, despite what others do, and I suspect that you'll find more people responding in a manner which will benefit us all here.
I really must be reading this differently to a lot of people.
The only advice I can give is to try to ratchet down the snideness,
Hey, leave me out of this! :P
Take the high road, despite what others do, and I suspect that you'll find more people responding in a manner which will benefit us all here.I can vouch for the fact that this isn't true. I know that I, and quite a few other 4E posters, have actively tried "taking the high road" and avoiding any of these constant derailments by those who want to complain about 4E. I know that allowing them to pretty much control every post on the board has in fact made this board even less welcoming to me, and even more stifling of actual positive discussion of the game.
If Scott has decided that the only response is to continue the debate for as long as he can - and to do so in a genuinely civil fashion - then I can only hope his method has more success. Since as long as the moderators on this board aren't willing to step in and encourage posts to stay on topic, the method you advice simply doesn't work.
I'm going to have to say that you are incorrect here. From what I've seen individual posters have a very difficult time hijacking a thread. If people ignore them, then the thread just moves along as if nothing happened. I believe that if people were taking the high road, then there would be no derailment just an errant post (although the person who made the errant post wouldn't have been taking the high road). If there is a derailment, I don't think that is proof that taking the high road doesn't work, but it is more likely because there are people on both sides not taking that route and continuing arguing anyway.
I think for this board the moderators are doing perfectly fine. I don't think that them coming in to remind people to stay on topic would magically fix the problems that are happening, I can't imagine it would stop people from using threads as a medium to complain about 4th edition and neither do I believe it stop others from responding endless to those comments.
Oh baby.
|
|
I'm not following your line of reasoning...
What I was trying to get at, was that those young whippersnappers only have the RAW and none of the experience we have to necessarily change things to suit their needs, let alone realize that they may even have needs outside of the RAW...
Sure it's a temporary thing, but it will take time (try and remember back to your first few years of gaming)...
I think 3e (along with the OGL and d20 License) did a fairly good job at showing new players the myriad of possibilities to go "beyond the books"...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
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-
Since I've never, in all the time I've played D&D, adhered to the fluff presented in the MM when it didn't suit me, I really can't say it would ever matter that much to me. Just my two cents...
Take the high road, despite what others do, and I suspect that you'll find more people responding in a manner which will benefit us all here.I can vouch for the fact that this isn't true. I know that I, and quite a few other 4E posters, have actively tried "taking the high road" and avoiding any of these constant derailments by those who want to complain about 4E. I know that allowing them to pretty much control every post on the board has in fact made this board even less welcoming to me, and even more stifling of actual positive discussion of the game.
Matthew, there will always be people who like to poke at others in order to get a reaction. The "anonymity" of the internet facilitates it. These kinds of people are never going to go away.
The choice then becomes what *YOU* will do. If you comment and complain and wring your hands and show that they bother you, then they are further encouraged to continue the behavior to the detriment of us all. If, and *only* if you *allow* the thread to become derailed, it will.
In the end, you and Scott and all of us have the choice as to whether the thread succeeds or fails - despite being baited, it would behoove us all if, when our noses are tweaked here, we simply ignore it and go on as if nothing had happened. Eventually, the fun goes out of it and the tweaking slows way down.
The thing to remember is that none of this is about us, and no one here should have their ego tied up into a silly hobby discussion board to the extent that they feel that must post dozens of replies to various people in the thread, all saying pretty much the same thing.
A trick I've found, when I've needed to use it, is to adjust my posting style so that I never address a particular poster directly, rather, I only address the issue being discussed. That takes away a lot of the possibility of personal affront and defuses any kind of animosity that might occur.
That, of course, is what is meant by the "high road".
And with that, I'll stop derailing this thread myself. ;)
But bad folklore research and poor world building is something that's annoyed me whatever edition I've seen.Poor world-building is a judgment call. I actually like the points-of-light style world that 4th Edition defaults to. I can run any kind of adventure I want in that setting and still leave from for anything I may want to do further down the line.
Bad folklore research isn't something I think you can pin on WotC here. I seriously doubt that Mearls and Wyatt are ignorant of the lamia's mythological roots, for instance. Rather, it represents a concerted design effort to change a few things around in order to freshen up their reality a little. Now, in previous editions of D&D the serpent-bodied lamia was referred to as a Lamia Noble. We may still see that in the future of 4th Edition. But I'll be honest: the lamia in the Monster Manual is cool. A swarm of sentient beetles is awesome, and the fact that they take over the bones of dead eladrin is morbid icing on the cake. If you don't like that they're called lamia because it treads on the toes of previous mythology (which, in turn, treads on the toes of others who have imagined lamias differently) then it's easy to call them something else. Heck, when I converted the bestiary from The Skinsaw Murders I created a 4th Edition version of a Lamia Noble (albeit with the Pathfinder-flavored abilities of Paizo's Lamia Matriarch). You can find the stats here. Now you have an "authentic" lamia and a bonus scarab-swarm creature that you can call whatever you'd like.
On the other hand, there are a few 4th Edition design choices that I think are worth criticizing. Over-promising DDI was a big one, and it's something that WotC should have been on the look out for. But those things have been hashed out a million times and, to be perfectly frank, WotC is handling themselves pretty well at...
Fair enough. I'll admit that I like the Points of Light setting and am using a variant of that for my current 3.5 campaign, though I think a number of other world building decisions get in the way of that. Including Tieflings and Dragonborn as base races are a major case in point, especially with the business about the dragonborn empire and Bael Turath and so on.
|
|
In my experience the 15-minute adventuring day no longer exists in 4th Edition at all. Giving 1/day powers to martial characters wasn't done to make them burn out as fast as spellcasters. It was done to give them mechanical ways to shine especially bright a couple times per day, while still allowing them to be excellent in their own right the rest of the time.The 15-minute adventuring day problem is, as far as I can tell, a thing of the past. Most parties are able to get in four or five solid combat encounters before feeling like they could use an extended rest, and they can usually tough it out for another two or three more if they need to. Other groups might have different experiences than mine, so YYMV, but this has held true for all six 4th Edition campaigns I've played in or run...
In other people's experience, the "scry/buff/teleport wasnt a problem either.
But if you listen or read Shelly Mazzanoble's writing, its usually followed by "can we get our dallies back?"
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second. Better to have called the roles "Harpo" "Chico" "Groucho" and "Zeppo"--at least that would have made people think about roleplaying first.
I disagree.
Good role playing groups will tack around this issue as if it was not there. For those that like to play in this style it seems very reasonable to put it on the table.
Personally I like it not because I'll refer to my fellow players as 'Strikers' in character (though I might do so out of character) but because it draws emphasis to the philosophy and mechanics behind the game. Thats one of the aspects I really like the most about this choice because such distinctions are an important part of the games philosophy and the terminology allows us to consider and discuss that philosophy.
Its also part of a package that allows those that design with the game, whether one is making an adventure, a professional supplement to the game or ones personal guide book to ones own homebrew to better dissect the purpose of certain concepts within the system. In theory at least that should result in fewer complete mis-steps were stuff is added to the game that actually breaks it.
In other words when I finally sit down and make my 4E home brew players book and start adding all my house rules I'll hopefully make less mistakes in introducing 'broken' house rules then has been the case the last two edition switches.
|
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second. Better to have called the roles "Harpo" "Chico" "Groucho" and "Zeppo"--at least that would have made people think about roleplaying first.
This is one part of 4e that doesn't bug me too much. The 3x PHB lists the class "role" in each description, it just isn't mechanically relevant in 3x, and, I'm not entirely convinced, other than maybe influencing the fluff text of powers, that it is entirely relevant in 4e. But my 4e experience is limited to a couple of sessions at an FLGS, so I may be typing out of my posterior with that last part.
|
|
Say all you like that the D&D reality doesn't matter and that you can change elves to sentient pigs and that won't change the game. But I think if you stop on the defensive and think calmly you will agree it does. D&D is a lot more than a bunch of stats and descriptions made up by the current lisence holders design team. The current holders have a moral (not legal) obligation to "continue" and "improve" the D&D game not I would venture the right to "modify beyond recognition". I am NOT talking mechanics, powers (daily/encounter/at-will) are fine by me - they work. But the principles (yes that includes Unicorns) should NOT be played with. You want an Unaligned Unicorn or a Bug Lamia, have a world specific book with them in it. Dark Sun made halflings feral canibals - did anyone complain, hell no. Why? Because in the PHB there was the tried and trusted Halfling eating sticky buns staring back at you.
So if Rob H. is listening in (or has spies reporting back to him - hmmmm who could I mean), please take care of the game that has entertained so many for so many years.
Regards,
S.
Say all you like that the D&D reality doesn't matter and that you can change elves to sentient pigs and that won't change the game. But I think if you stop on the defensive and think calmly you will agree it does. D&D is a lot more than a bunch of stats and descriptions made up by the current lisence holders design team. The current holders have a moral (not legal) obligation to "continue" and "improve" the D&D game not I would venture the right to "modify beyond recognition". I am NOT talking mechanics, powers (daily/encounter/at-will) are fine by me - they work. But the principles (yes that includes Unicorns) should NOT be played with. You want an Unaligned Unicorn or a Bug Lamia, have a world specific book with them in it. Dark Sun made halflings feral canibals - did anyone complain, hell no. Why? Because in the PHB there was the tried and trusted Halfling eating sticky buns staring back at you.
So if Rob H. is listening in (or has spies reporting back to him - hmmmm who could I mean), please take care of the game that has entertained so many for so many years.
Your personal convictions as to what is or isn't D&D aren't held by all (or even most) D&D players.
Principles exist, but they are never absolutes and there is no such thing as a defined "line in the sand" that game designers cannot cross. I don't think anyone can say, with any degree of honesty or credibility, that 4th Edition is modified beyond the point of being recognizable as D&D. It may be possible to say "This new version doesn't feel the way I think D&D should feel," but anything beyond that is simply hyperbole that doesn't do anything but polarize the discussion.
Every edition of D&D has featured non-mechanical changes. Every edition has had people gripe about them. Every edition has had people praise them. You happen to fall into the former camp, it appears.
I was introduced to D&D 15 years ago, sitting on the floor of my neighbor's bedroom as his cousin described to me the Athasian arena that I was being forced to fight for my life in. I still remember the uncertainty I faced when offered a bunch of grapes after my first victory. This transportation to another world is what hooked me on D&D, and there's nothing about that experience that is lessened or made impossible by 4th Edition.
Ah well, it was worth a try. *shrug*
Carry on, RP Warriors!
Maybe I'll check back in a few months and see what the score is.
Ah well, it was worth a try. *shrug*
Carry on, RP Warriors!
Maybe I'll check back in a few months and see what the score is.
Really, Bear, regardless of what you may or may not think of how I conduct myself in this thread, I've remained civil and constructive, and the thread has remained largely on-topic. In fact, the most serious deviations from the discussion of 4th Edition itself has been others trying to find fault with the fact that the discussion is taking place in the first place. Your comments are an example of this. If you don't want to participate in what this thread has to offer, don't. But don't pop in merely to criticize others on their posting style and pretend that your opinion is either welcome or helpful. It comes across as nothing but condescending and haughty without adding to the discussion. I'd be happy to have you participate in the discussion we're having, but if that's not something you're interested in then please take your comments elsewhere. This isn't the place for them.
|
|
I am sure it was much harder to discover spies in the Cold War era, I guess times change.
You say;
"Principles exist, but they are never absolutes and there is no such thing as a defined "line in the sand" that game designers cannot cross."
In that we beg to differ, and unlike your veiled rebuff of my comment I'm just going to say "Scott you just plain wrong" UNLESS the game is new. D&D is NOT new.
I also would LOVE to see the statistics behind your statement;
"aren't held by all (or even most) D&D players."
The comments given in this thread would beg to differ. I'll add up all the posts against Unaligned Unicorns (or similar sentiment) compared with those for. Let's do some real stats and not just make hollow statements. If you prove to be correct, I'll apologize without reserve.
S.
PS: I think Scott you turned a general statement I made into a personal attack against me by quoting "stats" to prove that I was barking mad. I'm not that worried, just saying such things would be better avoided on these boards.
In that we beg to differ, and unlike your veiled rebuff of my comment I'm just going to say "Scott you just plain wrong" UNLESS the game is new. D&D is NOT new.
It doesn't matter that D&D isn't new. In fact, by virtue of it having a long and storied history, D&D is so many things to so many different people that the very idea that a single element defines what is or isn't D&D is ridiculous. This is what I mean by there being no defined line in the sand. There is no way that the gaming community could ever come to an agreement on something that, if removed, would make the game no longer D&D.
I also would LOVE to see the statistics behind your statement;
"aren't held by all (or even most) D&D players."
I am a D&D player, and I don't hold those views. That satisfies the "not all" assertion. As far as most D&D players go, I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of D&D players do not play D&D exactly as you do (or as I do). Neither of us speaks for the D&D community at large.
The comments given in this thread would beg to differ. I'll add up all the posts against Unaligned Unicorns (or similar sentiment) compared with those for.
And this would prove nothing, because someone disagreeing with a design choice like the alignment of unicorns doesn't automatically cause that person to exclaim "THIS ISN'T D&D!"
Heck, I'd wager that most D&D players don't even know that the alignment of a 4th Edition unicorn is unaligned. And guess what? If they found out, they'd probably either go "That's weird," "Who cares?" or "Sure, whatever," and continue playing 4th Edition without missing a beat. Most D&D players simply don't take the game seriously enough to give something so trivial another seconds' thought.
Let's do some real stats and not just make hollow statements. If you prove to be correct, I'll apologize without reserve.
You're not going to be able to come up with real stats. Not only is your base metric wrong, but the best you could do would be to get a tiny cross-section of a niche messageboard catering to a self-selecting internet population with a substantial lean towards a competing product, further compounded by the additionally self-selected complication of your survey itself being voluntary.
In other words, aggregate personal observation is probably going to be more accurate than what your stats would come up with.
PS: I think Scott you turned a general statement I made into a person attack against me by quoting "stats" to prove that I was barking mad...
I'm not trying to prove that you're barking mad. I'm not sure where you'd get that idea. I think you're wrong, but that hardly makes you insane.
(or has spies reporting back to him - hmmmm who could I mean)
I think that would be me. I have it on some authority that I'm a spy for WotC. Maybe they let me go though. Spies are really the hardest hit by the current economy.
Really, Bear, regardless of what you may or may not think of how I conduct myself in this thread, I've remained civil and constructive, and the thread has remained largely on-topic. In fact, the most serious deviations from the discussion of 4th Edition itself has been others trying to find fault with the fact that the discussion is taking place in the first place. Your comments are an example of this. If you don't want to participate in what this thread has to offer, don't. But don't pop in merely to criticize others on their posting style and pretend that your opinion is either welcome or helpful. It comes across as nothing but condescending and haughty without adding to the discussion. I'd be happy to have you participate in the discussion we're having, but if that's not something you're interested in then please take your comments elsewhere. This isn't the place for them.
I think one of the issues that the thread hasn't seemed to be on topic to me. It was about the interview with Rob Heinsoo and this thread quickly seemed to become arguments over 4th edition. While one could tie it back by saying that these were design choices that Rob was part of, to myself most of the thread hasn't been even talking about the things Rob talked about. This could be any other "Justify 4th Edition's Existance" thread rather than a thread centering around an interview.
Edit to the next thing: You have addressed that you didn't mean what I got from this statement, but I will still leave my reaction to it not because I think you are incorrect or anything, but just that how another person might see a snipe where one intended none.
Your personal convictions as to what is or isn't D&D aren't held by all (or even most) D&D players.
Second, this comment stood out to me as somewhat insulting to others, since it seems to say "too bad, I have more people on my side buying 4th edition" or something to the effect of that. The "(or even most" comment seems just unnecessary to me and make it more inflammintory. Although most are perfectly capable to ignore it, I certainly don't think it helps the civility.
Second, this comment stood out to me as somewhat insulting to others, since it seems to say "too bad, I have more people on my side buying 4th edition" or something to the effect of that. The "(or even most" comment seems just unnecessary to me and make it more inflammintory. Although most are perfectly capable to ignore it, I certainly don't think it helps the civility.
I think it illustrates a pretty important point: a number of people in this thread seem to be operating under the assumption that WotC engaged in the wholesale murder of universally accepted sacred cows in producing the most recent edition, even though said acceptance is anything but universal. Flavor element X may be important to some people, but it isn't important to all of them, and it probably isn't even important to most of them. It isn't terribly important to the designers of the game, and really, if element X of the game's flavor bugs you so much no one is telling you that you can't change it, or that it's even difficult to change.
Really, guys, unicorn alignment? Why are we bothering to argue over stuff so trivial?
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-
In this instance the argument seems to be whether or not Greyhawk is or is not fundamental to a gaming being considered D&D. Essentially if its not Greyhawk then its not D&D.
My experience with the issue of monster fluff has actually been fairly positive - not because I agree with all the fluff thats been presented...I don't...but because its a lot easier to convert things in 4E then it was in 3.5.
Every edition prior to 3rd used exceptions based monster design - they may not have called it that but, fundamentally, thats what it was. You named the monster and you gave it 'monster stats'. 3rd moved away from this and slotted monsters into types and subtypes and these types distinctly influenced what a monster was and how it felt at the table.
Now if you were really experienced with the system you eventually found ways to do things like create a brute using the fey type but that took a fair bit of experience with the system. If you walked in and tried to do this with your homebrew prior to understanding how types worked you ended up finding that the monsters kind of created themselves and you were, to some significant degree, along for the ride.
All of this was fine if you agreed with WotC's take on Greyhawk but could make life difficult if you did not - especially if your campaign world had a different set of assumptions. Certainly I found it took a fair bit of experience with the system before I was able to get under the hood of WotCs mechanics and successfully create the kind of creatures I needed for my homebrew (and I was not the only one - some of the 3rd party attempts to convert older campaigns to the new standard were pretty abysmal due to a lack of understanding of the new system).
My experience with this, in terms of monster design and fluff in 4E has been generally positive because 4E has returned to the exception based design of older editions - I just make the monsters I need for my homebrew and thats that. There is no need to understand types and the inherent assumptions that they bring to the game.
|
|
Scott writes;
"I think you're wrong"
And I think you are blindly subservient to WotC and would wave a flag for them no matter how good or bad a product they made.
Now we both know where we stand can we move on and discuss matters D&D like adults - understanding that we may differ in opinion but neither truly wrong
S.
Scott writes;
"I think you're wrong"And I think you are blindly subservient to WotC and would wave a flag for them no matter how good or bad a product they made.
Now we both know where we stand can we move on and discuss matters D&D like adults - understanding that we may differ in opinion but neither truly wrong
S.
I hate to have to roll my eyes, but I explained that I think you're wrong because you felt it necessary to explain the same thing to me. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this argument, but the "blindly subservient" line is not only completely unnecessary, but immature and insulting. You have so far seemed like one of the more reasonable 3rd Edition hold-outs or on-the-fencers. Please don't act in a manner that would change others' opinions in that respect.
|
|
(1)Your personal convictions as to what is or isn't D&D aren't held by all (or even most) D&D players.(2)You have so far seemed like one of the more reasonable 3rd Edition hold-outs or on-the-fencers. Please don't act in a manner that would change others' opinions in that respect.
(1) Hiding immature and insulting remarks in floral prose does not make them any less immature or insulting. This must be the lawyer coming out in you. This statement was the one you made which attempted to give some form of creditability beyond your opinion to the fact you thought I was wrong/mistaken/incorrect.
My reply (in bad taste) was trying to make the point that you perhaps had crossed the "insult" line, and to give some sauce to the goose - if you get my meaning.
(2) You mean your opinion.
I had thought that you were a reasonable person who would be able to ignore the flame-merchants and answer the honest questions. Please don't do things to change my opinion on this.
Strangely enough, regards,
S.
Pushes thorn up to get a better view, pops some corn and watches the sword play