|
It's the gaming culture that has been evolving. That culture is wildly different today than it was in 2000
I take it that with "gaming culture" you refer to the way Roleplaying games are played and not to the way the ruleset and mechanics are structered?
The question here is, if the culture of 09 is and evolved culture or if it is a sidestep or even an offshoot that may wither in time?
Time will tell.
Historically there were quite a few offshoots from the gaming culture that EGG and DA started.
See "Call of Chtulhu". A FRP but you play it with a differnt mindset than D&D. Or look at the gaming culture that started with WWs "World of Darkness" Storyteller Game. Clearly an RPG but played differently than D&D.
(and in many ways better, I believe).
And I think there is no "better" gaming culture. Every style is valid as long as the persons involved have fun.
IMO, the weakness of that approach is already showing just one year in. Casual gamers are far less likely to buy a book a month. Yes, a book every 6 months is a lot more than I buy now from WotC. (those carrot bar lovers are better customers than me) But it is a lot less than what I used to buy. (The avg chocolate bar lovers bought more chocolate bars then than the avg carrot bar lover buys carrot bars now)
And casual gamers are also a lot more likely to move on to the next thing. It is happening, and it will accelerate.
I would love to see what evidence you have to support this claim.
I further believe that making the game more accessible to potential DMs is critical, and that's one of 4th Edition's focuses.
I have a $100 check from Plannerzone that proves this. WotC is very much aware of the criticality of attracting and supporting new DMs.
And I think there is no "better" gaming culture. Every style is valid as long as the persons involved have fun.
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.
|
And I think there is no "better" gaming culture. Every style is valid as long as the persons involved have fun.Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.
Hey, Kendo is fun!
I'm really interested in seeing how WOTC goes about recruiting new players. I want to be able to keep buying new and innovative products at affordable prices for years to come and that means we need more gamers. If 4e gets it done, I'll tip my hat to them.
If one can get 'casual' gamers to join the ranks and buy some books while still having the dedicated DM who buys pretty much everything thats probably a pretty viable strategy.Yeah. Unless you end up gaining a bunch of casuals who buy very little and lose a large portion of the buy everything DMs.
OK but nothing in the way this was designed is particularly pointing this way. WotC fell over themselves trying to get more power and tools into the hands of the DMs.
They created a system that makes DM prep far quicker and allowed the DM to focus on what he really wants - to force his players to play through his version of some high fantasy knock off of Lord of the Rings.
This is a big factor in why I like the game, more self indulgant story planning less hard work trying to create a 14th level NPC to fight my players, which if its a spell caster, takes a whole evening. Furthermore the system has been eased up enough that anyone who wants to create their self indulgant story can pull it off as long as he can rope in a few patsy's to agree to participate.
|
OK but nothing in the way this was designed is particularly pointing this way. WotC fell over themselves trying to get more power and tools into the hands of the DMs.They created a system that makes DM prep far quicker and allowed the DM to focus on what he really wants - to force his players to play through his version of some high fantasy knock off of Lord of the Rings.
This is a big factor in why I like the game, more self indulgant story planning less hard work trying to create a 14th level NPC to fight my players, which if its a spell caster, takes a whole evening.
I think I am rarity, I love Playing 4E, hate DMing it, I Love the comlexity of DMing 3.5, the work it takes figuring out everything I need, getting it just right, taking that time to Prep the game. They made it to easy in 4E and it is boring for me to DM now.
IMO, the weakness of that approach is already showing just one year in. Casual gamers are far less likely to buy a book a month. Yes, a book every 6 months is a lot more than I buy now from WotC.
And casual gamers are also a lot more likely to move on to the next thing. It is happening, and it will accelerate.
Thing is I see something of the opposite even in your post.
The catch is we are now discussing the problems with casual gamers. Juxtapose this to how the discussion was going last year at this time. At that time the consensus for those that felt WotC had made a big mistake was that they'd first loose most of the D&D core audience and then, since it was inconceivable that they could get any new customers (no such thing as casual RPGers), they'd suffer a horrible crash. Alienated their old market and no new market at all - it was all going to lead to the destruction of WotC.
Essentially if WotC is busy convening meetings on what to do to turn casual gamers into more hard core fans (as would seem to be the evidence if what Goodman say's about the current 4E market is at all accurate) or convince casual gamers they need more books then they're plan is unfolding very well, this is exactly the kind of problem they wanted to have when they conceived of this edition.
I think I am rarity, I love Playing 4E, hate DMing it, I Love the comlexity of DMing 3.5, the work it takes figuring out everything I need, getting it just right, taking that time to Prep the game. They made it to easy in 4E and it is boring for me to DM now.
OK but nothing in the way this was designed is particularly pointing this way. WotC fell over themselves trying to get more power and tools into the hands of the DMs.They created a system that makes DM prep far quicker and allowed the DM to focus on what he really wants - to force his players to play through his version of some high fantasy knock off of Lord of the Rings.
This is a big factor in why I like the game, more self indulgant story planning less hard work trying to create a 14th level NPC to fight my players, which if its a spell caster, takes a whole evening.
Sefan Hill seems to have similar issues.
If you had asked me prior to getting to higher level 3.5 I'd have probably thought the same thing. I am a high prep kind of guy willing to devote a lot of hours to prep time.
My problem really was one of mechanics versus story. I love prepping but 3.5 takes this to whole new levels. I find myself taking certain options because the very idea of statting up the 16th high level clan member is making me physically ill. In my version of Castle Maure I made 15 high level NPCs from scratch - different class or prestige class for each, originally the material called for 32 different guys but I just could not do it. I could not conceivably stat up another high level character - I just did not have it in me.
In the end I realized that I love my story, I love my homebrew and I even like including interesting monsters or NPCs but I want to focus on what I think is neat about most of these things instead of focusing on mechanical aspects of these things. Its not that mechanics for stuff is not good - I do like some mechanics but I found what was in place for 1st and 2nd to be more comfortable in that regards when compared to 3.5 and 4E is much closer to 1E and 2E in terms of DM prep then is 3.5. 4E is still, probably, more complex then the early editions but only a little more complex.
|
|
In the end I realized that I love my story, I love my homebrew and I even like including interesting monsters or NPCs but I want to focus on what I think is neat about most of these things instead of focusing on mechanical aspects of these things. Its not that mechanics for stuff is not good - I do like some mechanics but I found what was in place for 1st and 2nd to be more comfortable in that regards when compared to 3.5 and 4E is much closer to 1E and 2E in terms of DM prep then is 3.5. 4E is still, probably, more complex then the early editions but only a little more complex.
Well there you go.. I hated 1E and 2E, I did not start enjoying D&D until 3.0, and even then, I still perfer other RPGs *WoD*.
That Said, I do enjoy Playing 4E.
I think I am rarity, I love Playing 4E, hate DMing it, I Love the comlexity of DMing 3.5, the work it takes figuring out everything I need, getting it just right, taking that time to Prep the game. They made it to easy in 4E and it is boring for me to DM now.
There has been much talk about how DMing 4e is boring, but I have found the opposite. I love creating new monsters or monster variants for 4e - I find it creative and low on number crunching. I like that I can spend most of my prep time on story rather than stats. I feel able to "wing it" during the game as understanding a creature's stats that I pulled out of the MM for an impromptu encounter is easy. I like the flexibility of the rules and flavor, which allows me to take any given creature and make it truly unique. Lastly, I like seeing the results of a combat encounter that I personally put together.
I'll agree that some of the WotC adventures put out are a little boring and I wasn't that thrilled when I ran one. It seemed low on story and roleplaying. However, when running a 4e homebrew or even a converted Paizo module, I find DMing quite satifying.
Overall, I appreciate that most of my prep time can be centered on developing story, characters, and unique monsters rather than number crunching. I personally find 4e liberating as a DM.
|
|
Overall, I appreciate that most of my prep time can be centered on developing story, characters, and unique monsters rather than number crunching. I personally find 4e liberating as a DM.
I never found when DMing 3.5 I had problems developing the story also.
That said... To each his own :-).
I still Like 4E... Just like DMing 3.5 More.
Overall, I appreciate that most of my prep time can be centered on developing story, characters, and unique monsters rather than number crunching. I personally find 4e liberating as a DM.
I never found when DMing 3.5 I had problems developing the story also.
Certainly there is no reason to think 3.5 was some how story light. I, like Whimsy Chris and Scott Bett's have turned to some of the better stories of the 3.5 era for use in our 4E games.
The difference is simply in how long it takes to play with the mechanics. If one has, say 2 hours of prep time available per evening then 4E allows more of that limited prep time to focus on the back story of the Goddess of Pain and Torture and less time working out the ramifications of advancing the Otyugh to 30 HD.
None of this is to say your wrong in your preference but I do want to point out why old geezers like myself feel much more comfortable with 4E and part of that might be the fact that prep is a lot closer in style, in many ways, to the way things were back in 1E and 2E in terms of time spent and often even in terms of what the focus of prep time is on.
Its an interesting issue because I think mechanically there would be a fair number of differences between how a 1E and a 4E Keep on the Borderlands ran but philosophically the two would be put together in a very similar manner.
|
|
There has been much talk about how DMing 4e is boring, but I have found the opposite.
It would appear to be my kind of boring...
When I said in 3.5e I ignored rules, what I meant was I never "made" an NPC other than scribble down what s/he was and background etc (as I did in 1e). As to the mechanical "what can they do", that was on the fly according to mood/party/phase of the moon. I really could not be bothered creating NPC's as a player would create a PC. I worked under the idea that I never have to show the players what I have or did not have. The actual rules "of play" (+this, +that etc) were used in game to the fullest. I will admit that with feats this was not as easy to get a way with as 1e for sure, but you just sort of added a plus here or there to your NPC to balance things out. That is what I meant when I said that I DM'd 3.5e like I DM'd 1e - mostly on the fly.
The more I play 4e the more I take the time to read things like the DMG / Dragon and of course this forum they all add to my slow slide back to trying DM in 4e. A return the low prep / high story DM'ing style of 1e appeals. Play 1e you say? Easier said than done, 4e is new and available with players about (little light on DM's, but what's new). 1e is a fantastic game but it "looks" old and "feels" like it would if you cranked out your N64 to play Golden-Eye.
S.
|
|
working out the ramifications of advancing the Otyugh to 30 HD.
Here is a great example of rules I ignored... Who cares about the details from a mechanical point of view. Add X hp, give large damage dice and whatever else I thought the Otyugh needed to put up a fight against the players. I was aware of the monster avancement rules, just choose to completely ignore them.
Players play "by the rules", DM's shouldn't have too...
|
|
working out the ramifications of advancing the Otyugh to 30 HD.Here is a great example of rules I ignored... Who cares about the details from a mechanical point of view. Add X hp, give large damage dice and whatever else I thought the Otyugh needed to put up a fight against the players. I was aware of the monster avancement rules, just choose to completely ignore them.
Players play "by the rules", DM's shouldn't have too...
I did.. :-)... Infact I enjoyed it. I loved developing my NPCs mechanically and Fluff wise.
Edit: I had a point to this...
My Point being I never understood how people thought 3.5 was difficult to learn and had a steep learning curve. I never saw it that way, thought it was rather easy to learn, Not like you need to know Calculus to learn the game.
I don't find 3rd any more different then 4E in learing the game, except for the DMing side, which I think Is much easier in 4E, and actually for me that is not a good thing :-).
working out the ramifications of advancing the Otyugh to 30 HD.Here is a great example of rules I ignored... Who cares about the details from a mechanical point of view.
Those rules the players have to live with care.
For instance, if you give your Otyugh extra HP, that needs to reflect increased hit dice. If hit dice aren't increased, the monster is more vulnerable to many (spell) effects than it should be.
If you make the damage dice large, are you prepared to deal with the downward progression of those dice if the PCs manage to reduce its size?
There is a very good reason those rules for advancing monsters exist - they flesh the monster out so that it remains compatible with the rest of the system, and particularly the aspects of it which the PCs have control over (spells are the best examples of this). And that's fantastic, if you want a world that is as coherent as possible.
That said, if you got by fudging those rules a little, that's great.
Overall, I appreciate that most of my prep time can be centered on developing story, characters, and unique monsters rather than number crunching. I personally find 4e liberating as a DM.
I never found when DMing 3.5 I had problems developing the story also.
That said... To each his own :-).
I still Like 4E... Just like DMing 3.5 More.
I tried to make sure that in my post I wasn't comparing 4e with 3e, just what I've personally found to be my experience DMing 4e. If I were to compare the two, I would say that 4e is easier to fly off the cuff if need be, but 3e has better adventures all round. I liked 3e when it first came out, but find 4e fits my own personal needs a little better.
|
|
That said, if you got by fudging those rules a little, that's great.
Shall we say "fudging those rules a lot"... :)
The points you raise are all mechanics and usually not something I'm greatly concerned about. I use monsters as guidelines only, they differ greatly each time I use them. Compatibility is only vital in a Players vs the DM style of play or ONE rule for all style play - or of course where the DM needs advice on adjusting a creature so they don't "wipe" the party etc. I think it comes down to experience both as a DM and with the system. I would be inclined to use the 4e rules for monster advancement until I'm more comfortable with the balance of play before returning to the "do whatever the hell I like" style of DMing I'm more use too.
Keep in mind the rules I ignore/fudge are DM only things, the players need to feel that they have a consistent set of rules so they feel grounded. In fact I hate house rules, and we never use anything other than RAW. 4e like 1e where the rules for players (meaning characters) and rules for the DM (meaning monsters etc) differ would seem allow a certain amount of DM freedom to move - without getting lynched by the players for breaches of the "rules".
S.
That said, if you got by fudging those rules a little, that's great.Shall we say "fudging those rules a lot"... :)
The points you raise are all mechanics and usually not something I'm greatly concerned about. I use monsters as guidelines only, they differ greatly each time I use them. Compatibility is only vital in a Players vs the DM style of play or ONE rule for all style play - or of course where the DM needs advice on adjusting a creature so they don't "wipe" the party etc. I think it comes down to experience both as a DM and with the system. I would be inclined to use the 4e rules for monster advancement until I'm more comfortable with the balance of play before returning to the "do whatever the hell I like" style of DMing I'm more use too.
Keep in mind the rules I ignore/fudge are DM only things, the players need to feel that they have a consistent set of rules so they feel grounded. In fact I hate house rules, and we never use anything other than RAW. 4e like 1e where the rules for players (meaning characters) and rules for the DM (meaning monsters etc) differ would seem allow a certain amount of DM freedom to move - without getting lynched by the players for breaches of the "rules".
S.
I agree with all of this. Well said.
By the way, did you figure out where that attack penalty on your sheet was coming from?
thoughts on "On the fly" DMing, with stefan
Generally I've gotten to the point that I can half create an NPC and his stats in my head as I need them in combat. I will make notes on what he has or hasn't cast, or what items the PC's know about him having but I don't "stat him up" so to speak. This is mainly because I have a good knowledge of the rules, spell levels, spell progressions, and tables et al, and the all important DC = 10 + 1/2 HD + Modifier.
|
|
I tried to make sure that in my post I wasn't comparing 4e with 3e, just what I've personally found to be my experience DMing 4e. If I were to compare the two, I would say that 4e is easier to fly off the cuff if need be, but 3e has better adventures all round. I liked 3e when it first came out, but find 4e fits my own personal needs a little better.
Quality of Story really has nothing to do with Edition, it comes down to the Quality of the Author writing the Adventure. I think the Published 4E adventures are terrible, but some of the Dungeon ones are not that bad.
Sorry for bringing this more off topic, but a couple of things that would get me to GM 4e are better quality Published adventures, but even more then that, what would get me to GM 4E would be if they added Living Eberron to RPGA, then I would join the RPGA and GM Living Eberron.
|
|
Sorry for bringing this more off topic, but a couple of things that would get me to GM 4e are better quality Published adventures, but even more then that, what would get me to GM 4E would be if they added Living Eberron to RPGA, then I would join the RPGA and GM Living Eberron.
I think this isn't off-topic, such things are tied up with the overall success of 4e. Since WotC either by action or inaction forced Paizo to make the split they lost arguably the best D&D adventure writers currently producing. There are those who like the "canned" adventures, and WotC really needs to consider if they are going to produce the 4e adventures and if so up their game to match Paizo (if possbile) or look at 3rd parties the keep the adventures coming. I'm not saying all WotC adventures (including Dungeon) are bad, just they are of hit or miss quality. With Paizo if I buy an adventure I can pretty bank on the fact that it will be well thoughtout and fun.
S.
|
|
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.
That is quite an arrogant statement I think.
This statement is on equal footing with the most rabid anti 4th statements from som well known posters on these boards.
And it reminds me on a discussion I had years ago with some hardcore WoD gamers. Go figure...
And lastly, if 4th edition evolved gaming exprience is th holy grail of rpgaming, why are there still so many OD&D, A&D AD&D 2nd ed and 3rd/3.5 ed gamer around? Guess they haven't seen the light yet.
|
|
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.That is quite an arrogant statement I think.
This statement is on equal footing with the most rabid anti 4th statements from som well known posters on these boards.
We know Scott is a little one sided (ok very, very one sided) when it comes to his prefered D&D, so I suggest you read between the lines. I think that the point was whether you enjoy moving little "chess" pieces around a board (aka 4e) or saying "I'm standing in the corner firing my bow" then having the DM say you aren't where you thought you were (aka 1e) if you are having fun stick with it. It's an individual choice. If anyone should be annoyed by the current D&D's (meaning pfRPG also) it should be the people who are in the later class, as even 3.5e seems to gravitate towards badly moulded, awfully painted, cheaply produced miniatures in play (oops did I say that out loud?).
S.
|
|
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.
It's just a wordier way of saying "my playstyle's better than yours".
*shrug*
Nothing new under the sun.
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.That is quite an arrogant statement I think.
This statement is on equal footing with the most rabid anti 4th statements from som well known posters on these boards.
And it reminds me on a discussion I had years ago with some hardcore WoD gamers. Go figure...
And lastly, if 4th edition evolved gaming exprience is th holy grail of rpgaming, why are there still so many OD&D, A&D AD&D 2nd ed and 3rd/3.5 ed gamer around? Guess they haven't seen the light yet.
I wasn't talking about 4th Edition, but your desire to see it in nothing but that light is telling. I was talking about gaming culture in general, and how the entire gaming world has become more open, more actively engaged, and (I believe) less cynical.
And no, that wasn't arrogant. Unless you really want to have an argument over how a playstyle as a) static, and b) pointlessly destructive as whacking another player with a 2x4 can somehow compete with actual gameplay, I think my point stands.
So, really, cool it.
Some styles are more conducive than others to making sure that the other people playing have fun, too. Someone might enjoy a game where you take turns picking up the only game piece (a wooden plank) and hitting each other upside the head with it, but that doesn't mean it makes for a good game.It's just a wordier way of saying "my playstyle's better than yours".
*shrug*
Nothing new under the sun.
Apologies. It should have been clear to me that a playstyle where the other people don't enjoy themselves as much is just as good as a playstyle where everyone is having a good time.
Really, this is an asinine argument to be having. Some playstyles are just as good as others. Some playstyles, however, are not good. A playstyle which prevents the other people playing from enjoying themselves fails to meet a crucial criteria for calling that playstyle good.
|
|
I wasn't talking about 4th Edition, but your desire to see it in nothing but that light is telling.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you post. I thought that you meant 4th edition = evolved gaming culture.
And I think I also misunderstood what you meant with "gaming culture". I referred to gaming styles, which is obviously something different.And for the record: I enjoy both 3rd and 4th edition. I also play a lot of other rp games.
I was talking about gaming culture in general, and how the entire gaming world has become more open, more actively engaged, and (I believe) less cynical.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Gaming has lost most of its Nerdiness and has become more accepted and even kind of cool (because even Celebrities game).
I am sorry if I misunderstood you post. I thought that you meant 4th edition = evolved gaming culture.
Ah, that makes more sense then.
No, I didn't mean to imply that, though I do believe 4th Edition was made with a number of the traits of modern gaming culture in mind - the ability to pick up and play something, a lower threshold of system mastery, straightforward mechanics, ease of running a game, etc.
|
No, I didn't mean to imply that, though I do believe 4th Edition was made with a number of the traits of modern gaming culture in mind - the ability to pick up and play something, a lower threshold of system mastery, straightforward mechanics, ease of running a game, etc.
And as it seems it's because of those traits that people like Dragonmoon and me don't enjoy ourselves as much as we do with good old 3E. Which would meen that modern gaming culture is not as open as you'd like it to be.
By the way, 3E has the OGL. You cannot get much more open than that.
|
|
No, I didn't mean to imply that, though I do believe 4th Edition was made with a number of the traits of modern gaming culture in mind - the ability to pick up and play something, a lower threshold of system mastery, straightforward mechanics, ease of running a game, etc.And as it seems it's because of those traits that people like Dragonmoon and me don't enjoy ourselves as much as we do with good old 3E. Which would meen that modern gaming culture is not as open as you'd like it to be.
By the way, 3E has the OGL. You cannot get much more open than that.
I do Enjoy GMing 3E, though I have no problems playing 4E
One thing Scott, Though I know you don't mean it this way, but when you talk about the "Modern Gaming Culture" All that comes to mind, is that you are describing them as Lazy and Stupid.
3E is not a difficult System, and saying that the "Modern Gaming Culture" can't grasp it because it is to difficult, as some have said *Not sure if Scott ever said that* I believe is an Injustice to the Gaming culture as a whole, Gamers have a tendency to be above average when it comes to intelligence *Though below Average as a Whole when it comes to Social etiquette ;-)*
I know that is not what you are saying... but that is what comes to mind when you describe them.
No, I didn't mean to imply that, though I do believe 4th Edition was made with a number of the traits of modern gaming culture in mind - the ability to pick up and play something, a lower threshold of system mastery, straightforward mechanics, ease of running a game, etc.And as it seems it's because of those traits that people like Dragonmoon and me don't enjoy ourselves as much as we do with good old 3E. Which would meen that modern gaming culture is not as open as you'd like it to be.
That some people don't find 4th Edition as fun as other games doesn't mean I don't find modern gaming culture open enough.
By the way, 3E has the OGL. You cannot get much more open than that.
That's not the kind of "open" I'm talking about. I mean open in the sense that it is approachable and accessible by those previously unacquainted with gaming. This includes everything from the popularity of rhythm-based video games to MMOs making access to all gaming content easier to making D&D easier to get into.
No, I didn't mean to imply that, though I do believe 4th Edition was made with a number of the traits of modern gaming culture in mind - the ability to pick up and play something, a lower threshold of system mastery, straightforward mechanics, ease of running a game, etc.And as it seems it's because of those traits that people like Dragonmoon and me don't enjoy ourselves as much as we do with good old 3E. Which would meen that modern gaming culture is not as open as you'd like it to be.
By the way, 3E has the OGL. You cannot get much more open than that.
I do Enjoy GMing 3E, though I have no problems playing 4E
One thing Scott, Though I know you don't mean it this way, but when you talk about the "Modern Gaming Culture" All that comes to mind, is that you are describing them as Lazy and Stupid.
3E is not a difficult System, and saying that the "Modern Gaming Culture" can't grasp it because it is to difficult, as some have said *Not sure if Scott ever said that* I believe is an Injustice to the Gaming culture as a whole, Gamers have a tendency to be above average when it comes to intelligence *Though below Average as a Whole when it comes to Social etiquette ;-)*
I know that is not what you are saying... but that is what comes to mind when you describe them.
Where you see "lazy and stupid" I see people who believe they have better things to do with their time than engage in what they perceive as pointless, time-wasting activities.
It is very unfortunate that "lazy and stupid" is the approach you're most comfortable with taking towards how you perceive what I describe as the modern gaming culture.
Since you did decide to bring up 3rd Edition, I agree that most people are capable of understanding the system, given enough time getting acquainted with it. It is difficult - particularly some of the more obscure or complicated rules - but that doesn't mean it's indecipherable. It does mean that the barrier for entry is higher, though; becoming comfortable with the game itself demands the time necessary to understand it, even at the most basic level.
|
|
Scott made a couple general comments about gaming culture - a culture heavily influenced and affected by the OGL, and 3rd Edition, and countless other factors. A culture that includes Pathfinder as well as 4E, and that the vast majority of the comments that have been made on this topic could be applied to either game.
The thing is, Scott didn't. He could have easily said D&D but chose to say 4E, thereby excluding 3.5 and Pathfinder. And somehow I doubt he would extend what he said about 4E to those two systems. (just seeing that I'm right, given what he wrote in his last post).
And that's where I disagree. I'm with Dragnmoon in that I've no problems playing 4E but wouldn't want to run it. I do actually play 4E right now and while I've had my share on the edition war it had never much to do with the system itself.
This said, when I started playing 3E (after some years in which I hadn't had the opportunity to play at all) I didn't found it difficult to get into the system at all. We learned it on a step-by-step basis and never found it necessary to stop playing just to look a specific rule up. We simply played. (Just to make this point clear: I took my first look into the PHB after we had played for 3 or 4 sessions, until then, we had played by the basic information our DM gave us and we had had a really good time so far. Piece of cake actually.
Now maybe it's that I'm getting older but I have much more problems to memorize the effects of my character's powers in 4E than I ever had in 3E. I guess this is a combination of age, the similarities in the presentation of the powers and the presentation itself (I'm not saying it is bad, it's just that it concentrates to much on the technicalities for my taste and I seem to remember better if I've an actual text that I can read instead of those "Power-Stat-blocks".
Which leads to me constantly haveing to look up things in the PHB, which actually gives me the impression that at least for me, it's not as accessible than it's predecessor. Probably meaning by expansion that I'm no part of the modern gaming culture because I've not developed the skill set you need to be part of it. ( to expand on it, the same goes for film, music or computer games, just that there's more a matter of taste than a matter of comprehension)
Which is no problem for me as long as no one says that modern gaming culture is anyhow better than "my" gaming culture. So even if you've got the impression that I was in edition-war-mode when I answered, in fact, I wasn't. I probably failed to express things exactly as I wanted, though.
And please note, that I didn't say anything about the intelligence of modern gamers (or, specifically, about 4E gamers). Given what I said above you could as easily doubt my intelligence as I seem to be unable to get behind all those modern concepts. ^-^
You and WormysQueue have tried to turn this into a tired rehash of the edition debates, and I'm not sure why.
Because they have an axe to grind? When that 4E promo kobold video was released by WotC last year, it finally dawned on me that some people are actively looking to take offense. Thankfully, most have moved on.
|
Which leads to me constantly haveing to look up things in the PHB...
That's interesting to me. Since I've started playing 4e, I have yet to need to reference the PHB at the game table, since everything I need to know is on my character sheet and/or power cards (I have handwritten ones - I find they make reference very easy), or in the case of PbPs, right in my profile page. I only reference the books when creating a character or gaining a level.
It may be a comfort level thing, though, or may depend on the characters we are playing. Since I tend to gravitate towards spellcasters, in 3.5 I am constantly flipping through a pile of books for spell descriptions.
I just wanted to throw in my own experience there, since I was surprised to see some people finding the opposite to be true.
Bugley, would you please read my last post before making any conclusions about my motivation?
The gist of your post seems to get "I find 3E easier to run than I do 4E." That's fine, but I don't see how it excuses equating "not wanting to waste time" with "lazy and stupid." Comments like that are borne of anger and frustration, not rational expressions of preference; hence what I said about having an axe to grind. Going back, I realize that you aren't the one to have said that, so my comment should have been directed soley toward Dragnmoon.