|
I do have to say, Stefan, that I think you are jumping to a false conclusion in your complaint, though - the fact that a good deal of character options exists is not evidence they came up with the crunch first and then invented fluff for it. I would, in fact, argue the opposite is true
You are probably right, but I don't want to have to search the "designers notes" or wait for the DDI article to "feel" the content of the books we have. If they have this concept documentation then they should flesh it out and include it. The discriptions of some of the powers are boardline embrassing. If it wasn't for the DMG2 I would have written off the idea I would ever DM 4e completely.
Why can't they fill books with Fluff (and pics) with supporting Crunch and then on the DDI have the 1,300 variations on whether you fighter holds a sword in one hand, two hands, by their feet or their teeth?
4e reads in the most like a technical manual. Great if you want to programme your blender but dull if you want to have gems spark off your imagination.
It was said on another thread that complex game design is still an emmerging "science", let's hope on their quest for the "perfect system" they don't kill the beauty that is the "art" of roleplaying.
S.
I hate the new website layout. And the fact that 3E products have been removed from the product catalogue.
Are the older edition downloads and 3E free adventures gone as well?
I hate the new website layout. And the fact that 3E products have been removed from the product catalogue.
Are the older edition downloads and 3E free adventures gone as well?
It was buried down the bottom of the General Archives page, but there is a link to the 3rd Edition Archive on their website. I hope this helps.
Back on topic, I'd prefer for there to be more fluff than crunch in these Race books, but I guess it may depend on the intended audience. If these are primarily intended for players, then crunch will probably predominate as the fluff probably won't fit most campaigns.
|
Can we frame this thread as proof of "You can't please everybody?"
Half the anti-4e posts out there are about how limiting the game is, and how there aren't enough options to express all the different character concepts people want. Now some people think there are too many options.
Well, I think it's both true: There are too many options that are too limited.
The 4e core fighter is either a twohander or a sword&board warrior. Then, there's dozens of powers for those two concepts.
Now, if you want to play a two-weapon fighter or maybe a ranged attacker, you cannot use the class as it is now: You might need a new class, and you definitely need more powers.
3e, and especially Pathfinder, on the other hand, try to have flexible classes. The fighter can use a zweihänder, or a weapon and a shield, or two weapons, or a ranged weapon, or...
Know what I mean?
I know what you mean, as it was my initial reaction to 4e (and the fighter in particular). But it was also based on lack of knowledge and more in-depth experience of playing 4e has effectively disproved it.
As you say, in the PHB (though Martial Power gives you more options, especially in the 2H fighter sphere) you are sword-and-board or 2H-weapon. But then again, if you want to be great at two-weapon fighting or archery, you should play a ranger. Because the way the classes work with the series of power choices, and the reduction in the prominence of feats, everything you want is probably in there in the ranger class. Is 3e's flexibility (you be be a 2H ranger or a 2H fighter) also redundancy? Depends on your point of view. Arguably the archer figher is better at archery that the guy (the ranger) who is supposed to be good at it - is that really the goal of design? No, you can't be a (good) 2H figher or archer fighter using the basic rules in the PHB but absolutely nothing stops you creating a 2H weapon user or an archer - he's a ranger in 4e. So the archetype exists, just not the (exactly) same way of creating him. I don't see that as a flaw.
EDIT: meh, what they said above.
|
|
I do have to say, Stefan, that I think you are jumping to a false conclusion in your complaint, though - the fact that a good deal of character options exists is not evidence they came up with the crunch first and then invented fluff for it. I would, in fact, argue the opposite is trueYou are probably right, but I don't want to have to search the "designers notes" or wait for the DDI article to "feel" the content of the books we have. If they have this concept documentation then they should flesh it out and include it. The discriptions of some of the powers are boardline embrassing. If it wasn't for the DMG2 I would have written off the idea I would ever DM 4e completely.
Why can't they fill books with Fluff (and pics) with supporting Crunch and then on the DDI have the 1,300 variations on whether you fighter holds a sword in one hand, two hands, by their feet or their teeth?
4e reads in the most like a technical manual. Great if you want to programme your blender but dull if you want to have gems spark off your imagination.
It was said on another thread that complex game design is still an emmerging "science", let's hope on their quest for the "perfect system" they don't kill the beauty that is the "art" of roleplaying.
S.
<sigh>
Since when did any of the mechanics impact on roleplaying? This is so old. And 4e supports roleplaying much more than previous editions in terms of text devoted to it (as you point out). The books are full of art. And fluff is often filler (like the three page descriptions of PrCs in the 3e splatbooks, with half a page of actual mechanics) that may (and often may not be) useful.
The place for fluff is not in rules books, but in adventures and campaign settings. I agree they have a mixed record with these, but complaining about power descriptions and extrapolating to see the rot in 4e seems a bit picky.
I didn't go through everything but I searched the compendium and got 1386 feats.
306 paragon paths, and 60 epic destinies.
I didn't search monsters, but there are tons. However, most of those monsters are just leveled up or down versions of one monster, and the compendium includes every custom stat block from every dungeon mag and dragon published since 4E came out. That doesn't equate to 1000s of new monsters. It just equates to many variations of different creatures. For instance, if you search goblin you will come up with 129 entries, which is just a range of goblins at different levels and different roles. For me as a dm this is very useful, and I find the compendium makes it really easy to search for the stat blocks I want, and then I just copy them into a word document and I'm ready to go. I love the compendium, because even if you do end with a bloat of options everything is easy to find. I think the compendium is one of the most useful tools they have created for the game. Furthermore, you don't even have to buy any of the books to have access to all this crunch.
I just looked at the upcoming releases. They appear to be going to do "race" books. Welcome back to the moronic days of 2e/3e splat book blot. Great chance for WotC to inject some sensibility into D&D after 3.x or so I thought 4e would be. I thought that the multi-PHB/DMG/MM's were quite a good idea to keep things in check - one per year, simple. Then of course the "powers" books were released, but grouped so things still weren't too overloading - but heading that way. But idea of races books just annoys 3 kinds of excretment out of me. UUURRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Yeh, yeh I know - they need to make money, yada, yada... Doesn't make it any less annoying however.
In 1e you needed a bag to carry your books, in 2e you needed a compact car, in 3e you needed a station wagon, and now in 4e it looks like a semi would be a good investment.
S.
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!
With the lineup of books I see coming, I can see that number doubling the 2nd year. Not including all the crazy, funky mechanics like Hybrid Characters and that new skill stuff coming in PHB3 and then Martial Power 2's Ritual-like martial abilities. Let's not forget Dragon Magazine adds a ton of crap. That's ridiculous. Is that what D&D will boil down to in about 5 years? Hundreds of thousands of...stuff?
2e was...
|
|
<sigh>
Since when did any of the mechanics impact on roleplaying? This is so old. And 4e supports roleplaying much more than previous editions in terms of text devoted to it (as you point out). The books are full of art. And fluff is often filler (like the three page descriptions of PrCs in the 3e splatbooks, with half a page of actual mechanics) that may (and often may not be) useful.
The place for fluff is not in rules books, but in adventures and campaign settings. I agree they have a mixed record with these, but complaining about power descriptions and extrapolating to see the rot in 4e seems a bit picky.
You missed some of the earlier posts I would guess as your comments are a little out of context.
In context the comment was regarding the books alone not the use of the books.
Close your eyes, I'll describe a situation. You then tell me what you are doing. See roleplaying is system independent & what's more does even require a dice!
The descriptions of say powers are a sign of the effort that has gone into the area of Fluff for sure, and you admit, of mixed quality. This isn't 4e alone, this has been a continuing trend - so please hop down from the barded horse young crusader. You yourself call Fluff filler, I can only agree to disagree. A single sentence can spark in me a campaign - perhaps I'm abnormal?
Given your stance on Fluff would you prefer the 4e books to cut all Fluff and really become "game manuals"?
4e supports roleplaying neither more or less than ANY other roleplaying game (not just D&D). Can you qualify this statement you made about 4e being better at "roleplaying" than previous editions please.
Cheers,
S.
But here's the kicker. You argue that the core fighter is not flexible. So they create a new stat book in which fighters can now use bows. So, are we happy that the variety now exists, or are we unhappy that there is too much variety? Some people want to be unhappy both by lack of variety and by too much of it. You can't have both.
I can! Look at the PF fighter: He can be both an archer and a melee fighter. He can use a big weapon, or a small one - all by itself, with another small weapon, or with a shield. All without the need for extra books.
It's not really being unhappy by both lack of variety and by too much of it. It's more like being unhappy by lack of variety with the core rules and a rules glut for something that the game used to be able to do with a lot less space used up.
I don't get why anyone needs to have "an archery fighter". "Archery fighter" is not a character concept. "Archer" is, and 4e has a few different ways to make a good one of those.
Let me explain it: Sometimes, people want to play a fighter who uses a bow. A guy who is good at bows, and not much else. Not a scouty type or a woodrunner or something like it. Just someone trained in archery.
PF has the fighter class for that. The same class that is good for characters that are great at fighting with other kinds of weapons.
The point is that Pathfinder can do this without an extra book or an extra class or an extra number of pages with powers and paths and stuff.
I hear that a two-weapon fighter or a ranged fighter is called a Ranger.
Nah. Rangers are scouty woodland types. Fighters just fight. Really well.
Let me explain it: Sometimes, people want to play a fighter who uses a bow. A guy who is good at bows, and not much else. Not a scouty type or a woodrunner or something like it. Just someone trained in archery.
PF has the fighter class for that. The same class that is good for characters that are great at fighting with other kinds of weapons.
The point is that Pathfinder can do this without an extra book or an extra class or an extra number of pages with powers and paths and stuff.
You mean I don't need to go and buy a book to tell me how to build an archer? W..W..What, use my imagination!
Not really. The 4E fighter can use all of those options, as well.
I was under the impression that the two paths a fighter is to take are either big-weapon fighter or sword'n'board fighter. That's what I saw when I skimmed through the 4e book.
Or are we talking about extra books.
He can in fact be a master at everything except the bow - and even then, he can be perfectly skilled with the bow, he just doesn't get to use his powers with it.
Wait, isn't that what 4e is all about? Everything is about powers. All you ever use is powers. That's how you differentiate you from a commoner with a pointy stick.
So, basically, he's limited to the same options as the default archery build in 3rd Edition - stand there and shoot the guy.
Big difference.
4e is about those powers. Everyone is the same, or nearly so, except for those powers. Without powers, the fighter is no better than a wizard.
Pathfinder (and, to some extend, 3e), classes and their strengths are distinguished by different things, like base attack bonus and feats. The fighter, especially, gets a good BAB (unlike wizards or rogues) and bonus feats (which can be any combat feats, including feats that make you a better archer), and some extra combat related class features that work on any weapon.
As others mentioned, though, "Archer Fighter" isn't a concept. "Archer" is
That's not right. Archer fighter is a concept: It's a warrior type with superior training with the bow, but not much in the way of other abilities.
Other concepts are archer ranger (a warrior and scout trained with a bow, specialising in fighting on certain terrains against certain enemies) arcane archer (actually, that's a "meta-concept", if you will: you can have that one as a fighter or ranger or several other things, but the difference between the run-of-the-mill specimens is using magic to fuse it with martial training), rogue archer (sniper type, tries to ambush foes and the like), paladin archer (holy warrior who happens to like bows, maybe follower of an archery- inclined deity, like Erastil.) and so on.
I like how in Pathfinder, most classes aren't married to specific weapon choices.
It's not really being unhappy by both lack of variety and by too much of it. It's more like being unhappy by lack of variety with the core rules and a rules glut for something that the game used to be able to do with a lot less space used up.
But that's a different argument than the one previously being made. The previous argument was that there are now too many options. Some of this is being said by the same people who felt there were too few.
I agree with you that the 4e PHB1 does not allow the same amount of variety as 3e PHB1 or PF. One has to decide for themselves whether they want to make the investment in 4e splat books to gain the same amount of options. For me, it's worth it.
On the other side of the conversation, I understand that you're saying that a Ranger in theory is a scout or woodland type. However, one can build a Ranger (or a Rogue for that matter) without the scouting or woodland features by choosing certain skills instead of others or feats instead of others. It can function like a fighter in a lot of ways, even if the technical term is "Ranger." A rose by another name smells just as sweet. One could also be a Fighter and multiclass into a Ranger for those cool ranged weapon powers. In other words, there are many ways to get a "fighter" flavored character with bow wielding abilities. One just has to be a little creative.
But then again, if you want to be great at two-weapon fighting or archery, you should play a ranger.
I don't like the game to make such decisions for me. And I think many other people share that dislike.
I'm still in love with 3e's "choices and consequences" approach, which I think Pathfinder cleaves closer to than 3e did. I don't like restrictions.
|
I agree! I don't want the game making my character decisions for me!
I want to create an unarmored fighter who hangs in the back of combat, carries a staff, and casts powerful spells from a spellbook. I call it a "mage fighter". Don't tell me to just make a wizard and call it a fighter - the fighter class should let me do that!!! I tried to do it with multiclassing, but it set my spellcasting behind because of my levels of fighter. Talk about railroady...
I want a character class called "celestial healer" with a power called "smurf."
But then again, if you want to be great at two-weapon fighting or archery, you should play a ranger.I don't like the game to make such decisions for me. And I think many other people share that dislike.
I'm still in love with 3e's "choices and consequences" approach, which I think Pathfinder cleaves closer to than 3e did. I don't like restrictions.
Well, the problem is you're expecting 4e's class definitions to be the same as 3.5's, which they aren't. In 3.5, a fighter was defined as "someone who's very skilled at fighting, be it with bows, swords, etc.", the ranger was "an expert woodsman who was skilled with either two weapons or bows", rogues were "skill monkeys who were skilled at stabbing people in vulnerable spots", etc. In 4e, fighters are "someone who gets right up to something and attacks them if they don't attack him", rangers are "someone who is lightly armored but is can deal large amounts of damage with either two weapons or a bow", rogues are "people who aren't that good in a fair fight but can easily take advantage of any opportunity to put a small blade into a vulnerable spot", etc. We're all just operating underr different assumptions.
Thought this thread needed some levity
I didn't know levity means condescension.
Well, the problem is you're expecting 4e's class definitions to be the same as 3.5's, which they aren't.
That's probably it. I expect the game I've known for so long. A new edition maybe, but still the same game.
4e doesn't feel like that to me, so it can never be for me while carrying the name D&D.
Before everyone starts in with the snark and condescension and "you should go away, only those who agree with us are allowed on these boards" and down-right insults I expect around here (because that's what I got in the past around here - some of it in this very thread):
I know I said it before. Just like many other people say many other things over and over again.
I say it because it's still true. And because it is directly relevant to the discussion at hand.
And before you try to pull the "off topic" card:
I think that for many, the thinks they dislike about 4e boil down to the same thing: It's not how they know and want the game to be. The game starts with less variety than it used to, and extra variety is added in big piles of extra rules, where before, the game could do the same with much less.
EDIT: This is why you don't write posts in two different tabs at the same time.
Anyway, as I meant to say on this thread, you're right, they are different games. If it was the same as 3.5, people would be here complaining about how they're too similar. (You know, like what happened with Pathfinder when it was announced.)
The reason why people end up belittling the problem in these threads is because we think, maybe if we're lucky, we get people to laugh hard enough this won't end up devolving into a flame war of some sort. Of course, it always does.
Anyway, if they tried to make the fighter in 4e do everything a fighter in 3.5 could do, then the class would of been too spread out, with too much overlap with the Ranger. The editions just had completely different approaches to designing/balancing the classes.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't like the game to make such decisions for me. And I think many other people share that dislike.I'm still in love with 3e's "choices and consequences" approach, which I think Pathfinder cleaves closer to than 3e did. I don't like restrictions.
4e has that too, it's just in different places. They put a lot more of those mechanics in the classes and a lot less in the feats. It's a different way of using classes, and is definitely one of the bigger departures from prior editions. Because they're using classes that way, it means that the new edition requires you to use additional classes outside the PHB1 to build certain character types (similar to, but not quite to the same extent as, 3.5 required you to use additional feats/prestige classes to build certain character types).
I would agree that this means the phb2 is much more of a "core" book than it might've been under 3.5 and I realize that some think that's a bad thing. I can't really debate personal preferences, all I can do is explain how the system works, which includes the role of the various books after the phb1 (and yes, they are needed to a far greater extent than the extra books were in prior editions). Whether or not you like it is entirely up to you. It's definitely being done with an eye towards making those books more essential, and thus increasing revenue for WotC, but it's also about creating a different set of tools than what was used in 3.5 and, I suspect, acknowledging that a lot of players buy these non-"core" books and like having them be a part of the "core" rules.
I think that for many, the thinks they dislike about 4e boil down to the same thing: It's not how they know and want the game to be. The game starts with less variety than it used to, and extra variety is added in big piles of extra rules, where before, the game could do the same with much less.
It really depends on how you define variety. 4e has a much greater variety of actions a character can take because of the powers system as compared with 3e. The amount of "variety" is not an apples to apples comparison, and a lot of the reason you encounter such hostility is because you attempt to frame it as such. The differences (and similarities) between the two editions require more sophisticated analysis than different=bad.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree! I don't want the game making my character decisions for me!
I want to create an unarmored fighter who hangs in the back of combat, carries a staff, and casts powerful spells from a spellbook. I call it a "mage fighter". Don't tell me to just make a wizard and call it a fighter - the fighter class should let me do that!!! I tried to do it with multiclassing, but it set my spellcasting behind because of my levels of fighter. Talk about railroady...
Well said.
Back when we first started playing 3e and were absorbing the magnitude of options as compared with 2e, we used to always say "sure, you can drive a car with your feet, but that doesn't make it a good idea."
|
|
I do need to raise some objections to your portrayal of this as a 'trend', along with your earlier comments that "4e reads in the most like a technical manual" and similar. While I do appreciate this is in the eye of the beholder, I have found that a lot of the recent books have had a significant amount of fluff, and if anything, would seem to indicate the trend is towards more emphasis on expanding the amount of fluff in their books.
What balance they should end up at is of course going to be subject to individual opinions, but they have been making a clear effort to address the 'technical manual' concerns. Have you read any of these recent books that seem to be included in your condemnation of their products?
Oh I am not disgreeing about DMG2, AV2 etc, Primal Powers bucks the "new" trend you speak of. Anymore crunchy the thing what shatter in your hands! But this is a consequence of the Powers system. They take up ridiculous (and I really mean ridiculous) amounts of space in a publication. The very mechanics and their presentation have become Fluffs worst enemy just by this fact alone. They can't really justify 300 page books to balance out the Crunch and Fluff, and we wouldn't buy them. I really have no good answer for this problem. If you only include 1 or 2 powers per class and the rest on DDI people will explode and I can't see other than rewriting parts of the 4e system how you can shorten them. Well perhaps if you standardise them (many are quite similiar) and have a list at the back of the book and from that list certain types (Striker, Defender etc) can choose a certain number of powers according to level?
Obviously WotC had concerns about the "technical manual" issue otherwise it would hardly need addressed would it.
4e seems crunch heavy because of it's system/format - pick up any of the books with PC classes in it and if you pick a random page you are more likely to hit a meaningless page of powers than not. I guess it's not a flaw it is a feature.
May I point out this isn't about 3e vs 4e it's about presentation.
S.
The very mechanics and their presentation have become Fluffs worst enemy just by this fact alone. They can't really justify 300 page books to balance out the Crunch and Fluff, and we wouldn't buy them.
Mileage may vary, but I kind of like the short and sweet fluff-texts for any given power. It allows me to give the power my own personalized flavor. I do agree that some powers are rather strange and the fluffy explanations almost cartoonish at times. It does sometimes make powers less than exciting to read about. But in actual play, I feel more creative than ever because I can make up my own flavorful explanation on how a power took place.
|
|
The very mechanics and their presentation have become Fluffs worst enemy just by this fact alone. They can't really justify 300 page books to balance out the Crunch and Fluff, and we wouldn't buy them.Mileage may vary, but I kind of like the short and sweet fluff-texts for any given power. It allows me to give the power my own personalized flavor. I do agree that some powers are rather strange and the fluffy explanations almost cartoonish at times. It does sometimes make powers less than exciting to read about. But in actual play, I feel more creative than ever because I can make up my own flavorful explanation on how a power took place.
I see what you mean and in regards to the "funny" descriptions of the powers it wouldn't be the end of the World to save some space and drop them together. I am now saying less Crunch, have I gone mad?! No, what I'm saying is the Fluff accompanying the Powers does really a lot of the time add to the Crunch or put it in context. As you said, making up your own Fluff for a Power is sometimes better.
Really this now has me thinking, is there a better way to present a PC class in 4e other than the hugely space wasting Powers list?
S.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I see what you mean and in regards to the "funny" descriptions of the powers it wouldn't be the end of the World to save some space and drop them together. I am now saying less Crunch, have I gone mad?! No, what I'm saying is the Fluff accompanying the Powers does really a lot of the time add to the Crunch or put it in context. As you said, making up your own Fluff for a Power is sometimes better.Really this now has me thinking, is there a better way to present a PC class in 4e other than the hugely space wasting Powers list?
S.
I generally agree with your sentiments regarding the powers. The format of the powers is useful in play, but the actual descriptions are so dry and sparse that they don't really convey what they do or how they do it. Sometimes that little line of italicized flavor text helps, but sometimes it's just dumb (e.g., everyone's favorite whipping boy power of bad flavor, the rogue power that lets you blind everyone with thrown daggers). I feel like they traded too much flavor for functionality in the powers.
Plus, I've never been happy about the lack of a unified theme for the powers. I particularly hate the powers that are extremely similar, and the only difference is one is a lower level daily and one is a higher level encounter. Their names should be similar enough to tie the two together, but they're often not. I really wish they'd made a greater effort to tie names to effects more consistently and have a more unified theme for a particular set of class (or build) powers.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I find that the little flavor texts are helpful when I'm having trouble wrapping my head around a power. They provide one possible description of what the power represents. But I also feel perfectly comfortable describing the power in some other way if I want to.
Some of them do work very well with just their names - I particularly like the Warlord ability "Rub Some Dirt in It" and the Rogue ability "Nasty Backswing".
|
|
As much as I like the current system, I think an ideal system would be more closely in line with Sebastian's suggestions.
I like Sebastian's suggestion also. Still we have what we have, which from a "playing the game" point of view is fine and works very well. Just from an "engaged by the game" point of view WotC have missed the mark with the first releases (and they admit this)- later publications have more "feel" to them for sure.
EDIT: After looking at the entire range of 1st-5th level Dailies in DDI. I think I now know what is bugging me. All of the powers are options yes (hey I like options too), but ONLY options for things that happen on the little battle mat. Where are the powers unique to each class/race that aren't related to killing something or staying alive long enough to kill something? I guess you can call them Rituals - but any class/race can have those - I'm talking unique out of combat abilities.
Is this really what people wanted from their RPG?
S.
All of the powers are options yes (hey I like options too), but ONLY options for things that happen on the little battle mat. Where are the powers unique to each class/race that aren't related to killing something or staying alive long enough to kill something? I guess you can call them Rituals - but any class/race can have those - I'm talking unique out of combat abilities.
Is this really what people wanted from their RPG?
I completely understand what you are saying; that was my initial problem with 4e - it seems so combat oriented. But after a year of playing, I've come to really like the system. I would say skills have more to do with the out of combat play, and a few select feats. I have found that having less crunch in my roleplaying actually helps my roleplaying. There are fewer factors I feel I have to take into consideration.
I've also noticed I've been able to use my powers outside of combat. For instance, I might use an at-will to intimidate or something like that.
I don't fault someone for not liking 4e. I understand their perspective. I get more up in arms when people are expressing their challenge with the system from a place of ignorance.
Thought this thread needed some levityI didn't know levity means condescension.
When having your error explained to you counts as condescension, we're really in trouble.
|
|
I don't fault someone for not liking 4e. I understand their perspective. I get more up in arms when people are expressing their challenge with the system from a place of ignorance.
My concerns I express by in large are things that have occured to me "while actually playing the game" (9th level Avenger perhaps this weekend?). I see you appreciate that fact, so thanks for not busting my chops when I give my opinion (which is all it is).
But, that's why I guess I have noticed that while the books really make finding the Crunch easy in the game I have little to no interest to read them outside of making or leveling a character. That's what I'm missing I guess. Perhaps in the last 20 years or so some roleplaying companies have produced wonderful pieces of literature in the form of a roleplaying book. As a collector of RPG's perhaps I'm more sensitive to such things?
PS: Oh and to those you think 4e characters can't die, I have an ex-Shifter 5th level Druid whose grave needs flowers... :)
Good gaming guys, whatever your poison,
S.
But, that's why I guess I have noticed that while the books really make finding the Crunch easy in the game I have little to no interest to read them outside of making or leveling a character. That's what I'm missing I guess.
I definitely agree with you when it comes to adventures. I used to love reading 3e adventures (still do which it comes to Paizo). 4e adventures, while handy at the gaming table, are quite boring to read.
|
|
<sigh>
Since when did any of the mechanics impact on roleplaying? This is so old. And 4e supports roleplaying much more than previous editions in terms of text devoted to it (as you point out). The books are full of art. And fluff is often filler (like the three page descriptions of PrCs in the 3e splatbooks, with half a page of actual mechanics) that may (and often may not be) useful.
The place for fluff is not in rules books, but in adventures and campaign settings. I agree they have a mixed record with these, but complaining about power descriptions and extrapolating to see the rot in 4e seems a bit picky.
You missed some of the earlier posts I would guess as your comments are a little out of context.
In context the comment was regarding the books alone not the use of the books.
Close your eyes, I'll describe a situation. You then tell me what you are doing. See roleplaying is system independent & what's more does even require a dice!
The descriptions of say powers are a sign of the effort that has gone into the area of Fluff for sure, and you admit, of mixed quality. This isn't 4e alone, this has been a continuing trend - so please hop down from the barded horse young crusader. You yourself call Fluff filler, I can only agree to disagree. A single sentence can spark in me a campaign - perhaps I'm abnormal?
Given your stance on Fluff would you prefer the 4e books to cut all Fluff and really become "game manuals"?
4e supports roleplaying neither more or less than ANY other roleplaying game (not just D&D). Can you qualify this statement you made about 4e being better at "roleplaying" than previous editions please.
Cheers, S.
Yeah, I was possibly a bit more aggressive than I intended - sorry for that. But the basic thrust of my argument stays the same. You are right that a single sentence can set the thought trains rolling, but it isn't the case that every sentence will do that - and some sentences are better than others.
Also, as I said before, fluff can be used to pad out books, and later 3.5 splat books did that a lot. Compare the Complete Warrior (where PrC descriptions were to the point) and the Complete Everything Else (where they added loads of fluff to the PrC descritions). You could say (and they would) that they were trying to add inspiration for the player, blah blah blah. And possibly they did, a bit, but it's funny how all that guff is much easier to write that a good, balanced PrC (which they also weren't that good at all the time). I don't see all fluff as equal.
And in any case, that inspiring sentence doesn't have to be in a D&D book. If the only thing you ever read, and get inspiration from, is a D&D book, then you are already in trouble. And some D&D books are much more heavily slanted to inspiring sentences (like Campaign Settings) than others (the PHB, which is the absolute must-have, crunch heavy book every player must have to create his character and play the game). The comment about the powers? I'm really not bothered (though I accept that in some cases it isn't great). Do my players say "I conjure a tiny bead a glowing fire and hurl it at the oncoming horde" in 3e, or do they say "I fireball the f%~+ers"? I know what mine say, and I bet yours say the same too.
Some rules are heavily geared towards individual settings (Runequest and Glorantha spring to mind) and in those cases it is appropriate to have lots of fluff in the basic rules. D&D is basically setting indifferent, and has been adapted to various settings. It is a tool kit, and frankly, it always was. I'm trying to think where all this lovely fluff was in previous editions and I just can't.
Well, the problem is you're expecting 4e's class definitions to be the same as 3.5's, which they aren't.That's probably it. I expect the game I've known for so long. A new edition maybe, but still the same game.
4e doesn't feel like that to me, so it can never be for me while carrying the name D&D.
Thing is 4E has in fact returned to the roots with its archtype model for classes. 3.5 strayed in this department from the classic game in that it created a meta-class 'fighting man' with which you built archtypes out of feats. Not necessarily a bad way to design a game but, in 3.5, it resulted in there being no design space left for any other kinds of martial warriors. Rangers were overshadowed by fighters in the archery department and the two weapon fighting department because, ultimately, being able to feed more feats into your class design trumped having class powers that did the same. Fundamentally this then became true of nearly every book that was put out - Samurai was just a two weapon fighter that had its feats chosen for it. Same deal with other classes like scout. In fact the only reason Monk was able to (badly) retain its design space was because there were no feats for easily increasing combat damage with bare handed attacks - if one added such feats then the fighter would have been a better monk then the monk because he had more feats.
4E returns to the archetype model were a Samuria is a different class then fighter and ranger excels at something that fighters don't excel at.
One of the problems with 3.5 is that it can't seem to decide what it is. Either we should have two classes, we'll call them Magic-User and Warrior and from here we build our archtypes using some kind of an option system, or we should utilize an archtype model where each class is differentiated and good at whatever its fluff would make it good at. 3.5 tried to do both and the results became some kind of psuedo- archtype model exemplified in concepts like 'Tripping Machine'. The problem here is Tripping Machine is not really any kind of archtype...its a kind of 'Toon - Samurai is an archtype.
Hence if one wants to create a build your own archtype model that sounds like a great idea of a game - but if you go down this path then one should go whole hog by allowing me to really build my own class from a blank slate. On the other hand if one is going to use an archtype model then that's cool too - but the archtypes really need to exist independent of each other and they should, preferably, come in styles that I might recognize from the broader fantasy media.
I don't fault someone for not liking 4e. I understand their perspective. I get more up in arms when people are expressing their challenge with the system from a place of ignorance.My concerns I express by in large are things that have occured to me "while actually playing the game" (9th level Avenger perhaps this weekend?). I see you appreciate that fact, so thanks for not busting my chops when I give my opinion (which is all it is).
But, that's why I guess I have noticed that while the books really make finding the Crunch easy in the game I have little to no interest to read them outside of making or leveling a character. That's what I'm missing I guess. Perhaps in the last 20 years or so some roleplaying companies have produced wonderful pieces of literature in the form of a roleplaying book. As a collector of RPG's perhaps I'm more sensitive to such things?
In the end we end up with three different kinds of books and by and large I'm OK with that. In one case we have the complete book of extra options. No fun to read but very useful for character creation. I'm not at all sure I want them to cut the crunch in that book in order to accommodate extra fluff because I don't think a generic compendium of extra options is likely to make good fluff reading. By its nature its meant to offer character options without specifically straight jacketing those ideas into specific game worlds.
Next we have the book that does mix fluff and crunch. This works best if you actually have some very specific mytho's your trying to convey. In this case the crunch has just become much more interesting to read while curled up on the couch because its specifically trying to convey a very specific type of flavor. Darksun will probably do this and I'll love it because I love Darksun and will enjoy evaluating how the crunch puts the campaigns fluff on display. The Race books might well do this as well and I'll be a whole less happy - because it means trying to pin down what a halfling is and that might not coincide with what my homebrew thinks a halfling is.
Finally we get to the fluff heavy books which really ought to be what one grabs when they want to curl up on the couch and read an RPG book. DMG2 exemplifies this and I loved the 3.5 Hordes of the Abyss was great in this regards as well.
Fundamentally my problem with adding a lot of fluff to many of the books is that the fluff is either a tack on (meaning its usually not really all that great and I'd rather just have more options) or its driving mechanics...which a whole heck of the time I don't want it to do because the guys over at WoTC have made an error and accidentally forgot to utilize my homebrew as the basis for everything they write. If crunch is just a generic option in the game then stay off my toes.
EDIT: Dang - basically ninja'd by Aubrey.
|
|
But, that's why I guess I have noticed that while the books really make finding the Crunch easy in the game I have little to no interest to read them outside of making or leveling a character. That's what I'm missing I guess.
I definitely agree with you when it comes to adventures. I used to love reading 3e adventures (still do which it comes to Paizo). 4e adventures, while handy at the gaming table, are quite boring to read.
I will agree that a lot of the time, the books are not a fun read. That is a problem. But again, I don't really read rulebooks for fun, I read adventures and campaign settings. WotC campaign settings books are alright (and getting better - even if you didn't mind them blowing up Faerun, the FR book wasn't as good as Eberron, at least in my view) and I even found Prince of Undeath vaguely readable, unlike some earlier adventures.
The reason why people end up belittling the problem in these threads is because we think, maybe if we're lucky, we get people to laugh hard enough this won't end up devolving into a flame war of some sort. Of course, it always does.
That's like dousing flames with oil.
That's like dousing flames with oil.
The reason why people end up belittling the problem in these threads is because we think, maybe if we're lucky, we get people to laugh hard enough this won't end up devolving into a flame war of some sort. Of course, it always does.
Hey, I never said it was effective.
You must have been really horrified when 3rd edition came out.
Didn't. Hated 2e.
Perhaps you'd like to share your pain with people who care at a site like Dragonsfoot
Nah. I'll stay right here. This is my site. Paizo.com, for everything Paizo, especially Pathfinder.
But maybe you took the wrong turn somewhere? This isn't gleemax you know.