I see this said by a lot by people.Didn't. Hated 2e.
You must have been really horrified when 3rd edition came out.
Well, a lot of people hated 2e it seems.
What it implies for 3rd edition as a game in the tradition of earlier versions of D&D/AD&D is something few of them want to consider.
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.
Oh, and I forgot: With apprentice rules (and later Gestalt, if you like your power level to be high), you were able to play fighter/mages (or virtually every combo you liked) from level 1.
Having been dming 4E for over a year now, I haven't felt that I wasn't able to tell the same stories. I ran second darkness AP entirely using 4E and I didn't feel like the story really changed. I didn't find it hard to capture the feel I was after or stay as faithful as I wanted to the adventures- if I had I would have used pathfinder instead.
Anyhow, I've seen people post that sort of comment on occasion, and I don't really understand it because I just don't think it's really the case. When people make that particular comment, it suggests to me that they haven't actually played the game (other than a couple sessions here and there- maybe at a convention or demo). I'm pretty sure you fall in that category. I have a feeling that if you'd actually played the game for any real time you probably wouldn't say that. However, I can certainly understand you not being interested in 4E and not bothering to invest any time in 4E.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I've just started running 4e, and I have to say that my opinion of it raised by a great deal after I stopped using any WOTC authored adventures. Those are truly horrendous. Once I started making my own, it does pretty much exactly what I want it to do. Powers are still taking a bit to get used to, but it's growing on me.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.
Not according to the people who refused to switch from 2e. They said 3e was a power-gamers wet dream, designed only for munchkins, designed to appeal to the Pokemon crowd, lowest common denominator, and Monty Haul gamers. The decried the removal of the word "advanced". They mourned the loss of weapon proficiencies. They shed tears of blood over magic items with a gp cost and a wealth-per-level table. The existence of dwarven wizards and the change from infravision to darkvision contradicted every existing piece of D&D fiction. Sorcerers were shoe-horned into existing campaign settings and half-orcs once again roamed the streets unchecked!
I would agree that 2e and 3e were more similar to each other than 3e and 4e, but the place you draw your arbitrary line of what makes it the "same game" is neither universal nor capable of any type of objective determination.
Or, to put it another way, you don't like it. That's clear. Your reasons for not liking it may help you sleep at night, but they are by no means persuasive or based on facts which other people can agree upon.
I think there are bits and pieces of them that could be worth using, but I doubt I could run one as written from start to finish. Actually, that's not entirely true, I did run Last Breaths of Ashenport from the online dungeon and it was pretty good.
I've just started running 4e, and I have to say that my opinion of it raised by a great deal after I stopped using any WOTC authored adventures. Those are truly horrendous. Once I started making my own, it does pretty much exactly what I want it to do. Powers are still taking a bit to get used to, but it's growing on me.
|
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.
I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.
In fact, I recall one of the Paizo guys posting, agreeing that the 4e fan conversions of their adventure demonstrates that you absolutely can tell those stories with 4e.
|
|
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.
To be fair at the time it was right since Drow at the time of him writing it were not open sourced under the GSL (Admittedly it might have changed now) making it somewhat difficult to do a story were the main antagonists are drow.
|
|
Yeah, I agree. But I think it was more of a business decision than really being about the system as such. The whole GSL fiasco was going on at the time and Paizo had to make a decision. That's fair enough. What I don't really agree with is the suggestion that 4e makes it impossible to do a Paizo-style AP.
To be fair at the time it was right since Drow at the time of him writing it were not open sourced under the GSL (Admittedly it might have changed now) making it somewhat difficult to do a story were the main antagonists are drow.It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.
Are you sure this is correct? Drow are definitely part of the GSL now, and I don't recall ever hearing that they weren't, or that they were inserted later. It's possible I've missed that, but I don't know why they would have specifically removed and then reinserted them.
Are you sure this is correct? Drow are definitely part of the GSL now, and I don't recall ever hearing that they weren't, or that they were inserted later. It's possible I've missed that, but I don't know why they would have specifically removed and then reinserted them.
I recall comments to the effect that it was odd that "Drow Poison" was in the GSL (when it came out), but the Drow themselves were not in the GSL, I do not recall anyone coming right back at them saying that they were wrong. It seems quite likely they were released later on in some update (can't seem to find when though)
This page places Drow as being not in the 4e SRD.
The response to the GSL on this site included another post stating that Drow were on the off limits list.
Probably should not read beyond linked posts to avoid additional commentary.
I can't find a post stating that they were added easily, possibly because they noted issues with not including a monster that was already in a previous SRD.
Are you sure this is correct? Drow are definitely part of the GSL now, and I don't recall ever hearing that they weren't, or that they were inserted later. It's possible I've missed that, but I don't know why they would have specifically removed and then reinserted them.I recall comments to the effect that it was odd that "Drow Poison" was in the GSL (when it came out), but the Drow themselves were not in the GSL, I do not recall anyone coming right back at them saying that they were wrong. It seems quite likely they were released later on in some update (can't seem to find when though)
This page places Drow as being not in the 4e SRD.
The response to the GSL on this site included another post stating that Drow were on the off limits list.
Probably should not read beyond linked posts to avoid additional commentary.
I can't find a post stating that they were added easily, possibly because they noted issues with not including a monster that was already in a previous SRD.
That's really interesting.
I'm glad they reversed that particular policy, though.
|
Not according to the people who refused to switch from 2e. They said 3e was a power-gamers wet dream, designed only for munchkins, designed to appeal to the Pokemon crowd, lowest common denominator, and Monty Haul gamers.
It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.
And so it was... ;)
How would you tell the Legacy of Fire AP storyline without Wish magics? If you were to turn all the Wish magics into rituals it seems you would need some fairly material changes to portions of that AP.It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.
I'm not familiar enough with LoF to say for sure, but I bet I could do it.
How would you tell the Legacy of Fire AP storyline without Wish magics? If you were to turn all the Wish magics into rituals it seems you would need some fairly material changes to portions of that AP.
We need to break the concept of Wish into two distinct catagories.
Is the wish a game piece? Or is it an element of the story?
In reality we only need to worry about the mechanics of Wish if its a game piece. That is to say that its something that your players will be able to get their hands on and use as they see fit. In this case its very important to create mechanics and the purpose of those mechanics will be set limitations on the Wish - make it so that the playesr can't use the wish to break your game.
On the other hand if the wish(es) are just elements of the story then you don't have to worry about whether or not your players are going to break your game using wishes. In this case you can leave the specifics detailed and presume that wishes operate more or less like our view of mythological wishes do - essentially they grant whatever is asked for - no need to spell out their limitations because your players don't have any. Hence if the NPCs are using wishes they do whatever it is the DM needs them to do in order to further the story.
In other words from a fantasy game perspective a wish is something that gives the players anything they want within some kind of a box of limitations. On the other hand if the Wish is not used by the players...well then it just does anything the DM wants via fiat.
|
|
Hey, I never said it was effective.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.
But Trolls on Fire...come on ...funnie!!
Ah, Edition Wars; how I've missed you. Ok, not really.
Liking (or not liking) 4E is purely subjective, and I'm fine with that. The problem arises when people think their opinion that 4E "isn't D&D*," or is "obviously inferior," or "limits roleplaying" is an manner.
I happen to believe WotC has made some real bone-headed moves over the last eighteen months, but I continue to think 4E is a very well-done system, and one that I prefer to 3.5/Pathfinder. But I'm aware that my position is an opinion. ;-)
*Of course 4E literally IS D&D, but I don't think that is what is meant by this remark.
...What I don't really agree with is the suggestion that 4e makes it impossible to do a Paizo-style AP.
It's easy to point folks to Scott's excellent ROTRL conversion blog, and there's nothing quite like responding to "it's impossible" with "it's already done." :)
|
|
Quite.
Quite, quite. I think that someone who would say that telling a "story" in one system is impossible in another system may be only avoiding a little bit hard work!
If you think about it, conversion isn't really required. If you read the adventure get the "story" and build a native 4e (for example) version of "the story". The stats and stuff are mechanics NOT story after all.
Not to say that Scott hasn't set the bar for 3e --> 4e conversions.
S.
I think there are bits and pieces of them that could be worth using, but I doubt I could run one as written from start to finish. Actually, that's not entirely true, I did run Last Breaths of Ashenport from the online dungeon and it was pretty good.
Of course, Last breaths was written for 3.5 in dungeon 152 and later converted to 4E. Quite well I might add. I suppose it goes to show that it doesn't really matter the system, if you've got good material to work from its entirely possible.
Whew,
Well I think the "Can't tell the same stories" is old hat. Hell I can sit around a table and play a fantasy adventure with nearly any ruleset, it aint got to be anything WotC built.
Runequest,Palladium,Earthdawn,etc,etc, any of these can be adapted to any adventure setting.
It justs takes a little work and some rehashing.
I dont like the direction of 4e nor did I like the direction of 2e, big whoop.
Hasnt stopped me from playing either system.
I hate the D6 system and that crap fest of a system by White Wolf.
I think the Old Marvel RPG was a great way of telling supers stories, far better in my mind than the current giant, M&M. Though I do not own a single copy of the Old Marvel RPG I own quite alot of M&M.
I love the old Star Frontiers rule set.
I own all the 1e AD&D books, and supplement them with work from Dragonsfoot.
Hell know what I like RPG's. Doesnt really matter alot to me what rules are used Just how well a story is told.
Understanding that I will say Runequest, Palladium or Earthdawn do not feel like D&D to me, but could be reworked to capture that feel. Its the way I feel about the Current 4e system.
If I choose to run a 4e game dont expect me to allow you to run a Dragonborn. Dont feel like D&D to me, unless we jump into some Dragonlance I suppose.
Eric
If you think about it, conversion isn't really required. If you read the adventure get the "story" and build a native 4e (for example) version of "the story". The stats and stuff are mechanics NOT story after all.S.
Oh, I don't know about that. If you have to change a single individual goblin to four, you're changing stuff what happened in the story because the mechanics won't work with it as well otherwise.
Mechanics can also do a lot to alter the archetecture of what is or is not possible within the framework of the universe.
Note, I'm not ditching Scott or his conversion-work. Nor am I saying conversion isn't worth doing to run an adventure in your system of choice. Once again, change is not necessarily bad. I'm just opposed to the idea that changing the mechanics have no effect on the story. Maybe I associate "the stuff what happens" with the story, where others are thinking more of the overarching Theme or Plot.
I ran an entire campaign for dragonlance using GURPS 3rd, and plan to do so again for 4E. I believe you will find special cases for any game system where certain dynamics, even getting down to specific numbers or types of creatures will not convert easily. But overall, the concept of a certain world or genre can be played in any game system. This certainly applies for 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, etc.
Once you choose and become comfortable with the system you like, the interest in developing your own style of campaign takes care of the rest.
In other words, a DMs interest in developing, running and maintaining a campaign is more important than the system itself. That will keep players coming back.
I think the tone set by a system changes a lot. For example, in a system such as 4th edition, where anyone who sleeps the night comes back to full health the next day with all surges and no lingering wounds, no matter how much damage they took, I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story, particularly in a seige situation. Wounded soldiers will be back to full health the very next day without expenditure of magic or resources, spurting chest-axe-wound be damned. Yes, you still have to feed them, and that's a resource, but it diminishes the impact. And of course, one can say, full health after full sleep is just a PC ability, but then, by setting PCs apart from ordinary soldiers, you're making another choice that sets the tone of a story.
I'm saying game rules influence what can be done, and what is or is not extrordinary... so... yes, I believe the game rules are important to the story.
Heck, I could convert Second Darkness to using the Toon rules, but I'm not gonna. n.-
I think the tone set by a system changes a lot. For example, in a system such as 4th edition, where anyone who sleeps the night comes back to full health the next day with all surges and no lingering wounds, no matter how much damage they took, I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story, particularly in a seige situation. Wounded soldiers will be back to full health the very next day without expenditure of magic or resources, spurting chest-axe-wound be damned. Yes, you still have to feed them, and that's a resource, but it diminishes the impact. And of course, one can say, full health after full sleep is just a PC ability, but then, by setting PCs apart from ordinary soldiers, you're making another choice that sets the tone of a story.I'm saying game rules influence what can be done, and what is or is not extrordinary... so... yes, I believe the game rules are important to the story.
Heck, I could convert Second Darkness to using the Toon rules, but I'm not gonna. n.-
You're missing the point. 4E isn't a world simulator, and it doesn't try to be. People, PC or otherwise, don't heal overnight from grevious wounds. There are no implications about the world, or the way it works. That's the beauty. 3.5, on the other hand, foolishly tries (and utterly fails) to be a world simulator.
I don't doubt that you, laboring as you are under such a fundamental misconception, can't make certain stories work, but the contention that making those stories work is downright impossible has been demonstrated to be false.
I don't doubt that you, laboring as you are under such a fundamental misconception, can't make certain stories work, but the contention that making those stories work is downright impossible has been demonstrated to be false.
I didn't see where he said "downright impossible."
As far as I can tell you seem somewhat to be arguing against something else that I'm not seeing. I certainly don't believe that it is impossible to use 4th edition to tell any story, but I don't imagine it to be a great system to tell every story or that there isn't a better system for telling a particular story out there.
Heck, I could convert Second Darkness to using the Toon rules, but I'm not gonna. n.-
What a wonderful idea. I'll have to dig out my Toon books now.
Any specific world setting defines a framework that you can insert your game system into, sometimes this will involve some creativity and house rules, but typically that is expected. It is not the fault of the game system, but it is an opportunity to change things enough to keep characters on their toes.
Even in 4E I am in favor of mutliple encounters and little down time, so I have added rules for bandaging (save surges for combat) that I carried over from earlier editions. It is easy enough to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and make healing more time consuming. It just depends on what you want. But the system can support either.
For example, in a system such as 4th edition, where anyone who sleeps the night comes back to full health the next day with all surges and no lingering wounds, no matter how much damage they took, I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story, particularly in a seige situation. Wounded soldiers will be back to full health the very next day without expenditure of magic or resources, spurting chest-axe-wound be damned. Yes, you still have to feed them, and that's a resource, but it diminishes the impact. And of course, one can say, full health after full sleep is just a PC ability, but then, by setting PCs apart from ordinary soldiers, you're making another choice that sets the tone of a story.
My first thought of the "heal all wounds while you sleep" rule as well, but when I think about it, at the time you hit 3rd or 4th level in 3.5, the party healer will most certainly heal up everyone so that when they wake up, they are OK anyway. So the mechanic is more like a time-saver, now we don't have to sit around for a couple of minutes while everyone tries to sweet talk the healer into healing them.
The Die Hard movies, Hell any action movie shows that a "hero" can survive horrible bloodloss and greivous wounds and continue to win the day.
RPG games from what 2e and up reflect this kind of mentality. 4e is no different than any other game in that it focuses on the "Hero".
Nobody wants to play a serving wench that dies in the 1st round of combat.
But if the Serving wench is to one day rule a nation well thats a different story altogeter.
Playing an RPG is about being the Hero, good or bad. And so to be a hero we need rule sets that reflect that.
Look to the Myths of our real world, even the tragic heroes did and performed IMPOSSIBLE things overcame IMPOSSIBLE goals.
Why play Nug the Cobbler when you could step into the role of Lancelot, or Hurcules?
Who would honestly watch a movie about Nug the Cobbler over the Adventures of Tarzan?
If you want to play a character as Mundane as Nug, than so be it just dont cry to me when Smuag eats your shoe cobbling arse.
3e (regardless of variation) works decently as a world simulator...
No offense, but no, it really doesn't. The demographics alone (as explicitly laid-out in the DMG) would result in magic wreaking havok with the economy, rendering the world all but unrecognizable. And while these effects might not be obvious to some, to others they are as plain as day, making "just don't think about it" deeply unsatisfying. Only by dropping the pretense of world simulation, as 4E does, can any sense of verisimilitude be achieved.
I don't doubt that you, laboring as you are under such a fundamental misconception, can't make certain stories work, but the contention that making those stories work is downright impossible has been demonstrated to be false.
Please note that I in fact, did say "I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story," in 4E, not that you find it difficult, though I reserve the right to doubts over what you would imagine up. ;p
Heck, with the existence of prevelent magical healing, one could argue 3E is not the best system to run a gritty war story.
What I'm saying is that a system, because it measures what the (player?) characters in a story can do and how easily... matters.
As an example, I have a friend who's running a superheroes game in which he wants the players to be ordinary masked vigilantes. Therefore, he's searching for a game system without non-humans or superpowers because he doesn't want greater-than-possible assumptions written into the baseline game physics.
As another example, one might argue that 3.5 D&D is ill equipped to run Lovecraftian games or horror games in general because the system is designed around empowerment, getting stronger and kicking butt more and more, where horror is about vulnerability and fear. Lovecraft tales in particular, are stories of cosmic futility, full of entities that prove our power is ephemeral at best, and if one of the real monsters of the mythos crops up, you'd better hope you were able to dig up a ritual to banish it away and give humanity a bit longer in the sun. In D&D, you gain levels until you can win against the darkness.
Now Paizo is the knock down, drag out king of writing 3rd edition horror, and they've well proven it can be done and done well... and still, in the most outright Lovecraft oriented adventure they've got in their catalog the climax occurs when
Maybe Chaosium's system does work better for such tales.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't try and do conversions of Paizo adventures to 4E. Scott Betts has, and from the supportive responses I've read, he's done well. But it causes the story to change. Perhaps for the better, from his opinion, and if his players agree, then Yay!
I'm just saying if Paizo says that 3.P works best for the kinds of stories they tell, they probably actually mean it and it's not an inherently falacious arguement (even if I'm hesitant when they try whole-hog Lovecraft tales.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
3e (regardless of variation) works decently as a world simulator...No offense, but no, it really doesn't. The demographics alone (as explicitly laid-out in the DMG) would result in magic wreaking havok with the economy, rendering the world all but unrecognizable. And while these effects might not be obvious to some, to others they are as plain as day, making "just don't think about it" deeply unsatisfying. Only by dropping the pretense of world simulation, as 4E does, can any sense of verisimilitude be achieved.
I agree with Man in Black, but think I might refine his statement further to say that 3e works decently as a world simulator at the micro level. At the macro level, you've got way too much going on to even begin to agree about what you are simulating. Even if the economy did work, people would debate about the failure of the game to incorporate the existence of magic, the fact of divine intervention, how non-humans and humans might interact, what type of ecosystem allows all these predators to exist, etc. D&D has way way way too much fantasy to be a world simulator at the macro level. Accurately simulating a complex world is staggeringly complex, and I don't believe that's what's meant by the statement that 3e does a decent job as a simulator.
I saw a really well written blog article the other day about the micro level simulations 3e performs. It was comparing things like the hardness of doors and how strong you need to be to break them and how well that matches up with our expectations based on actual reality. Obviously, there are still holes and flaws even at this level, but on the whole, it's a pretty good system for these purposes. Significantly better than 4e, which does not have at its heart modeling such interactions with the world. Instead, 4e asks "what type of challenge do you want to build for the characters" and the occupants of the world are set up to provide that challenge.
I think the tone set by a system changes a lot. For example, in a system such as 4th edition, where anyone who sleeps the night comes back to full health the next day with all surges and no lingering wounds, no matter how much damage they took, I find it difficult to imagine setting a grim and gritty war story, particularly in a seige situation. Wounded soldiers will be back to full health the very next day without expenditure of magic or resources, spurting chest-axe-wound be damned. Yes, you still have to feed them, and that's a resource, but it diminishes the impact. And of course, one can say, full health after full sleep is just a PC ability, but then, by setting PCs apart from ordinary soldiers, you're making another choice that sets the tone of a story.
At worst it replaced one set of world issues with another. In 3.5 the PCs always have infinite access to cheap healing magic - but for some reason everyone else on the planet does not. Cheap wands of cure light wounds should heavily impact the societies of the world. The reality is 12.5 gold pieces is just not that expensive when we are talking about life saving magic. However No D&D campaign setting seems to take that into account with the partial exception of Eberron.
The problem with saying everyone is just like the hero's is that it seems like this is simply patently untrue once you look at the campaign worlds. In a lot of ways its easier to simply say the hero's are special and the rest of the planet will simply have to labor under grim and gritty reality. The alternative is to either change the kinds of stories that we traditionally tell in D&D or work under the presumption that everyone on the planet except the hero's and some of the villains are too stupid to make use of the resources that the PCs make use of.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I saw a really well written blog article the other day about the micro level simulations 3e performs. It was comparing things like the hardness of doors and how strong you need to be to break them and how well that matches up with our expectations based on actual reality.
Perhaps at this site?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Perhaps at this site?
I saw a really well written blog article the other day about the micro level simulations 3e performs. It was comparing things like the hardness of doors and how strong you need to be to break them and how well that matches up with our expectations based on actual reality.
That's the one! Thanks.
I saw a really well written blog article the other day about the micro level simulations 3e performs. It was comparing things like the hardness of doors and how strong you need to be to break them and how well that matches up with our expectations based on actual reality. Obviously, there are still holes and flaws even at this level, but on the whole, it's a pretty good system for these purposes. Significantly better than 4e, which does not have at its heart modeling such interactions with the world. Instead, 4e asks "what type of challenge do you want to build for the characters" and the occupants of the world are set up to provide that challenge.
This might well be true but I think its significant that no one in the gaming industry really makes much use of this. It does not particularly play a part in any professionally written adventure that I am aware of. This is one of the major reasons that 4E is effective at telling the kinds of stories that have been traditionally told in D&D - those stories where never really all that simulationist to begin with.
I'd not be particularly surprise to find that there are those that have long ago decided that everything printed by industry professionals for D&D is junk but that one can take the 3.5 system and make really realistic scenarios if one builds them oneself and house rules all the places where the game designers let gamism trump simulationism but we quickly move into a place were one realizes that 'hps' are not exactly realistic and in fact allowing characters to get beyond 3rd-5th level just breaks the system. Thats fine for this group but I'll stick to playing a game that industry professionals actually write for.
So I'm sure there are stories that 4E is not capable of telling but those stories can't be bought at the local game store.
At worst it replaced one set of world issues with another. In 3.5 the PCs always have infinite access to cheap healing magic - but for some reason everyone else on the planet does not. Cheap wands of cure light wounds should heavily impact the societies of the world. The reality is 12.5 gold pieces is just not that expensive when we are talking about life saving magic. However No D&D campaign setting seems to take that into account with the partial exception of Eberron.
Like I said, perhaps 3.5 isn't all that great for gritty war stories either. Maybe it's actually worse than 4E because with 4E you can assume that the players are the war survivors who never suffer a sucking chest wound no matter how many times an ogre drops them into the negatives with a giant war axe. They're special because they're just damn lucky enough not to have their leg torn off by a goblin mortar bomb.
All I'm really arguing is that any different game system will have an effect on the story because of the options it does or does not possess, and the Paizonians are fine prefering 3.P for theirs. It probably helps that they don't have to sign a GSL.
Perhaps at this site?
I saw a really well written blog article the other day about the micro level simulations 3e performs. It was comparing things like the hardness of doors and how strong you need to be to break them and how well that matches up with our expectations based on actual reality.
Wow, that was a great essay.
However, I maintain that a few things (The demographics in the DMG, the price lists in the PHB) are still problematic, because they have unavoidable implications for the larger environment. I will concede that, if such things are judiciously ignored, the system can serve admirably as a "micro" simulator.
Like I said, perhaps 3.5 isn't all that great for gritty war stories either. Maybe it's actually worse than 4E because with 4E you can assume that the players are the war survivors who never suffer a sucking chest wound no matter how many times an ogre drops them into the negatives with a giant war axe. They're special because they're just damn lucky enough not to have their leg torn off by a goblin mortar bomb.All I'm really arguing is that any different game system will have an effect on the story because of the options it does or does not possess, and the Paizonians are fine prefering 3.P for theirs. It probably helps that they don't have to sign a GSL.
Egads! Don't even get me started on the GSL. :P
And I agree: Different games sytems do, in fact, have an effect on story-telling. I just take exception to claims that 4E is bad because "you can't tell the same stories as you can in 3.5." Which it appears you weren't making. ;-)
Like I said, perhaps 3.5 isn't all that great for gritty war stories either. Maybe it's actually worse than 4E because with 4E you can assume that the players are the war survivors who never suffer a sucking chest wound no matter how many times an ogre drops them into the negatives with a giant war axe. They're special because they're just damn lucky enough not to have their leg torn off by a goblin mortar bomb.All I'm really arguing is that any different game system will have an effect on the story because of the options it does or does not possess, and the Paizonians are fine prefering 3.P for theirs. It probably helps that they don't have to sign a GSL.
I'm not saying that people can't prefer 3.P if thats what floats their boat. However I think that using an argument that 'it tells different stories' then 4E is basically false (except under extremes with home made adventures unlike what finds at their FLGS). In fact I think that for the most part 3.P and 4E are two somewhat different ways of getting to basically the same place within the context of D&D as a whole. So sure - one might tell a story using Bunnies and Burrows or Call of Cuthulu and find that it really impacts how the story works but I don't think that this is the same as comparing 4E to 3.P because both 4E and 3.P where basically aiming to tell the same kinds of stories and their mechanics are designed to facilitate this. I suspect that if you take the vast majority of changed mechanics for both 4E and 3.P you'll find that in each case where the mechanic has changed from 3.5 its been done because of X perceived problem - problem X is perceived in a similar manner by both the Paizo guys and the WotC guys and both are aiming for a very similar result from the fix.
In effect its the fact that Paizo aims to provide a heroic feeling setting and adventures that makes them so easy to convert to 4E. In fact the larger issues between the systems is probably not usually the change from 1 monster to many (if you really need it to be just one guy in 4E give it the solo template) thats likely to be the biggest challenge. The real challenge is generally in the fact that 3.X characters are a lot more powerful then 4E ones by mid to high levels. Still adventure writers might realize that most groups in 3.X can whistle up dragons or what not to get to anywhere they want to be but they still have to provide a more mundane option in their adventure just in case - 4E converters simply find that their players utilize the mundane option more often.
|
|
If you think about it, conversion isn't really required. If you read the adventure get the "story" and build a native 4e (for example) version of "the story". The stats and stuff are mechanics NOT story after all.S.
Oh, I don't know about that. If you have to change a single individual goblin to four, you're changing stuff what happened in the story because the mechanics won't work with it as well otherwise. ** spoiler omitted ** Change is not necessarily bad. But it is a change that potentially alters the tone of scenes within the story
Maybe I associate "the stuff what happens" with the story, where others are thinking more of the overarching Theme or Plot.
I don't see the need to change 1 for 4, just make the one appropriate for the system (that hard work I was referring to). I agree with your last statement to a degree. My point being of course... No group of lawyers are going to bash down your door if you change the "goblin" (singular) to a 4e modified-goblin (singular) that fills the same role as originally intended. Now I am focusing on D&D type games and I guess I should have pointed this out. 3.5e and 4e have the same ideals when it comes to the type of game playable. Both say you have a pool of hp's and you are quite hard to kill. Call of Cthulhu is another story and I fully support your sentiments that CoC doesn't translate to d20 well at all - unless you assume 1st hp's are all you get ever may be?
S.
Once you choose your game system and storyline, or if your prefer language and novel, you can definitely see how some things are lost in translation. However, I do not support that being a basis of an argument of one system not being capable of expressing an idea or concept. It will just take a different path, and if any flaws or deficiencies are discovered, over time they will be corrected, as long as players are present to support it.