Maybe. I'm not sure Essentials was intended as an apology, but a entry-level introduction. I do agree that there has been a lot of polarisation, but you find much less support for WotC here for both historical and competitive reasons than might otherwise be the case with somewhere like ENWorld. I'm not convinced that the Paizo crowd is necessarily very representative.
I think the removal of an OGL mechanism from 4e was commercially short-sighted, but I think the lawyers got involved.
I don't think Essentials was necessarily intended as an apology, but it was definitely intended as a "give us a second chance" for all the lapsed and disappointed players in addition to its other goals. I think for the most part, it actually did a pretty good job. I know that essentials was what caused me to reexamine 4E. I don't pull my opinions just from this site, I talk to a lot of local people as well, and there just seems to be a lot of frustration with 4E in general, mostly with the marketing, but also a fair bit with the system itself. I don't really think that these boards are likely to be more anti-WoTC than a place like Enworld simply because they work hard to make it clear that any posts against WoTC or 4E need to be, at the minimum, respectful, and do a good job maintaining that standard.
I also am in a minority of players that takes the time to frequent forums. That means I am already listening to your counterarguments and changing my mind according to them.
The point I am trying to make is that many people have flat out stopped listening.
Good they should STOP LISTENING and START PLAYING. I was one of the 4e Nay-Sayers, ask Scott Betts. Scott had to read (internet version of listening) to my 'why 4e destroyed D&D' dribble for perhaps months. I'm amazed he stayed polite. But then I decided to put my money where my mouth is - I STOPPED listening to this side and that, and played. Not a one off, but a real campaign style D&D game. What I found was I then formed my own opinion, and it was positive. 4e did everything, from a role-playing game point of view, that 3.x did and 2e and 1e for that matter.
My advice - find some open minded people and have a bash.
On behalf of the Sirius Marketing Corporation,
S.
This is definitely the best solution, and one that if I ever find the right group, I personally will have no trouble doing, but once someone stops listening because of a perceived negative, it takes a pretty serious positive to even get their attention again, especially if its a group that's been disenchanted. 4E, for all of its strengths, and it does have many strengths, doesn't have very many such positives for those who like 4E to use to reel in those who don't already play, and even fewer to reel back in lapsed, disenchanted players. It tends to be an all or nothing deal; you either really like the system or you just plain don't.
I recently picked up the Essentials Rules Compendium and I was very impressed. I keep wondering what the game would have been like if character creation options had been more similar to 3.X. The core rules are very tight though. I have an idea for a variant that uses Gamma World style character creation and advancement with the RC to make an easy to pick up game that feels more like the old basic set. I'll post it in a new thread once I've worked on it some more.
|
It tends to be an all or nothing deal; you either really like the system or you just plain don't.
Agreed. When 4e was announced my 3 year RPG group playing 3.5e all ordered 4e. It arrived and the group ended. Only 2 players wanted to give 4e ago. It wasn't like they read the rules played and then said, nope not for me. They read the rules, failed completely to see that it was still a RPG with wizards and elves and walked. I was as DM completely over 3.5e (wizards/clerics/druids just plain ruined the game) and had NO wish to torture myself again - so group ended. In a strange ironic twist of fate they didn't want to play PF because it also wasn't D&D. No matter how good or bad a system is it is peoples perceptions that count the most. Get a bunch of players who are convinced you can't role-play using 4e and my money says they won't be able to. Mind you same goes for 3.x/PF as well.
Hope you find a group suitable for you to get a real feel for 4e. As I usually DM I'm a little bias towards 4e as it reflects more the DMing style of 1e/2e. I do and can see how players of 3.x may see 4e as a leap backwards to 1e/2e in that PC choices are limited when compared to 3.x. Again coming from the time when race determined class and level limitations (4th level Halfling fighter with max 17 STR...) I see 4e as FULL of options.
S.
|
I personally can separate the marketing and the system;Everyone says this. No one wants to believe that they are so easily influenced by marketing - good or bad - that they are unable to judge a product on its own merits. Yet we still get the whole "Lots of people were burned by the marketing and that makes them dislike 4e" line. So where are these people? Either they're in hiding, and we never see them, or they don't exist, or some of the people who say they can separate the marketing and the system aren't telling the whole truth.
And, as Aubrey points out, it's marketing that took place years ago. And not even straight-up offensive marketing. It was marketing that only people who were already disgruntled got riled up about. The idea that people still harp on it as though it hasn't lost its sting is insane.
I think 4e is a ok game. Not to my taste but it is a ok game. The PR department for WotC annoyed the hell out of me. Right now WotC for me is the same as Sony. In that if some else makes something remotely as good for close to the same price I will buy from other people.
So the marketing/PR effected my views on the company. But not DnD 4e. I would play 4e, but i have zero desire to buy any books for it. Even if I was in a game. I would just borrow them from someone at the game. The simple reason is I have no desire to support a company with such a bad PR/Customer relations department.
Just to be clear, I wasn't mad or pissed at the PR campaign, jut annoyed by some of the stuff they did. Like how they handled the PDF's and such. Or another example with Sony is, I use to play Everquest, I stopped because of the lousy god awful customer support. I do play Pirates of the Burning Sea which is another MMO by Sony, but it is free to play and free to download. I spend no money on it but will play it.
It dawns on me that BECMI had kingdom rules and 4E is, in many ways, a philosophical upgrade to BECMI sitting atop a stripped down 3.5 engine. Hence I really think one could design kingdom rules for 4E.
Nonetheless I agree that 4Es has strengths and weaknesses in terms of running a kingdom style campaign do differ when compared to 3.X/PF.
4E is very strong in scenes and a kingdom style campaign should take that into account. So its excellent for dealing with a a banquette that turns out to be a trick by the enemy warlord. A large scene like that is actually pretty manageable in 4E. Most of the PCs run of the mill guards and most of the Warlords retinue would be minions which are easy to run for both players and the DM. The players named companions (like their captain of the guard) are designed from the ground up to be part of an adventuring group without slowing things down to much etc. So this kind of thing is going to run very well in 4E.
The trade off is that the Captain of the Guard et al don't run all that well all alone. Because of this I would generally try and keep the action on what the player characters know or do not know instead of having the players begin to run multiple characters.
While its certianly possible to have the player run the their diplomatic envoy during the role playing scene with the NPC bandit king I'd at least consider not doing that and leaving it to the PCs to learn about the results from their characters perspective. In effect they know that they sent an envoy but not what happened until either the envoy returns...or fails to return, and if he does fail to return then was it the Bandit Kings doing? Or is there some other explanation? 4Es strength will be less in running the actual envoy and more in what happens when the PCs and their retinue enter the bandits camp and it turns out the whole thing and an ambush with the bandits having their camp booby trapped through the wazoo. 4E can handle anything up to the level of a small wargame with comparative ease so long as most of the combatants on both sides are minions.
In effect while running a kingdom may be what is happening the story is still about the PCs characters. Its not the story of a kingdom or an Assassin's guild or what have you but actually a story about some one who is the King and his advisers.
In effect while running a kingdom may be what is happening the story is still about the PCs characters. Its not the story of a kingdom or an Assassin's guild or what have you but actually a story about some one who is the King and his advisers.
This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier, though not nearly as well. 3.x would tend to make a shift to a more abstract level with more NPCs and perspectives involved where 4E stays clearly focused on the PCs and events are played out through their perspective. It is a subtle, but important, difference.
|
Yet we still get the whole "Lots of people were burned by the marketing and that makes them dislike 4e" line. So where are these people?
If they are like me, they stopped bothering you and like-minded 4E-players with their ramblings, because it makes no sense. Just to talk about me: The system may be a good one, but it's not good enough to make me care about. The things I saw in the beginning weren't to my likings and later changes didn't and don't affect my opinion because I basically stopped listening as sunshadow put it. And nothing you or someone else says will change this simple fact.
The thing is, I never needed a new edition. I never needed 3E or PF either, but those two systems came and come with some advantages like great settings, print magazines and, most importantly, the OGL. Without Dragon and Dungeon magazine, I probably would never stayed with D&D when WotC took over. Without the OGL, I'd probably not have stayed long enough to learn about 4E or Pathfinder. And without worlds like the Realms or Golarion, I'd never invested as much time in the game as I did in the last ten years.
You're wrong if you think that I was already disgruntled and therefore got riled up about the marketing. In fact, I was quite enthusiastic about 4E from the start. But the more I learned about their plans regarding their products and especially their settings, the more I came to recognize that I was obviously not the kind of customer wotc tried to appeal to. And that's where marketing came into play (in a major negative way, I might add). They took away the things i liked most about D&D and kept telling me that I just had to trust them that, whatever they would do, would bring much more fun to my table. Didn't happen, though.
Now it's not that I'm still angry about WotC. It's worse because I stopped to care about WotC. Which brings us back to your question. We're still here. It's just that we have found ways to spend our time in a more productive way than to continue the edition war.
|
The monsters you where using probably did not have sneak attack, they almost certianly had combat advantage. Combat advantage is a similar but significantly broader concept then sneak attack and covers a variety of situations where one side has some kind of tactical advantage over the other. For example the cleric Power provides combat advantage to whoever is fighting the creature that it is attacking because being attacked by a disembodied hammer and trying to defend oneself from it is a major distraction for the monster.Sneak attack is pretty much limited to rogues. There are a very small handful of creatures, almost all named that have an attack that called sneak attack that does extra damage when the monster has combat advantage and I think its possible that you where running one of the first few Dungeon adventures then the author may have called combat advantage sneak attack (a common problem very early on was authors making 3.5 assumptions about 4E).
Ok lets clear up some of your misconceptions.
First. CA is getting the +2 on attack rolls. This can be accomplished through flanks. Is it NOT a bonus to damage.
Second: Sneak Attack is a set of bonus damage that occurs when you fulfill a set of circumstances, like getting Combat Advantage.
Third: Everyone can get CA. Like noted, it is as easy as getting a flank in, though you are right that there are many powers that grant CA to you and\or your allies.
So. Now to clarify some stuff. these creatures that i used were from the Monster Builder. they were Lurkers or Skirmishers, not positive which and I am not going to dig them up. i copy/pasted their stats and printed them out, their bonus damage was called Sneak Attack. I used them because they were of appropriate challenge level (level 4-ish). They had a d10 damage die for their melee attacks, which was not a boost up due to level, it was the base damage. i called their weapons bastard swords since the damage die was right.
So either the issue was that they were using a non light weapon for a sneak attack damage, or their damage with short swords was inappropriate for that weapon. Either way the separation of rules for PCs and Monsters does much to break immersion in the game.
And this is not even talking about Minions. I have a restraining order on me about speaking on that topic.
|
|
The simple reason is I have no desire to support a company with such a bad PR/Customer relations department.
This sums up how I feel about WotC.
I like the 4e system as a whole. I see some flaws in it and there are things I just dont like. But I do like the system.
I just had to stop playing it because I hate"d" WotC and many of their policies. i will not spend another cent on their game and since the group I play with prefered to stay with 3.5, and we were moving to the Pf system for their games, I just went with them. I I am so very happy to have made the switch. I have not been happier playing in about 2.5 years.
|
|
i called their weapons bastard swords since the damage die was right.
Perhaps the damage was a reflection not on the weapon size but on innate skill? Perhaps the weapons were light? Taking things from previous editions and 'translating' them into 4e fails many times. You may be looking for the Loch Ness monster, so to speak. All I found I accomplished by doing this was hampering my enjoyment of the 4e game. How is this different from a player complaining they can't breath fire like a dragon. The DM would say, you are not a dragon - in your case the DM would say you are not <insert whatever they faced> or perhaps this style takes 10-years of intense training. The PC could take it but their character is effectively out of the game. I'm not seeing that as a huge problem. Deal breaker? If you had posed this about a year ago I would have also been supporting your post, yeh, see 4e ruined my fun, etc, etc. But one morning as I prepared to post more obvious bad things about 4e that the 4e players had missed and I realized the only thing between me and having fun with 4e was... me.
3.x = fantasy RPG and 4e = fantasy RPG so logically 3.x = 4e.
S.
Good they should STOP LISTENING and START PLAYING. I was one of the 4e Nay-Sayers, ask Scott Betts. Scott had to read (internet version of listening) to my 'why 4e destroyed D&D' dribble for perhaps months. I'm amazed he stayed polite.
Hahaha it wasn't a chore by any stretch. Compared to what I've seen, whether here or elsewhere, being able to talk to someone who disagreed but was receptive and rational all the same was a breath of fresh air. No one, fan or developer, can really ask for more than a fair shake at trying the game out. Glad to see you're still bouncing around these parts, too.
The simple reason is I have no desire to support a company with such a bad PR/Customer relations department.
Of all of the flaws for a company to have, an ill-coordinated PR department strikes me as among the most harmless. It doesn't affect their product or their customers in any tangible way; it's basically totally ignorable.
Just to be clear, I wasn't mad or pissed at the PR campaign, jut annoyed by some of the stuff they did. Like how they handled the PDF's and such.
This isn't really PR or customer support. This was probably a decision made jointly by business and legal. Chances are that if it has anything to do with the actual products being sold, PR and customer support probably had no say in it.
|
|
The simple reason is I have no desire to support a company with such a bad PR/Customer relations department.Of all of the flaws for a company to have, an ill-coordinated PR department strikes me as among the most harmless. It doesn't affect their product or their customers in any tangible way; it's basically totally ignorable.
Just to be clear, I wasn't mad or pissed at the PR campaign, jut annoyed by some of the stuff they did. Like how they handled the PDF's and such.This isn't really PR or customer support. This was probably a decision made jointly by business and legal. Chances are that if it has anything to do with the actual products being sold, PR and customer support probably had no say in it.
Well I did say customer relations, not support. To you it might be harmless, to me it is important. It doesn't effect my view of the product they make. But it does effect my desire to support the company. Just like with Sony I won't pay to play their games or buy any of their games. The simple reason is poor customer relations, in their case it was indeed customer support. I had a issue with Everquest, they made a major change to the game that caused major lag in the game for me. (this was years ago) I went back and forth with them in emails, forum threads(I wasn't the only one with the issue). In the end they basically said in so many words. Tough sucks to be you. So I voted with my wallet.
Any company that I feel treats it's costumers poorly(which most do to a point) to a certain low enough level. Thats when i stop buying stuff from them. I vote with my wallet and won't buy from them until I see a obvious change in how they do things.
So to be clear, i have no issues with 4e, it doesn't appeal to me. But I think it is a fine game. But even if I loved it(like I loved Everquest) I wouldn't buy any of the books.
|
|
Perhaps the damage was a reflection not on the weapon size but on innate skill? Perhaps the weapons were light? Taking things from previous editions and 'translating' them into 4e fails many times.
Ok now I have been away from 4e for a little while but I am pretty sure that Sneak Attack (like a rogue) takes a "light weapon". This is not a 3e hold over.
Innate skill? I could almost buy that argument if the creature I was talking about was a "named" baddie, a BBEG. These were mook thugs. Their innate ability to deal damage was their ability to sneak.
And so show me another "light weapon" that deals d10 damage? there are none. They got d10 for some random reason becasue they are monsters and not PCs.
You may be looking for the Loch Ness monster, so to speak.
i am in BC...we are looking for Ogopogo.
All I found I accomplished by doing this was hampering my enjoyment of the 4e game. How is this different from a player complaining they can't breath fire like a dragon. The DM would say, you are not a dragon - in your case the DM would say you are not <insert whatever they faced> or perhaps this style takes 10-years of intense training. The PC could take it but their character is effectively out of the game.
Or ya know...Dragonborn?!?
I'm not seeing that as a huge problem. Deal breaker? If you had posed this about a year ago I would have also been supporting your post, yeh, see 4e ruined my fun, etc, etc. But one morning as I prepared to post more obvious bad things about 4e that the 4e players had missed and I realized the only thing between me and having fun with 4e was... me.
3.x = fantasy RPG and 4e = fantasy RPG so logically 3.x = 4e.
S.
You missed the next post I wrote I guess. i don't hate 4e. i also do not ostrich at its flaws either. i was the f4n in my group. I would work through what I thought was poor mechanics in the system.
And yes i think that such a separation of mechanics between PCs and Monsters is poor mechanics.
A Monster can shift as a minor action. PCs cannot. It is a racial thing. That is all kool cause if the Pc was of that race they get that ability.
the monster can SA like a rogue, though they are not a rogue. Ok. That ain't a problem.
The monster gets a better damage die on a weapon, or can use an improper weapon on an ability that the PCs can have (with out losing potency), just because he is a monster. Why? there is no way for the PC to duplicate this. The closest they have are some of the feats in one of the Martial books that will allow non light weapon in a sneak attack, but at lesser SA damage.
Meh.
Ok lets clear up some of your misconceptions.
First. CA is getting the +2 on attack rolls. This can be accomplished through flanks. Is it NOT a bonus to damage.
Second: Sneak Attack is a set of bonus damage that occurs when you fulfill a set of circumstances, like getting Combat Advantage.
Third: Everyone can get CA. Like noted, it is as easy as getting a flank in, though you are right that there are many powers that grant CA to you and\or your allies.
So. Now to clarify some stuff. these creatures that i used were from the Monster Builder. they were Lurkers or Skirmishers, not positive which and I am not going to dig them up. i copy/pasted their stats and printed them out, their bonus damage was called Sneak Attack. I used them because they were of appropriate challenge level (level 4-ish). They had a d10 damage die for their melee attacks, which was not a boost up due to level, it was the base damage. i called their weapons bastard swords since the damage die was right.
What I'm saying is the monster you where using almost certianly did not have sneak attack per se. I ran Sneak Attack through a search on the Compendium and only a handful of monsters have a power called sneak attack. Usually a rogue style creature - almost always one with a name. They likely had a power that says - when these guys attack with combat advantage they get +X to the die or they use a better die or some such. Why they got it would depend on the power they where using.
Most humanoids also come with their basic weapons listed in the stat block - it should have told you what type of weapon they where using.
Nor are players limited to light weapons to get bonus damage from CA's - though the rogue in particular is because of what the rogue is supposed to be doing to get the bonus damage. Rangers with animal companions have powers that can get a bonus to damage from combat advantage when they work with their animal companion to set up CA for example.
|
|
Yeah sure, these nameless mook thugs lurker/skirmisher guys had an ability that gave them +2d6 damage when attack a creature with Combat Advantage. i am also 90+% positive that teh said ability was named Sneak Attack.
Their stat block did name the weapon as a Short Sword, but the damage was d10.
So either the weapon was not a Short Sword and it could SA with a non-light weapon. Or it was a Short Sword and the creature was doing too much damage with that light weapon.
Either way the separation between PC and Monsters creates a schism and loses consistency.
Yeah sure, these nameless mook thugs lurker/skirmisher guys had an ability that gave them +2d6 damage when attack a creature with Combat Advantage. i am also 90+% positive that teh said ability was named Sneak Attack.
Their stat block did name the weapon as a Short Sword, but the damage was d10.
So either the weapon was not a Short Sword and it could SA with a non-light weapon. Or it was a Short Sword and the creature was doing too much damage with that light weapon.
The switch in the die is also unusual. Scanning through the 4th level lurkers and skirmishers trying to find the guy your complaining about (no luck but maybe I just missed it) and I see that the damage die remains consistent with the weapon in use. Now its possible to make the Monster Builder use whatever die the DM wants and the monsters designer puts the weapon in at the end in the monsters fluff - saying short sword for equipment does not change the damage die the monsters creator used for damage. So it'd be easy to make this sort of an error when building a monster but, so far as I can tell, the general rule seems to be trying to keep the weapon in use and the damage die used the same.
|
|
Yeah sure, these nameless mook thugs lurker/skirmisher guys had an ability that gave them +2d6 damage when attack a creature with Combat Advantage. i am also 90+% positive that teh said ability was named Sneak Attack.
Their stat block did name the weapon as a Short Sword, but the damage was d10.
So either the weapon was not a Short Sword and it could SA with a non-light weapon. Or it was a Short Sword and the creature was doing too much damage with that light weapon.
Either way the separation between PC and Monsters creates a schism and loses consistency.
For some people, maybe, but not everyone.
I know everyone views the game differently and it all comes down to who you play with. I didn't know how much until I start reading over things like this.
When our games start at the table and we're playing, we're just playing. Dices are being rolled and as a DM I don't really look into the "how" or "why" said monster/npc has said damage/ability ... I just use it. The player's don't question it either.
All the dice rolling is really just abstract anyway compared to the actual story. They're just a means to an end. If the damage done by a creature is 1d10 +2d6 or 1d6 +3 +2d6 ... so what?
Myabe some people spend too much time picking at the details or maybe I don't spend enough time. As a system it works though.
Having said all that though, even in 3.5 as a player you may still come across the situations stated above. This can come about simply due to the books the players have access to and if they differ from the what the GM allows for himself.Take PF for example, say neither the players nor the GM have the Advanced Players Guide, but then the GM runs a published scenario that has an NPC Half Orc with the Toothy alternative racial trait. At this point a player may ask "Why does the monster half-orc have the Toothy ability, while the PC half orc does not?" - immersion killed?
Or how about in a 3.5 game where the GM builds an NPC villain using the Demonologist prestige class from the Book of Vile Darkness? If the GM does not allow his players to use prestige classes from that book then surely they could be asking "How can that monster learn how to, and nobody else can?" - immersion killed?
First I as a DM don't use books I don't allow the players to use because it feels cheap, but to answer your question the player not being allowed to use the book, and the system saying no are not the same thing. In one situation the option is not there for whatever reason, and it can be handled by getting another DM. In the other situation the option does not exist at all, unless you can convince your DM to change base properties of the system, and if you are going that far you might as well just play a different game.
4e just takes that a step further and states that the actual structure of NPCs does not need to match PCs. So NPCs can have a broader or narrowed array of powers balanced out by lower or higher HP, defences etc.
I understand what it(the system) want to accomplish, but it does not make sense to me from an in-character point of view. Even humans in the monster manual can do things I can't do as a PC. I know it was done to make an easier system, and I do like things about the system. I just don't like the entire package.
You can't tell the story you want without compromise sometimes in either system, but with 4E seems it becomes harder if immersion is important for you, IMHO.Surely then that breaks with your own standards of immersion, right? If not, your players might be asking "why can that NPC learn that ritual and nobody else can?" Which isn't a bad thing its just doing what 4e does explicitly.
No it doesn't. The player can't create a ritual anymore than they can create an artifact weapon or other macguffin. Normally the creator(s) were well beyond the PC's power, and spend a good portion of their lives researching said project. Now if the PC get to the same power level as the creators of mysterious game item X, and are willing to put in the work theoretically they should be able to do similar things, but at that point they are no longer adventuring which defeats the point of showing up at the table in real life.
Goblins and other humanoids usually have a few defining features and those features are usually included as part of the race. Note that 3.x does not make players identical to the creature in question either. Players stats will be better then 15 point buy and they won't have the crummy warrior class to start.For many people the fact that monsters use different rules is what kills immersion. Why does the monster goblin have ability X, while the PC goblin does not? How that monster learn how to, and nobody else can? I never liked the minion idea either. IIRC only the ranger can go TWF.
PC's and certain NPC's have better stats because they are destined for certain things. That is nowhere near what 4E does with denying an ability altogether. A PC goblin and an NPC goblin can both obtain high levels. In 4E the PC goblin will never have the abilities the monster version does.
I do agree with James, but I see your point. You can't tell the story you want without compromise sometimes in either system, but with 4E seems it becomes harder if immersion is important for you, IMHO.
Immersion depends on what your trying to immerse the players in. So if I'm playing Mutants and Masterminds I'm not getting hung up on the fact that mutant powers are not exactly realistic - its part and parcel of the genre.
4Es rules are designed to have a look and feel like a high fantasy epic adventure akin to the Lord of the Rings movies. Since minions play a large part in this genre so they are one of the things that 4E simulates.
Two weapon fighting can be done by more then the ranger, I've seen a thrown weapon build at my table involving hitting an enemy with a sword and then tossing an axe pretty much every round, I think Barbarian was the base class used in the build.
I think Immersion depends on what you expect from a game, and how much you are willing to accept in order to enjoy the game. I don't like that you can fall 200 feet in 3.x and walk away at high level, but I can accept it for the rest of the game. I really do need to get a houserule on that.
I find it difficult to understand how "the NPCs work different" breaks verisimilitude.
Why are your players looking at the monster's stats to begin with?
1. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking through the MM as long as you don't metagame. I know everyone can't do this, but I have been lucky enough to avoid this so far.
2. In many groups such as mine we have more than one GM so everyone has to know the rules.3. Even without looking at the book if I never see ability X in the player handbook I know something is up, especially if I thought it was cool, and I want to get it.
|
|
This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier, though not nearly as well. 3.x would tend to make a shift to a more abstract level with more NPCs and perspectives involved where 4E stays clearly focused on the PCs and events are played out through their perspective. It is a subtle, but important, difference.
Apart from the Leadership feat I am still unclear as to what mechanics 3.5 or PF includes that allows this type of storytelling any more than 4e does, someone mentioned Heroes of Battle, are there rules in there that deal with mass combat for example?
If we were comparing 4e and Legends of Anglerre then I would definately say that LoA can do this better as it provides rules for statting up organisations of any scale and being able to play those as a character making attacks on other organisation using its Arms (Infantry) skill against the opponent's Arms (Cavalry) skill. But I am still missing what rules and mechanics 3.x provides to model organisations in this sort of abstract way.
I am not trying to be contrary I prefer the 3.5 system to 4e and hope to GM it in future, so would like to know if there is a book or something that might be of interest to me.
Hold the phone!!!!!!!!
I just remembered that the PHB2 for 3.5 has Affiliation rules that allows for organisations to make Violence, Espionage and Negotiation checks against other organisations. Is this what you are referring to sunshadow21? If so then I can agree that 3.5 has greater support for this type of play, but as of yet I don't believe PF has an equivalent am I right? Mind you the rules can pretty much be used as is for either PF or 4e.
|
|
So either the issue was that they were using a non light weapon for a sneak attack damage, or their damage with short swords was inappropriate for that weapon. Either way the separation of rules for PCs and Monsters does much to break immersion in the game.
Did you see my post where I identified a Rogue feat called Versatile Duelist that would allow a character to use Sneak Attack with a Scimitar?
But now that you mention it was a short sword maybe there is a feat or power that allows the damage die to change. I know for Monks for example there is both a class ability that changes Unarmed damage from the regular d4 to a d8, and a subsequent feat called Improved Monk Unarmed Strike that upgrades that to a d10.
And this is not even talking about Minions. I have a restraining order on me about speaking on that topic.
Well you don't have to use minions, butnot using them does limit greatly the feel you can get from the game - hacking through hordes of goblins and facing off against 10 to 1 odds are somethings that are likely to lead to a TPK otherwise.
And if this sort of stuff does break your immersion in a game if the PCs act with different rules than NPCs tehn yes 4e is obviously not the game for you and even in PF or 3.5 I suggest avoiding using optional rules like the 3.5 Action Points (which only PCs tend to get) and avoid games like Savage Worlds, FATE, Doctor Who, Mutants & Masterminds and Don't Rest Your Head.
Personally for me, simulationism (for lack of a better term) and immersion are different and not having things like mook rules would break my feeling of immersion if the genre includes such things but the rules didn't.
I just remembered that the PHB2 for 3.5 has Affiliation rules that allows for organisations to make Violence, Espionage and Negotiation checks against other organisations. Is this what you are referring to sunshadow21? If so then I can agree that 3.5 has greater support for this type of play, but as of yet I don't believe PF has an equivalent am I right? Mind you the rules can pretty much be used as is for either PF or 4e.
Those rules are a large part of it, but Jeremy actually explained my point quite clearly. In 3.x, if you have a situation where the PC is a king and there is scene that involves an NPC diplomat for that kingdom and a diplomat from another kingdom, both the DM and PC are very likely going to be perfectly comfortable playing that scene out even though there is no PC directly involved. The player can just as easily handle an organization or underling NPC as if they were an extension of the PC and scenes are often played out from that wider perspective, not just the immediate perspective of the PC. In 4E, the more likely scenario is that the DM has the underling diplomat giving a report of what happened to the PC, and the scene ultimately playing out according to the PC's point of view. 4E can incorporate different perspectives than the PCs just as easily as 3.x can, but the underlying design assumption is that the every scene is played out as it directly experienced by the PCs.
|
|
but to answer your question the player not being allowed to use the book, and the system saying no are not the same thing. In one situation the option is not there for whatever reason, and it can be handled by getting another DM.
The root causes may not be the same but the result is, a monster or NPC has an ability that a PC cannot gain in that campaign. Now if a player is that pissed off about that situation in a 3.5 or PF game that they will leave a game and find a different GM who will accommodate them, then personally I wouldn't want to play with the player anyway.
In the other situation the option does not exist at all, unless you can convince your DM to change base properties of the system, and if you are going that far you might as well just play a different game.
What may actually be a pertinent question is to ask the player whether, if available would he ever want to take that option, and if the answer is no then just forget about it - if it placates the player assume there is a feat or power or class out there that does allow PCs to do the stuff the monster did and that its available to the players but as no one intends to take it you don't need to seek it out.
If the answer is yes, then the GM needs to determine whether that fits in with the campaign concept that hopefully everyone agreed to
- if it wouldn't disrupt anything then maybe the GM can come up with something, creating a new feat or power - but if this happens too much then yes I agree you may as well play another game.
- if the player wanting the NPC's ability would disrupt the cmapaign concept, e.g. the PCs are meant to be big damn heroes for the deities of good who abhore the undead and a player wants to take the power that allowed the last NPC to summon lots of undead, then you have a bigger issue than the rules system - its one of play styles and or potentially a purposefully disruptive player.
I understand what it(the system) want to accomplish, but it does not make sense to me from an in-character point of view.
Funnily I have even less of an issue with this in character where the concept of game rules aren't known. If a for shifts a square as a Minor action rather than a Move action, in character I would just think he is a quick foe - maybe better trained, maybe just born like that.
No it doesn't. The player can't create a ritual anymore than they can create an artifact weapon or other macguffin. Normally the creator(s) were well beyond the PC's power, and spend a good portion of their lives researching said project. Now if the PC get to the same power level as the creators of mysterious game item X, and are willing to put in the work theoretically they should be able to do similar things, but at that point they are no longer adventuring which defeats the point of showing up at the table in real life.
So basically you're saying that its okay to use DM fiat if there is an in-game reason, e.g. length of time to train / study , why the PCs wouldn't be able to do something without taking them out of the game?
Whilst I can see that, how do you handle a player whose next character is created as an Elf aged 170 years (i.e. 60 years past reaching adulthood, and possible as a random starting age in 3.5) and who describes his character as having spent the majority of that time training / studying so they can have that same stuff the last villain had?
Admittedly such a player is probably being an arse to do this, you as GM would face the same issue you have a problem with in 4e - you either say "no the system does not allow that and I am not going to allow you the same benefit an NPC got through DM Fiat" or you cobble together some rules and say "yes".
Anyway, I think I am in danger of sounding as if I am trying to persuade you to change your mind rather than simply trying to understand why you feel like this.
In the end if for your own enjoyment NPCs must be built to the same rules as PCs for you to enjoy a game then yep 4e is not the game for you, but then neither are a lot of other RPGs out there :) Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.
|
|
In 3.x, if you have a situation where the PC is a king and there is scene that involves an NPC diplomat for that kingdom and a diplomat from another kingdom, both the DM and PC are very likely going to be perfectly comfortable playing that scene out even though there is no PC directly involved.
Really sorry, and I apologise if I appear dense, but if its not teh Affiliation rules from PHB2, I am still not getting what 3.x provides that makes this so but 4e does not.
In 4e you can have companions that are built a bit more simply than PCs and thus are easier to run alongside a regular character, but there is nothing stopping you creating a full blown second character in 4e if that character is likely to do a lot of stuff without the primary PC.
Is your point that because NPCs and PCs are built using the same mechanics in 3.x, if a player is handed an NPC to run by the GM they are familiar with all the mechanics? Whereas in 4e if player is handed a monster/NPC they won't be as familiar with the mechanics e.g. how a Recharge power works, or whether an NPC can take a second wind?
If so, I can definately see your point, however Companions are created slightly differently and more like PCs, they have healing surges for example, and all the mechanical information to play them can be summed up on half a sheet of paper (leaving the other half for character fluff). Indeed I created a companion for a player who was just dropping in for a single session and thus guest starred as what would otherwise have been an NPC. You can see an image of the stats here: Celia Blossil, 4e Companion
In 3.x, if you have a situation where the PC is a king and there is scene that involves an NPC diplomat for that kingdom and a diplomat from another kingdom, both the DM and PC are very likely going to be perfectly comfortable playing that scene out even though there is no PC directly involved.Really sorry, and I apologise if I appear dense, but if its not teh Affiliation rules from PHB2, I am still not getting what 3.x provides that makes this so but 4e does not.
Read Jeremy's post about kingdoms and how they would most likely be used in 4E. He does a good job of explaining it in 4E terms. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that in 4E, the design assumption is that you are going to be telling the story of the king from the perspective of the king. Even when the kingdom comes into the story, it comes into the story from the perspective of how the king interacts with it. This is a suble, but important, difference than how 3.x/Pathfinder would typically handle it. After a certain point, the DM in 3.x may choose to focus on the king, he may choose to focus on the kingdom as a whole, or he can choose to focus on any one of many NPCs that are part of the kingdom. At that point, the story is functionally as much about the kingdom as a whole as it is about the king. The default 4E design assumption never shifts the focus away from the king to that more abstract level and instead filtering everything about the kingdom through the king's senses and experiences. It's not so much that 4E can't provide the same experience as much as it's base design is different, so it will tend to convey that experience in a very different manner.
|
|
Read Jeremy's post about kingdoms and how they would most likely be used in 4E. He does a good job of explaining it in 4E terms. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that in 4E, the design assumption is that you are going to be telling the story of the king from the perspective of the king. Even when the kingdom comes into the story, it comes into the story from the perspective of how the king interacts with it. This is a suble, but important, difference than how 3.x/Pathfinder would typically handle it.
I think I am going to have to admit defeat here, I don't think I'm going to understand what you're getting at. I re-read Jeremy's post but apart from a mention about the Captain of the Guard not being ideal to run solo I just get an impression of how he would run such a game, rather than what 4e favours.
Basically, from my understanding of the rules I would say that the statement "the design assumption is that you are going to be telling the story of the king from the perspective of the king" applies as much to 3.5 and PF as it does 4e.
If we're not talking about the PHB2 Affiliation rules the only thing I can see in PF or 3.5 that would support "entourage" play is the leadership feat, which IMO is matched by 4e with the Companion rules in DMG2.
If you can point me in the direction of some specific 3.5 or PF rules and mechanics that support "entourage" play or running organisations over and above the leadership feat I would willingly look them up - otherwise I think I may be a lost cause in understanding your viewpoint (thanks for persevering so far) :)
Those rules are a large part of it, but Jeremy actually explained my point quite clearly. In 3.x, if you have a situation where the PC is a king and there is scene that involves an NPC diplomat for that kingdom and a diplomat from another kingdom, both the DM and PC are very likely going to be perfectly comfortable playing that scene out even though there is no PC directly involved. The player can just as easily handle an organization or underling NPC as if they were an extension of the PC and scenes are often played out from that wider perspective, not just the immediate perspective of the PC. In 4E, the more likely scenario is that the DM has the underling diplomat giving a report of what happened to the PC, and the scene ultimately playing out according to the PC's point of view. 4E can incorporate different perspectives than the PCs just as easily as 3.x can, but the underlying design assumption is that the every scene is played out as it directly experienced by the PCs.
My answer is actually a little more complex then this. Though what you are saying is ultimately correct.
I actually bet that many, maybe even most, 4E DMs would have the players play out their diplomat NPC doing the negations with the DMs diplomat NPC. The narrativism in the game makes it seem like that would make a lot of sense. I just think that such a DM is actually making a bit of a mistake when they do this without realizing it. Right up until we started having this conversation I would have played out the negations. Now I've revised my opinion on how to handle this.
The reason for that is because such a DM won't have the PCs diplomat (or any other Companion in the PCs retinue) ever be ambushed or get into a combat encounter and then play that out on the table - they won't do it because Companions, in 4E, are generally stripped down in order to play more quickly at the table when there are PCs around - so no DM is likely to run a 40 minute combat with such stripped down 'support' style characters - it just would not be all that much fun.
If you won't play out an ambush scene that does not include a player character then it starts to make more sense also to not play diplomatic scenes either and instead focus on what the players characters do and do not know. This allows the play style to remain consistent. Since both styles are perfectly valid and fun ways to play an organization or rule a kingdom the one that stays consistent is probably the best one to go with.
If you won't play out an ambush scene that does not include a player character then it starts to make more sense also to not play diplomatic scenes either and instead focus on what the players characters do and do not know. This allows the play style to remain consistent. Since both styles are perfectly valid and fun ways to play an organization or rule a kingdom the one that stays consistent is probably the best one to go with.
This is a valid point, and one where the difference in systems is going to tend to encourage one method or the other. If you are going to play out the scene, the player needs to feel involved somehow.
In 3.x, all this takes is either the DM or, to save time, the player to whip a basic NPC from the charts and in five minutes or less, you have a character that is going to have a reasonably balanced set of abilities and equipment that both the player and DM are comfortable with. The ability to generate something that is familiar to both parties, and that could be generated by either party, quickly can encourage, or at least not discourage, the playing out of the above scenario when it comes up unexpectedly.
While this isn't impossible in 4E, it takes either more time or an experienced DM to come up with something similar. Cases like this are where many people are going to focus their attention; the rules for 3.x may make general creation longer for each NPC potentially, but because there are clear cut rules, the corner cases, like the one above, take less time from the game if they come up unexpectedly. Whereas, in 4E, the usual scenarios are easier to prepare for on the fly, but have a scenario like the diplomat one come up on the fly, and it has more potential to ground the game to a halt while the DM adjusts. Thus, it is more likely that a DM in that situation would go with the diplomat reporting back rather than risk breaking the pace of the game because of an extended pause.
It's these corner cases that come up on the fly that shapes the tendency for 4E to favor focusing on the PC, rather than branching out and playing out the side stuff. Experienced DMs and players won't be bothered by it, but newer DMs or DMs that face specific time limits are going to think twice before risking breaking up pace and feel of the game to play out something not directly related to the PCs. 4E's hidden catch comes into play at this point; if the DM does not have the knowledge and/or time to quickly make things up on the fly, the lack of something solid to fall back on can significantly slow the game down for everybody as the DM tries to catch up or figure out what needs to be cut in order to make up lost time.
|
|
I actually bet that many, maybe even most, 4E DMs would have the players play out their diplomat NPC doing the negations with the DMs diplomat NPC. The narrativism in the game makes it seem like that would make a lot of sense.
So actually it seems that nothing in 4e would actively discourage such "entourage" play, at least in terms of negotiations etc? That fits my belief too.
The reason for that is because such a DM won't have the PCs diplomat (or any other Companion in the PCs retinue) ever be ambushed or get into a combat encounter and then play that out on the table - they won't do it because Companions, in 4E, are generally stripped down in order to play more quickly at the table when there are PCs around - so no DM is likely to run a 40 minute combat with such stripped down 'support' style characters - it just would not be all that much fun.
I think that is highly debatable, with stripped down characters a combat may run faster, especially if the GM keeps the foes he had planned to use should the primary character have attended himself and if the companion is killed it could lead to some nice scenes later where the primary character is anguished "if only I had gone with Colwyn, he might still be alive now".
But yes, I can agree that some if not many GMs would perhaps not play out an ambush especially if not all players have a companion to "run" and so might get bored through a combat scene.
But I would still see this issue with 3.5 - NPC cohorts aren't likely to have the magic items and spells and feats that might make a combat as entertaining as a full primary PC fight. At least I don't believe it would necessarily be more fun that a 4e fight with Companions (who do get powers).
If you won't play out an ambush scene that does not include a player character then it starts to make more sense also to not play diplomatic scenes either and instead focus on what the players characters do and do not know.
This I strongly disagree with, even without the threat of violence it may still be desirable for a GM to run the negotiation either as pure roleplaying, a skill challenge or more likely a mix of both. But again nothing that couldn't be done in both 3.5, PF or 4e.
So yeah, still not getting this. Sorry.
When you are discussing an abstract system like 4E, all NPCs and monsters have attributes, and each attribute modifier can be used to determine the appropriate skill. Pair that with attack powers, move, senses, items equipped, etc. that is all you need to run an NPC or monster in a village, town, or kingdom. They also have companion rules.
I left 3.5, when I started running into all the micro managing of NPCs, leadership traits, etc. as that is another way to really slow down a game, and certain players will monopolize time. So each feature provided has a benefit and a downside. You much choose the features you like, to support the game you play.
I always viewed 4E as providing the minimal mechanics, and the allow the DM to expound on that. But if you came from a system where more complex features are offered, I can definitely see why you would feel lost or feel a game is lacking when they don't exist.
I always viewed 4E as providing the minimal mechanics, and the allow the DM to expound on that. But if you came from a system where more complex features are offered, I can definitely see why you would feel lost or feel a game is lacking when they don't exist.
It isn't so much that many people feel lost or lacking most of the time; it's the corner cases that really separate the two systems. An experienced DM in a home game is not going to notice any difference, but put a time limit on the scenario or put an inexperienced DM behind the screen, and those random, odd scenarios that are merely an annoyance in 3.x can become a major impediment to moving the game forward if they come up unexpectedly in 4E. It is this extreme variation between smooth and not smooth that jars people most of the time. at it's heart, for me at least, it isn't just that the monsters are different, or that the DM uses different rules; it is the fact that unless I know that the DM is going to have both the skill and time needed to adjust or create on the fly with next to no help from the system, I tend to be very wary of the "cool" things that so many people seem to think are the important part of 4E.
If you won't play out an ambush scene that does not include a player character then it starts to make more sense also to not play diplomatic scenes either and instead focus on what the players characters do and do not know.
This I strongly disagree with, even without the threat of violence it may still be desirable for a GM to run the negotiation either as pure roleplaying, a skill challenge or more likely a mix of both. But again nothing that couldn't be done in both 3.5, PF or 4e.
So yeah, still not getting this. Sorry.
What we are really looking at here is verisimilitude and what price different DMs place on it. It'd probably shock Mr. Swagger and OilHorse but I actually place a pretty high premium on verisimilitude - its just that I am not trying to define it as 'realistic'. I'm defining it as true to the genre I am attempting to simulate.
Thus consistency within the style of game being presented to the players is important to me. Once I realized that I would not be willing to run a combat with Companions (your example of one where the Companion gets killed for dramatic effect being one of the few reasons I can think of that would have made me consider doing so), I also come to the conclusion that I don't want to be having the companions featuring independent of the PCs in other roles in the game.
Now if I believed that running the game purely from the PCs perspective was some how worse then the alternative option of having them also control their Companions I might modify my stance...but I don't - I think they are both equally valid ways to play the game. Once both options appear to be equal I very easily default to using the one that is going to be more consistent in presentation.
All that said if you lower the value of consistency just a few notches and then choose to rate controlling Companions as a more fun way to play then having things happen from the PCs perspective you could come to a different conclusion then I have and I don't think you'd be engaged in bad wrong fun.
I always viewed 4E as providing the minimal mechanics, and the allow the DM to expound on that. But if you came from a system where more complex features are offered, I can definitely see why you would feel lost or feel a game is lacking when they don't exist.It isn't so much that many people feel lost or lacking most of the time; it's the corner cases that really separate the two systems. An experienced DM in a home game is not going to notice any difference, but put a time limit on the scenario or put an inexperienced DM behind the screen, and those random, odd scenarios that are merely an annoyance in 3.x can become a major impediment to moving the game forward if they come up unexpectedly in 4E. It is this extreme variation between smooth and not smooth that jars people most of the time. at it's heart, for me at least, it isn't just that the monsters are different, or that the DM uses different rules; it is the fact that unless I know that the DM is going to have both the skill and time needed to adjust or create on the fly with next to no help from the system, I tend to be very wary of the "cool" things that so many people seem to think are the important part of 4E.
If the corner cases are using trip in 3.5 versus knocking prone in 4E, disarming, etc. where there are distinct differences, then there is nothing to be done. Each system has a different emphasis. But in regards to what the DM is doing, and taking time to develop an appropriate encounter at home, for an adventure, or RPGA event, then the same problems exist for any system. A DM will interpret the adventure, and players will react. But I would also be one that tends in favor DM fiat, as long as it is used wisely (and is not obvious).
If I feel a game is too easy, doesn't use rules as I interpret them, or just isn't fun, then I know I am not going to work out with the DM, or vice versa.
|
|
In 3.x, all this takes is either the DM or, to save time, the player to whip a basic NPC from the charts and in five minutes or less, you have a character that is going to have a reasonably balanced set of abilities and equipment that both the player and DM are comfortable with. The ability to generate something that is familiar to both parties, and that could be generated by either party, quickly can encourage, or at least not discourage, the playing out of the above scenario when it comes up unexpectedly..
I'm also a little slow on the uptake here. If I fixate on the diplomat scenario. I don't understand why I need a fully stated PC-like NPC in the first place? Note down relevant skills for skills checks (skill challenges in 4e - bad press aside they DO work well in a game) scribble down a general personality (after all this is NOT the PC) and let the player go nuts. Fully stated implies you think the diplomat is going to be doing things other than diplomacy. If that is true then either (in my opinion) the diplomat isn't really doing a what diplomat should (an assassin perhaps?) or I think a PC should be doing whatever it is - PC's are the center of ANY role-playing game after all. If the 'retainer NPC' was a combat helper then I can see why you would spend time stating out only.
In the case of the diplomat under 4e, easy: Diplomat level 5 = +9 Diplomacy ( from +2 level, +2 stat (because I said so), and +5 trained). Repeat for other important skills as required. HP's & other stuff = pointless unless an outcome could be violence AND you want to let the system decide live vs die. I would be inclined to make them a minion myself - I'm think of the movie 300 where the Persian diplomat gets booted into the well :)
Minions are an awesome resource in 4e, you can have villagers excelling at say being a blacksmith but have the HP's of a small army. Or worse a sage with more hp's than an adventurer because skills in 3.x are tied to level which in turn is tied to hp's etc - that breaks immersion for me if anything. 1e DMG not a level been seen for any NPC's - yet they can be good at what they do.
Sorry for being dense, but I don't get the issue either,
S.
I think the dissonance is coming from the fact that I am trying to approach 4E as a independent, stand alone system, where many of you are very much approaching it as "3.5 - the formal rule structure." I don't personally care for the second approach for two reasons.
First, the designers of 4E clearly did not have that view in mind when they created the new system, so the individual subsystems were not designed with that expectation. Even a minor change like dynamic vs static DCs can make for different gaming experiences.
Second, for every person who converted, there is a person who never played 3.5, and doesn't see a reason to. The two groups aren't going to have the same conceptual framework of how to structure things. People on this board who play both games aren't going to have a very hard time adapting 3.x/Pathfinder material and concepts to the looser structure of 4E, but people who have only played 4E are not going to be automatically assume that the concepts behind 3.x are worth the trouble; they might instead draw their conceptual structure from some other system which could be as similar as Star Wars SAGA or as different as the Amber system. This variation in where basic structure can come from makes it hard to say that 4E is similar to 3.5, because as a stand alone system it is more accurate to say that it can be made to feel similar to whatever system the DM feels like drawing inspiration from. On this board, obviously that inspiration is going to be largely the legacy of 3.5 and Pathfinder, but other groups/boards/individuals cannot be assumed to have that same bias or background. This ability for 4E to be whatever people want it to be is both a strength and a weakness; it allows it to potentially appeal to a larger audience, but requires individual groups to have similar expectations and goals before they decide to play, since the system itself will not provide much assistance in creating a common ground.
Therefore, it comes down to the fact that your suggestions on how things work may make perfect sense to you, me, and many others here on this particular board, but try to make them on a more generic board like enworld, and they will likely fall on uncomprehending ears either unwilling or unable to reach the point in the conversation that both sides really understand each other. Whereas with 3.5, anyone can pick up a book and start arguing the rules with the expectation that if someone else really wants to argue with them, the item at the core of the argument will be understood by the other party, even if the interpretations vary.
but to answer your question the player not being allowed to use the book, and the system saying no are not the same thing. In one situation the option is not there for whatever reason, and it can be handled by getting another DM.The root causes may not be the same but the result is, a monster or NPC has an ability that a PC cannot gain in that campaign. Now if a player is that pissed off about that situation in a 3.5 or PF game that they will leave a game and find a different GM who will accommodate them, then personally I wouldn't want to play with the player anyway.
In the other situation the option does not exist at all, unless you can convince your DM to change base properties of the system, and if you are going that far you might as well just play a different game.What may actually be a pertinent question is to ask the player whether, if available would he ever want to take that option, and if the answer is no then just forget about it - if it placates the player assume there is a feat or power or class out there that does allow PCs to do the stuff the monster did and that its available to the players but as no one intends to take it you don't need to seek it out.
If the answer is yes, then the GM needs to determine whether that fits in with the campaign concept that hopefully everyone agreed to
- if it wouldn't disrupt anything then maybe the GM can come up with something, creating a new feat or power - but if this happens too much then yes I agree you may as well play another game.
- if the player wanting the NPC's ability would disrupt the cmapaign concept, e.g. the PCs are meant to be big damn heroes for the deities of good who abhore the undead and a player wants to take the power that allowed the last NPC to summon lots of undead, then you have a bigger issue than the rules system - its one of play styles and or potentially a purposefully disruptive player.I understand what it(the system) want to...
It's cool. My basic point was that everyone immerses(could not think of a better word) differently that is all. I played 4E, and I don't think it is a bad system. It just does not do what I want to do. Thanks for staying civil.
|
|
It's cool. My basic point was that everyone immerses(could not think of a better word) differently that is all. I played 4E, and I don't think it is a bad system. It just does not do what I want to do. Thanks for staying civil.
No problem, I can be a bit ternacious at times but it is because I want to understand someone else's viewpoint as opposed to convince them otherwise - as I actually prefer 3.5 but run 4e as well I am always interested in hearing about any strengths or weaknesses of the system so that I can be aware of them and hopefully avoid any issues before they arrive.
I must also echo the sentiment that it's nice this has stayed civil. Especially since I don't play 4E, these discussions are very important in helping me better understand the system and its inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Whereas with 3.5, anyone can pick up a book and start arguing the rules with the expectation that if someone else really wants to argue with them, the item at the core of the argument will be understood by the other party, even if the interpretations vary.
This appears to be the heart of the misunderstanding we 4E players are having about your statements.
The rules of 4E are very clear and clean-cut, and rules disagreements happen much less than they did for my group in 3.X. Anyone can still pick up and argue any facet of the 4E rules, irrespective of the style or method of play or play experience. Since the rules divorce themselves from the flavor, said flavor doesn't cause rules arguments to be skewed based of different perceptions of the game/genre as a whole.
In fact, I think the 4E system itself leads to a more malleable experience along different genres as well. Because the gamism is all wrapped up in a nice little package, however you add your Narativism or tweak for your Simulationism becomes much simpler and actually flows much smoother.
Again, I run a sandbox game, we Role-play when they want to and we Combat when they want to. Being a rules lawyer, and someone that is compelled to know and follow ALL the rules, this has been the only system where I've felt that I can whip out anything without having to have it pre-gen before game.
I see it as a growing game. 1E was the origin, baby's first steps, 2E was learning while we grew, 3E was excitable and had it's hands in a little of everything but didn't quite understand it all, 4E just accepted that the simplicity of youth were better times, but approaches it with the understanding that only comes with age. Were each of them great? Yes, we grew up together, but at some point I realized that 3.X just needed to heed the words of the Rolling Stones "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need".
Just like 3.X I was a young once, thought I had it all figured out, and knew exactly how the world works. Then I got older* and realized the world is just a framework, and I can shape it how I want it. That's when 4E and I became good friends.
*Please, no one misinterpret me, I'm not saying players of 3.X are kids. I'm just comparing the game to the nature of getting older. I'm not trying to offend. Just wanted to make that clear up front.
I agree, and overall your statements reflect my journey in playing D&D and related games. I started simple, went to more complex systems, and then I realized you didn't necessarily need all the rules to have a fun experience. Some like the complexity of more choices, but I saw the value of keeping things streamlined. This really hit home as a DM. In addition, people that would never consider being a DM before, did so, and offered me a break to have some fun playing as well.
In fact, I think the 4E system itself leads to a more malleable experience along different genres as well. Because the gamism is all wrapped up in a nice little package, however you add your Narativism or tweak for your Simulationism becomes much simpler and actually flows much smoother.
Again, I run a sandbox game, we Role-play when they want to and we Combat when they want to. Being a rules lawyer, and someone that is compelled to know and follow ALL the rules, this has been the only system where I've felt that I can whip out anything without having to have it pre-gen before game.
I personally have never been in a group that felt that they had to follow every single rule in 3.5 to the letter, and that is the case for many people. Many people and DMs learned quickly what rules were essential and what rules could be safely ignored. The difference is that for the first time, 3.0 and 3.5 provided a written down safety net for new players and new DMs. While many older players felt constrained by this, just as many simply learned the basic structure and proceeded to deal with only the rules pertaining to the part of the structure they were using. 4E was marketed as a "simpler" game, but in truth, the system neither simpler nor more complex than anything that came before it. It just goes out of its way to hide the complexity behind the mechanics. Someone just picking up a 4E core book with no prior RPG experience is going to have to pre create everything as much as they would in 3.5 due to the fact that they have to figure out the underlying, unwritten assumptions that went into the design.
A lot of players used to 3.5 who tried 4E found the lack of that safety net led to a more unpredictable experience. Instead of debating rule specifics, players just get to play 20 questions with the DM. 3.5 drew in a much larger crowd precisely because 3.x moved away from the 20 questions model used in 1E and 2E, and 4E lost a lot of support comparatively because the unpredictability created by that model is not as appealing to the wider audience. Likewise, 4E still doesn't really appeal to the MMO crowd because of that unpredictability.
|
|
3.5 drew in a much larger crowd precisely because 3.x moved away from the 20 questions model used in 1E and 2E, and 4E lost a lot of support comparatively because the unpredictability created by that model is not as appealing to the wider audience.
I am not sure you can say that so authoritatively, I imagine the OGL and allowing 3rd party support was a major controbuting factor (if not the main factor) as to why 3.5 (and 3.0) drew in a large crowd.
Personally I feel 4e is simpler than 3.5, but sometimes that is a reason why I prefer 3.5 (e.g. Grab in 4e just stops a foe moving from a square, it doesn't hamper their fighting ability etc) - I much prefer the 3.5 Grapple.
I am not sure you can say that so authoritatively, I imagine the OGL and allowing 3rd party support was a major controbuting factor (if not the main factor) as to why 3.5 (and 3.0) drew in a large crowd.
The OGL was a major factor, but it also helped that those people not overly comfortable sitting down at a table of strangers, and for whom small talk and making friends was challenging, could easily sit down at a 3.5 table and know that there was already a common ground of sorts in place via the rulebook. 4E, because of its malleability and ability to appeal to a more diverse definition of "fun," is more unpredictable, and thus can be harder for some to approach without major incentive to do so.
It also helped in 3.5 that such a person could be handed a pregen fighter and could run that fighter after with next to no formal knowledge of the system. As long as they could find the right number to add to the dice when they were told to roll to hit something, they didn't really need to know where those numbers came from right, at least right away. In 4E, EVERY class before essentials had a fair number of powers that had to be fully understood for the character to be effective.
Ultimately, 4E is not simpler than 3.5; they just repositioned the balance in what was simpler and what was harder. Instead of a having a complexity graph that started out simple (depending on the class, very simple) and got extremely complex at the end, the line for 4E is much flatter, with the initial system mastery required being slightly higher and the ultimate system mastery being much lower. Essentials readjusted the line for 4E a little bit closer to 3.5's but not so much that the lines are anywhere close to each other.
The extremes in 3.5 were farther apart, but fairly predictable in when and how they came up. The extremes in 4E are closer to together, but harder to predict occurrences of for inexperienced players and DMs.
|
|
but it also helped that those people not overly comfortable sitting down at a table of strangers, and for whom small talk and making friends was challenging, could easily sit down at a 3.5 table and know that there was already a common ground of sorts in place via the rulebook. 4E, because of its malleability and ability to appeal to a more diverse definition of "fun," is more unpredictable, and thus can be harder for some to approach without major incentive to do so.
I am not sure that your experiences can be extrapolated to represent the market as a whole, in the same way that neither can mine. For me what you say about having a common ground via the rulebook equally applied to 4e in my experience - I have played D&D 4e with people who had never played any other version of D&D but the 4e PHB gave us that common ground.
In 4E, EVERY class before essentials had a fair number of powers that had to be fully understood for the character to be effective.
True, but once you understood how one character worked with At Will, ENcounter and Daily Powers you pretty much knew how any character class worked (with perhaps the exception of some from PHB3). With 3.5 a player may get to grips with a fighter fairly easier, but if they then wanted to play a Cleric with spells, turn undead etc, I imagine their learning curve would be greater.
Ultimately, 4E is not simpler than 3.5
Again this is debateable, I would say many of the specific mechanics of 4e are simpler (e.g. Grab compared to Grapple) but overall is 4e simpler than 3.5? Maybe not, but I would also definately say that 3.5 is not simpler than 4e IMHO at least.
All very good points, DM, and they reinforce what I am trying to say. Different people will see different mechanics as easier, harder, or "better" based on a wide variety of factors, so ultimately 3.5 and 4E are simply different, not easier or harder or more "fun" than the other overall. Which system is seen as "better" is likely going to depend heavily on the group or groups that any given individual finds themselves in and what precisely they are looking for in a system. Each system can emulate the other, but they are not designed at their cores to do the same thing.
I agree, and overall your statements reflect my journey in playing D&D and related games. I started simple, went to more complex systems, and then I realized you didn't necessarily need all the rules to have a fun experience. Some like the complexity of more choices, but I saw the value of keeping things streamlined. This really hit home as a DM. In addition, people that would never consider being a DM before, did so, and offered me a break to have some fun playing as well.
Its worth noting that, apart from the initial release and versions of D&D that came out after the initial release (1st edition, BECMI) Dungeons & Dragons has always been a follower of market trends - not the leader. When people really discovered the idea of story and their games moved out of dungeons and into more intense role playing and story telling 2nd edition followed that trend (not so much in the rule set but absolutely in everything the did to support the rules set). As games became more complex and intricate D&D once again followed the market trend with rules heavy 3rd edition. Finally - as gamers have become older with families and more responsibilities games like Savage Worlds and their ilk began to win awards and once again D&D followed that trend.
Its no surprise that you discovered that you liked a rules simpler approach - a lot of people where making this very same discovery (myself included).