I'll give you the barbarian (I'd say Pathfinder handles it a bit better - I can see rage being something you cannot keep up forever, and a limited number of rounds dependant on your level and constitution makes a certain sense). Everything else is explained simply by the fact that these effects are magical. And that's the way magic works in the game: You get a certain amount of juice each day.
3.5 does this too:
Barbarian rage - can do it once per day with no explanation why.
Bardic music - only works 1 per day per level because?
Cleric turn undead - Must run out of faith.
Druid wild shape - Usage increases aren't even at regular intervals.
Bolded for emphasis: This line of thinking is easily applied to Martial Daily powers. Think of them as a sort of physically straining technique that takes a lot of concentration, fortitude, and strength to accomplish.
Better yet, think of it like lifting weights at the gym. Weights and Exercies are the equivalent to your Daily powers (at 1st, 5th, and 9th level) and your trying to do Max weight. First you want to keep it easy, knowing Bench Press is your BIG go-to (9th level exploit) and the most fun exercise. So, instead, you go with a different exercise that you can't lift as much weight on, like Dumbbell Flys (1st level exploit). So you do your 1-set Max of 95 lbs and that's about it, you know another set (possibly even 1 rep) could possibly tear your muscles and you probably couldn't do it with good form, so your done for the day with that exercise.
Then, while looking around the gym you see the pull-down bar. You know it works some of the same muscles as the DB-flys but you still want to try. You do another 1-set Max with 190 lbs, straining your already weakend muscles and applying new ones (ie. 5th level daily). Finally, you want to do Bench and your able to still do your 1-rep Max of 295 lbs and putting a LOT of stress on your upper chest muscles in the process. With all of that energy, you couldn't possibly do any of those exercises again without injury and fatigue has set in for those weights. BUT you can still do other exercies with moderate weight (your encounter powers) and auxillery lifting (your at-wills) for quite a while longer.
Or basically, you only got a certian amount of juice before your literally and physically fatigued doing these sorts of stunts.
|
Or basically, you only got a certian amount of juice before your literally and physically fatigued doing these sorts of stunts.
Except when that power is like my example of "Split the Tree"...
Adding more arrows to ones bowstring per shot is no more tiring than shooting just one arrow per pull of the bowstring...
I'm not trying to beat this particular example to death, I am just trying to illustrate that your analogy only goes so far with feats of skill...
The alternative could be to allow all powers to be attempted at will but making them harder to perform.
As much as I like 4e (and, post-Essentials, I secretly like it more than Pathfinder), the narrative declaration requirements of martial dailies bugged me enough that I couldn't play it without a houserule along these similar lines.
My rule, though, was to charge the martial character healing surges to reuse encounter and daily powers. I'm leaving out the details, but the general gist was that you could keep attempting these super-attacks, but you'd exhaust yourself.
I will say that up through 4th level, it worked out alright and my martial players had a unique level of strategy I think they enjoyed.
In any case, I'd even prefer 'Mage's high chance of failure approach to martial attacks over the "let's just assume you'll fail if you try again" approach required to rationalize martial dailies now.
That is not what I am talking about though. That is a person, who can't get over WOTC. That is not even fanning flames, that is lunacy. That individual was not projecting a valid opinion.
I don't think we can really call that opinion "invalid". It's an opinion, and we can do little beyond guess at its underlying reasoning. And it happens, just like that, all the time.
The situation you linked to? Not a big deal. I probably wouldn't have balked at it (even though I very much doubt the dig at 4e was critical to the thread). But as far as I can see, the "sniping" was one guy and one post. If people are hyper-sensitive to digs against 4e, it's because they've been made so by the unrelentingly hostile attitude towards the game that has, unfortunately, become par for the course across much of this forum community. Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here.
|
|
the power chosen probably isn't the best example.
I agree that the power I used is not the best example overall (and while I'm sure that better examples can be readily found, I think you can agree that it is not necessary to do so). But it is the one example that readily came to mind of the "disassociated mechanics" I spoke of that turn me personally away from the system...
And the only reason I even brought it up in the first place, was that Scott had said that the system cannot fail someone, and I wished to point to an example of a way that it can (in this case, one from a personal experience)...
Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here.
And it gets mentioned a lot.
I think Pathfinder fans who hate 4e talk about it far more then Pathfinder fans that enjoy and play 4e.
|
Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here.And it gets mentioned a lot.
I think Pathfinder fans who hate 4e talk about it far more then Pathfinder fans that enjoy and play 4e.
I'm amused that you are surprised about the fact that negativity comes around much easier than positivity, Cirno ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The situation you linked to? Not a big deal. I probably wouldn't have balked at it (even though I very much doubt the dig at 4e was critical to the thread). But as far as I can see, the "sniping" was one guy and one post. If people are hyper-sensitive to digs against 4e, it's because they've been made so by the unrelentingly hostile attitude towards the game that has, unfortunately, become par for the course across much of this forum community. Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here.
If we're going to be getting the box of tissues and crying about which edition gets picked on the most, then please, let me throw my useless anecdotal hat into the ring.
This is a Paizo/Pathfinder forum. Yes, this particular subforum is dedicated to 4e, but the message board itself is predominantly inhabited by PF/3.5 fans, many of whom(like myself) came here as a shelter from the storm when the editions switched. Pathfinder is the spiritual and mechanical successor to 3.5, so *gasp* there are a lot of 3.5 people here who don't like 4e. It's all well and good that we can theorize about how we should all be fans of gaming itself, and everyone should get along and yadda yadda yadda, but the reality is that's taking a long time to happen.
In the meantime, 4e fans are sort of "pilgrims in an unholy land" here, so don't act shocked when some of the locals have trouble biting their tongues. No, I don't endorse any attacks on any system. I might have issues with mechanics or corporate marketing ploys, but I won't tell someone to not play something. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. This very thread is an example. Also, some players are more apt volley their ignorance and frustration at 4e here, rather than Wizards.com, because there is less resistance. Sure, the knowledgeable fans are going to come defend their game, but they won't have an entire site after them like if they tried it at the source.
It's not fair. I'll give you that. Many of the 4e supporters here are some of Paizo's best customers. People should be free to play AP's with whatever ruleset they like. But people have a base tendency to faction off and reside with others like-minded.
I will agree with you; 4e does get it's share of dirt kicked at it around here. Drive-by trolls like the OP are just a recent example. But everywhere else on the net, 3.5 fans have been treated as bad, worse even.
Even over at the site for "the world's most popular RPG," things have settled down a but, but when the edition switch happened, previous edition fans were ganged up on and trolled HARD, and the mods allowed it. But, say one tiny word against the "new and shiny", and you'd get topic-banned, or flamed and trolled into oblivion without a mod lifting a finger.
Some of the more zealous 4e fans even formed little groups, many of whom were based on Marvel comics characters for some reason(4vengers, for example), and would team up to troll out anyone who dared to breath a word of dislike for the new system. Again, the mods endorsed this.
It didn't matter if you had been a loyal customer of that company for many years, you suddenly became "the enemy." I was a regular forum member over there for a long, long time. It's no coincidence that I reside here now.
|
Before I played 3ed, I had tried Dragon Warriors, Warhammer, Earthdawn and one or two other little ones I don't remember the name of.
I actually believe this variety allowed me to approach 4e with an open mindset and very little preconceptions. To me, it's just another tool to tell the tale.
I relate the use of powers the same way Earthdawn does. Each character is linked intrinsically to their power source (Primal, psychihc, divine etc). You only have so much power available to you, and it only works in some ways for small amounts of time. The big dailies do some pretty miraclous things after all. We explain it away as using the inherant power to harness the natural magic of the world to work for you. Your power source merely determines how your body and mind comprehends the magic of the world and allows you to channel it. Big powers are exhausting, trying it more than once a day is so demanding that the body just fails at it.
I approach all the games I play with a mind to explain the limitations the rules set in interesting ways that build the flavour of the game world. I find it far more creative to try and overcome what we percieve as game flaws or limitations in ways that add to the story. Too many folk prefer to cry foul and demand fixes instead. While some of their points are valid, it occasionally seems to me that more time is spent complaining than actually playing, and that's just not something my friends and I are interested in investing time on.
Cheers
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here.And it gets mentioned a lot.
I think Pathfinder fans who hate 4e talk about it far more then Pathfinder fans that enjoy and play 4e.
Or there are a lot more of us.
In video game terms Pathfinder is a complex strategy game like the Civilization series, many layered, a bit complex, perhaps not as easy to just pick up and go, but rewarding and re-playable.
4E is a first person shooter, easy to pick up, very straightforward and a lot of fun, but...well...you are here to basically do one thing, aren't you.
I said from the beginning that 4e was created for computer integration, with simplification and equalization following the classic Diablo/WoW chain.
And people like those things.
But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the meantime, 4e fans are sort of "pilgrims in an unholy land" here, so don't act shocked when some of the locals have trouble biting their tongues. No, I don't endorse any attacks on any system. I might have issues with mechanics or corporate marketing ploys, but I won't tell someone to not play something. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. This very thread is an example. Also, some players are more apt volley their ignorance and frustration at 4e here, rather than Wizards.com, because there is less resistance. Sure, the knowledgeable fans are going to come defend their game, but they won't have an entire site after them like if they tried...
This is why I find the idea that the older players fling more dirt so laughable. I remember the 4eavengers, in fact that is the word I usually use for people that snipe at older fans. WOTC's site became unlivable at that time. I was a very pro 4e player BEFORE I played the game. Once I played it and realized they made a game for some other type of player, the 4e justice league, 4e daredevil (for those who could not find friends)
and the 4e avengers were all over me, for poo pooing the new thing.That is why now when I hear the whining about 4e getting picked on MORE, it sounds so utterly ridiculous.
4eavengers. I would love to meet them in a game store. I have found I can have a real DISCUSSION about game systems in the game store.
In video game terms Pathfinder is a complex strategy game like the Civilization series, many layered, a bit complex, perhaps not as easy to just pick up and go, but rewarding and re-playable.4E is a first person shooter, easy to pick up, very straightforward and a lot of fun, but...well...you are here to basically do one thing, aren't you.
Oh man please don't compare Pathfinder to Civ (any version), that game is about as dull as watching paint dry. If I'd make any comparions between PF/4E and video games, it'd be more like Pathfinder is like the old Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games where there is a lot of character immersion and story with combat. Character creation is a part of the game, but not the main part. You do, however, have to go through a lot of RPing/interaction with the world for the game to move on.
4E, however, reminds me more of Mass Effect than anything else. Really, you get out of the game what you put in. In Mass Effect (termed M.E. from this point forward) combat is pivotal and your choices through your character creation and advancement greatly effects how you approach certain situations. Also the classes are rather balance out, drawing from a collection of powers that are usable with recharge times, etc. But, you could easily play through the game with little interaction with the surrounding environs. You don't have to do side missions, you don't have to get involved "romantically" with your ship-mates, you don't have to explore each and every planet for resources or try to build and retrofit every weapon you come across. In fact, you could probably beat the game in one night without a care for the ramifications of any of your actions. But that sorta defeats the purpose of playing the game for the great story or the fun commentary.
I said from the beginning that 4e was created for computer integration, with simplification and equalization following the classic Diablo/WoW chain.And people like those things.
But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?
Wait, I thought 4E was like a First-Person-Shooter? Or is it now like Diablo/WoW? As for getting tired of hack 'n' slash, I usually turn to Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, Warcraft III, Starcraft, or...hells even Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
I'll give you the barbarian (I'd say Pathfinder handles it a bit better - I can see rage being something you cannot keep up forever, and a limited number of rounds dependant on your level and constitution makes a certain sense). Everything else is explained simply by the fact that these effects are magical. And that's the way magic works in the game: You get a certain amount of juice each day.What about the rogue's defensive roll ability?
That, too. You might explain it as being a matter of luck and that luck will run out if relied upon too often in too short a time.
Before we go through the rules with a fine-toothed comb: Yes, it does happen occasionally in 3e/PF. Sometimes, it can be explained but sometimes, it's a pure balance issue. I'm not too much of a fan of this, but I want to point out that it's the exception rather than the rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say so much so, that even if someone says they don't like 4e a little bit, they are sniped as an edition warrior because they have a valid negative opinion of the game. Note I am not saying the op opinion was valid.
Exactly. If the PF fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without repeating that they hate 4e, the 4e fans can be derided as being unable to handle criticism to 4e or wotc in any way without throwing a hissy fit and calling everyone a 4e hater.
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
But then some folks, like ciretose, or sunshadow, or however many others, go on to say, "My preferences are because I like complexity and storytelling and RP, and you like 4E because it is a simple first-person shooter based on Diablo/WoW, and you don't do anything but combat."
You don't have to like 4E, you don't have to find its specific approaches useful for your games. But these claims just are completely ungrounded in reality. The standardization of rules in 4E wasn't to simplify it for a computer game, it was to make those rules easier for DMs to use. It features more than combat, and has some of the best books out there for giving guidance on roleplaying and storytelling in the game. It has a fantastic diversity of classes, now more than ever - and I personally find it the best edition out there for supported a robust array of viable character options, and ability to really customize nearly every aspect of a character. And many products, especially the most recent, are filled with tons of background and flavor, with interesting monsters and places and organizations. It has some crappy adventures, but also some awesome ones - like most editions.
I never claimed it didn't have combat, but unlike with 3.5 and PF, all of the noncombat material is entirely in the hands of the DM. This not meant as a criticism, just an observation. The difference is the amount of player input before the DM has to take the situation back over and resolve any questions raised by the players. In 3.5 the players could rely on the rules to answer basic questions without the DM having to address every single player concern. It may have gotten better since I played as 4E DMs have gotten more used to automatically providing most of the needed descriptions, but I just got tired of playing 20 questions all the time just to resolve a simple noncombat scenario without feeling that I missed something.
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this in other editions. You basically refluffed an in-game race and class. I do this in 3.5 on a regular basis.
But, it works easier for you in 4e, so that's great.
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
Sounds like an Oracle of Flame to me! Easy enough to fashion in Pathfinder, as well. I'm pretty sure either system can be played to grant you the type of character you want, subject to each systems' idiosyncrasies and access to expansion volumes (or an open and free SRD).
|
|
but unlike with 3.5 and PF, all of the noncombat material is entirely in the hands of the DM. This not meant as a criticism, just an observation. The difference is the amount of player input before the DM has to take the situation back over and resolve any questions raised by the players. In 3.5 the players could rely on the rules to answer basic questions without the DM having to address every single player concern. It may have gotten better since I played as 4E DMs have gotten more used to automatically providing most of the needed descriptions, but I just got tired of playing 20 questions all the time just to resolve a simple noncombat scenario without feeling that I missed something.
Could you give an example of this as I am not understanding what you mean by "all of the noncombat material is entirely in the hands of the DM". My experience of 4e is that its skill list is pretty much as robust as 3.5 and PF allowing all the non-combat skill use.
Are you talking about the rules specifying specific DC for tasks? That sort of thing?
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
The only thing you can do in this example that you cannot do in another game is play the dragon born.
The only thing you can do in this example that you cannot do in another game is play the dragon born.
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
There were Dragonborn in 3.5, but they were a little different. Could even just do the level-by-level breakdown of Half-Dragon presented in Races of the Dragon. Or the Dragon Shaman and/or Dragonfire Adept base classes which grant breath weapons, regardless of race and at no level loss. This is just the tip of the iceberg of ways you could play the same concept.
I find 4E better for roleplaying, for setting building, for exploration and detail. There are definite areas where trade-offs have been made - for me, both as a player and a DM, those trade-offs help avoid the 'min/max' mindset that I felt permeated 3rd Edition. It made it possible to focus on actual character concepts and development, and not worry about 'winning' the game as 3rd Edition seemed so focused on. The greater focus on narrative over mechanics makes for more robust story-telling and more immersion in the story for the players. The specifics of the core setting and cosmology resonate more for me on the level of myth and fantasy than the potentially dry 'histories' of earlier settings.
Now, for whatever reasons, many other folks have not run into those problems with 3rd Edition. Or they find the greater simulationism of 3rd Edition to make for a more intense experience. Or they simply prefer the Great Wheel vs the Astral Sea, or Greyhawk vs Nerath, or whatever - and all of that is perfectly fine.
But then some folks, like...
Actually the min/max mindset is relieved because it is built in the game for you already. The min/max problem is one of character optimization. Other than optimization boards, I don't encounter min/maxing much.
I have played 4e for several years now with different DM's. Character concepts and narrativist play are no easier to create in 4e than 3rd edition. If I play a board game and I say I want the Hat to be a dragon and I go to conquer the BOARDWALK, that is a great narrativist situation. However it was not the rules that allowed that, it was the player and the group.
Monster creation and adventure design is easier I will grant you that. I happen to like that monsters follow character rules in PF (one thing I liked over 1st edition as well), and I like that monsters in 3/PF are not one size fits all for purposes of an encounter slot.
As far as the electronic media goes, I definitely think that WOTC made its game with the electronic technology in mind. From mechanics on down. There is no doubt to me that video game sensibilities were used in the design. Unfortunately I do not think Video game sensibilities are as important for a table top medium. In fact I have a feeling that it is possible that D&D as a brand will be reduced to an electronic game or Card game. It is not that way now, but I think the marketing might direct it that way
There were Dragonborn in 3.5, but they were a little different. Could even just do the level-by-level breakdown of Half-Dragon presented in Races of the Dragon. Or the Dragon Shaman and/or Dragonfire Adept base classes which grant breath weapons, regardless of race and at no level loss. This is just the tip of the iceberg of ways you could play the same concept.
Well actually this is sacrilege for an old 1st edition player, but I didn't like Dragon Born the FIRST time they were made in Dragon Lance.
But they served to separate DL from other settings.
There were Dragonborn in 3.5, but they were a little different. Could even just do the level-by-level breakdown of Half-Dragon presented in Races of the Dragon. Or the Dragon Shaman and/or Dragonfire Adept base classes which grant breath weapons, regardless of race and at no level loss. This is just the tip of the iceberg of ways you could play the same concept.Well actually this is sacrilege for an old 1st edition player, but I didn't like Dragon Born the FIRST time they were made in Dragon Lance.
But they served to separate DL from other settings.
I wasn't referring to Draconians, I was referring to the race template in Races of the Dragon. Although I suppose refluffed Draconians work just as well too.
Could you give an example of this as I am not understanding what you mean by "all of the noncombat material is entirely in the hands of the DM". My experience of 4e is that its skill list is pretty much as robust as 3.5 and PF allowing all the non-combat skill use.
Are you talking about the rules specifying specific DC for tasks? That sort of thing?
The DCs are a big part of it. Having the common ones being set and and the base values mostly knowable (though the DM is still free to apply modifiers as appropriate) to the players helps eliminate a lot of questions by letting the player know the rough odds for success barring unknown, and possibly unknowable, circumstances, without every player having to ask the DM the same basic question every time one or more times they are considering their options. Giving the DM power can be good, but making the DM the primary, and frequently only, source of information can slow a game down if more than one the players has to request further information to better understand the situation. It breaks the narrative flow up just as quickly as looking up rules. The nature of skill challenges also leads to the same problem; unless the DM can articulate the challenge well, the players will often be left scratching their heads, sometimes not even able to figure out where to start asking questions to get a clearer picture.
For those with the luxury of a stable group of like minded players and/or DMs, 4E could be a very good platform to play with. But it has no safety net once the DM starts getting lost. If the players aren't carrying their weight but the DM can pick up the slack, the game can still muddle through, but if the DM is the source of the difficulties or is having to answer five or six questions simultaneously for an extended period of time, the game will completely fall apart. In 3.5, the game can still muddle through for a short time before completely collapsing even if the DM is in over their head or not quite sure how to judge something's merit. Living Greyhawk proved this many a time. It was just as likely to get a really good experience from a LG module/table as a LFR module, but a bad experience in LG was usually still salvagable as long as the DM stuck to the mod and the rulebook. In LFR, a bad experience was just as likely to end up having been a waste of time, even if you still got a handful of gold and experience at the end, because the the amount of xp and gold from any individual module in either campaign was rarely worth it by itself.
But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?
I'm more of a pull-out-CoD:BlOps-once-I-get-tired-of-Civ-V kind of guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite thing about 4e "criticism" is that it's almost word for word identical to the d20 criticism I heard when it came out.
Dumbed down for babies? Diablo the tabletop game? Too simplified? All that, and more!
People think they're saying something new and exciting in their darring references to video games. These are complaints that were old twenty years ago. Nothing you're saying is new, nor limited to 4e.
There will always be a new edition, and there will always be those that call it a video game. 3e was no different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If the PF fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without repeating that they hate 4e, the 4e fans can be derided as being unable to handle criticism to 4e or wotc in any way without throwing a hissy fit and calling everyone a 4e hater.
I would say so much so, that even if someone says they don't like 4e a little bit, they are sniped as an edition warrior because they have a valid negative opinion of the game. Note I am not saying the op opinion was valid.
I agree, PF fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without repeating that they hate 4e, and 4e fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without hearing someone repeat that they hate 4e.
Actually your post is funny, because most 4e fans are fine with criticizing 4e. Every system has flaws after all, and the best fans are those that know this and both point out the flaws and try to fix them. The problem is that the "criticism" that comes from non-4e players is stuff based in either inaccuracies or flat out lies.
Sorry, but the OP post is a classic example of an actual 4e hater. His post was entirely untrue from start to finish, designed intentionally to be inflammatory and insulting. That you're stooping to defend him speaks volumes. This is why I think the OP wasn't a troll on the 4e fans, it was a troll on you. Let's see how awful of a post I can make that attacks 4e and still get people to defend me.
On the video game comparisons, if I were to make them regarding any table-top system, it'd be to compare actual mechanics and features. I play a lot of MMO's, so if I see a similarity in a table-top game to an MMO, that's not an insult; it's a genuine comparison. Hell, even comparing table-top games to video games in general is not an insult; I've played video games since I was 3 years old. I'm quite fond of them.
That said, I don't really get the CoD/Civ comparison. Those are completely different genres. PF and 4e, while different, are still RPG's.
I agree, PF fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without repeating that they hate 4e, and 4e fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without hearing someone repeat that they hate 4e.Actually your post is funny, because most 4e fans are fine with criticizing 4e. Every system has flaws after all, and the best fans are those that know this and both point out the flaws and try to fix them. The problem is that the "criticism" that comes from non-4e players is stuff based in either inaccuracies or flat out lies.
Sorry, but the OP post is a classic example of an actual 4e hater. His post was entirely untrue from start to finish, designed intentionally to be inflammatory and insulting. That you're stooping to defend him speaks volumes. This is why I think the OP wasn't a troll on the 4e fans, it was a troll on you. Let's see how awful of a post I can make that attacks 4e and still get people to defend me.
Actually the thread lead to good discussion. I don't regret posting on this thread, so if I have been 'trolled' I really don't care. Perhaps my forum savvy is not high enough to care. truth of the matter is I did not read the OP because I recognized it as tripe to begin with. In fact my first post was to denote how PF fans were defending 4e, which according to every other forum NEVER EVER EVER HAPPENS. So I never defended this particular troll.
Criticism that appears as innaccuracies to you may in fact be valid so I have no problem with that. They are rules open to interpretation. 4e defenders pass themselves off as martyrs. They NEED to feel as if the 'other side' is worse so they can feel validated somehow. No side has been worse in the edition wars. Just people of particular bias wanting the other side to be the bad guys.
There were Dragonborn in 3.5, but they were a little different. Could even just do the level-by-level breakdown of Half-Dragon presented in Races of the Dragon. Or the Dragon Shaman and/or Dragonfire Adept base classes which grant breath weapons, regardless of race and at no level loss. This is just the tip of the iceberg of ways you could play the same concept.The only thing you can do in this example that you cannot do in another game is play the dragon born.
Said a lot of interesting stuff...
+1
In regards to Character Concepts, advancement, and style I believe 4E is probably the greatest incarnation of those elements to date. The first thing that I think about (during character building) is how mechanics work with what I'm going for and how I can tweak the narrative for those mechanics to fit my "theme". I like using this example;
I want to play a human who's been suffused with energy of fire from the Forgotten Realms deity Kossuth. I want to be priest-like, yet I'm more concerned with fire-based spells, destruction through immolation, and purification of fire rather than orthodox religion and peaceful talking through the masses. So to make this come to life I go with the Dragonborn race (I know, silly huh?). This allows me to breath fire and so I just reflavor the race of Dragonborn to be human with inborn or granted power from Kossuth. Mechanics wise, it's still all fine because it's balanced. I'm just Role-Playing my character as human.
Next I go with Sorcerer (dragon-based) because they have a proclivity towards fire magic and the Ordained Priest theme and I'm done. Simple as that and no fuss. In other editions, I doubt it's quite that easy.
I never got the Races of the Dragon book but I get what your saying. And while reflavoring classes, races, feats, spells and whatnot is a perfectly viable option prior to 4E, I just find it easier and more balanced in 4th Edition. You mentioned th Dragonfire Adept and the Dragon Shaman.....but have you every played either of those two classes? They're pretty bad (espically the Dragon Shaman). DFA isn't horrible or unplayable and actually fares quite well in comparisons to the Warlock but all fall far far short of the better classes out there. And sure, I could reflavor Burning Hands to be a "breath weapon" but Burning Hands will lose it's usefulness well into the mid-heroic levels of play (levels 5th to 9th) where as a 4E Dragonborn's breath weapon is useful througout all levels of play.
It's pretty much in all how you spin it to your needs. Neither way is right or wrong, just easier for one to accept within their limits of imagination over another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, PF fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without repeating that they hate 4e, and 4e fans can be derided as being unable to go two minutes without hearing someone repeat that they hate 4e.Actually your post is funny, because most 4e fans are fine with criticizing 4e. Every system has flaws after all, and the best fans are those that know this and both point out the flaws and try to fix them. The problem is that the "criticism" that comes from non-4e players is stuff based in either inaccuracies or flat out lies.
Sorry, but the OP post is a classic example of an actual 4e hater. His post was entirely untrue from start to finish, designed intentionally to be inflammatory and insulting. That you're stooping to defend him speaks volumes. This is why I think the OP wasn't a troll on the 4e fans, it was a troll on you. Let's see how awful of a post I can make that attacks 4e and still get people to defend me.
Actually the thread lead to good discussion. I don't regret posting on this thread, so if I have been 'trolled' I really don't care. Perhaps my forum savvy is not high enough to care. truth of the matter is I did not read the OP because I recognized it as tripe to begin with. In fact my first post was to denote how PF fans were defending 4e, which according to every other forum NEVER EVER EVER HAPPENS. So I never defended this particular troll.
Criticism that appears as innaccuracies to you may in fact be valid so I have no problem with that. They are rules open to interpretation. 4e defenders pass themselves off as martyrs. They NEED to feel as if the 'other side' is worse so they can feel validated somehow. No side has been worse in the edition wars. Just people of particular bias wanting the other side to be the bad guys.
The day you realize that "Pathfinder fans defending 4e" is meaningless, the day you realize that there is no hard line that separates "Pathfinder fans" and "4e fans," the day you realize that one can enjoy or not enjoy both.
That is the day you will begin to understand what I've said.
It is a day I don't think will come for many.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Criticism that appears as innaccuracies to you may in fact be valid
No, we're talking about demonstrable falsehoods, here.
Look, I appreciate the "everything is subjective, no one is ever really right" stance you're trying to take here, but leave that for the philosophers. If the OP says "Players can't have their character study nobility!" and someone else says "Sure they can, and this is how," you need to acknowledge that what the OP was saying turned out to be untrue.
so I have no problem with that. They are rules open to interpretation.
No, not really. Personal interpretation of rules doesn't matter until you get into very fine detail, especially in 4e. Everything is pretty clear.
4e defenders pass themselves off as martyrs.
Hardly. You're posting in a thread where I was actually accused of being a paid shill for WotC. The people who choose to defend 4e against blind-shotgun attacks like the OP don't need to pass themselves off as anything.
They NEED to feel as if the 'other side' is worse so they can feel validated somehow.
Come on.
Nothing would make us happier than if the anti-4e crowd thinned itself out and maybe became a little less radical.
And even if that were true, wouldn't it motivate us to be paragons of virtue just to make the distinction clearer?
Our choice in game is validated by that game being fun. That's all the validation we'll ever need. What does concern me is why the anti-4e crowd chooses to celebrate any imagined indication that 4e might be doing less than stellar. That is what a need for validation looks like.
No side has been worse in the edition wars.
Because you say so, and because there's a rosy moral message hidden in there, or what?
The day you realize that "Pathfinder fans defending 4e" is meaningless, the day you realize that there is no hard line that separates "Pathfinder fans" and...
Here is something to help. I play games with gamers in a 4e game. the statement is as meaningful as Boston Red Sox fans, defending Yankee fans.
Just some sides get more emotional about it than others.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In video game terms Pathfinder is a complex strategy game like the Civilization series, many layered, a bit complex, perhaps not as easy to just pick up and go, but rewarding and re-playable.
4E is a first person shooter, easy to pick up, very straightforward and a lot of fun, but...well...you are here to basically do one thing, aren't you.
I said from the beginning that 4e was created for computer integration, with simplification and equalization following the classic Diablo/WoW chain.
And people like those things.
But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?
See, these folks tend to bother me much more than those who are just frothing at the mouth and cursing out WotC - since those tend to be easy to dismiss.
Well-written and calm posts like this, which nonetheless present a condescending, insulting, and incorrect point as though it was natural fact, are much more problematic.
I find 4E better for roleplaying, for setting building, for exploration and detail. There are definite areas where trade-offs have been made - for me, both as a player and a DM, those trade-offs help avoid the 'min/max' mindset that I felt permeated 3rd Edition. It made it possible to focus on actual character concepts and development, and not worry about 'winning' the game as 3rd Edition seemed so focused on. The greater focus on narrative over mechanics makes for more robust story-telling and more immersion in the story for the players. The specifics of the core setting and cosmology resonate more for me on the level of myth and fantasy than the potentially dry 'histories' of earlier settings.
The issue is that in an effort to create balance they have created similarly. The outcome is the same, you just call it something else.
I don't disagree with you about min/maxers being annoying in 3.5/Pathfinder, and that the effort to "win" the game being a problem that needs a firm GM hand.
However I don't think there can be much debate that the "chain" approach used in 4e was taken directly from computer games like Diablo/Wow/Elder Scrolls.
But those are included in those games because computer games need a closed world in order to be able to fit into a game. I suspect they did it with the idea of creating a computer game companion to follow that model.
But what they gave up were skills. Skills are those pesky "grey" areas that need human adjudication. Same with complex spells or abilities that don't "balance" with others from similar classes.
Is 4E more balanced. Yes. But in order to do this they had to make what the classes could do more similar, so that you get the same dice outcome but call it something else. My fire blast does the same damage as your arrows, conveniently. We just call it something else.
Is it easier to run. Yes. Because the grey area is lessened and everyone has access to the same skills at more or less the same level, so out of combat is normalized across the board.
My friend loves running microlite. Loves it. He's a great GM and he stopped running 3.5 because he said it was so much easier to run microlite.
Only it's not as much fun for the players. The classes are pretty much the same, and the options are fairly limited, or redundant.
This is how I feel about 4E. Our group tried it, it was fun for the first few times, and then we realized we were kind of all on a railroad together, unlocking feat chains.
And when I want that, I'll play Oblivion. And enjoy it.
But I want the grey area with GM adjudication. I want to have intensive rules discussion of minutia. I want to be surprised by what my players come up with and have to wing it on the fly as a result, because what each class can do is so varied.
The microlite zombie game is ok. He's a really good GM and the system is fine for basic stuff at low levels every once in awhile.
But I'm not always interested in simplicity.
the statement is as meaningful as Boston Red Sox fans, defending Yankee fans.
Next time you're watching the game at Fenway, casually mention to the guy wearing the baseball cap with the red "B" on it that you're a fan of the Sox and the Yankees. You let us know how that goes.
RPGs are not sports teams. It is possible to be very passionately a fan of two different games. It is much less possible to be very passionately a fan of rival teams.
Again, because I guess this needs to be repeated, Pathfinder and 4e are not at war with one another. They do not fight. They are games. They are not two sides of a conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hardly. You're posting in a thread where I was actually accused of being a paid shill for WotC. The people who choose to defend 4e against blind-shotgun attacks like the OP don't need to pass themselves off as anything.
They NEED to feel as if the 'other side' is worse so they can feel validated somehow.Come on.
Nothing would make us happier than if the anti-4e crowd thinned itself out and maybe became a little less radical.
Once again that is the part that is laughable. That is precisely my point. I really do not see that much hate for 4e going on in these forums. I never see hate in the game stores. Where are the haters at the cons? It is a classic case of bias being demonstrated. Fine, Fine. I might give you that 52% of the edition wars is from older fans, and 48% is from 4e. So yes the older fans are responsible. Systems only work 50/50 in theory.
Our choice in game is validated by that game being fun. That's all the validation we'll ever need.
Yes to play the game. I am not talking about PLAY validation, or the only reason you play 4e is because your a martyr. Defending 4e somehow makes you feel like your in the right. A superior position perhaps from the unwashed haters.
What does concern me is why the anti-4e crowd chooses to celebrate any imagined indication that 4e might be doing less than stellar. That is what a need for validation looks like.
A group of people were left behind by a company. I agree the collapse of that company would be a validation. I however feel validated simply because I think WOTC realizes they made a terrible marketing decision. No other edition of D&D had to compete with a previous one in the market place. 4e has to compete. It is very possible the market is favouring the older incarnation.
Because you say so, and because there's a rosy moral message hidden in there, or what?
No side has been worse in the edition wars.
No moral message. One can make judgement calls off of the anecdotal evidence. But sometimes other evidence can be used as proxy. Your stance is as ridiculous as saying Pittsburgh Penguin fans make fun of NJ Devil Fans more. there has been research in that area. A student of mine just did research on it for their marketing class. Pretty interesting. It found fans rib each other the same.Occam's razor as well as common sense says the same is pretty much applying here. Guess who the Pittsburgh Penguins fans say are worse? The NJ fans. Funny that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again that is the part that is laughable. That is precisely my point. I really do not see that much hate for 4e going on in these forums.
Yeah, it's not as bad as it used to be.
I never see hate in the game stores.
Count yourself lucky. I was reading a thread just this last month that talked about how a group of Pathfinder organized play players would stand around the D&D Encounters tables and laugh at the game and its players, creating a very uncomfortable environment for those trying to play D&D.
(Here, of course, I mention that they were Pathfinder organized play players merely for the sake of context, and to show that they're not just a random group of people laughing at D&D, but instead are a group of people laughing at that specific version of D&D.)
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Don't pretend otherwise.
Where are the haters at the cons?
Is this an actual question? I mean, do you actually want me to give you examples? Because that's what you're asking for.
But before I do, tell me why I should. If I give you none, your response would be "That's right, there are none!" If I give you examples, your response would be "And for every example you have I can give a contrary one!" So it looks to me like you've got a pretty solid rhetorical footing - I can provide every example in the world, and you'd just hand-wave them away anyway.
Why should I play that game?
It is a classic case of bias being demonstrated.
Because you say so.
Fine, Fine. I might give you that 52% of the edition wars is from older fans, and 48% is from 4e. So yes the older fans are responsible. Systems only work 50/50 in theory.
I'm glad you can at least cop to this, but the real point is that your anecdote is not better than my anecdote, especially since you're trying to prove a negative ("This behavior doesn't exist.").
Yes to play the game. I am not talking about PLAY validation, or the only reason you play 4e is because your a martyr. Defending 4e somehow makes you feel like your in the right. A superior position perhaps from the unwashed haters.
You have it backwards. I don't defend 4e to feel like I'm in the right. I understand 4e, and I am comfortable enough with that understanding to correct misrepresentations of it.
Trust me, if I wanted to feel validated in argument, I'd go debate evolution with creationists.
A group of people were left behind by a company.
Again placing the responsibility with everyone but the individual. If you don't get the play experience you're looking for, it's because the system failed you and not because of any personal factor. If you don't appreciate the newest game, it's because the company left you behind and not because you decided not to follow it.
I agree the collapse of that company would be a validation.
Thank you.
No side has been worse in the edition wars.
Awesome.
"No side was worse in the edition wars."
"Because you say so, or what?"
"No side was worse in the edition wars."
No moral message. One can make judgement calls off of the anecdotal evidence. But sometimes other evidence can be used as proxy in the social sciences at least. Your stance is as ridiculous as saying Pittsburgh Penguin fans make fun of NJ Devil Fans more. there has been research in that area. A student of mine just did research on it for their marketing class. Pretty interesting. It found fans rib each other the same.
Yes, because that is a rivalry. Those two groups are opposed. They are sports fans. Their teams must defeat each other to win. Only one can be victorious. The only good outcome is if the other team is defeated.
Do you see how this is different from games? Do you understand that two different games can both be successful, and have shared groups of fans? Do you understand that it's entirely possible for a group of fans of one game to just not really care at all about making jabs at the other game, because there's no need to do that, at all?
And, above all, do you understand how juvenile it looks to have a group of people who insist on doing exactly that anyway, for no other reason than that they can, and because the internet gives them an audience for it? Do you get how that can make a game's entire fanbase look pretty juvenile by association if it consistently comes from people who happen to be fans of that game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?I'm more of a pull-out-CoD:BlOps-once-I-get-tired-of-Civ-V kind of guy.
And that is fine. Call of Duty is awesome. I don't always want to play Civ (or Pathfinder). But it is a different experience.
Here is what I think happened. WoTC bought TSR because they were full of people who loved what I will call Traditional Table Gaming (TTG)
Hasbro bought WoTC because they were full of people who like making a lot of money from Magic: The Gathering.
Hasbro said to WoTC, all these MMOGs are making a ton of money, why isn't the DnD one making a ton of money. And they explained all the ways that 3.5 doesn't translate well into a computer game.
And Hasbro said "Fix that. We want people to subscribe to services and get monthly fees, like WoW. And you are flushing money down the drain with all that OGL stuff. Why would they buy the books if you give the content away for free..."
And so 4E was born. A closed system that integrates well with subscription services. A system for the casual gamer.
Only problem, the casual gamer isn't the money in the market.
I think Mike Mearls is a good guy, and I think he loves Traditional Table Gaming. And I hope Hasbro is realizing that they don't understand the market they were trying to exploit.
4e isn't "bad". It's just not that good. It's no better than a ton of other Third Party Publishers products. It was a clear money grab built more on "how can we get more money from this market" rather than "How can we improve the game"
Paizo went the other way. They tried to improve the product, knowing if they make a good product people will play and they will make money on the modules and Adventure Paths, as people will want to play with the good product.
I hope WoTC makes an awesome 5E. I personally love playing things other than Pathfinder.
But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that 4e was made with the goal of "improvement" over 3.5 more than "increased profit" over 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that in an effort to create balance they have created similarly. The outcome is the same, you just call it something else.
I don't disagree with you about min/maxers being annoying in 3.5/Pathfinder, and that the effort to "win" the game being a problem that needs a firm GM hand.
However I don't...
I don't really want to do the whole quote-by-quote thing. How about this though: literally everything you said is wrong. Not like, "I disagree," but factually and objectively incorrect.
"All classes are the same?" Nope. Are all 3e classes the same because they use a d20 instead of different types of dice? I certainly heard that complaint when 3e was first unveiled. It was wrong. The claim that 4e is too similar is equally wrong.
"The game is too railroady and players can't do anything?" Nonsense. Will you then go on to claim that 3e is literally the only D&D edition that wasn't this way? Because there weren't skills before 3e. 2e had NWPs which were a) optional, and b) a hot mess. You go back far enough, there isn't even those - just pure DM decisions typically based around "Well roll your stat." There's plenty of out of combat thigns you can do in 4e. Lots of 4e players do it all the time. We just realized the lesson we already knew, before 3e came out - that you don't need to write "Profession: Baker" on your character sheet to be a baker.
Your complaints are tired and stale. They are tired and stale because I've heard them a thousand times now. They are tired and stale because they are simply incorrect. They are tired and stale because at least in these complaints you present the air of "I don't know much about 4e, but let me complain about it anyways."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, Hasbro is notorious for being hands off amongst multi-group corporations. The idea that they're pushing on WotC for D&D is laughable at best.
Here's something that might blow your mind.
The changes in 4e were made because the developers and many players thought they were good changes.
That's it.
Edit: Also if WotC really wanted to make a blatent naked cash grab, they would've just updated a small handful of rules in 3.5, changed around a few things, and sold it off as a new system OH SNAP!