Actually the positioning stuff in 4ED was one of the few things I actually liked.
I currently play a PF fighter specializing in Combat Maneuvers for this reason.
I wouldn't say that it makes it seem like a strategy board game, I think it improves combat by offering more than charge in and hit while casters lob spells.
Not to mention my rogue loves me.
Agreed. Though I'm more about move-immobilization from my Fighter using v3.5 with the Stand Still + Combat Reflexes feats and a reach weapon. Nothing locks down enemies than that coupled with the Thicket of Blades stance from the Tome of Battle.
Thing is, it requires a heavy feat investment and specific weapons to make this style viable where as it's build-in to the Fighter chassis in 4E. Because of that, I can use any weapons I please while still fullfilling my role as a meat-shield.
Superslayer's Comment about Warlords granting extra attacks also strike me as odd because who really complains about attacking the enemy again in a round? Seriously? To tell me a player complains that another player says "Attack him again!!" is just pure non-sense. In fact, there was a spell specifically designed for this in v3.5 called Snake's Swiftness (and Mass Snake's Swiftness) but I'll bet that spell was OK by his book because it's a spell and therefor compulsion for you to do his bidding.....riiiiight.
I love how all the 4th edition fanboys flock to oppose the Pathfinder fan who expressed an opposing view of their favored product. I have purchased enough versions of D&D and I don't plan on buying any more versions, especially the board game version of D&D lol.
I'm not 4E fanboy and but what youre doing is in AMAZINGLY poor form here.
My dislike of huge parts of 4E come from ACTUALLY PLAYING AND RUNNING THE GAME. You know, making an informed decision so that I know exactly what I like and dont like about a game based on actual experience not based on heresay.
But hey thanks for showing up and giving the rest of us Pathfinder players a bad name.
I wanted to adress the 4th edition setting products, but when I got back after sleeping, the thread had moved on. However, I did check the MM for little tm marks, and there weren't any. I guess I thought there would be, because I remember thinking it was stupid that MtG cards had them, and the names were very similar. Maybe they don't either. So, I guess I was wrong about the trademarks. That still doesn't change the other facts, namely that troll will never be IP, while firegrenadeslinger goblin might, and that that style of name is mindnumbingly ugly. I would have understood it if they did it for IP reasons, but if not, it's truly pathetic.The mechanics for the troll are IP, via copyright. So, incidentally, are the permutations of the troll. What isn't IP is the general term "troll" as it is in common usage - but you still can't copy and publish any of the 4e monsters without express permission of WotC, irrespective, because of copyright. I'm amazed you even looked for the TM mark next to names in the MM - I mean, I'm actually pretty familiar with the Monster Manuals, as you might expect as a 4e DM, so if they were there I would have mentioned it. I hate to say it, since you might consider me "nasty" for pointing it out, but you have a staggering level of ignorance in respect of what is, and isn't, IP, what constitutes copyright versus trademark, and what is involved in obtaining either. Your aethetic judgement on whether the names are any good or not is up to you (and understandable) but your general level of paranoia over the motives of WotC has led you up the garden path here.
I should point out to you that I just told you guys I was wrong. My staggering ignorance is my business, Aubrey. And thinking a company could choose to shape their products so as to build their IP, would it surprise you if I said it's impressively bad form to call someone psychotic because of that? I should also point out to you that I have no knowledge of how well you know your MM. My sincere apologies for underestimating that.
I recently did some time on the Facebook game Heroes of Neverwinter. It actually got me to wanting to do some more 4E time again.
You've got me intrigued. Once I get home I'm definitly looking for this game! How fun is it and what is there to do??
It's a neat diversion, using the 4E system, but a lot of the nuances of the game are left out. No AoO's, so you can run circles around the enemy if you wanted, I haven't seen any power that makes thecombat dynamic just status/ongoing damage (granted I only have a lvl 3 each of Clr, Rog, and Wiz). Only 4 races and classes to choose from, and the Fighter doesn't have a marking mechanic, so a melee cleric is just as effective, moreso for healing itself.
All that being said, it is fun for a Facebook game, but it is a little disappointing to me that it is not more.
I removed some posts that were needlessly incendiary. I also removed replies to those posts, so some otherwise legitimate discussion was caught in the crossfire.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.
Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.
Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.
Sorry if i will offend someone but i do not see the point of this discussion , it is like a bunch of people arguing that football (usa) is better than Football (for the world , soccer in the usa). Or that Pele ( please dont offend me saying that you do not know who is Pele) is better than joe Montana.
OBS: of course in this case football (soccer) is the true football . And Pele is a far better player than Monatana .hahahahahaha
greetings from Brasil( for me ), Brazil(for the rest).
i'm sorry for my poor english.
Sorry if i will offend someone but i do not see the point of this discussion , it is like a bunch of people arguing that football (usa) is better than Football (for the world , soccer in the usa). Or that Pele ( please dont offend me saying that you do not know who is Pele) is better than joe Montana.
OBS: of course in this case football (soccer) is the true football . And Pele is a far better player than Monatana .hahahahahaha
greetings from Brasil( for me ), Brazil(for the rest).
i'm sorry for my poor english.
Ya know, I played American Football for 10 years straight and I have to give credit where credit is due, Soccer (football...I guess) players need ridiculous endurance, speed, and agility to be really good at the game. Those are quality traits in any good athlete. So yea it's a pretty hard sport to do.
Though, hit 'em once and they snap like dry twigs :-P. But I have no illusion I could ever play soccer as my frame, weight, and low speed put me at a serious disadvantage and I doubt many Soccer players could play Offensive Line effectively either.
And really Joe Montana? He was good, i guess, back in the day. Now a days we compare those sorts of character to the likes of Tom Brady and the Manning Bros. All of which are better IMO.
|
I should point out to you that I just told you guys I was wrong. My staggering ignorance is my business, Aubrey. And thinking a company could choose to shape their products so as to build their IP, would it surprise you if I said it's impressively bad form to call someone psychotic because of that? I should also point out to you that I have no knowledge of how well you know your MM. My sincere apologies for underestimating that.
Yeah, sorry, I'd probably rephrase my last post - I was a bit rude. That said, if you post it on a public board, it is there for criticism - so it's your business only if you don't tell everyone about it. It might also be bad form to accuse someone of mocking the mentally ill when they weren't. There is a difference between paranoid and paranoid-schizophrenic. You diminish yourself with a cheap tactic like that. I think we've maybe taken this as far as it goes.
The mechanics for the troll are IP, via copyright.
This is a nitpick, but whether the mechanics behind a troll are subject to copyright is a legal grey area (more like dark grey area). Game rules are, generally, not something that you can claim copyright of. For whatever reason, we don't consider them protected creative content. This is one of the reasons that making the d20 system so open wasn't that big of a deal; technically, anyone could have made a game based off the d20 rules, license or no. The only real benefit the d20 license provides is that you can actually call your game d20 compatible, and slap the little logo on your product.
Sorry if i will offend someone but i do not see the point of this discussion , it is like a bunch of people arguing that football (usa) is better than Football (for the world , soccer in the usa). Or that Pele ( please dont offend me saying that you do not know who is Pele) is better than joe Montana.
OBS: of course in this case football (soccer) is the true football . And Pele is a far better player than Monatana .hahahahahaha
greetings from Brasil( for me ), Brazil(for the rest).
i'm sorry for my poor english.
I think it's actually more along the lines of people saying that regulation football is pretty fun, and some other people saying that American football is pretty fun, too, and then a couple guys saying "Hey, American football sucks, I'd never even try that!" and then everyone getting mad at them for being dumbfaces.
The mechanics for the troll are IP, via copyright.This is a nitpick, but whether the mechanics behind a troll are subject to copyright is a legal grey area (more like dark grey area). Game rules are, generally, not something that you can claim copyright of. For whatever reason, we don't consider them protected creative content. This is one of the reasons that making the d20 system so open wasn't that big of a deal; technically, anyone could have made a game based off the d20 rules, license or no. The only real benefit the d20 license provides is that you can actually call your game d20 compatible, and slap the little logo on your product.
Yup. A rulebook, or a page thereof, is copyrighted. The mechanics expressed therein are an idea, and an idea cannot be copyrighted. An idea can be patented, but game mechanics are a tough sell as I understand it (though IANAL).
I love how all the 4th edition fanboys flock to oppose the Pathfinder fan who expressed an opposing view of their favored product. I have purchased enough versions of D&D and I don't plan on buying any more versions, especially the board game version of D&D lol.I'm not 4E fanboy and but what youre doing is in AMAZINGLY poor form here.
My dislike of huge parts of 4E come from ACTUALLY PLAYING AND RUNNING THE GAME. You know, making an informed decision so that I know exactly what I like and dont like about a game based on actual experience not based on heresay.
But hey thanks for showing up and giving the rest of us Pathfinder players a bad name.
He can't do that. Its obvious what he is trying to do, and I highly doubt anyone capable of critical thought would take the words seriously. There were times he said relevant thinggs but that was the buildup to the dump I guess.
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people, and hearing comments from around town I have come to the conclusion I will stick to Pathfinder and 2nd edition. People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds. 4th edition fans need to really calm down, why should I go out and spend a bunch of money on 4th edition when it's being bashed to death. The bottom line is I have heard more positives about Pathfinder than 4th edition. I do listen to the older gamers who have been playing RPG's for years and years. I have no reason to go try and play 4th edition because what I hear and read from legitimate sources tells me to stay away from it.
I have no reason to go try and play 4th edition because what I hear and read from legitimate sources tells me to stay away from it.
So you haven't even TRIED 4e?
You've put far to omuch effort into this thread then.
No I haven't played it but I know why I don't want to play it because from what I hear it's not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.
No I haven't played it but I know why I don't want to play it because from what I hear it's not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.
What makes D&D D&D, other than the name? And why would you not want to play a system that isn't D&D? I can think of a handful of systems that aren't D&D that are a ton of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people, and hearing comments from around town I have come to the conclusion I will stick to Pathfinder and 2nd edition. People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds. 4th edition fans need to really calm down, why should I go out and spend a bunch of money on 4th edition when it's being bashed to death. The bottom line is I have heard more positives about Pathfinder than 4th edition. I do listen to the older gamers who have been playing RPG's for years and years. I have no reason to go try and play 4th edition because what I hear and read from legitimate sources tells me to stay away from it.
Informed decision making like this is the corner stone of American politics.
Then again, by the time he's old enough to vote, maybe he'll have learned to research things himself.
Okay, more ramblings about why I do not like 4th.
When you decide to have a game about the exploits of an action hero group, all of them utterly unique (how did these people even meet one another, btw?), there is a definite limit to what you can play. Just as an example, Heroes of horror for 3rd had suggestions about how you could make a neat horror campaign where the PCs were all normal people. I actually did, and it was great. That would not have been remotely possible in 4th edition, just as an example. Unless you tore out most of the character-making rules, of course.
Well it is possible to do in 4E (its actually a pretty trivial matter to tear out peoples powers and leave them with an at will...if that and call it 0 level).
However my bigger point here is that the idea that everyone is unique is very mut true to th genre. Its not just action movies either though it is them as well. If I read stories about Conan or the Grey Mouser or (and maybe especially) Steve Erikson's Malazan series we find that unique and exceptional individuals are absolutely rife through the books. Pretty much every character encountered is such a unique individual. 4E is very true to the genre in this regard. That said if you are looking for something that feels more like Gibson's Decline and Fall with a magic system included then its not as ideal for that.
A bigger, corresponding problem for me is that just like an action movie, every location, every item, is Fantastic. You do not fight a band of goblins, you fight firegrenadeslinger goblins. You do not search an abandoned moathouse, you search the Keep on the Shadowfell, a place on another plane. The mundane is needed to provide contrast, but 4th goes for Fantastic all the way.
Something like Firegrenadier Goblins may get such a title when the players interact with them but its certianly not necessary - that's a DMs choice. All the players are really aware of is they are facing goblins - pretty soon they will realize that they are facing ones that throw bombs.
In general the naming conventions serve the DM by being place holders for different types of goblins and the names often give some idea about what they actually do. So if I want some bomb throwing goblins I know what I'm looking for if I choose to go through the books (or more likely I just search do a search for 'goblin' on the DDI).
Bottom line is that this element has no bearing on play unless you want it to while it does serve to help DMs stay organized and prep adventures.
As for points of light, I find it jarring that every sage knows what happened aeons ago on other planes, but nobody knows what happened fifteen years ago here. You're right that it has a cosmology, but without setting backstory, it feels flat to me. I guess having handy keeps in the wilderness to start from is classic, but is it necessary to stay with that concept? Bottom line is, there are tons of monastic orders, distant mage schools, knight chapterhouses, but nobody lives in a city anymore??? Again, with the suspension of disbelief.
Default for Nintir Vale. Not an element infused into the game in any meaningful way. Eberron is arguably the least 'points of light' mass market setting in D&D since its rife with cities and city adventures for example.
In fact this years 'campaign' release was a city. A whole book on Never Winter.
So you can certianly game in a city in 4E. In fact I really like 4E for such games because the balanced in and out of combat classes makes city adventures easier on the DM. Less need to constantly jump the party with combats in order to provide the fighter with his share of the 'spotlight' every session.
Creatures are no different. They are defined by what they can do in the action movie, not by anything that could get in the way of using their stats when you need a monster of the appropriate level.
Not quite sure I get this. Is this tht high level demons don't come with create water in their stat block?
Next up is the art. While there are some elements I like, such as how dwarven women look, the art is designed around one theme: action.
4E art is not always my favourite. I tend to use google image searches and then print off handouts for what my players see. Artistic hubs like Deviant Art are really good for this. That said the only bearing I have ever really found with the game is when I have come upon a totally inspiring piece of art and used that as the basic theme for my monster'. In such cases I generally find converting the artwork into a 4E statblock very easy.
Otherwise 4E runs fine even if you choose to use mainly PF art as I would likely do if I chose to run one of Scott Bett's conversions.
Also I hear it's just like a video game on paper. A watered down simplified D&D for convienance all about hacking and slashing.
watered down
How?
simplified D&D for convienance
A bad thing?
all about hacking and slashing
Doesn't that have more to do with playstyle than mechanics?
|
all about hacking and slashing.
I'm no fan of 4th edition, but you know what Gary Gygax himself said in a 2004 interview by GameSpy if he'd had a chance to play or even look at 3rd edition:
I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. Now, should I tell you what I really think?
The full interview can be read HERE (part 1) and HERE (part 2)
Well said Mr Gygax...Well said indeed!
It might also be bad form to accuse someone of mocking the mentally ill when they weren't. There is a difference between paranoid and paranoid-schizophrenic. You diminish yourself with a cheap tactic like that. I think we've maybe taken this as far as it goes.
Paranoia is one of the types of positive symtoms of psychotic disorders (schizophrenia and chronic delusion syndrome) that fall under the title of delusions. It is one of the more disturbing symtoms to watch, imagine seeing someone utterly unable to trust anyone they have interacted with for any real length of time, no matter if it would benefit them to do so, slowly isolating themselves from every sort of contact with the outside world. Paranoia means either of the above mentioned disorders.
Someone claiming that companies do somewhat murky stuff to further their bottom line are not by any stretch of imagination paranoid. They are suspicious, and usually with good reason. I wasn't the one trying to cast someone else as mentally ill. I just think it's a pitiful debating tactic, precisely because it mocks the mentally ill, even if you consider paranoid to be just a synonym for suspicious.
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people, and hearing comments from around town I have come to the conclusion I will stick to Pathfinder and 2nd edition. People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds. 4th edition fans need to really calm down, why should I go out and spend a bunch of money on 4th edition when it's being bashed to death. The bottom line is I have heard more positives about Pathfinder than 4th edition. I do listen to the older gamers who have been playing RPG's for years and years. I have no reason to go try and play 4th edition because what I hear and read from legitimate sources tells me to stay away from it.Informed decision making like this is the corner stone of American politics.
Then again, by the time he's old enough to vote, maybe he'll have learned to research things himself.
Oh right Deinol, like the American public researches things;)
Yeah, we have more and more people denying SCIENCE exists everyday because a group of people convince them it is so (Exagerated but not by much)
Informed decision making like this is the corner stone of American politics.
Then again, by the time he's old enough to vote, maybe he'll have learned to research things himself.
Oh right Deinol, like the American public researches things;)
Yeah, we have more and more people denying SCIENCE exists everyday because a group of people convince them it is so (Exagerated but not by much)
I know, I'm a hopeless optimist.
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people, and hearing comments from around town I have come to the conclusion I will stick to Pathfinder and 2nd edition. People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds. 4th edition fans need to really calm down, why should I go out and spend a bunch of money on 4th edition when it's being bashed to death. The bottom line is I have heard more positives about Pathfinder than 4th edition. I do listen to the older gamers who have been playing RPG's for years and years. I have no reason to go try and play 4th edition because what I hear and read from legitimate sources tells me to stay away from it.
Right....so don't play it then. I don't know why you think I should calm down since I've specifically agreed with you that you shouldn't go out and spend money on 4th edition. I'm quite calm, I'm just puzzled by your behavior - the large slabs of Wikipedia which don't support your view being another oddity of your posting style which is intriguing, to me at least.
Why are you posting here? Has someone really suggested to you that you should go out and spend money on a game you don't want to play? That would be poor advice.
|
Funny thing is like Superslayer I believed a lot of negative stuff that was said about PF For the most part after actually doing some research. Reading the books and playing the game I revised my opnion of the game. Not all if it but most of it. If I beleived everything that was written about something on and outside the internet along with takling everything people told me at face value I would never be trying anything new. Whether it be books, music, food etc. Not to mention if he has not played the game how the hell can he judge
a game properly let alone comment on it. And no imo secondhand information does not cut it all. At least with me. You want me to to take your opinion on something seriously do your homework. If not I'm just going to file what you say in the ignore pile of my brain and listen to those who could actually be bothered for the most part do their homework.
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition? Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start? You tell me what products to try that are so great with 4th edition. You tell me why you praise it so highly, why you think it's so fun. What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition? Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start? You tell me what products to try that are so great with 4th edition. You tell me why you praise it so highly, why you think it's so fun. What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
I don't think you should play it but the main reasons I like it are:
1. It's very easy to prep for as a DM (this is in fact the number one reason my 'main' group currently runs 4th edition over Pathfinder).
2. It allows you to create rules on the fly, within broad guidelines, which will help adjudicate unexpected situations in a balanced way without requiring one to know a whole bunch of subsidiary rulesystems
3. It's extremely difficult to build a low powered character who will basically just use up space in a party. It's possible, but you really have to make the effort. That means I can level my characters the way I like (looking at all the available options each level without any real view about 'where I'm heading' - I prefer having characters grow in that fashion rather than advancing according to some preordained 'build' (which is a real break in suspension of disbelief in my case)
4. Combats are very fluid, with lots of movement and interaction with the environment and the other combatants. As I understand it, this is not a universal thing - but my experience with 3.5 was very much about the melee characters running in then standing face-to-face with the baddies whilst full-attacking and performing the occasional 5-foot step
5. The focus in encounter design is on lots of enemies rather than a few. This is about taste, but I like it better.
6. It is far easier to have seven or eight encounters in a row without a significant break in activity. I grew up with AD&D and this is about how much we would get through in a day's adventure - 3.5 always seemed to be too quick for my tastes. After two or three battles, the spellcasters would often be arguing for a break and it was usually the tactically sound thing to do. (Again, it's pretty dependant on group though so this may be a non-issue to many).
If you're really interested in giving it a go, I'd get an experienced 4th edition DM to run you through one of the Paizo adventures - the third installment of CoTCT (Escape from Old Korvosa) adapts very well to 4th edition in my opinion, but whichever one seemed good for your group would work just as well. I'd also splash out on a one-month subscription to DDI, since the online character builder is pretty amazing.
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition? Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start? You tell me what products to try that are so great with 4th edition. You tell me why you praise it so highly, why you think it's so fun. What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
Its worth pointing out that 4E is an extremely versitile system from the DMs side. What I mean by that is the system tends to do what the DM wants it to do.
Philosophically 1st, 2nd, BECME etc. all run on DM fiat. The DM says something like 'there is a necromancer and here are his spells etc.' and its true because the DM says it is so. 3rd edition is a player side system. Its rules tell the DM and the players how to behave and they are both playing by the same rule system. 4th edition is a DM fiat with guidelines system. In effect we return to the way 2nd edition did things in terms of plot (i.e. true because the DM says it is so) but it has numbers included to help insure that the DM creates balance (the base monster damage or attack modifiers or the skill DCs on page 42 (126 of RC)).
Now by and large I like Steve Geddes list but I';; throw in a few elements of my own.
1). I prefer the DM fiat with guidelines approach to both 2nd editions version of DM fiat without guidelines and much more then 3rd editions approach of the rules apply to both the DM and the players. I feel the DM fiat approach gives the DM most of the benefits of having a heavily rules integrated approach (ala 3rd edition) while allowing the DM the kind of absolute freedom to create whatever plot or monster is desired.
2). Somewhat follows from the above but the play balance of the system is, if not perfect, closer to perfect then any other edition of D&D. Its harder to make truly bad characters and its harder for one player to make a character that totally overshadows the rest of the party.
3). The System tends to be made of unified building blocks with which a skilled DM can craft practically anything he can imagine - want a scene where the Volcano blows sky high and the players need to run for their lives? Not that tough to design. A battle on a rope bridge that is swinging violently back and forth in high winds? Same deal pretty easy to build. If you can think of it and you have a little experience with the tools then you can build it and your players can play through it.
In 2nd the adventure writer had to completely invent such mechanics from whole cloth and they used to go about it differently in every adventure - so a rolling boulder trap would look very different in Return to Keep on the Border Lands and Tallow's Deep. IT takes longer to make such mechanics from whole cloth and its harder to balance them in 2nd edition then in 4th. In 3rd the system itself tends to provide many of the mechanics but that means that such choices are the preview of the designers to decide not the DM. A rolling boulder trap in 3rd level pretty much has a 'correct' level for use. Use it on lower level players and they get just squashed and use it on higher level players and its trivial. In effect the boulder trap or anything else the DM sticks in the adventure is level appropriate simply because the DM stuck it there - sure the DM can make it not level appropriate should that be desired and trivial or impossible is what is actually being looked for but in general if the DM made the adventure then the DM wants that adventure to work for his group and the system will support that - it'll spit out numbers appropriate for the parties level whatever the DM choose to design.
3) DId I mention that the system was versatile? It does what the DM wants it to do by and large...
6. It is far easier to have seven or eight encounters in a row without a significant break in activity. I grew up with AD&D and this is about how much we would get through in a day's adventure - 3.5 always seemed to be too quick for my tastes. After two or three battles, the spellcasters would often be arguing for a break and it was usually the tactically sound thing to do. (Again, it's pretty dependant on group though so this may be a non-issue to many).
...hence what Steve Geddes writes here is absolutely true. My personal opinion on this style might be summed up as 'shoot me now'.
Yeah I'm not such a big fan of combats on top of combats. I mean I tend to think of even Paizo APs as pretty heavy on the hack and my conversions usually cut a lot of encounters. I'd rather do maybe three combat encounters during a days adventuring but I make them big ones and stuff them with things like scenes where the party is racing along a dray river bed with an army right on their heels. Just as they approach the dam the enemy armies advance guard chatches up and the group needs to figure out how they are going to get to the dam and blow it while keeping the enemies off of the members that are actually working the dam. Pretty much I'm looking for large complex combat scenes this element is very much supported by...
4. Combats are very fluid, with lots of movement and interaction with the environment and the other combatants.
...which makes designing and running such complex interactive combat scenes very rewarding.
4) All in all I'm more interested in doing a lot more RP and exploration between these three big fights for my adventures. 4E has done an excellent job of balancing all the classes both inside and outside of combat. Its magic system has really opened up a lot of design space for the DM as well. Hence I'm a big fan of things like a higher level murder mystery where the PCs need to figure out who killed the King's favourite mistress or maybe a good old political intrigue type adventure. We can pit warring merchant houses against each other. The balance in the skill system here means that the fighter player will have a big part to play in this adventure - he is part of the team that solves this adventure and not a back up thug useful only when the enemy kicks down the door.
5) Prep time. Lots of 4E DMs will tell you that prep is faster in 4E and that is sorta true. Its faster to make any individual component and that can mean its faster in general. Creating a monster is faster or building the mechanics for being in a building that is currently on fire is faster. Personally I actually spend about the same amount on prep in 4E as I did in 3rd (and more then I did in 2nd) but what I am doing with that prep time seems to get me much further because I'm busy 'implementing' my imagination. That is designing the elements that will support a battle in the rigging of a sailing ship or what is needed to really go through all the clues at the crime scene of a fantasy murder mystery.
|
|
It might also be bad form to accuse someone of mocking the mentally ill when they weren't. There is a difference between paranoid and paranoid-schizophrenic. You diminish yourself with a cheap tactic like that. I think we've maybe taken this as far as it goes.Paranoia is one of the types of positive symtoms of psychotic disorders (schizophrenia and chronic delusion syndrome) that fall under the title of delusions. It is one of the more disturbing symtoms to watch, imagine seeing someone utterly unable to trust anyone they have interacted with for any real length of time, no matter if it would benefit them to do so, slowly isolating themselves from every sort of contact with the outside world. Paranoia means either of the above mentioned disorders.
Someone claiming that companies do somewhat murky stuff to further their bottom line are not by any stretch of imagination paranoid. They are suspicious, and usually with good reason. I wasn't the one trying to cast someone else as mentally ill. I just think it's a pitiful debating tactic, precisely because it mocks the mentally ill, even if you consider paranoid to be just a synonym for suspicious.
Paranoid is also a colloquial term for someone who is unnecessarily suspicious. I know that English is not your first language so maybe the comment came across wrongly. I apologise if that was the case - to be honest, the original post I made with the comment in was unnecessary anyway, and it was not my intention to suggest you are mentally ill at all. That said, I've also seen some of your other posts on unrelated topics (and this one, actually - "murky stuff" in the context of D&D?), in which we have corresponded before, and you seem to be very suspicious of government, large corporations and so on, presumably based on your political beliefs (which I don't share). That was the context to which I was referring. In any case, my comments on copyrighting appear to be dubious, although I still see no evidence of trademarking going on either for the monster descriptions either. I haven't played CCGs so I don't know if they trademarked the cards or not.
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people,
I can promise you, if the nonsense you've been spewing about 4e in this thread is the result of anything those reviewers said, you are using the word "intelligent" far too charitably.
People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds. 4th edition fans need to really calm down, why should I go out and spend a bunch of money on 4th edition when it's being bashed to death.
"Man, you 4e people need to stop ranting and raving! Why would I play your game when so many anti-4e people are ranting and raving about it?"
This is logic, to you?
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition? Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start? You tell me what products to try that are so great with 4th edition. You tell me why you praise it so highly, why you think it's so fun. What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
I suggest you stick with your game. You are, unfortunately, well past poisoned against 4e.
Well said Mr Gygax...Well said indeed!
Gygax was bashing 3rd Edition - the edition that Pathfinder (one of your games of choice) is based on. Gygax would say exactly the same things about the game you enjoy playing.
Stop this ridiculous hero worship. He does not stand for the things you seem to want him to stand for.
|
|
I'm with Scott. Even playing it now will probably do nothing. You'll subconciously ignore the good and emphasize the bad, thanks to confirmation bias. I should know, I fell into the same trap as well.
Maybe now, with time to mellow and possibly more experienced DMs available, I could give it a fair try. But going in expecting to dislike it, primed to dislike it, isn't going to accomplish anything but confirm your viewpoint regardless of the actual game.
There is also the fact that how much you enjoy it depends greatly on the DM runnning it. System choice makes very little difference in that regard.
|
|
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition?
I think what people were suggesting was that if you were going to actively enter into a discussion of the system, criticising that system for perceoved flaws that your arguments may be better received if you had actually played the game. Its the same sort of thing as someone complaining about a film without ever having seen it.
Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start?
UNfortunately I would tend to agree with Scott Betts and say from what I have seen of your comments on this thread that you would be unlikley to give 4e a fair go - I imagine you would go into any game trying to find reasons to hate it and perhaps overlooking the good stuff.
SO I would suggest that you do not try 4e personally.
After talking with several gamers at conventions, reading reviews from intelligent people, and hearing comments from around town I have come to the conclusion I will stick to Pathfinder and 2nd edition.People on internet forums always over-exaggerate someone's comments and blow them up into something way bigger in their minds.
That is great news, your have done some research, got some opinions and even realised that you need to take some of the things you hear about the system witha pinch of salt.
However, may I suggest that having made your decision you do not then enter into the 4e sub-forum and make posts that needlessly criticise D&D 4e.
I myself have heard enough about Hero system to know that I probably wouldn't enjoy it (despite not having actually tried it out) and thus I haen't bought it or sought out any games of it to play in - but I also don't go onto any Hero forums and regurgitate any criticisms I have heard about it - a) because it would not accomplish anything other than annoying some Hero players, and b) because I cannot be certain that those criticisms are necessarily accurate having never read or played the game myself.
What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
TBH I am not a great fan of 4e, I personally prefer 3.5, however I have run a campaign using 4e and am currently playing in one too. I wrote down some good things about 4e in another thread here.
Also I hear it's just like a video game on paper. A watered down simplified D&D for convienance all about hacking and slashing.
May I politely ask what you are trying to achieve with these types of posts? Seriously I am curious what the intent is behind it? Unfortunately these types of posts detract from the good points you make (such as the racial leveling alongside class leveling that I acknowledged up thread).
|
|
Fortunately for me, they are completely unaware of its existence.Challenge accepted, I'll run F.A.T.A.L for my group then :)I'm sure you could run a very good game for the people who would actually play that system.
Even if I may not always agree with what you post. No just No and again no. I do not wish fatal on anyone in the gaming world. If your willing to tear your outs and dumping them in industrail strength bleach after reading the book go for it. If not just stay the hell away from fatal. You know an rpg is bad when it makes the World oF Synibarr a staggering work of rpg genius when compared to it.
|
|
Er, take note that he was expressing gratitude that his players have NO IDEA the game exists, memorax.
Which seemed a little disconnected from my post about there being some players that would enjoy it, in that I made sure not to even imply that his players would like it.
Maybe he knows something about his players I don't.
*shudder*
|
|
OK So you people are suggesting I try playing the 4th edition? Ok I just might try it out so I can tell you people what I think of this 4th edition. Where do I start? You tell me what products to try that are so great with 4th edition. You tell me why you praise it so highly, why you think it's so fun. What makes it such a great roleplaying experience? I will listen to any suggestions from the 4th edition fans to be fair.
One kind of assumes if you coming into a thread talking and criticizing an rpg that you play or at the very least have read the books on that rpg. It just simple commne sense. Entering a dicussion and talking about it without knowing anything on the subject matter and going on secondhand is just not being fair towards the subject matter. Or going to have anything you want to say about the subject seriously.
I did not like Savage Worlds at first yet I did not go to the Pinnacle forums or any other forums and talked about SW because why would anyone who played and ran sW listsn to someone who does not know about the game. From what I read I do not think you should play 4E. You seem dead set against 4E already and as a fan of 4E I rather not see more o the usual "4E is an MMO and does not encourage roleplaying" etc comments once again.
|
|
Er, take note that he was expressing gratitude that his players have NO IDEA the game exists, memorax.
Which seemed a little disconnected from my post about there being some players that would enjoy it, in that I made sure not to even imply that his players would like it.
Maybe he knows something about his players I don't.
*shudder*
I did get that. Yet even if he has an interest on his own. He should just stay away. I tried to read it almost tore my eyes out. I should have known better really. When it was expressed to the creators of the game that their game had certain disturbing elements (putting it mildly) such as rape and other similar distrubing stuff their response was to the effect of "so what". When the creators of an rpg are so blase about such a subject it should have been a huge warning sig. No stupid me how bad could it be. I'm wiser and smarter now.