My feelings about 5E D&D


4th Edition

301 to 350 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

And then he says that he uses house rules that ignor the issues other eople are having, so it's not an issue for him.

In other words, he doesn't play with the rules being talked about.


I don't have much to say about 4E as a game, having only played it for a few short months when it first came out over in Australia before the group as a whole chucked the books at a second hand store, but I will give it this.

Simplification. 4E, at a glance, was all about taking all those dice-rolls and carving off a good 3/4 of them. The game was faster, but some of the things we found during those first few games, the Lawful Good is the Best good, no Chaotic Good, no Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil is the Ultimate Evil, plus the fact that they (Hasbro and WotC) decided that rather than leaving Faerun relatively intact and starting with a fresh slate (they could always go back and keep their version of 3.5 kicking to keep the Nostalgia Crew around with minimal effort), they'd try to smush yet another earth-shattering house-cleaning cataclysm into the already complex lore and back-stories of their 'Cannon' Faerun.

The Group loved the thought of Core-Race Dragon-people and Teiflings. We absolutely adored them, although I will admit to a bit of heart-ache at the loss of my Beloved Half-Orcs. But the alignment killed it for us. And the constant Errata. And I think I vaguely remember that we were also going to be charged for an online fee at one stage, but that was years ago and I do not remember it so well.

Another reason a great many of the Group were at best luke-warm for the 4th Edition is the backhanded and decidedly callous treatment of the Dungeons and Dragons Magazines by the Powers that Be. It seemed to the Group that, rather than admitting that their own adventures were not working, yet the Magazines were selling like hot-cakes, a bit of plagarizing from Wizards would not have been amiss, or in the very worst case scenario, some Cubicle Pruning to get rid of the dead weight in the office(s). It seemed to us that Wizards was rushing their game out to beat a competitor, rather than trying to fine tune their own game. We enjoyed the 4th Ed, but we did not enjoy the method in which it was introduced or the constant struggle to keep up with the Updates. Turtle vs Hare and all that jazz.

ALL THAT SAID, fingers crossed for Wizards of the Coast. Don't let some suit that can't tell a D20 from a D4 try and tell you to jump on the latest copy-wagon of the biggest Show in town, you guys at Wizard know your stuff. Ignore the marketing-gurus trying to tell you what will sell, you are Gamers yourself, and you know what makes us tick. Pursue Profits, as all Business must, but don't pursue the Almighty Dollar to the point where you're trying to sell a Table-Top version of WoW.

May 5th Edition be the Successor to 3.5 that you imagined the 4th Ed would be. May you create a game that even the Paizo fanatics will applaud, for the play-style and ease of content, for the breadth of the passion you hold for it, and for the willingness to start afresh and reach out to your Player Base, rather than trying to keep them at a distance.


Beckett wrote:

And then he says that he uses house rules that ignor the issues other eople are having, so it's not an issue for him.

In other words, he doesn't play with the rules being talked about.

Not sure I quite understand why this is a big deal...

Shadow Lodge

It's not really a huge deal, so much as absolutely pointless, and aggrivates the issue.


HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:


The Group loved the thought of Core-Race Dragon-people and Teiflings. We absolutely adored them, although I will admit to a bit of heart-ache at the loss of my Beloved Half-Orcs. But the alignment killed it for us. And the constant Errata. And I think I vaguely remember that we were also going to be charged for an online fee at one stage, but that was years ago and I do not remember it so well.

The Half-Orc is a playable PC race, just not from the PHB 1. As for alignment, it's so far removed from the game it's not an issue. I let players choose whatever alignment they want. Really, it's not that big of a deal.

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:


It seemed to us that Wizards was rushing their game out to beat a competitor, rather than trying to fine tune their own game. We enjoyed the 4th Ed, but we did not enjoy the method in which it was introduced or the constant struggle to keep up with the Updates. Turtle vs Hare and all that jazz.

I could see why someone might believe that. I had also hoped they would slow production too, because of rules-bloat and all that *sigh*. But for the Errata, I use it when it's necessary and don't the majority of the time. I realized that, for me, errata was designed for the Living campaigns and character_optimiers in mind and not for the betterment of the game (as a whole). If it doesn't "feel" right going from the book, then I'll look for errata. Sometimes there's changes, sometimes not. But I use it as we see fit, not as a requirement. Example, I use Magic Missile as auto-hit but allow the player to roll for damage and damage scales at every 8 levels (1d4+Intelligence modifier at 1st, 2d4+Intelligence modifier at 8th, 3d4+Intelligence modifier at 16, and 4d4+Intelligence modifier at 24th). works fine.

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:


ALL THAT SAID, fingers crossed for Wizards of the Coast. Don't let some suit that can't tell a D20 from a D4 try and tell you to jump on the latest copy-wagon of the biggest Show in town, you guys at Wizard know your stuff. Ignore the marketing-gurus trying to tell you what will sell, you are Gamers yourself, and you know what makes us tick. Pursue Profits, as all Business must, but don't pursue the Almighty Dollar to the point where you're trying to sell a Table-Top version of WoW.

May 5th Edition be the Successor to 3.5 that you imagined the 4th Ed would be. May you create a game that even the Paizo fanatics will applaud, for the play-style and ease of content, for the breadth of the passion you hold for it, and for the willingness to start afresh and reach out to your Player Base, rather than trying to keep them at a distance.

I had hoped we moved away from the MMO/WoW analogies but...alas. From reading the reviews of D&D:next and the things people have been praising, I don't really forsee this being my kind of game. And I don't think it's going to pander to the v3.5/PF crowed very much either. It looks like (to me, anyways) that the game is an attempt to get "Old-School" games of 2E/AD&D, 1E, Basic, BECMI etc. back to the table with less rules, more DM empowerment, and rewarding of Player (not character) critical thinking or Out-of-the-Box kind of thinking. Seems that if you can BS your way pretty well, this edition might be for you in organized play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
I had hoped we moved away from the MMO/WoW analogies but...alas.

Diffan,

My cousin plays 4e and he says it's like World of Warcraft. So, just suck it up and go on. Accept everyone says 4e plays like an MMO as a fact of life. You aren't going to convince everyone that 4e doesn't play like an MMO when it clearly does. So stop with the lamentations already.

4e is over and done with. What they are doing with 5th edition will be what is going to go for a long time. Just accept it's a tabletop concept copy of how WoW and ST:TOR plays. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is in insane.

Dark Archive

I wont lie. 5e does hold more than minor interest in me at this point. I can't help but be intrigued by all the chatter going on about it. And, yes, I'll give it a look-see when it comes out. I may even try it out. But, I don't expect to be buying into it at all. I love Pathfinder, and the myriad of other games on my shelf (Hounds of G.O.D. and Panty Explosion, to name a couple). I have enough as it is. I don't need yet another fantasy gaming system.

Shadow Lodge

I gave 4E a try, (an honest try) and I will probably do the same for 5E, (and 6E, and 7E, . . .), but I am not going into this one with any expectations whatsoever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elton wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I had hoped we moved away from the MMO/WoW analogies but...alas.

Diffan,

My cousin plays 4e and he says it's like World of Warcraft. So, just suck it up and go on. Accept everyone says 4e plays like an MMO as a fact of life. You aren't going to convince everyone that 4e doesn't play like an MMO when it clearly does. So stop with the lamentations already.

Holy sh!t your cousin said so?! Well, had I known that I would've changed my opinion right then and there. Obviously your cousin is the end-all and be-all of everyone's idea as to how 4E plays. I mean, he's your cousin so why dispute it? I guess I missed the memo at our weekly "Super Pro-4E Awesomesauce" meeting. I'll be sure to re-read the minutes next time.

Elton wrote:


4e is over and done with. What they are doing with 5th edition will be what is going to go for a long time. Just accept it's a tabletop concept copy of how WoW and ST:TOR plays. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is in insane.

First, no one is disputing you about the time-table of 4E. We all know it'll finish up sometime this year or the next. Why you feel to keep bringing it up is beyond me except for perhaps to infuriate 4E supporters (which is pretty funny if it weren't so pathetic).

Second, and this is also pretty funny, it's hard for me to accept a fallacy. Espically as one so close-minded and shallow as some peoples OPINION'S about how they feel 4th Edition plays. Perhaps for them, it does play like WoW? And I'd argue that it's as much as they're play style and DM'ing as it was the rules. Clearly not everyone feels the same as you (God, what a world THAT would be *rolls-eyes*) but they're probably as tired of arguing with ignorance as I am. And really, you didn't find the "stanadard attack. Full-Attack. Full-Attack. Move and Attack" sequence that's so prevalient in v3.5/PF repetitious? Man, how much did those rose-colored glasses cost you?

Whatever though, play what makes you happy.

Shadow Lodge

Elton wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I had hoped we moved away from the MMO/WoW analogies but...alas.

Diffan,

My cousin plays 4e and he says it's like World of Warcraft. So, just suck it up and go on. Accept everyone says 4e plays like an MMO as a fact of life. You aren't going to convince everyone that 4e doesn't play like an MMO when it clearly does. So stop with the lamentations already.

Diffan wrote:
Holy sh!t your cousin said so?! Well, had I known that I would've changed my opinion right then and there. Obviously your cousin is the end-all and be-all of everyone's idea as to how 4E plays. I mean, he's your cousin so why dispute it? I guess I missed the memo at our weekly "Super Pro-4E Awesomesauce" meeting. I'll be sure to re-read the minutes next time.

<This isn't me insulting you, but rather retranslating and trying to explian differently what was said>

The point was that you insisting it isn't true doesn't make it so. That is a major flaw for a lot of people. You may not agree with it, or believe that it is not true (and you would also be right, but that doesn't make them wrong). In essence, every time you or others try to pretend it isn't true just highlights it more. Even other 4E fans sometimes agree that the game plays like an MMO, (which was a selling point for 4E before it even came out, by the way), so there is some grounds for it.

Outbursts like that go a long way to proove the maturity level people attribute to 4E fans, by the way too.


Beckett wrote:


<This isn't me insulting you, but rather retranslating and trying to explian differently what was said>

The point was that you insisting it isn't true doesn't make it so. That is a major flaw for a lot of people. You may not agree with it, or believe that it is not true (and you would also be right, but that doesn't make them wrong). In essence, every time you or others try to pretend it isn't true just highlights it more. Even other 4E fans sometimes agree that the game plays like an MMO, (which was a selling point for 4E before it even came out, by the way), so there is some grounds for it.

Well, at least you didn't tell me to STFU. And thats the funny thing about opinions and experiences. Sometimes it's true for both opinions. I don't begrudge people's experiences if they feel 4E (or any iteration of the game) plays like an MMO. Hell, 3E was often cited as just a table-top Diablo (which I never really felt either). And if thats the way they feel, more power to them. But that doesn't make it necessarily true either. And even if they support 4E and think it's the best things as a MMO-emulator for Table top gaming...well awesome. I don't see it. I don't get the MMO 'vibe' when I play. Perhaps it's style or the group or the implementation of the rules. Whatever the case, I don't think 4E plays like an MMO and that's true. Others feel it plays (very well in some cases) like an MMO and that's true.

Beckett wrote:


Outbursts like that go a long way to proove the maturity level people attribute to 4E fans, by the way too.

Yea, guess there a lot of gross generalizations going around these days. But to take a page from Elton's book "Deal with it."

Shadow Lodge

Diffan wrote:
Yea, guess there a lot of gross generalizations going around these days. But to take a page from Elton's book "Deal with it."

:)

Diffan wrote:
Hell, 3E was often cited as just a table-top Diablo (which I never really felt either).

My guess would be the importance of gear that 3E had. In older editions, gear was more a fantasy coolness factor, but in 3E (at least to a point), some gear was basically needed to play at certain levels. Stat boosters are an easy example. A caster that didn't have the best Int/Wis/Cha boosting item was basically a failure as a caster, sometimes literally. A lot of rules where based off the assumption that certain gear was available for general purchase at certain levels. This is very much Diablo ish, noted for grinding for gear.


Beckett wrote:
A lot of rules where based off the assumption that certain gear was available for general purchase at certain levels. This is very much Diablo ish, noted for grinding for gear.

This is supposed to be fixed in 5E. No more assuming that characters will have items. :)


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Beckett wrote:
A lot of rules where based off the assumption that certain gear was available for general purchase at certain levels. This is very much Diablo ish, noted for grinding for gear.
This is supposed to be fixed in 5E. No more assuming that characters will have items. :)

Actually, it's said that the "flatter" math approach is supposed to fix this sort of thing. By not coupling ever increasing enchantment bonuses with magic weapons and armor, they can still have cool magic items but not have to worry about going into a dungeon with a lowly +1 weapon when the adventure is under the presumption that you should have a +3 weapon.

This is actually pretty interesting.

Shadow Lodge

I'm not sure it is actually a problem? I remeber pre3E, 3E, and 4E, and I'm not sure I have a preferece to which style, overall. I like that in pre3E, gear was sort of a mystery. The base assumption was that magic items where rare and almost unique. 3E, quantified it, alloweing for a lot more customization and the ability to both build your own and to create your own with a fairly accurate idea of how much it should be, cost, and how balanced it aught to be. 4E, kind of took that all back, making it less important (for good and for bad), but also less mysterious, I think. I think the pre3E versions where more of a treat to the players and the characters, 3E opened up everything, and 4E was a bit in the middle.


Beckett wrote:
I'm not sure it is actually a problem? I remeber pre3E, 3E, and 4E, and I'm not sure I have a preferece to which style, overall. I like that in pre3E, gear was sort of a mystery. The base assumption was that magic items where rare and almost unique. 3E, quantified it, alloweing for a lot more customization and the ability to both build your own and to create your own with a fairly accurate idea of how much it should be, cost, and how balanced it aught to be. 4E, kind of took that all back, making it less important (for good and for bad), but also less mysterious, I think. I think the pre3E versions where more of a treat to the players and the characters, 3E opened up everything, and 4E was a bit in the middle.

The problem with 3E is that the CRs were figured with the assumption that characters would have magic items to increase their effective level. The ability to create magic items is great, for a DM. Letting players create items above a certain power level seriously unbalances the CR math.


4E feels like WoW on paper to some people (me included)... wait... is that wrong?

Shadow Lodge

Not so much if you followed the way the game was actually written. A lot of the problems I've seen come up with Item Creation tends more towards game groups ignoring certain aspects of the game, and it unbalances other portions, unexpectidly.

For example, if magic items are very rare, than a person that can create whatever item they want is more powerful, because unlike everyone else that kind of gets stuck with this or that, and it probably is not optimal for their character, they can make what they actually want, and come out stronger for it later. This isn't a flaw of the Item Creation system, but rather a style that favors Item Creation over random treasure.


Zmar wrote:
4E feels like WoW on paper to some people (me included)... wait... is that wrong?

Not unless you tell people they're wrong for not thinking as you do.


Beckett wrote:

Not so much if you followed the way the game was actually written. A lot of the problems I've seen come up with Item Creation tends more towards game groups ignoring certain aspects of the game, and it unbalances other portions, unexpectidly.

For example, if magic items are very rare, than a person that can create whatever item they want is more powerful, because unlike everyone else that kind of gets stuck with this or that, and it probably is not optimal for their character, they can make what they actually want, and come out stronger for it later. This isn't a flaw of the Item Creation system, but rather a style that favors Item Creation over random treasure.

The problem is that, given sufficient funds and time (and a willingness to expend XP in 3E), players can create weapons and armor that are maxed out at +5 to hit/damage or AC, up to +5 in special abilities, and a number of other abilities that you can add merely by raising the cost.

The CR tables assume much more modest magic items, even at higher levels. The NPC tables in the DMG give you an indication of what's expected.

If a system can be abused, it will be, expecially by gamers. As a DM, I shudder to think about the sort of things we did in the old days, and we didn't even have a built-in system like 3E does.

Shadow Lodge

Can we drop the snark?


Pathfinder is definitely more "WoW-like" then 3rd edition was. I always thought 4e had more of a supers feel to it then a WoW feel. I played it for a full year, and it felt like D&D the comic to me. The art and the crap characters can do in battle made it this way to me. The 4e engine would be better suited for psionics/superhero/starwars type of game to me, really. The battles with 4e in no way depict classic medieval/sword and sorcery in a rational or pseudo-believable fashion, its like a "supers" game re-skinned or something. In my opinion of course.

Anyway, 5e has piqued my interest because it seems to be moving more towards a more simplistic and oldschool ruleset and outlook. The things I'm hearing remind me a lot of 2e. Taking what we have learned from all editions, and the best mechanics from each, and then melding them into a new, distinctly D&D feeling game, to me, is the best move they could have made.

1e just has that "magic" to it, 2e was the master of customization and was awesome to DM, 3e (to me) had the best feel as a player, and 4e... well some people like it; taking the best from each edition is most likely a win, but a lot rides on rules presentation and organization.

I will gladly test drive this new edition, but it damn-well better feel like D&D, and feel awesome. If its just a bunch of dry, cold, flashy, disassociated mechanics with pretty ultra-high fantasy art, then I may have a hard time swallowing it.

D&D has a chance to be restored, to go back to its roots, lets hope they don't mess this up.


Beckett wrote:
Can we drop the snark?

Sorry. I wasn't aware what I said was snarky.


MysticNumber wrote:
I always thought 4e had more of a supers feel to it then a WoW feel. I played it for a full year, and it felt like D&D the comic to me.

I've heard people say they'd like to run a modern Superhero game using 4E. The idea sounds intriguing.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Can we drop the snark?

Sorry. I wasn't aware what I said was snarky.

I'm sorry, I thought you where being sacastic. Sort of like "unless you are one of those fans that tell people they are wrong if they don't agree with you". I just get tired of it, from all sides.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I've heard people say they'd like to run a modern Superhero game using 4E. The idea sounds intriguing.

I would think that the Star Wars Saga would be a better system, as it's already sort of that genre and more of that era?


No. I was just trying to head off a "It's my opinion and it should be yours!" sort of thing. I'm tired of it, too.

If I was being sarcastic, I would have included a :>.

:)


Beckett wrote:
I would think that the Star Wars Saga would be a better system, as it's already sort of that genre and more of that era?

I was thinking of the powers structure of 4E. That sounds like it would lend itself to a, well, superpowers sort of thing.

Shadow Lodge

Maybe. I know that the Saga edition Star Wars eas very similar to 4E, that's why I mentioned it, as you said you where interested.

I might also suggest Scion, from White Wolf. :)


Oh, if I was going to switch systems that far, I'd just go with OVA. It's primarily anime, but it works for supers games, as well.

Shadow Lodge

OVA? Is that O.V.A. or Ova?

Scion is sort of like a more real world based version of Exalted (also Anime based).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SAGA was a pretty good middle-ground between 3E mechanics and 4E mechanics. Force powers derived off your Force skill and the higher the ranks, the better effects your force powers had. And of course, force powers had limits and the like. But it also had a lot of 3E stuff in there like BAB, Hit Die, level-by-level advancement, and so on.

And I do hope that with D&D:Next, magic item creation isn't as hard as they say, or at least keeping some resemblance of the Common, Uncommon, Rare uniqueness of Magical Gear. Of course, those tags come off "game-y" like some coughed up version of Magic: The Gathering but it's usage was a lot more simpler and I could look at a town or village and say "ok, they probably sell just Common items and a few common magical items here. Possibly 1 unique itmes (roll on random % table) and volià. In 3E, there was this huge economy section in the DMG about how much money a specific size city would have, and based on this, it would have X amount of items of Y amount of gold, and Z amount of magical item and it.....well just seemed far more complicated than it needed to be.


OVA is Open Versatile Anime, from Wise Turtle Publishing. It's a very simple, but elegant dice-pool system. I used to play BESM when I wanted this style of game, but I like OVA better.

Dark Archive

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
MysticNumber wrote:
I always thought 4e had more of a supers feel to it then a WoW feel. I played it for a full year, and it felt like D&D the comic to me.
I've heard people say they'd like to run a modern Superhero game using 4E. The idea sounds intriguing.

Gamma World is the only 4E product I've ever purchased (and boy howdy am I glad about that now that they just announced a new edition; I don't have thousands of dollars of books tied up in a soon-to-be-unsupported edition of D&D) and I think that was the best use of the 4E rules.

Dark Archive

As far as what I read in many of these posts, and pretty much what anyone (myself included) writes on internet forums, the following phrase often comes to mind:

George R. R. Martin, from any "A Song of Ice and Fire" book wrote:
Words are wind.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So far the only real thing that bothers me is giving back a lot more power to the DM. Which is not necessarily a good thing. Not every DM knows how to use their power responsiably at the table imo. In my younger gaming days I saw way too many D&D games implode because the DM tried the whole "I'm the DM! I'm GOD obey me or get the hell out!". I'm not saying players should force DMs to listen to every deamnd yet it's a mix of both. Both Dms and players have power at the table. Having read the 2E books recently I'm not sure that is a good thing. The section on having silver weapons to overcome creatues immunity to damage is a perfect example. Players have to buy a silver weapon. They never ever say why a player is not allowed to coat an existing weapon in silver. While also giving the DM permission in writing to screw over a player if he insists on using a silver weapon in combat. So not only were you forced to carry magic and/or silver weapons in 2E. The DMs was allowed to make you weapon unsuable if you used it against anything but an undead creature.

I hope they don't try to release a revised AD&D and expect us not to notice. I'm willing to give 5E a try. If I want o play 2E I can dig out my old 2E books. I'm in no mood to purchase them again .


memorax wrote:

So far the only real thing that bothers me is giving back a lot more power to the DM. Which is not necessarily a good thing. Not every DM knows how to use their power responsiably at the table imo. In my younger gaming days I saw way too many D&D games implode because the DM tried the whole "I'm the DM! I'm GOD obey me or get the hell out!". I'm not saying players should force DMs to listen to every deamnd yet it's a mix of both. Both Dms and players have power at the table. Having read the 2E books recently I'm not sure that is a good thing. The section on having silver weapons to overcome creatues immunity to damage is a perfect example. Players have to buy a silver weapon. They never ever say why a player is not allowed to coat an existing weapon in silver. While also giving the DM permission in writing to screw over a player if he insists on using a silver weapon in combat. So not only were you forced to carry magic and/or silver weapons in 2E. The DMs was allowed to make you weapon unsuable if you used it against anything but an undead creature.

I hope they don't try to release a revised AD&D and expect us not to notice. I'm willing to give 5E a try. If I want o play 2E I can dig out my old 2E books. I'm in no mood to purchase them again .

Hehe, yea I remember those days. A DM once told us to make 2nd level characters and I wanted to play a Paladin. He told me it was "specifically" a Cavalier (no questions asked). He then gave me a Falchion as my weapon. I said "don't most paladins and knights use a longsword or greatsword?" his response "your lucky I'm giving you a weapon at all." ......yea I played on session and was out.

But I think my experience with that ruleset and the DM was a limited one and only showcased how bad a DM can get. And there's a difference between being more "powerful" (as in, change things at a whim because he says so) and being a D-bag. And I have to wonder, how much DM fiat is encouraged by the ruleset and how much is expressed in codified rules? For example, they give the whole "If your Strenght is above X, you can crash through doors with a lower DC". Um....ok, but is that a eveytime? Is that when the DM feels like it? These sorts of rule put people on the same page. And why do they feel the need to waste space reiterating this sort of DM mentality. Just last Monday as our group was playing my buddy was Scouting with his character (heh, a scout v3.5) and asked me if he needed to make a Hide check. I said that due to the fog and the long distance to the big orc encampment he would be fine. He then says "Wait, did we just shift unintentionally into 5th Edition?!" I could only laugh.


There's a huge difference between a bad GM and a bad rulesset. A bad GM can screw up anything, no matter what the rules say.

As far as the rules giving the GM fiat... I think it's the players who have to do that. No matter what the rules say, if the players aren't happy, they have every right to demand change, or to not play, or to replace the GM (unless it's his house). Gaming is a group effort, and you shouldn't let the wording of the rules control your group.

Shadow Lodge

But poor rules set can both lead to bad GMs and almost encourage poor gming. I persoanlly believe that DM's should have minimal power and authority to play the game. Edition is irrelavent. Rules are there so that everyone is on the same page and knows what sort of things to expect from the game. If your going to ignor rules, it needs to 1.) be a group decision, NOT A GM ONE, and 2.) needs to be done from the start, not when a bad GM needs to cover up their flawed story.

I've seen entire campaigns ruined because this idea that a GM should have some sort of deity-like power, but nowhere does it mention the retard level wisdom that comes with it. So I'm actually going to go more on the side that More GM Authority is a bad thing.


A GM's authority is only there if you allow it to be. The rules can't give it to him.

But I don't think Cook was talking about authority, per se. IFIRC, he was talking mostly about a GM controlling the creative direction of his game, as in what races he wants to use, what classes, that kind of thing.


memorax wrote:

So far the only real thing that bothers me is giving back a lot more power to the DM. Which is not necessarily a good thing. Not every DM knows how to use their power responsiably at the table imo. In my younger gaming days I saw way too many D&D games implode because the DM tried the whole "I'm the DM! I'm GOD obey me or get the hell out!". I'm not saying players should force DMs to listen to every deamnd yet it's a mix of both. Both Dms and players have power at the table. Having read the 2E books recently I'm not sure that is a good thing. The section on having silver weapons to overcome creatues immunity to damage is a perfect example. Players have to buy a silver weapon. They never ever say why a player is not allowed to coat an existing weapon in silver. While also giving the DM permission in writing to screw over a player if he insists on using a silver weapon in combat. So not only were you forced to carry magic and/or silver weapons in 2E. The DMs was allowed to make you weapon unsuable if you used it against anything but an undead creature.

I hope they don't try to release a revised AD&D and expect us not to notice. I'm willing to give 5E a try. If I want o play 2E I can dig out my old 2E books. I'm in no mood to purchase them again .

Find a new DM.

Shadow Lodge

If a GM is that bad under 0E/1E/2E, then he's gonna be just as bad under 3E/4E/5E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

2nd Edition plays like Baldur's Gate. There, I said it. Been meaning to get that off my chest for a while.

My initial (and only) impression of 4E was MMO-ish. Mostly how the spells read. I tried to play a full on Enchanter, and the spell selection just didn't accommodate that playstyle even remotely:
Me: "I want to win fights indirectly."
System: "okay, do you want to do 1d4+ Int, or would you like to cast Sleep?"
Me: "I... want to... not combat. Enchanter. I..."
System: "hey, we have rituals."
Me: "I hate you."

On the other subject... bad DMs are bad DMs. No system can mitigate or fix this. Concrete rules matter not to Douchebaggimus Maximus. Just acknowledge a lost cause and find a new DM. Or DM something yourself.


Beckett wrote:

But poor rules set can both lead to bad GMs and almost encourage poor gming. I persoanlly believe that DM's should have minimal power and authority to play the game. Edition is irrelavent. Rules are there so that everyone is on the same page and knows what sort of things to expect from the game. If your going to ignor rules, it needs to 1.) be a group decision, NOT A GM ONE, and 2.) needs to be done from the start, not when a bad GM needs to cover up their flawed story.

I've seen entire campaigns ruined because this idea that a GM should have some sort of deity-like power, but nowhere does it mention the retard level wisdom that comes with it. So I'm actually going to go more on the side that More GM Authority is a bad thing.

What exactly constitutes minimal authority? 4E doesn't seem to take power away from the GM anymore than 3E does, so what should 5E do in this matter?

Grand Lodge

dotted

301 to 350 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.