Hopefully D&D Next will be able to be a rebirth of 1e, 2e, 3e and even 4e
That's a tall order, man. I would hazard to say that 1e and 4e have zero in common. They're just completely different systems, from different eras. Also, as much as I like 2e at the time, looking back it's not as a good as I once thought it was. TSR was definitely "mailing it in" towards the end.
Wizards has fallen into the cycle of reprinting old material every five years for a new system.
They will never earn another copper piece from my coinpurse.
These people nearly destroyed D&D once and for all.
I personally believe that the work done by the Paizo staff saved the game from a long and slow extinction.
It does not matter to me how good 5E is. I cannot trust the publisher
(WoTC) to even try to act to preserve the spirit of the game AND make a profit. Profit is all that fills their hearts.
The Paizo staff has proven to me that they can be trusted with this most engaging of pass-times.
WoTC has only proven they cannot be trusted near your wallet.
Hopefully D&D Next will be able to be a rebirth of 1e, 2e, 3e and even 4eThat's a tall order, man. I would hazard to say that 1e and 4e have zero in common. They're just completely different systems, from different eras.
This is exactly the point of my post. Dnd5 ed is prolly going to be a mistake worse than 4ed. Instead of amassing the 3.x crowd, theyre going to lose the 4ed crowd as well.
As for dnd Next, its is going to be dnd 5th edition. They even have a hotsite for it, heheheh *grims with malice*
http://dnd5.com/
|
It does not matter to me how good 5E is. I cannot trust the publisher
(WoTC) to even try to act to preserve the spirit of the game AND make a profit. Profit is all that fills their hearts.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Every rpg publisher including this one wants to make a profit. You think the devs working at Paizo are losing sleep because they a have a popular and proiftable selling rpg. Let's stop this whole "big bad Wotc wants only your money". Like it or not so do Paizo and any other rpg publisher. Since last time I checked no non-proift rpg publisher exist on the market. If they do you can probably count them on one hand.
WoTC has only proven they cannot be trusted near my wallet.
fixed that for you.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Every rpg publisher including this one wants to make a profit.
The difference lies where you make a profit by respecting your costumer or not.
|
|
The difference lies where you make a profit by respecting your costumer or not.
How exactly did Wotc perosnally disrespect anyone. I'm no longer as huge a fan of 4E or Wotc yet never did I feel disrespected by them or their products. It's not like D&D is some sort of lving entity. It's an rpg and that' all it is. Rules on a non-sentinet piece of paper. Wotc did not kill your favored puppy or burn your house down. Get over it. Nor was anyone forced to buy 4E. Either. It's almost like some in the hobby act like they are Jack Bauer and Wotc has thier family hostage.
Not only that your in a hobby that requires you to spend a certain amount of money at all times. In the case of PF you need at least he core book + Bestiarary. For someone like myself that buys all the hardcovers a steady income. Accusing one rpg company of asking too much money when in some way all rpg companies ask for money is just another form of gamer entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
So is it really going to be called D&D Next?
That's going to look really silly in 5-6 years when they start talking about another edition.
I take it that D&D Next is a code name for whatever it is they finally decide to call the game. I am guessing they may try to steer clear of 5th edition and maybe call it something like "D&D: Master Edition" or "Ultimate D&D" or something (though hopefully nothing quite as cheesy as my two suggestions :)
That's a tall order, man. I would hazard to say that 1e and 4e have zero in common. They're just completely different systems, from different eras.
Definitely a tall order, but hopefully one they can come close to succeeding with. I am not overly familiar with 1e, but I can see how a simple system with Magic User / Fighting Man / Priest / Rogue that doesn't use minis or powers or feats could be expanded on with modules to introduce minis and maps, feats, skills, powers, class refinement packages (e.g. the Ranger package for the Fighting Man class, the Druid package for Priest etc) and make it seem more like 4e. I am really keen to see what they have done.
Wizards has fallen into the cycle of reprinting old material every five years for a new system.
5 years is about normal for a new edition, and although I enjoy 3.5 I am glad WotC had the guts to do something quite different with 4e even if it wasn't all to my liking - at least it makes my purchase of the game worthwhile (i.e. I was getting something different).
I personally believe that the work done by the Paizo staff saved the game from a long and slow extinction.
Nah, at most D&D would be mothballed, we would all continue to play D&D using whatever edition we liked along with many other RPGs until it would have been finally relaunched a decade or so down the line.
WoTC has only proven they cannot be trusted near your wallet.
Whilst I don't agree with all their business decisions, such as pulling PDFs from sale, I still buy the odd 4e book (Dark Sun & Rules Compendium being my most recent purchases) so I obviously still trust them with my wallet.
@ Digital Mage - y'know what just occurred to me? I knew it the second I saw the class, but Magus does harken back to the roots of D&D. When you play an Elven Magus, you're effectively playing a Red Box Elf. If Paizo can do that, then Hasbro can take notes.
Take some modern game views and marry them to the simplicity of the past.
but for me Pathfinder IS D&D right now.I agree with this sentiment and I don't think that we're alone in it. Truly, I think 4e was too much of a departure from the old.
Also, I do hope that Gorbacz is correct in his assessment. If 5e is a rebirth of 1st edition Dungeons & Dragons, then I'll pretty much have to pay some attention to it. If it's just more 4e-like crap, then it will be easy to ignore.
heh.. 1e and 2e where fighters and rogues didnt (gasp!) have daily magical abilities :D And having a longsword +1 and a chainmail was enough for a straight lvl 15 fighter.
How exactly did Wotc perosnally disrect anyone. I'm no longer as huge a fan of 4E or Wotc yet never did I feel disrespected by them or their products. It's not like D&D is some sort of lving entity. It's an rpg and that' all it is. Rules on a non-sentinet piece of paper. Wotc did not kill your favored puppy or burn your house down. Get over it. Nor was anyone forced to buy $e. Either. It's almost like some in the hobby act like they are Jack Bauer and Wotc has thier family hostage.
Its easy to understand a person who spends a great deal of time and money who gets upset when the products he loved gets canceled. RPGs have a deep feeling of simulation and immersion and its easy to get an attachment to them.
If it wasnt for paizo, I can say at least for myself, I wouldnt be playing DnD anymore.
I see 4ed like those movies losely based on a book. And I consider bad movies as a disrespect towards fans and books alike.
As well as paying to watch Stardust expecting a Neil Gaiman worth of a movie and actually spending money on something else completely different that just steals the name from the book.
A fan cannot help but feel deceived and disrespected.
If given enough room to work, WotC will end up producing a great product with a 10 year longievity. Cook, Mearls, and company know what needs to be done. Its already been done.
Cook was one of the men behind 3E which is a large reason why we have PF.
Mearls has experience and can deliver. Although I detested it, he lead 4E R&D to a damn good pen and paper MMO port... which is exactly what Hasbro wanted. Oh WoW has 7 million players... lets make DnD more like WoW. He did and did a very good job.
DnD Heads don't want DnD to reselmble something that was based off of an older version of DnD. Hasbro has been around for a while and you don't stay in the game industry a long time by not learning from your mistakes.
What I see happening is a similar launch to 3E. I see a basic rule set being put out but nothing more than introductory content aimed at bringing new players up to speed. Secondly, there is going to be a split between core and advanced as TSR did back in the day. You have your 3 main target audiences covered. New gamers, casual games, hardcore gamers.
In this approach, I believe they will be successful and bring some gamers back to the WotC table. What comes after will depend on their staff. You had a rotating roster of people throughout 3 and 3.5. You also had a major x factor in Hasbro's purchase of WotC. Management changes come with that and the product suffered.
Lastly, I see renewed focus on settings. Hasbro isn't stupid. They see that in the last half a decade Paizo has won over at least half of what used to be DnD players... and they did it by expanding on a core system that already worked and creating a unique setting that is constantly changing. We aren't waiting a year or even a quarter for Golorian to change. That is what is appealing. That is really what keeps an audience. Constant attention to the product and flagship setting. I just hope they can unf+~* Faerun because I can't see any other setting leading the new edition. I see the old settings coming back but once a track record has been established. Unfortunatly, I don't see a sensible GL accompanying this edition.
Just my two coppers.
Honestly, if TSR/Wizards could recover from the money grovelling, D&D hating disaster that was Lorraine Williams, then anything is possible.
Indeed.
heh.. 1e and 2e where fighters and rogues didnt (gasp!) have daily magical abilities :D
Hey now, Rogues have to choose certain Talents to get daily magic abilities. Fighters still need magic items for that too.
And having a longsword +1 and a chainmail was enough for a straight lvl 15 fighter.
Heh - this is exactly what I don't miss! What we're seeing today is a pendulum shift; in 1e (especially) magic items were beyond rare and now (3x/PF) they're beyond common. There does exist a middle ground, the pendulum just has to stop swinging.
I removed a post. Was that necessary?
heh.. 1e and 2e where fighters and rogues didnt (gasp!) have daily magical abilities :DHey now, Rogues have to choose certain Talents to get daily magic abilities. Fighters still need magic items for that too.
And having a longsword +1 and a chainmail was enough for a straight lvl 15 fighter.Heh - this is exactly what I don't miss! What we're seeing today is a pendulum shift; in 1e (especially) magic items were beyond rare and now (3x/PF) they're beyond common. There does exist a middle ground, the pendulum just has to stop swinging.
Yep, it's called E6. That or it's not found inside anything D&D in the last 15-20 years.
But why is the common occurance of magical items a bad thing in a game where magic exists, often times in heavy doses? And espically when the game is level-based and the math scales pretty rapidly over character advancement? One solution is to stop the number advancement, but doesn't that take something pretty major away from D&D? Isn't advancement (level and numbers) something D&D is specifically known for? Or perhaps it's because DMs now-a-days are more likely to run groups with heavy combat and, thus, dish out more XP when compared to DMs of 2E and previous years who were perfectly fine with his party leveling up once or twice a year a year?
Personally, I like magical items to be unique and fun but not super rare or non-existant. However, I'd like for them to STOP putting numerical vales in the form of "+'s" to every one. I find that it's annoying. Additionally, it always always always makes players question if their beloved +1 flaming sword, to which they've shared dozens of adventurs with, needs sold to buy that nice +3 Vicious Greataxe which is mechanically superior even though they've expressed how the magical sword they've been carrying has some how helped define how they role-play.
Mearls has experience and can deliver. Although I detested it, he lead 4E R&D to a damn good pen and paper MMO port... which is exactly what Hasbro wanted. Oh WoW has 7 million players... lets make DnD more like WoW. He did and did a very good job.
Gotta love those obtuse analogies with little to no reason for them. It's like buzz-words or phrases, people use them all the time without even knowing why. But I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you provide us with some reasons as to why it feels like an MMO? What sets 4E apart from other D&D editions that plays into an MMO effect?
Gotta love those obtuse analogies with little to no reason for them. It's like buzz-words or phrases, people use them all the time without even knowing why. But I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you provide us with some reasons as to why it feels like an MMO? What sets 4E apart from other D&D editions that plays into an MMO effect?
Personally, I've played MMOs for the past 12 years. When the level advancement came into the picture and they were three tiers, first thing I thought of was EQ2. That is exactly how EQ2s level advancement was in the beginning. That was my initial impression.
Secondly, the way they handled the frequency of power usage felt much like refresh timers. Gaining abilities every level also gave it an MMO vibe.
The different classifications of monsters could be akin to solo, group, epic class Mobs.
Every player experiences RPGs differently. If you'd never played an MMO you would obviously not draw these conclusions but if you have then you should be able to have some level of objectivity when looking at the comparision.
Maybe these things were in previous editions... I started on 2nd and didn't see them then, didn't see them in 3 or 3X, but in 4E they were very much prevalent to me and those in my gaming circles. I never played it after I returned from Iraq, so I have no idea what the game looks like now. When 4E came out the vibe I got was PNPMMO.
Sorry, if I used too many "buzz-words" for you but for me the analogies aren't obtuse at all. Its personal preference based off of gaming experiences. So as far as reasoning goes... I played DND and I played MMOs. This version of DND felt like an MMO to me. I see MMOs as inferior to DND for the simple fact that no computer can replicate one's imagination. The MMOs I play are discendents of DND. Its like inbreeding on a grandparental level and that is reason enough for me.
|
|
Its easy to understand a person who spends a great deal of time and money who gets upset when the products he loved gets canceled. RPGs have a deep feeling of simulation and immersion and its easy to get an attachment to them.
If it wasnt for paizo, I can say at least for myself, I wouldnt be playing DnD anymore.
I see 4ed like those movies losely based on a book. And I consider bad movies as a disrespect towards fans and books alike.
As well as paying to watch Stardust expecting a Neil Gaiman worth of a movie and actually spending money on something else completely different that just steals the name from the book.
A fan cannot help but feel deceived and disrespected.
I can respect feeling unhappy and to a small extent angry that an rpg a person likes is cancellled yet for good or bad its the nature of the hobby. New editins of rpgs is never going to stop. Once a certain version of a rpg is either no longer as profitable as before the company that owns it is going to try and make a new editon. Once the current version of PF srtops being profitable chances are you will see a new edition of PF. It makes no sense for Paizo to keep publishing one that loses them moeny. So down the line its something we might see happen. One that might not even be compitable with 1E imo. I guess for me its not such a big thing personally though I can understand for others it might.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.
I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.
|
|
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.
Yeah, I gotta agree. Seriously Memorax ... good lord, come on!
|
|
I see its okay to trash talk someone else rpg just as long as its not one you like. The fact that many video games borrow for D&D means imo that it lends its self well to all types of video games. Baldurs gate 2 and Neveriwnter nights are good examples of this. Call BS all you like. Just like I call BS when people say its a 4E = MMO. Im all for a person not liking 4E as long as they can back up the usually wrong assumptions that are made about 4E. Not only 4E as well as PF.
|
|
I see its okay to trash talk someone else rpg just as long as its not one you like. The fact that many video games borrow for D&D means imo that it lends its self well to all types of video games. Baldurs gate 2 and Neveriwnter nights are good examples of this. Call BS all you like. Just like I call BS when people say its a 4E = MMO. Im all for a person not liking 4E as long as they can back up the usually wrong assumptions that are made about 4E. Not only 4E as well as PF.
1. Nothing in my statement trashed 4th
2. I DM'd 4th for 2 years so I'm well aware of its strengths and failings, so its not like I'm bashing it (which I'm not) w/o doing any research.
3. 4th felt like WOW on paper. I like WOW, or did for a while at least. 4th was fun, and tastes great, like fast food. Most of us require nourishment though, and Pathfinder is a healthy, multi food group meal.
I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.
Call BS all you want. It's an OPINION. In my OPINION, that dog hunted, captured, killed, cooked, and ate an entire forest's worth of animals. I lost count of how many times I read the "omg 3E == Diablo" crap.
BTW, you're like person 42,312 to try to pass off this opinion as fact -- but don't feel bad, it didn't work the first 42,311 times, either.
Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special.
Oh yeah, and if you really think this is OBJECTIVE TRUTH(tm), I suggest you roll over to Dragonsfoot. :)
Yeah, I gotta agree. Seriously Memorax ... good lord, come on!He's not wrong.
Any TTRPG can play like a video game if the group plays that way. PF, 4E, it's all in your playstyle, not the game.
I think this is spot on. The mechanics are just something that happens in the background - a way to regulate the story.
Whether you want to focus primarily on the story, the characterisation, the mechanics or anything else is a matter for how your group chooses to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta love those obtuse analogies with little to no reason for them. It's like buzz-words or phrases, people use them all the time without even knowing why. But I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you provide us with some reasons as to why it feels like an MMO? What sets 4E apart from other D&D editions that plays into an MMO effect?Personally, I've played MMOs for the past 12 years. When the level advancement came into the picture and they were three tiers, first thing I thought of was EQ2. That is exactly how EQ2s level advancement was in the beginning. That was my initial impression.
I thought the Tier idea brought a great way for DMs to indicate the style of the campaign they wanted to run. It easily shows players the scope of the adventure and there-abouts what levels they'll probably be going through. It also helps separate feats that are good and powerful AND gives PCs an idea of the next 'level', something I felt Prestige Classes should've done but didn't with the varying levels of PrC entries.
As to MMO backgrounds, mine is mostly from Diablo, Diablo II, WoW, Guild Wars, and Neverwinter Nights. But perhaps the Tier effects is held only with EQ2, a game I've never played. What I don't understand is how the tier effect really adversly effects the mechanics of the game or how one might play the game? Basically it's just a background indicator of what a PC might expect in that broad level.
Secondly, the way they handled the frequency of power usage felt much like refresh timers. Gaining abilities every level also gave it an MMO vibe.
If your taking about "Encounter" powers, I might see where your going as they refresh after a battle, but I've never felt there was a mini-clock timer slowly recharging the power to be used again. Like in ANY game, there's going to be resource management but 4E felt that it's better to have some aspects that are held over througout the day instead of going all out and done in 1 battle. It's deliberatley done to counter the "15-Min. work day" effect 3E and other editons of the game greatly suffered from. As for the gaining of abilities at each level....looking at the SRD.....Druid, Monk, Barbarian, Dread Necromancer ALL gain some ability or effect at every level. Do they perpetuate an MMO feel?
The different classifications of monsters could be akin to solo, group, epic class Mobs.
I'd figure you mention this, as this is the one aspect I feel 4E directly stole from MMOs, and frankly, it was something that's been needed for quite some time. Lets take a look at the Challenge Rating or Encounter Rating system 3E and PF goes by: it doesn't quite do the job as intended. The CR is based off of things like Hit Die, Special Abilities, Spells, Class levels, and numerical values. But what it doesn't count for is the BIGGEST part of the game, Action Economy. It doesn't matter if the HUGE Barbarian 5/Fighter 4 Half-Orc is a CR 9, he'll still only get 1 turn to the parties 4 (assuming 4 players). He'll never really be a difficult challenge unless his attacks are so damaging, they're dropping PCs hit points by half per attack. And the PCs will always have the advantage against solo monsters due to focused-fire and because monsters are build exactly as PCs are.
Every player experiences RPGs differently. If you'd never played an MMO you would obviously not draw these conclusions but if you have then you should be able to have some level of objectivity when looking at the comparision.
I've played several over the past decade, and I've come to the conclusion that video games are in their own world when it comes to how they play and the interaction gained through them in a shared environment. The same will never be expressed as it is on Paper with D&D or any other table-top RPG. I see things in 4E that might be linked, via terminology, with MMOs but can never fill a role it does, nor does it try to. What they did was say "lets make most of the rules for combat, because that's something that effects everyone at the table. It's something that should be measured and balanced. And lets leave the rules pretty light for other aspects because people generally do better with free-form apsects instead of still putting in round blocks into cube holes." Apparently they miscalculated how much people love being led by the hand.
Maybe these things were in previous editions... I started on 2nd and didn't see them then, didn't see them in 3 or 3X, but in 4E they were very much prevalent to me and those in my gaming circles. I never played it after I returned from Iraq, so I have no idea what the game looks like now. When 4E came out the vibe I got was PNPMMO.
Of course they were. Every Extraordinary (EX) power in 3E/PF that has a day limitation is practically a 4E power in all but name. People don't bat an eye to that stuff, but because 4E is more colorful and more streamlined, it appears to be taken from an MMO. But you can't tell me Stunning Fist's daily application isn't exactly like a 4E daily non-magical power or the Samurai's Kiai Smite or the Cavalier's Deadly Charge feature or the barbarian's Rage ability? What, can the barbarian only get really mad once in an 8-hour period?
What 4E suffered from was visual synonymy with MMOs. The art looked similiar. The powe blocks and streamlined aspect as to how it was presented looked similiar. Classes and their features used similiar terminology to MMOs so obviously they're attempting to make an MMO. Well....not really.
Many people have claimed that a good portion of 4E is very similiar to 3E. Stats, classes, races, the d20 mechanic, ascending AC, 3 defenses and saving throws, familiar spells, a smattering of Vancian spellcasting (Wizard being required to prepare spells from their spell book and all), Rogues using Sneak Attack against ill-defened opponents. What changed was their application to the game, but not the flavor of those aspects. Well, to me at least.
Sorry, if I used too many "buzz-words" for you but for me the analogies aren't obtuse at all. Its personal preference based off of gaming experiences. So as far as reasoning goes... I played DND and I played MMOs. This version of DND felt like an MMO to me. I see MMOs as inferior to DND for the simple fact that no computer can replicate one's imagination. The MMOs I play are discendents of DND. Its like inbreeding on a grandparental level and that is reason enough for me.
Of course, YMMV pretty much applies whenever someone brings up these issues and I appreciate your time in detailing responses as to why. As someone who's been hearing it for 5 years with 90% of the people NOT giving reasons, just because it's the popular thing to say....well it gets a bit aggrivating.
I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.
Last time I checked, 3E and it's subsequent 1/2 edition created over 5 video games with the rules taking center stage as their focal points. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor was pretty hard-core 3.0. Neverwinter Nights and it's 2 (or was it 3?) expansions were all 3.0. Icewind Dale 2 was exclusively 3.5 and went so far as to add Drow, Aasimar, and Tiefling options WITH their level adjustments. Then there was Neverwinter Nights 2 yet another v3.5 product. I mean, if 3E (and by it's extention, Pathfinder) didn't play like a video game as you say, quite a few game developers and players sure thought it would work well as a video game and did it pretty whole-hog for almost a decade.
Games for 4E........we've got a Facebook App called Hereos of Neverwinter, which is pretty poor and doesn't even explore how strong the 4E mechanics are. If 4E DID lend itself to great MMO heights, why was nothing doen for it? Why didn't we see great CRPGs for it because it's sooooo MMO like? Probably because it looks like an MMO in print but doesn't come close to actual play-style.
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.
I really dont get it. Honestly, I am baffled.
Diablo for instance. Theres this big temple that leads into hell. Out of nowhere. You go down, kill stuff and loot and finally kills the big demon. Why its related to 3.x to you guys? It totally strikes me as 4th edition material. Only a dungeon and no concerns if the game made any sense. Gee, If you replace the final boss for Orcus, you preety much have one adventure recently released for 4ed by wizard$ I forgot the name(Prince of Undeath perhaps?).
Recently I ve read on the PFO forums a discussion about how realistic people wanted PFO to be. One of the folks came up with the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
3.x was the dnd experience. It had simulation and immersion and the books and systems were built to provide a game that was concerned if I believed or not in what was presented. Not that the game emulated reality, but that the reality presented made sense on itself.
This is why 3.x folks like me gets so attached to it. In 3.x I was a hero on a fantasy story I believed and felt I was part of it.
In 4th edition, I was a guy playing a boardgame and having a hard time trying to explain/believe to my players how a mundade warrior could heal itself with healing surges without thinking of cartoon characters. It had no concern to make sense. It was the casual-est experience... Gather your friends and some snacks and drinks, but instead of letting the computer do the math, lets roll some dice.
|
|
3.x was the dnd experience. It had simulation and immersion and the books and systems were built to provide a game that was concerned if I believed or not in what was presented. Not that the game emulated reality, but that the reality presented made sense on itself.
Seriously. Go check out the Dragonsfoot forums. Just remember that anything past 2E is banned from discussion.
EDIT:
3.x was the dnd experience.
Lemme say it clearly.
The D&D experience trancends editions. It's how you play, not what you play.
You can have it playing Shadowrun. You can have it playing 4E.
Stop complaining about the system and recognize it's the playstyle you hate.
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.I really dont get it. Honestly, I am baffled.
Diablo for instance. Theres this big temple that leads into hell. Out of nowhere. You go down, kill stuff and loot and finally kills the big demon. Why its related to 3.x to you guys? It totally strikes me as 4th edition material. Only a dungeon and no concerns if the game made any sense. Gee, If you replace the final boss for Orcus, you preety much have one adventure recently released for 4ed by wizard$ I forgot the name(Prince of Undeath perhaps?).
Never really understood the argument myself, frankly because PnP D&D never, ever feels like a computer game, regardless of edition. Sure people can run it like so: combat encounter, combat encounter, combat encounter, rest, combat encounter, rest, meet NPC, combat encounter, rest..... But that's ANY game. Which makes it hard for me to see how anyone can compare 4E to other video games aisde from the points I noted in a few posts above. As for it working better for 4E? *shrugs* sounds like a nightmare to DM and not very fun regardless of edition. Again, the analogy could be made by using GURPS, Fuzion, D&D, Paizo products with the same outcome and effects.
Recently I ve read on the PFO forums a discussion about how realistic people wanted PFO to be. One of the folks came up with the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
3.x was the dnd experience. It had simulation and immersion and the books and systems were built to provide a game that was concerned if I believed or not in what was presented. Not that the game emulated reality, but that the reality presented made sense on itself.
This is why 3.x folks like me gets so attached to it. In 3.x I was a hero on a fantasy story I believed and felt I was part of it.
A person's suspension of disbelief is going to vary, often widely, with others who play the same game. This is why many gaming groups stay pretty close together, becuase their level of disbelief is similiar. But 3.X did a pretty terrible job at simulation and immersion is not indictative to a set of rules, it's about the player. One can get into just as much immersion by playing FATE or 4E as one can with 3.X or Pathfinder. So really, I fail to see how 3E-specific rules helps with immersion.
Lets take a rule that 3E/v3.5 does, falling damage. In 3E if you fall 20 feet, you take 2d6 damage. A lowly level 1 commoner would probably recieve some serious wounds or even death with such a fall. But because a person's gained 5 levels in Fighter, he mysteriously survives with nothing but a scratch. How is this possible? Did his leveling up somehow change his metabolic healing rate? Did his skin and bones become impenetratble to bludgeoning damage due to being extra Fighter-y? Nope, nothing so dramatic. What happened was that the player suspened disbelief and added something external to the situation such as "well the fighter was able to roll with the impact, missing serious harm" or "at the last minute, he was able to twist and fall on his backpack, which takes a good portion of the blow" or "heh, he's lucky". All of these could've also happened to the level 1 commoner, but the results would've been the same.
Simply put, Hit Points and general game mechanics do not simulate anything plausable outside a 1st level game. Espically a game that is derived specifically from levels and numerical upgrades. So there are quite a few things in D&D (most editons) that don't serve to strum that simulationists strings, but we all have our preferences. Some are willing to strech what those preferences are, like myself who still plays 3E, v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4th. Others, well.....not so much.
In 4th edition, I was a guy playing a boardgame and having a hard time trying to explain/believe to my players how a mundade warrior could heal itself with healing surges without thinking of cartoon characters. It had no concern to make sense. It was the casual-est experience... Gather your friends and some snacks and drinks, but instead of letting the computer do the math, lets roll some dice.
Healig surges work similar to the situation I just provided. They're a gamist element to represent a person's innate ability to "forge on" even when they're in a great deal of pain. But it should be noted that at no time was Hit Points supposed to be directly linked on a 1:1 ratio to a person's actual physical health. As people level, they don't get healther right? They're able to withstand more pain. A sword thrust that deals 11 damage would kill most common people, but a 7th level fighter is able to take with with a grain of salt like it was a mere paper-cut. Again, this delves into one's Suspension of Disbelief. So let me ask this: Why is one situation perfectly acceptable such as recieving damage and being fine to fight on even though it would kill most common people YET an element that allows people to push through pain via personal reserves (ie. healing surges) some how board-gamish?
Additionally I think a lot of it comes down to how 4E was written. It was distinctly written for a board to be used with miniatures (preferrable their miniatures). This, for some reason, gave people feelings that it was a requirement for the game AND that it perpetuated the board-gamist feel. I understand that, and I wish they would've just kept it all in real-time measurments (let me do the math instead). But still, it didn't really effect my level of immersion because I didn't 'see' the board or the level/numbers of my attacks. I saw my Knight in plate armor standing toe to toe with a Fen Hydra and making use it didn't try to leave the pit of acid my wizard friend conjured underneith it. And when it tried, I looked to my good friend (an Assassin) to garotte it back into the pool where it would slowly bubble away to nothingness. I'm of the opinion that RPGs can't GIVE you Immersion for your character. You either feel it, or you don't.
stuff about immersion vs mechanics
The thing about D20 (3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, etc) is that it reduced a bunch of rolls to a d20 standard, if you see what I mean. Traveller was the only other game that mathematically elegant; GURPS came close, no insult.
One can also say that Pathfinder plays lie a video game as much as an rpg. If some insist on using the 4E = MMO reference.I really dont get it. Honestly, I am baffled.
Diablo for instance. Theres this big temple that leads into hell. Out of nowhere. You go down, kill stuff and loot and finally kills the big demon. Why its related to 3.x to you guys? It totally strikes me as 4th edition material. Only a dungeon and no concerns if the game made any sense. Gee, If you replace the final boss for Orcus, you preety much have one adventure recently released for 4ed by wizard$ I forgot the name(Prince of Undeath perhaps?).
It sounds much closer to an AD&D adventure to me (you could even refer to T$R then, like they did in the good old days).
.I dont think anyone here is going to claim WoTC adventures are as good as Paizo's. However this original tangent was about the system, not the flavor material. As I understood memorax's comment, he wasnt actually saying that PF was a video game, he was saying that it was just as much a video game as 4E (One of the comments in the quote he responded to, for example, was "Gaining abilities every level also gave it an MMO vibe." If that's true, doesnt that mean PF has an MMO vibe? Paizo, like WoTC, made a concerted effort to avoid the "dead levels" which came up from time to time in 3.5 - I dont think either of them did that in order to make it more computer-gamey).
TOZ is right.
|
|
It's not so much the some posters dislike of 4E so much that people keep trying to pass opinion as fact. Or if not opionion i one says something enough times it muxt be true. Neither is a rock soid argument on any level imo. The guy on the left may feel like 4E is a mmo while the guy on the right thinks it's the greatest rpg system invented. The guy on the first floor thinks that PF is a rehash of 3.5 while the guy in the second floor think it's an innovation for 3.5. I'm not saying opinions don't matter they do yet an opinion unless it's backed up by concrete proof will never progress more than an opinion.
I play and run PF with a battlemat and minis yet I'm not going around and claiming it's an MMO because 4E also uses one. The times I played 4E I certainly engaged in roleplaying as I did in PF. I'm not going around saying that PF does not encourage roleplaying because the system is so dependant on DC when it comes to skill.
As for 3.5/PF not feeling like a video game how many games did they make using the 3.0-3.5. ruleset. Quite a few in fact. PF itself is getting an MMO. Are posters on this forum going to now say that PF is an MMO too. I woulkd be surprised if that was not the case. Or that a PF MMO spells the end of Paizo.
Finally some posters seem to think that everyone agrees with them on topics. If you think that 3E is the do all end all of D&D editions and that everyone thinks that take a visit to Dragonsfoot your going to be told otherwise.
I'm probably going to get yelled at for asking, but please believe me, it's an honest question: can we talk about Hackmaster on Dragonsfoot?
stuff about immersion vs mechanicsThe thing about D20 (3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, etc) is that it reduced a bunch of rolls to a d20 standard, if you see what I mean. Traveller was the only other game that mathematically elegant; GURPS came close, no insult.
I think rolemaster beats all of them, on that metric. Spellcasting, Maneuvers, Combat, everything - all revolves around d100 with pretty consistent difficulty modifiers (across all activities).
|
How exactly did Wotc perosnally disrect anyone. I'm no longer as huge a fan of 4E or Wotc yet never did I feel disrespected by them or their products. It's not like D&D is some sort of lving entity. It's an rpg and that' all it is. Rules on a non-sentinet piece of paper. Wotc did not kill your favored puppy or burn your house down. Get over it. Nor was anyone forced to buy $e. Either. It's almost like some in the hobby act like they are Jack Bauer and Wotc has thier family hostage.Its easy to understand a person who spends a great deal of time and money who gets upset when the products he loved gets canceled. RPGs have a deep feeling of simulation and immersion and its easy to get an attachment to them.
If it wasnt for paizo, I can say at least for myself, I wouldnt be playing DnD anymore.
I see 4ed like those movies losely based on a book. And I consider bad movies as a disrespect towards fans and books alike.
As well as paying to watch Stardust expecting a Neil Gaiman worth of a movie and actually spending money on something else completely different that just steals the name from the book.
A fan cannot help but feel deceived and disrespected.
Happens all the time. In fact, it is inevitable. It was, after all, THIRD edition, implying that there had been two prior editions prior editions which also got cancelled. If you want to feel disrespected its up to you but simply cancelling an edition is not disrespect, it's just business. I can't think of any game of any significance more than a decade old which hasn't changed edition at least once (I'm sure someone will prove me wrone, that said).
|
|
I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this. If Pathfinder plays like a video game at all, its because most RPG's and MMOs base a lot of their tropes on established "D&D-ism's". Pathfinder is emblematic of much of what makes D&D special. I understand you have a knee jerk reaction to people here talking smack about 4th, but seriously, that dog will not hunt.
Call BS all you want. It's an OPINION. In my OPINION, that dog hunted, captured, killed, cooked, and ate an entire forest's worth of animals. I lost count of how many times I read the "omg 3E == Diablo" crap.
BTW, you're like person 42,312 to try to pass off this opinion as fact -- but don't feel bad, it didn't work the first 42,311 times, either.
Well my opinion differs from your OPINION. Congrats on also having a knee jerk reaction. But dont feel bad, because I dont feel bad!
I wonder how long it will be before a few opinionated and argumentative people cause this thread to completely degenerate into a pointless flame-war resulting in the thread getting locked?
You mean we're not there yet? I could've sworn I heard the clink of chains and keys headed this way...
But dont feel bad, because I dont feel bad!
OK then, I won't! <holds breath, starts to turn blue>
You do bring up valid points Diffan, but I really think that you miss the point I was trying to make.
My issue wasn't with the mechanics, 4E is a great system mechanically speaking. The way it was presented, coupled with the mechanics, coupled with my previous experience lead to game play that didn't seem like D&D to me. I felt like I was playing another game, not like I was playing D&D.
I don't consider Diablo 1 & 2 and NWN to be MMOs, they can't support over a thousand people on one lobby / server.
As far as gained abilities go, I was speaking on 3.0 and 3.5. I played 4E before I even knew of Pathfinder. 3.5 didn't give abilities every level. I was actually turned off at how much more powerful the classes were in PF... then it grew on me.
I think that you may be misconstruing grievences with editions as opposed to grievences with the mechanics. The mechanics work fine and are some of the most balanced I've seen. Personally I don't think systems can ever be balanced to appease the masses. The second you change something to off set something else, you've changed someones gaming experience in a way that they wanted and at the same time you changed someone elses in a way that they hate.
Honestly, the first thing to turn me off with 4E was the super-fey/elf. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but they gave the impression that they were superior to elves on a genetic level. Live longer, look cooler, that sort of thing. It was not a greivence with the mechanics that the race's implementation resulted it, it was a grievence with the very existance of the race in a game that I had sentimental attachment to. They could have plugged those stats on an ogre, drow, aasimar, druegar, any of those and I would have been fine. But I had never heard of these creatures and all of the sudden they exist, that they are even on the same level let alone possibly superior to elves, and they have existed for thousands of years just didn't sit well with me. I would be more willing to accept their existance in Shadowrun, Pathfinder, or another game that I was less attached to at the time.
That's probably the most common misconception when it comes to the edition wars... it's not always about mechanics. It's about the memories associated with that edition.
I agree with 80% of the facts in your rebuttal Diffan. I just don't think you understand what I was meaning. Just like Falco. He didn't say the system was responsible for the immersion and simulation, which is the approach you took in your rebutal towards him. His experience with the 3XE was responsible for that. He may have changed groups, he may not have but for he and I, our 4E experience sucked all around. I don't associate editions with systems as much as I associate systems with eras. Lengths of time in which I played the game.
|
|
You do bring up valid points Diffan, but I really think that you miss the point I was trying to make.
My issue wasn't with the mechanics, 4E is a great system mechanically speaking. The way it was presented, coupled with the mechanics, coupled with my previous experience lead to game play that didn't seem like D&D to me. I felt like I was playing another game, not like I was playing D&D.
I don't consider Diablo 1 & 2 and NWN to be MMOs, they can't support over a thousand people on one lobby / server.
As far as gained abilities go, I was speaking on 3.0 and 3.5. I played 4E before I even knew of Pathfinder. 3.5 didn't give abilities every level. I was actually turned off at how much more powerful the classes were in PF... then it grew on me.
I think that you may be misconstruing grievences with editions as opposed to grievences with the mechanics. The mechanics work fine and are some of the most balanced I've seen. Personally I don't think systems can ever be balanced to appease the masses. The second you change something to off set something else, you've changed someones gaming experience in a way that they wanted and at the same time you changed someone elses in a way that they hate.
Honestly, the first thing to turn me off with 4E was the super-fey/elf. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but they gave the impression that they were superior to elves on a genetic level. Live longer, look cooler, that sort of thing. It was not a greivence with the mechanics that the race's implementation resulted it, it was a grievence with the very existance of the race in a game that I had sentimental attachment to. They could have plugged those stats on an ogre, drow, aasimar, druegar, any of those and I would have been fine. But I had never heard of these creatures and all of the sudden they exist, that they are even on the same level let alone possibly superior to elves, and they have existed for thousands of years just didn't sit well with me. I would be more willing to accept their existance in Shadowrun, Pathfinder, or another game that I was less attached to at the time.
That's probably the most common misconception when it comes to the edition wars... it's not always about mechanics. It's about the memories associated with that edition.
I agree with 80% of the facts in your rebuttal Diffan. I just don't think you understand what I was meaning. Just like Falco. He didn't say the system was responsible for the immersion and simulation, which is the approach you took in your rebutal towards him. His experience with the 3XE was responsible for that. He may have changed groups, he may not have but for he and I, our 4E experience sucked all around. I don't associate editions with systems as much as I associate systems with eras. Lengths of time in which I played the game.
Re the super-elf, I don't think the book describes them as "genetically superior", I don't think it goes into it at all. I do understand where you are coming from on this to some extent - the use of the twem "eladrin" for a different player race was a bit strange too - but really the way I think about it is more cultural background: eladrin are magically-educated elves, elves are woodsy elves. And to be honest, those two tropes have existed in D&D for decades, an elves with different stats also existed in 3e (especially FR). But they were never presented as a different "race" before.
But I'm not really, overall, very sympathetic to the notion that WotC should somehow be the keeper of your memories - that just strikes me as a bit closed-minded. Sure, you are entitled to give a game a sniff test and decide if it is for you - in the end that is a personal decision. But the bigget mistake people who seem to not like 4e make is approaching it like 3e and being disappointed that it isn't. Falco's comments just struck me as wrong - I've not experienced any real difference in gaming experience between 3e and 4e, I'm confused by those who say there is. The mechanics aren't even that different between editions. Both editions are ludicrously unrealistic. But it boils down to sitting round a table with some friends, talking drivel - it's been like that for three decades, irrespective of system.