|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:11PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2008
|
I bought the 4E PH and immediately took a dislike to the game the first time I tried to create a character. My favourite skills, Perform and Craft, were gone. There rules for creating a background for the culture were scanty. In fact there was really nothing in the rules to support or promote roleplaying or character development. Want to make a Wizard who doesn't know any attack spells because he was taught to be non-violent? Can't do it. Want to make a desert nomad who doesn't know how to swim? No way. Some noobie called me a "simulationist" as if it was dirty word, as if wanting rules that supported roleplaying made me a relic. I'm sorry, I don't want a game that is so steeply slanted toward combat, no matter how balanced it is. I want a game that lets me play a rich, deep character and that rewards me for doing it well.
So there needs to be more than one style of play. Combat is fun but it should not be the only option. If WOTC wants me to buy this game and not switch to Pathfinder or GUPRS, 5E needs to be more flexible and allow more options for pure roleplaying. I loved 3E because feats and skills were NOT all for combat and survival, they allowed a character to have a life outside of warfare and mayhem, they made characters more like real people...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:20PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2012
|
I agree. Most of the people I know either use 3.5e or other systems. I know very few people who actually play 4e. Though most of the group I usually game with aren't too into the theatrics of going full out on characters, we've recently gotten a game where everythings been more indepth and not necessarily combat based, and we're enjoying this particular campaign a lot more than a lot of others we've been in. At least, I have. And really, one of the players in this group got everyone into it, being a theater major and I really need to thank him for it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:35PM
#3
|
|
|
I would agree that 5e appealing to multiple (not all, as that may be impossible) styles or tastes is very desireable.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:45PM
#4
|
|
|
Nothing is stopping you from playing a wizard that doesn't attack people OR a desert nomad who can't swim... in 4E.
The problem is, Pure Roleplay games with little to no combat, DON'T NEED RULES! And certainly if you're able to Roleplay you don't need rules to tell you to roleplay.
I've played my share of eccentric characters, that are very powerful out of combat and useless in combat, and while they can be interesting and useful, they are often unheroic or simply boring for myself and others at certain times(deep combat, long single player RP conversations). For 4E they actively removed the need to choose between being effective in combat and effective out of combat, you can be both. If you're playing a character that doesn't use an aspect of his abilities that's fine, but wanting to be rewarded for actively gimping yourself is reaching.
This is the main problem I had with anyone wanting to play a blind character, but get a bunch of bonuses because they're blind.
Preferences... Not where they should be.
Asking someone if they're Trolling you is in violation of section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
I bought the 4E PH and immediately took a dislike to the game the first time I tried to create a character. My favorite skills, Perform and Craft, were gone.
No. The skill list was refined and all the all skills were rolled into larger categories.
For Perform you either make a Acrobatics, Diplomacy, or Bluff check depending on what type of performance you are making.
For Craft you make a Thievery check or just a straight DEX check with situational bonuses depending on your background.
The rules for creating a background for the culture were scanty. In fact there was really nothing in the rules to support or promote roleplaying or character development.
In PHB 1 yes. As the game expanded more stuff for backgrounds appeared. There is a bunch in PHB 2 & 3 and all the world books.
Want to make a Wizard who doesn't know any attack spells because he was taught to be non-violent? Can't do it.
There are many different spells. Some do no damage and only apply status effects. If you are planning on doing no damage and just sitting out combats then what difference does it make? If you are planning on contributing in the fight in some fashion then you just need to pick different spells and may need to look beyond the first basic book. Simply because everything was not in the first book that is not a system flaw.
Want to make a desert nomad who doesn't know how to swim? No way.
Armor penalties for swimming were taken away. If you want your character to drown you can always voluntarily fail a roll.
Some noobie called me a "simulationist" as if it was dirty word, as if wanting rules that supported roleplaying made me a relic. I'm sorry, I don't want a game that is so steeply slanted toward combat, no matter how balanced it is.
Well you do seem like you enjoy the simulationist aspects of the game. If some don't like it that's their problem. The important question is are you any different than the polar opposite of "the noobie"? Because it seems to me your dismissive elitist attitude is not much better than his dismissive exclusionary attitude.
I want a game that lets me play a rich, deep character and that rewards me for doing it well. So there needs to be more than one style of play. Combat is fun but it should not be the only option. If WOTC wants me to buy this game and not switch to Pathfinder or GURPS, 5E needs to be more flexible and allow more options for pure roleplaying. I loved 3E because feats and skills were NOT all for combat and survival, they allowed a character to have a life outside of warfare and mayhem, they made characters more like real people...
You get out of 4E what you put into it. You no longer need to invest character resources to be a good in non combat situations. Skill checks cover everything. If you want to do more outside of combat then do it. If your DM is not giving you enough in game time talk to them. Coming here to complain about things that are not system issues isn't going to solve your problem.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:47PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
It is precisely those shortcomings that led me to Pathfinder. I am hoping that 5E will fix those particular flaws so I can have an edition of D&D that has options that cater to my and my group's, play style. We have combat, but it is not the end all and be all of our experience with the game. And I have to agree with the OP, I find it a little distasteful to be called names because I have a differing style of play. Hopefully 5E can fix this situation, but it sure has a tall order ahead of it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:07PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
... Some noobie...
And I have to agree with the OP, I find it a little distasteful to be called names because I have a differing style of play.
Perhaps you should remember the old saying...
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:16PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Nothing is stopping you from playing a wizard that doesn't attack people OR a desert nomad who can't swim... in 4E.
The problem is, Pure Roleplay games with little to no combat, DON'T NEED RULES! And certainly if you're able to Roleplay you don't need rules to tell you to roleplay.
I've played my share of eccentric characters, that are very powerful out of combat and useless in combat, and while they can be interesting and useful, they are often unheroic or simply boring for myself and others at certain times(deep combat, long single player RP conversations). For 4E they actively removed the need to choose between being effective in combat and effective out of combat, you can be both. If you're playing a character that doesn't use an aspect of his abilities that's fine, but wanting to be rewarded for actively gimping yourself is reaching.
This is the main problem I had with anyone wanting to play a blind character, but get a bunch of bonuses because they're blind.
How often does your group sit down to play D&D and never raise a die in anger?
SO you advocate mental masturbation instead of sitting with friends roleplaying alternate character concepts?
So all of a sudden D&D is for the combat oriented gridiron tabletop boardgame crowd and the past thirty odd years is to be discarded as ancient history?
Not likely, son. This game was thriving before 4e came along. D&D is bigger than the unfortunate mess the last bunch of designers misguided attempts at bringing the game into the current generation.
If the game in it's current state is so wonderful then why are the developers coming to us for help in making the game more like what D&D should be?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:20PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
It is worth noting that the 3.X crowd has pathfinder (or even the SRD material which they can still legally use under the OGL), so they are served. The Reto-Clone Crowd has OSRIC and other Retroclones and they are served too. However, if Wotc pulls 4E support from under the players that like 4E (and I think they will if not immediately than fairly soon), where are they left?
Well thanks to the GSL, they are left up that brown, smelly creek without a paddle and that isn't right either.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:30PM
#10
|
|
|
The problem is, Pure Roleplay games with little to no combat, DON'T NEED RULES! And certainly if you're able to Roleplay you don't need rules to tell you to roleplay.
"need"? No. You don't "need" them. You also don't "need" rules and books for combat either, just descibe in a narrative sense (like a Message Board RPG) what's happening and base success or failure on dramatic potential. Or roshambo to determine the winner in a fight.
But what about rules that encourage role-playing? That reward role-playing? Anyone can role-play when it's easy, when there's no consequences for failure or penalties. But when the paladin ruins a lead or the klepto rogue just cannot help but try and steal from the king? When it would be easier to just go along with the story and not role-play but you do anyway, how should that not be rewarded?
The defualt has always been "oh, here's some bonus xp". Which doesn't work very well for a couple reasons. Firstly, because it leads to good role-players advancing faster. Secondly, because xp leads to higher levels and better combat effectiveness. This leads to abuse (sob stories and melodrama for that extra dash of xp needed to level) and the weirdness of drama meaning you can stab people better. And it doesn't work in 4e where the entire group levels together.
Why not a reward that feeds back into the story? Or ties into role-playing? Something that encourages you to pick an aligmment other than Chaotic Neutal Unaligned and doing whatever you want.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
