|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 1:06AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
Something I've realized about my own feelings in the debates about different editions and how DDN should be made is that my big problem is not necessarily with certain systems, but instead with the people who think those systems are superior.
I, personally, think that 4e is a vast improvement to 3.5. I could list many things I think it did better than 3.5. There are certain things I miss from 3.5, such as iconic, goofy spells and bizarre characters made from the super liberal multiclassing rules. I even miss saying the words "roll a reflex save." I had many fun years playing 3rd edition D&D, its the game that got me into the hobby, and has a special place in my heart.
However, I cannot bring myself to not have a certain disdain for the players who continue to play the game. The ones that I know personally typically have dismissed 4e without ever properly playing it, and are frankly bad at running the game. I've played in their games before, and more importantly I have heard stories of their games from other players. And they are full of what I consider poor DMing practice. I also see many of the attitudes of these poor players echoed in posts on these forums, and I can't keep myself from thinking of the buffoons who said the same thing in real life.
My point is, I think it is perfectly possible to run a fun 3.5 game. However, I think it is unlikely that I will have a good time playing with people who still run 3.5. All the good players and DMs have switched over to 4e, leaving the people I would rather ignore to play 3.5. Note I mean this highly subjectively. I am certain that there are groups playing every game out there and having fun. In that sense they are "good." But in a personal sense, I judge them not good, or at least not what I find fun. I, personally, would not have much fun in their games. That's ok, because I have my own games to run.
In a certain sense, then, I am happy to see the playerbase fractured. It keeps the people I don't like out of my game, because they're the ones who whine about how 4e is just an MMO.
This tendency makes it very hard to be objective about the playtest though. I very often find myself going, "well, the mechanic might work, but it is way too much like that other thing, and will attract dumb players." I'm sure many anti-4ers feel the same way. "Well, I don't mind this mechanic, but anything called powers will just attract all the crappy MMO munchkins I hate so much."
Is this a legitimate issue? Is it wrong for me to feel this way? Do you share similar feelings? Post away!
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 1:14AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Inb4 flames.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 1:31AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
This probably isn't the best forum to post this in, what with the strict guidelines, but I get what you're saying. Back when 3.X was the only game in town, you played with a number of people: some of them shared your views (what was good or bad about the game, how things should be approached, etc) and some of them disagreed with your fundamental premises. It still kind of worked, because you all agreed to go by the rules in the book and whatever concessions anyone could wrangle out of the DM.
When 4E came out, it created a natural split. Early on, everyone went to try it, and early 4E games were full of those same players: the ones who agreed with your ideals, and the ones who didn't. Games did not always run smoothly, because players who enjoyed the freedom of 3.X did not appreciate the structure of 4E, and nobody really understood the rules all that well anyway. Then, the 3.X fans stopped playing 4E and switched to Pathfinder, where they could enjoy playing a game with others who shared their outrage over how 4E ruined everything forever. The people who actually enjoyed 4E were thereby free to only play with others who agreed on the merits of that system.
DDN is trying to appeal to both groups. If it is successful, then 3.X fans will have to deal with 4E fans, even though they've shown that they do not appreciate the same types of game. (That's not even getting into the problem with designing a game that will appeal to both groups in the first place - which is no easy feat. It is something to consider, but I think they're betting everything they have on modular support, and if that works then both groups should be happy and capable of running their own type of games under 5E rules.)
Conflict will ensue, there is no doubt, but it shouldn't be any worse than the days when 3.X was the only game in town. If anything, 4E expanded the total base of players between all of the systems, so it should be easier to find a suitable 5E game than it was to find a compatible 3.X group, but it will take some forward action on the part of DMs to list exactly what style of game will be run before the players sign on.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 3:34AM
#4
|
|
|
Every edition has its merits. I have never been the type of person to say new things are "dumbed down" because that argument is ridiculous. Designers have intent for their changes to the system and to imply they are implementing worse mechanics because players are too stupid raises the questions "Why are you still playing the game? If you think so low of the designers and players why not just leave?"
I have played early editions of D&D and the modern editions. I prefer the modern approach of player empowerment and board game style design, but I have no problem with other perspectives.
The problem I do have is people who feel their edition is perfect and have almost 0% chance of switching to a new system trying to dictate how D&D Next should be developed. They have their game, they should not try to sabotage new systems.
I disagree with the OP about players of older editions utilizing bad GMing practices. In general this attitude is applying perspective from one system onto another system, which will fail unless the systems are very similar.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 4:06AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
For most of my time as a D&D player the vast majority of my time was spent within the same general cirlce of gamers from the local store. While each DM had there own style, strenghs and weaknesses, over time the games and play styles did devlop thier own similarities. PLaying out side this group or dealing with the new comer could be a jarring experience because right or wrong, we were used to doing things a certain way. Incidentaly I don't think this is something D&DN is going to adresss because its only going to seperate the gulf between player experiences. What it will do though is create a single product that the company can support regardless of play style.
I myself preffer 4E but I play Pathfinder as well ( and seriously, if people thought 3.5 was fine as is Pathfinder wouldn't exist.) Over the last couple of years I've made the final determination that the people you play with have a far greater impact on your play experience than the system of choice.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 5:22AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
I've made the final determination that the people you play with have a far greater impact on your play experience than the system of choice.
I agree 150% that people make the play experience. No doubts there.
But having said that, I find that I cannot play 3.X at all anymore. I've tried. I can't even play anything that is a derivative of it like d20 Modern/Future, any d20 Star Wars, including SAGA, or anything designed from d20 OGL. I just can't bring myself to go back to it, no matter who is running or playing it. I couldn't tell you what it is, though I wish I could. I've tried to play and run games in several games that were designed on d20 OGL (or non-OGL including 3.5 and SAGA), but I end up not caring after about two or three game sessions.
Funny thing? Despite my absolute love of everything that is 4e (even Essentials, which has oddly grown on me lately), I've been itching to get my hands on some old AD&D 2nd edition stuff lately. If I do, I'll have to house rule the hell out of it, but I believe I will have a lot of fun with it and it's many, many, many, and did I mention many? campaign settings (some of which have yet to see a modern iteration like Planescape as a whole, Birthright, or Mystara).
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 6:13AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2003
|
Knowing is Half the Battle.
The Other Half is VIOLENCE.
Imagine a lightsaber duel between Optimus Prime and Batman. You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 6:32AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2012
|
I've been itching to get my hands on some old AD&D 2nd edition stuff lately. If I do, I'll have to house rule the hell out of it, but I believe I will have a lot of fun with it
Currently DM'ing a 2E Planescape campaign. Maybe it's just something that only happens in this forum, but why is every body here such a "rules lawyer" person? Coming from the 2E era, our group is so accustomed with integrating house rules in order to spice things up or to fix stuff, that I find all of these threads on "it's not in the book, so it doesn't count" pointless. Maybe DnD Next should point out on the first page of its DMG "The DM is in charge, that means he/she can come up with house rules.". Would that fix it for you guys? On topic: 4E is a great as a boardgame (not so much as an RPG), 3.5E is great for people who love excel sheets and min-maxing, and the older editions are good for role-playing but lack rules on almost everything else, making them bad at table-topping so-to-speak.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 6:33AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
I've made the final determination that the people you play with have a far greater impact on your play experience than the system of choice.
I agree 150% that people make the play experience. No doubts there.
But having said that, I find that I cannot play 3.X at all anymore. I've tried. I can't even play anything that is a derivative of it like d20 Modern/Future, any d20 Star Wars, including SAGA, or anything designed from d20 OGL. I just can't bring myself to go back to it, no matter who is running or playing it. I couldn't tell you what it is, though I wish I could. I've tried to play and run games in several games that were designed on d20 OGL (or non-OGL including 3.5 and SAGA), but I end up not caring after about two or three game sessions.
I felt the same way after playing 4E. Though since my group is pretty cool and I'm very familiar with their gaming styles and don't mind v3.5/Pathfinder IF (and it's a big IF) I can have access to the Tome of Battle resources. If I don't have access to that particular supplement, then I fear I often go to the Char_Ops boards for character builds and find things that are often overtly powerful to illustrate the mechanics short-falls. It's a bit.....silly, I know, but with lots of combat options presented in the ToB:Bo9S, I don't feel this need.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 6:39AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2003
|
I've made the final determination that the people you play with have a far greater impact on your play experience than the system of choice.
I agree 150% that people make the play experience. No doubts there.
But having said that, I find that I cannot play 3.X at all anymore. I've tried. I can't even play anything that is a derivative of it like d20 Modern/Future, any d20 Star Wars, including SAGA, or anything designed from d20 OGL. I just can't bring myself to go back to it, no matter who is running or playing it. I couldn't tell you what it is, though I wish I could. I've tried to play and run games in several games that were designed on d20 OGL (or non-OGL including 3.5 and SAGA), but I end up not caring after about two or three game sessions.
I felt the same way after playing 4E. Though since my group is pretty cool and I'm very familiar with their gaming styles and don't mind v3.5/Pathfinder IF (and it's a big IF) I can have access to the Tome of Battle resources. If I don't have access to that particular supplement, then I fear I often go to the Char_Ops boards for character builds and find things that are often overtly powerful to illustrate the mechanics short-falls. It's a bit.....silly, I know, but with lots of combat options presented in the ToB:Bo9S, I don't feel this need.
Are... are... are you me?
Knowing is Half the Battle.
The Other Half is VIOLENCE.
Imagine a lightsaber duel between Optimus Prime and Batman. You're welcome.
|
|
|
