|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 11:53AM
#31
|
|
|
A quick answer. When most of the rules which have been published are bad, how high is the chance that the rest of the rules are good?
True. Luckily, none of the rules I've seen for 4e are bad so I'm quite hopeful.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 12:13PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2008
|
There will always be people who complain (myself included).
I'd be willing to bet that most of those complaining about v4, before it even comes out, are the same people who've been complaining about v3.5 in the other forums, and v3 before that, etc.
People don't like change, especially after they've spent a lot of money on books... BUT, just because I understand where they are coming from doesn't mean I agree with them.
No one if forcing anyone to switch to v4, if you don't like it, keep playing v3.5, or v3, or 2nd Edition, or AD&D, or D&D Expert Set if you prefer.
The reason D&D has flourished all these years is that it 'lives', and by that I mean that it changes over time to reflect the feedback from those that play the game... as it has.
The one thing that most people who complain about v4 don't seem to remember, is that the DM is the final arbiter (think I spelled that correctly) in any game.
If you don't like the 1-1-1 diagonal move... change it.
If you want there to be a way to insta-kill a sleeping target... do it.
If you want every class to be able to use an ability that is only given to one... make that change in your game.
And just because the rules say you can do something, doesn't mean that the DM must abide by it (just because the rules say you have a -4 to hit something in a given case, doesn't mean you can't rule it outright impossible, or change the penalty).
Back in AD&D there was no rule saying what happens if a non-rogue sneaks up on someone and cuts their throat from behind... but the game survived. Some DMs ruled that you only did normal damage, some DMs ruled you did more, some DMs ruled it an insta-kill, others took into account the level difference between the attacker and defender...
I, too, have used 20th level commoners for important NPCs that I didn't want the party to kill off, I've also used 3rd level commoners who I gave large bonuses to one particular skill, because I wanted them REALLY good at making one type of item, but didn't want them to have the hp from levels.
If you don't want to use miniatures... don't. If you can keep track of where everyone is in your head, then do it. I played for the first 2 years without once using miniatures, granted it made things more difficult and resulted in more arguments from players who didn't like that you ruled them too far away to reach something, but it worked.
You're the DM, it is up to you to mold the rules into whatever form you want for your game. That's what makes D&D a great game, the freedom to customize it any way you want.
If you look at the people who are protesting the loudest, they are the same people who complained the loudest in the v3.5 forums as well...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 1:15PM
#33
|
|
|
At level 20 someone has +10 to every skill and that is quite good when considering that training only gives +5.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.
So by your example, this 20th level beduin warrior has never, in all his travels, been in water (possible, I guess) and would be killed outright by a swim in slightly rough water even without his armor (again possible, I guess, but a little anti-climactic). Just as a side note, I think it is even more a unlikely that a character that has reached the height of his ability could be put down so easily.
He doesn't have 10 Ranks in swim, he has a +10 modifier to the roll based on his level... Ranks in 3e represented specific focus or training. The 1/2 level modifier just represents life experience.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 1:29PM
#34
|
|
|
At level 20 someone has +10 to every skill and that is quite good when considering that training only gives +5.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.
So your argument against 4e is that a particular example of how skills are handled fails to encompass all possible geographical and cultural differences? I gotta say, man, that if that's the best criticism you can offer I think we're in a for a great game.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 2:28PM
#35
|
|
|
I actually feel the opposite. If I'm going to be paying for what is effectively just a set of rules to play make-believe to, I'd rather have those rules run as simply and elegantly as possible. I can add in the level of "realistic" stuff that I want, whether that be an auto-coup de grace on a sleeping target or a more complicated way of adjudicating diagonal movement.
Basically, give me a base system that runs like a dream and has minimal clunkiness, and let me decide what gets added on top.
I personally have to agree with the 'system ease/less clunky' comment. The devs efforts toward streamlining are just that, an effort to reduce clunkiness, and from what little I saw of the rules in action at D&D Exp, they seemed to have met their objective. Yes, the measurement across the diagonal of a square is 1.4 times the side of said square, but I'll gladly part with this bit of realism in my game if the alternative is faster and easier. Taking a double move diagonally in 3E was excruciating, and the same can be said for any number of the rules. If 4E halves the time spent flipping through the books, I'll consider it money well spent.
Even with the information streaming out of D&D Exp, we still know precious few rules, and even those I suspect, not in whole. The 1st level characters provided were designed to allow us to jump in and get a feel of the new rules. I wouldn't be surprised if those characters were incomplete when compared to another 1st level character generated from the PHB. And the rules don't exist in a vacuum. Only time, and the release of the core books, will tell how well they all mesh. From what little I experienced, they seemed to work quite well together, the game seemed well balanced.
The new rules may very well be sacrificing realism for simplicity, but ultimately D&D is a roleplaying game. Anything which is designed to grant more time to the roleplaying aspect and less time futzing around with the mechanics should at least be considered, if not embraced.
However, I realize that not everyone will adopt 4E, which brings me to another question. For those of you who plan on sticking with 3.5, do you feel your games will suffer with the release of the new edition? Specifically, there is an enormous amount of materiel out there which has already been released, and which, in all probability, will continue to be released by third party publishers. Do you feel as if the rug has been pulled from under you, or are you confident that you can continue on without missing a beat?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 2:56PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2002
|
So your argument against 4e is that a particular example of how skills are handled fails to encompass all possible geographical and cultural differences? I gotta say, man, that if that's the best criticism you can offer I think we're in a for a great game.
Actually it is more like: It is impossible to make a character in 4E whi can't do something which leads to that every PC is a unrealistic superhero and no real (demi) human with strengths and weaknesses.
But I guess this doesn't really interest you because you will have a hard time to make fun of that. Its easer when you continue to make up stuff.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 2:59PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2008
|
Euclidean geometry is for math majors.
Will I let my PC's exploit this change to travel faster in a diagonal direction overland towards Place X? No, because thats dumb.
However, combat is a beast of a different color, and there's a few different ways to rationlize stuff like that. Move diagonal NW then NE? Maybe they moved in a circle, circumventing most of that FIVE FOOT SPACE which a single square represents, so that it comes out in the wash?
As for trip and disarm: Have you PLAYED at a table with a fighter using a Spiked Chain and Combat reflexes with the Wal-Mart Edition Mithril Chain Shirt and other Rogue oriented gear? When a single player can lock down six or more monsters indefnitely, I have problems with that, especially given the Single Monster bias of 3.X. Disarm, less so, because I generally run my players against monsters that don't have weapons (for precisely the reason that it would be exploitable).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 9:27PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Actually it is more like: It is impossible to make a character in 4E whi can't do something which leads to that every PC is a unrealistic superhero and no real (demi) human with strengths and weaknesses.
But I guess this doesn't really interest you because you will have a hard time to make fun of that. Its easer when you continue to make up stuff.
Incorrect Again Derren. Extrapolating from Saga (IIRC), trained lets you do more with a skill than just the basics. And, I am also guessing that some skills might be trained only. We'll see though.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 06, 2008 - 9:29PM
#39
|
|
|
For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.
I was neutral but curious when first arriving in the forum about three months ago. Neutral because with my gaming group we would not be changing to anything else for about 5 years. Big campaign going on.
When the 4ED was first annouced it was only going to fix a few things (grappling).
I liked what little was released about the game on the forum, and the two preview books. (I didn't buy them.) But I could never be sure about anything. No info was being released even after the January deadline for finalizing the book for the printers came along.
Most of the info- we did get was not Crunchy rules, it was the massive changes to history, world, ghods, and the look of monsters. These changes are systemic and seemed only to have occured for the sake for change.
This is a important part of the Feel of D&D. Quickling and Troglodyte art is especially ugly and strange. Hindsight, this was bad but I chose to wait for the release (look to buy the PHB) while continuing to watch the Forum.
DDFX was a fload of infromation. This release filled me much warm fuzzies. But it wore off as the I figure out things about the crunch. I really feel that they have thrown out most of the fluff and all(95%) the of the mechanics, to rebuild the game from the round up, under the direction of people who IMHO are not experienced enough to do the job.
This is the second Feel of D&D that has been lost.
Strangely is was what DDFX gave me the info- to turn against 4ED.
"Where's the love, or at least tolerance?" 
I'll tolerate it. Not choice really.  Wish I could do more.
But, I'm worried that the most important game in this industry is going to crash badly. All I can do is say so before it happends. 
GAMMA WORLD Wuv
D&D: Beyond the RPG - Transcript
This is a complete transcript.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390668593
The audio file is in this News Archive
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/DNDXP
2010 D&D Product Overview (47 minutes into the Audio)
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390928045
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 07, 2008 - 12:01AM
#40
|
|
|
My major apprehension is this...
Essentially I went from having a great time with the basic set to having an equally fun time with over 75 Hardbacks for the 3.0/3.5 alone.
For you monetary minded people this roughly equals:
1980 Basic D&D Fun = Approximately $20
2008 3.0/3.5 D&D Fun = At the very least $2000
My imagination = Priceless (Sorry =)
So please forgive me if I do not jump for joy when a new system is announced. I have allowed myself to be milked for years in order to promote the game. I will continue to support the game, buy the core set and run it with my players, but on a whole but I just can not invest in another edition (This means a lot of conversions from previous editions).
Realistically we don't need the books, magazines and programs to play the game. I can and have played excellent games having only a set of dice with me at the time. In the end the game really only consists of getting together with friends, storytelling, imagination and dice.
So whether 4e is better of not is irrelevant. We as DM's will take it and tweak it until it fits our game. We will then mend the holes with a few house rules and regardless of how wonderful it was in the beginning it will always come out a twisted and mutated hybrid of rules in the end. Nothing is sacred for us and we always reserve the right to moan and 'fix' all the mistakes dozens of educated and intelligent game designers have made over the years (That's what makes us so eclectic and loveable =).
I sincerely hope it does well and draws more players in, but in the end it won't be the books that keep them playing, it will be us filthy, conniving, nasty DM's=)
|
|
|
