I am new to this site, however i have played and been a Dungeon Master for over 30 years. D&D can never die, for me it is not an option. They could stop making further editions etc. I will still play and DM in a fantasy setting that they nurtured inside me. I play with my friends and family, and they in turn who have children etc. More power to WOTC and every other system out there trying to make a living and keeping things interesting. I have a similair background as many of you i would guess, as i have played and owned numerous other RPG games. I am over 40, which might not be the norm around here, as i am making my first post i am not familiar enough yet to recognize age. I think the state of D&D depends on you and your players..i.m.o.
Up to and including 2nd edition, i owned every book and nearly all of the add-ons, even modules etc. Gaming anywhere and everywhere was easy and so much fun for all, but not because of the system or rules. I have a core of players who still play after 16 years to this day. Most of my core players have never looked at a newer edition since the 2nd, and never have i encountered a player at that time who complained a wizard stole the show. Never did i have a warrior vs wizard debate. Never was there a balance issue when we played in house, at afriend or non official event. I think it is because we were friends who were like minded from the begining, but... there were players over the years who stayed with us and were not imediate friends and those who had in fact at the time been introduced into D&D because of the newer editions that were coming out. So i had Players who started from the begining of D&D into the 2nd edition. And i had met and stayed in party with players who got into the game because of the edition that had just come out. It was when i started working at a friends store as a DM. At the time WOTC was holding events for D&D and Magic the gathering. Which i applauded and was happy WOTC was putting something into the game. In time i stopped, i could not deal with certain players and when i was participating as a player myself, DM's. It was not the rules or system, it was because of the differences between players and DM's. I stopped and was asked again by my friend to DM, i said i would if i could run my own adventure, my way. I did, and with a little time, ran a great adventure for almoist 2 years. Issues arose from time to time because of player attitude more than anything else, as new players would jump in from time to time.
I beleive D&D should continue to evolve and bring new players into the mix with new editions and changes, be they drastic or minor. I do not believe it will never be a major success money wise though. Creativity needs little to florish. I need only pen and paper to have a great adventure. I never felt the need to buy newer material except the PHB and DM guide to adapt to the 2nd edition rules (players have bought other source material which i lovingly go through for ideas). But i will not need content or stories, or rules to enjoy the game or create enjoyable sessions for my players. I have a thing with my friends i started way back. I would ask them to pick a night and do something they wanted to do, one of them was poker. In turn i made a night where we played D&D. Not every one became a steady member, however the sessions were always fun. Out of that grew a core group of friends and friends of friends lol, who have played for years. I think Some of you should try it, ask someone you are a good friend with to trade and partake in eachothers interest and give it a try. I know we all have different situations, but in the effort of giving, you might recieve. Take that into account when you do not have that option, like when you are in groups where you are new or someone else is. Not everyone is on the same page, it will happen that issues arise.
I think people are looking for a system that will be able to have all those gathered to be equal and have fair playing time right out the box with no issues so to speak, which is a good thing and can happen. But i believe that it comes with gaming with the same people and like minded at that, becoming familiar with the rules and adapting your own set of ideas as a player and DM. I have been at sessions where the DM (not me DM-img) had ignored a player for almost an hour, i have been in situations described in this thread like Warrior being useless etc. And not once did i ever blame the rules or system. The fault always was with the DM and the player.
You are all correct, and i think you more than me, are the backbone of this industry. Since this is my first post here, and i obviously have not been in the current swing of things nor am i a huge buyer of the product. You all are the voice for the future of D&D. Maybe i am spoiled, and have had a series of great players who have stuck with me through thick and thin, could be, but i still dont see the blame totally on the company or edition. I am here now in part because of a new player who has just started to play with me, and i found it odd he had so much information about everything i have missed, from all his knowledge of the rules, to the nuance of the new themes implemented. Yet he was having trouble having fun with his group that i was somewhat familiar with. I played with them as i was once a member of the group, i left because i had a girlfriend with medical issues at the time, so i knew the DM and have had great sessions with him in the past. I found the problem right off the bat. A player who i did not know was constantly trying to find anything he could to trip up the DM. Afterwards i had a discussion with the DM, and what he said mad me a little sad. He said he can not find enough players to constanly be available on the same night, so he went looking for newer players to add to his group. I told him to play with only 2 people then, the two who were getting the same frustrations as mentioned in this thread but were having so much fun before the rotation of new players got implemented, take time to find another player who will fit. Sure their are flaws and there is always room for improovement in certain areas. I just do not see the issue some of you have. Bring it on!. Give me a new system and rules,make changes. It will not impact me negativley in any way. I will take what i like and make it my own. Now as a player only, you might have to sacrifice your vision of what the game should be, the DM in my opinon is the only thing that matters in the end. His interpertations and his vision of the rules is what will ultimatley be yours. Take the 3rd edition, at the time if you had issues with your fighter not being able to be usefull or be the hero you imagined, or if the game was mooving too slow for you etc. If you can not discuss it with the DM and have time to work it out, it might not be the group for you or the right game. In my belief that is where the issues are. I think the drifters of the D&D community who go to events and enter new groups for whatever reason, will always run into these things. Maybe a sysytem can and will be made that will enable everything to be balanced and done right for you or what you as an indivisual feel is corect. there might be a way to have every session be the ultimate experience for a majority of the players and DM's alike. I already have it though, it is my creativity and dedication to having fun, fun for all. It comes from recognizing we are all different and have different perspectives on things. I work with all my players and DM's and at times in my life i have stopped playing with certain players and DM's. It was never because of the rules or system, it was beacause of who and what they were, and what they brang to the table when we met for gaming.
That is how i feel, i really wish WOTC all the success in the world. I would love for everyone to always have the best sessions and be happy with all that you do, as a DM and a player. I think with any system there can be fun to be had. It might take time and dedication to make it happen for you, but i believe it is possible right now, it is within all of you. Who knows better than you how it should work, take what they put out, buy it or not. Take whats allready out there and make it work.
And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?
You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure. You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed. See, I actually get to role-play BACK.
Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you? Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success. Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.
And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?
You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure. You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed. See, I actually get to role-play BACK.
Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you? Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success. Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.
Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.
Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.
Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc. IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.
Because NPCs and PCs occupy entirely different design space. They do not (and should not) use the same rules.
Furthermore the description of the Intimidate skill makes it clear that adventurers are the ones who use it, and the target number is a monster's will. Every use of the skill specifies 'monster'. Not 'character' or 'target', 'monster'.
PCs are supposed to have as close to total control over the actions, reactions, and roleplaying of their character as possible. That's why you don't use social skills in PC-to-PC interactions, either.
Exactly. 4e is built upon the assumption that the PCs are truly extraordinary within whatever world they inhabit, and this is made manifest by the carving out of two entirely seperate game spaces. One for the PCs and one for the NPCs.
Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.
This is called "role-playing." As in, playing a role.
Usually, it is contrasted with "roll-playing." As in, rolling a die.
DLFan, you seem to be dead-set on having PCs roll-play with eachother, whereas Salla and I strongly believe in having PCs role-play with each other.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling
Defenders: We ARE the wall!
I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.
Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!
And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?
You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure. You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed. See, I actually get to role-play BACK.
Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you? Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success. Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.
Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.
Bazinga.
DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player. This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.
Hmm. Thats an interesting word. I'll have to use it the next time I see a comment that is dead-in-the-black-with-one-arrow-splitting-another.
DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player. This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.
Bazinga.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling
Defenders: We ARE the wall!
I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.
Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!
Hmm. Thats an interesting word. I'll have to use it the next time I see a comment that is dead-in-the-black-with-one-arrow-splitting-another.
DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player. This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.
Bazinga.
I would argue that the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow, any die rolling to be made by one player against another.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
