|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 5:19AM
#81
|
|
|
I've learned about a lot of new perspectives reading this thread.
It is obvious that not all D&D players have the same playing style. Some see D&D as a miniature combat systems and the joy in the game is the complex, epic battles that may take a good portion of the night. Others see D&D as framework for living inside a book or experiencing an adventure (me for instance). In the latter case, combat is more like a series of spicey side dishes along the way to completing the adventure with admitedly epic battles thrown in from time to time.
Some like rules that cover every eventuality, some like a more free form system and have are comfortable inprovising.
Some like the the game element and richness involved in requiring players to find rare material components, while some want to do away with material components.
Some are comfortable with all characters having "Powers", while others prefer a more skills based approach (which may be simple choice of labels).
Seems like the proposed (as I understand it) modular system where you can "assemble as required" is the best approach. I think we all do a little bit of "customization" in any case. So if they build a system that supports customization better, I think we will all be happier.
I'm sure I didn't represent everyone's perspective accurately, but in general, the more flexible 5e is, the better. I for one, am looking forward to a return to fast flowing adventure.
Oh, I don't know. I think there aren't clear lines between who falls into what camps. I doubt there are a lot of players that fall entirely or always into one or another. Most people like a variety of things. I don't think, maybe most importantly, that you can classify players of one system as one 'type' and players of another system as a different type.
For instance I utterly reject the idea that people play 4e to play a tactical skirmish game. I find that notion dubious at best. If I wanted to do that there are tons of better tactical skirmish games than 4e, and I have no fear about welding some bits of RPG stuff onto one if that was my goal.
OTOH a crappy tactical system can be really limiting. I want the best I can get of all things. IMHO there is no need to compromise. The notion that there's some sort of tension between some kind of game that is better for RPing or better for exploring and one that has better combat is simply not something I accept. It is a canard.
It will be great if 5e can allow you to focus more or less easily on different play styles, so you can for instance have a really fast combat that is still dangerous without needing to come up with your own options, or various other examples of course. I don't believe it is necessary to eschew being 'best in class' in any area though to do that.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 5:42AM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think with each edition of D&D, I had to change my playstyle so I wouldn't mind doing it again. But at the end of the day, if I can't come up with a playstyle that suits me and my friends, it's that the game isn't the right one for us. Obviously I'm not going to force myself to like an edition of D&D out of loyalty for the brand. I'll give everything a fair shot and try to keep an open mind; that's good enough isn't it?
This is my experience with 4e. I think part of the communication problem that occurs is that sometimes people that have adopted 4e cannot fathom how a player would not like it if they gave it an honest shot. There are just times the system does not work for people. 4e has that effect with myself and my group. Its the way it goes. 3rd edition obviously didn't fit the need of many of the players that played it, so the game that worked for me was changed. It sucks until other options arise.
I am playing 4e quite extensively now, and having fun with it, but it is not my edition of choice. I'm finding my fun is coming MORE from playing the combats than the game in its entirety.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 5:45AM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Combat was so much faster and streamlined in 1/2e than in 3/4e. I really miss that imagined combat system of yore where combats lasted 20 minutes instead of 2 hours. Our Pathfinder combat last night lasted 3 hours and that was a level 6 encounter.
I had a Dark Sun 4e encounter last 7 hours one time, in fact we were reminiscing about it last night at the Pathfinder game.
The 2e game I run will have 7-10 combat encounters in an evening rather than just 1 or 2 if lucky. The players are more engaged because the story itself is actually moving along, not just paused for 3 hours while detailed, strategic boardgame combat is resolved.
Exactly.
I spent years playing 3rd edition. From the release of 3.0 to 3.5 and then to Pathfinder as soon as the playtest materials released. Despite Pathfinder's minor streamlining, and my more aggressive streamlining, we were lucky to complete 2 encounters in a 5 hour session, and that was back to back encounters that took the whole 5 hours. Got sick of spending 4-6 hour sessions that ended with the group's progress in the adventure amounting to exploring 2 rooms or making it to the other end of the hall.
In desperation I turned to 4th edition. It might have played faster than vanilla 3.5 or Patfhinder. But it was slower than my streamlined Pathfinder, and it had the added misfortune of playing like an MMO.
We went back to Pathfinder long enough to rebuild our 1st/2nd edition collection, and it's just SO much nicer now that we're back in 2nd. Just like our games of old, we actually get a lot done in a 4-6 hour session. I actually have to do quite a bit of prepwork now because of all the progress and the many possible paths the PC's might choose.
I'm just afraid that because 1st/2nd hasn't been supported in so long, and all the players of those editions don't really bother to come to the WotC D&D site and aren't active on the forums, that 5th edition will end up a combining of 3rd & 4th editions rather than a uniting of all editions as originally claimed. Monte Cook has already left and he was a supporter of old school D&D, so that's a bad sign.
I'm neither want nor expect 5th to be 2nd edition. Those of us who play it do so because of the role play and flow of the game and it's story. We're aware that it has it's flaws. That's why we have/had hope for 5th edition. We want a game that, despite where the mechanics come from, actually plays and feels like classic D&D with classes assuming their pre 4th edition aspects and roles. An edition with quick and easily resolved gameplay and combat mechanics that let the story and role play flow. Basically, we want to see the true D&D that we haven't seen since WotC took the reins.
Well Said. I particularly agree with your last paragraph.
Old AD&D allowed you to move an adventure forward crisply and a lot happened in an evening of gaming. You had a number of encounters and combat each night and it felt like you were writing a book realtime.
I just hope they can re-capture that feel in 5e.
That is nearly exactly what I am hoping for
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 5:51AM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I've come to appreciate Pathfinder as a lot of classes do have access to the same abilities. I can make a tripping fighter, cleric, barbarian, ranger, alchemist or bard. But the ramifications are different for each class. Clerics require both wisdom and strength to be effective (IMO). So that Int 13 requirement becomes an expensive requirement. I'm going to have to be less powerful in one area in order to make up for having Int 13. I might have Charisma 7 so that I can afford that Int 13 which means my ability to channel has decreased significantly. This impacts the tactics I employ and my future character design choices.
In 4th ed I simply wait until I'm off the appropriate level that gives me the tripping power. I have not had to put any effort into making my character a tripping character.
Now I hope D&D Next doesn't have character creation be as complex as it is in Pathfinder as the core rules. I would like to be able to have quick character creation where you can start making your character at the table (rolling for your ability scores) and be finished within 15 minutes to half an hour. But I would like it to have the possibility of making more complex choices then 4th ed as the core rules.
I agree. I have alot more freedom to make the character concepts I want with Pathfinder over 4e. I like the action economy in Pathfinder as well, though I like how the POWERS of 4e rely on the action economy for balance. I am OK with Powers but the at will (though I like that for spells)-encounter-daily, system just does not work as well for me as the power economy of Pathfinder.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 2:11PM
#85
|
|
|
I'll just never "get it", I suppose. 4e powers just aren't the same in play, except to a degree that's often less severe than the "sameness" of 3.5 and earlier abilities.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 2:22PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2003
|
This is my experience with 4e. I think part of the communication problem that occurs is that sometimes people that have adopted 4e cannot fathom how a player would not like it if they gave it an honest shot. There are just times the system does not work for people.
+1. Yep played 4e for a year. Didn't like it. Went back to 3.5 and/or other systems (know of 3 other groups that did the same).
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
|
|
|
