I sympathize OP. I still like 3rd edition but most people dont anymore. Such is life I guess.

Think of it this way: At least you didn't fall in love with a horribly obscure system no one's ever heard of.

Heck, 3.5 is still more popular than the overwhelming majority of RPGs out there.

On the plus side, now you can lord liking a slightly more obscure system over those who don't.

There's still hope, people still play 2nd ed. I think.

I for one will be running a 3.5 game for my college's RPG society next year for all the players who didn't warm to 4th ed.

>>4678041

I did, once upon a time. Ars Magica. Nobody would play with me. Nobody was even interested. I still resent those geeks for that.

>>4678043
All of the games in my area died all of a sudden, from 4e or otherwise, and it's depressing. I'm more than willing to play other games, of course, I just always used to find comfort knowing that if all else failed I could find a group of 3.5ers to dice it up with. Oh well.

>>4678012
>I've played both, and I like both, but my true love is still 3.5.

Shitty people like shitty games. News at 11.

>>4678012
You just have to realise that 3.5e does 'D&D' worse than 4e does. Sure you can do other things with 3.5e easier, but the need to constantly watch the balance, volume of effort required to DM, dull chargan fullattack noncaster mechanics and terrible class imbalance means if you want to do a heroic fantasy RPG then 4e's simply more suited for it.

I've seen quite a few editions of quite a few things come and go, the key thing to remember is that after another year or so, all of the people who have rushed into 4e will finally be used to the new system, so many will get bored of the feel/mechanics and migrate back to 3.5, at least for a time. This has happened the last three edition changes, to my knowledge, and I'm also pretty certain it happens with most games that tend to change base mechanics during edition switches.

>>4678079
No need to get personal. We're just talking about glorified games of imagination, here, friend.

>>4678084
I've played both, and while they both certainly lend themselves equally to the same GENERAL style, I actually find it easier to run an organic game in 3.5 than fourth. This isn't due to any specific system mechanics; my experience with the system also helps. I guess the best way to sum up the way that good 3.5 games are usually run is to say that you should not "take the rules too seriously"; read that as: it's a game, and you're the GM, if something needs to change, change it.

That being said, I would say that 4th edition certainly lends itself to play balance in a much easier and more straightforward way, but the inherent downfalls of 3.5 never hindered our games in a meaningful way.

This is all obviously my personal experience speaking, not a hard-and-fast statement.

>>4678012
I'm still a fan of 2e OP, so I can relate here. I like 3.5 as well, but both take a certain type of player to create an enjoyable game. 2e takes the type that are willing to work for what they get, use their imagination, and be willing to not be legendary at level 1. 3.5 takes real role-players, not roll-players, to make it enjoyable. People who come up with things like character concepts that are fun instead of "I win" buttons for every encounter. People who are willing to play a caster and deal with a GM who is stingy with what spells you can have or the like in order to keep you in-line with everyone else. And both need players that are really just there to hang out, have a good time, and -play- the game instead of trying to win it with numbers and broken feat tricks and whatever else. Hey power gamers, my Int-based Fighter called from 3.5, he'd like to have a word with you.

/rant

>all the tweaks
Well, here's the problem. You've never played 3.5. You've been playing some sort of homebrew loosely based on 3.5, that's why you've not had any of the usual problems with it.
But hey, if you like using a heavily homebrewed system, that's not wrong at all. Since it's already been tailored to suit your tastes, it'll probably work better for your group than by-the-book 4e anyway. Go with whatever works for your group, not with what's popular on the tubes at the moment.

>>4678084

4e does classic D&D games better, 3.5 does "gritty dungeonpunk" better.

I think op digs on the low fantasy.

>>4678126
>You've never played 3.5. You've been playing some sort of homebrew loosely based on 3.5
In that respect, you may be right. I played 3rd edition pretty much from when it came out, and over time we grew fond of tweaking certain aspects of the game. It's fair to say that I haven't delved deeply into optimizing vanilla 3.5, nor have I ever enforced all of the rules presented over the course of the last 7 years with an iron fist. The one thing I would like to mention, though, is that I don't do that with any system. Nobody I've ever known has left a system or setting completely vanilla. Imagination and creativity always has some effect on the systems we've used, and the settings; for better or worse, and often an equal amount of both.
If you're saying that 4th edition is a better design for a system played as-is, I would say you're right. I like 3.5 exactly because of that; like I mentioned in the original post, it has a very toolboxy feel that I enjoy.

I guess I should have expected attacks on game balance derived from the players and the GM as opposed to relying on the system's vanilla RAW, but I hoped for more empathy as opposed to outright opposition.

>>4678125 here
Also, as a side note, there's nothing wrong with 4e. I've played it, it's fun times. Warlord is... addicting. But honestly, I genuinely prefer the more free-form aspects of 2e and 3.5. Using spells in creative ways, for instance. Whereas in 4e WYSIWYG. That's what Power A does. Not much else. There is room for creative interpretation, but in the end, it's very WoW-esque in the "push buttan, receive bacon" sort of way. It makes me feel like I'm just raiding when I just got done raiding in WoW. I'd rather get away from that in my tabletop most times, thanks.

>>4678121
>>I guess the best way to sum up the way that good 3.5 games are usually run is to say that you should not "take the rules too seriously"; read that as: it's a game, and you're the GM, if something needs to change, change it
This is the problem though. 3.5 doesn't work out of the box, only if you've played it long enough to tweak it to fit what you want and have a GM who knows how to use it. It's silly for people to say "I prefer my heavily tweaked 3.5 to vanilla 4e" because you're totally discounting the possibility that if you played 4e for a bit and did some tweaking to it you might end up with a system you prefer even more, as it's going from a better starting point. It's just plain reluctance to put effort into something new.

Actually, I tend to see the opposite scenario - people cringe if you even mention 4e, then start babbling the same six logical fallacies as proof that you can't have fun with it.

I highly recommend Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved as better directions for D&D than 4e and Pathfinder. Both IH and AE know their genre, and they do a damn good job giving the experience they want to give.

I tend to think that the biggest problem most people have with D&D is that we've all forgotten what it is that we want out of the game anymore. Some people want epic spellslinging, others gritty simulation, still other tactical complexity unfettered by reality. We'll have a lot less arguments if we actually play games we like and talk about them, instead.

>>4678125

Thanks for that post. I wholeheartedly agree, and I really think /tg/ and gamers as a whole could take something away from that type of experience. It's beneficial to every game, not just 3.5.

A friend of mine still plays Advanced Dungeon and Dragons.
He says it's still the only "real" D&D, THAC0 and all.

I blame nostalgia.

>>4678179
>>it has a very toolboxy feel that I enjoy.
Page 42. That's your toolbox. 4e's gameplay is far more customisable than 3e's, it's simply character creation which is less so.

>>4678084
D&D wasn't heroic fantasy before 3E.

>>4678189

I've actually been playing 4th edition since it came out, GMing, in fact. I own nine of the books, and I play it with great zeal. I have no issue with the system, it just doesn't quite allow for most of the fine manipulations that 3.5 can. Things that I can comfortably tweak in 4th edition, I don't, because I don't like the idea of ruining the balance that is partly what makes 4th edition great.

Again, I don't claim that 3.5 is a good out-of-the-box game, but unfortunately most RPGs aren't, and most RPGs DO take some experience to run/play proficiently. I admire WotC for coming out with an RPG that is extremely pick-up-and-play, but systems with greater complexity often (not always) have satisfactions that are worth the trouble learning.

>>4678235
It was commoners who weren't afraid to don some studded leather and a short sword and go kick the shit out of the world to make a better place in it for themselves and others. That's what I love about 2e the most. Regular people doing amazing things, when most of them are almost untrained nobodies who are surviving by wits alone most times. And luck. Lots of luck.

>>4678193
>I highly recommend Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved

I am openly admitting that Arcana Unearthed/Evolved are some of my favorite 3.5 supplements ever written.

>>4678187
You lost credence when you compared 4E to WoW and raiding.

Having played plenty of WoW and been on many raids, and fighting quite a few combats in 4E as well, I can say they are nothing alike. Being a true tactical game when in combat doesn't make it World of Warcraft--the feel is VERY different.

>>4678231

I fully realize 4e is as customizable as any RPG. I just feel as though I would be doing it a disservice by butchering it and ruining the balance that is part of what makes it so appealing. 3.5 is PERFECT for butchering, because it arrives mostly that way in the first place.

>>4678278
Some shithead that isn't you messes up in either and you die. That's how WoW and 4E both work.

>>4678187
Powers are the application of your character's abilities in combat. A DM not allowing you to do anything outside of powers is a total fucking moron, especially if what you're trying to do is similar to the power's effects.

I dislike 4E, but that's not one of the reasons.

>>4678276
Hey, nothing like having half the party slinging at least some spells, and the rest pulling out combat rites since Evolved came out.

Monte Cook is a gifted designer, and his absence from 4e is noted.

>>4678251
>I don't claim that 3.5 is a good out-of-the-box game, but unfortunately most RPGs aren't, and most RPGs DO take some experience to run/play proficiently
JESUS FUCK THANK YOU FINALLY SOMEONE FUCKING SAYS IT
Most people act as though all pnp rpgs are open-the-cover, play-the-game simple and 3rd edition was DOIN IT WRONG... what never gets mentioned is the fact that more often than not, RPGs are complicated as fuck, and in order to fully appreciate/play the game, it does take a little experience.

>>4678293
True enough, and there are some very interesting things you can to by carving up 3.5 and arranging the pieces artfully on a plate, but straight out of the books it's stacked so heavily against anyone not playing a caster the game can border on unplayable at levels 10+. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but if you have to deal with a "but this is what it says in the book and the Lord God Above forbid we change anything that The Printer Most Holy hath wrought" type of group, it can become very unfun.

>>4678314
Basically anything he did that wasn't 3E is good, which is a shame because 3E's flaws have tainted his industry image.

>>4678314

I look eagerly forward to the next RPG he takes part in, if any. I miss his clever mechanics and his ability to build coherent, self-consistent rules.

He really does need his own game.

>>4678278
>>4678187 here
And I have to say I agree with >>4678294 on this one... the emphasis is on the group, when it's both group awesome AND individual awesome that make PnP sessions great. I've seen it in 4e. My Warlord has won encounters for us almost single-handedly. But in the end, it's more the power list and all that that makes me feel like I just logged off WoW to go play some more WoW. I'll admit that 4e is alot looser in respects to the group mechanic. I like that part of it. It's just the general feel of the game, and the fact that those rare moments of personal glory when a player pulls off some crazy ass shit to save the group are even more rare with 4e.

I don't think a person's opinion of a game can lend or remove credence to their arguments for or against it. Because it's one person's opinion. And that's all it is. Saying that's wrong is saying the person is wrong for liking something more than something else. Especially when it's simply an impression that is left by a particular game system. And said game system is still enjoyable to them.

>>4678334
4E's worse in that regard because that's the mindset of its players. It leads to a lot of fucking retarded exchanges, especially if you want to homebrew powers for your character.

>>4678334

I usually find that the type of group you are mentioning is too constricting and obnoxious to game with at any table, much less 3.5's. I had one session of 4th edition with such people. It was almost as unplayable as 3rd. I wanted to kick a guy in combat, the GM of the day flat-out said "no".

People often forget that human beings are the integral factor of ALL PnP RPGs, regardless of system preference, and they often (if not always) make or break the game.

>>4678360
Actually, you know what? They do have a lot of potential to exist in 4E, but almost every single time you get to make those kind of events happen you have to subject yourself to a dice roll with shitty odds. If you aren't interested in having to contend with failed dice rolls more than more than 25% of the time, 4E is quite literally one of the worst games on the market for you.

>>4678310
Honestly, if you're say... trying to shift some kobold 2 squares to the right, and there's a power that does that... why not just use the power? That's the problem here I think. What characters can and cannot do is at the same time more linear in 4e than 3.5, and the same, if you are willing to un-optimize yourself in 4e a bit, which I think shouldn't be an issue for anyone who is a true role-player. After all, its all about character concepts and fun first, and the numbers and mechanics second, right?

>>4678387

I assume you're mentioning the new Save mechanic. I look fondly upon it.

>>4678375
I keep my group complaints and system complaints separate, usually. It's when they're intent on using a verifiably shitty system and refusing to try anything but it, like d20 fanboys, that they get mixed.

4e actually has more flaws than 3.5. You don't even need to look all that hard for them.

>>4678404

Mechanics and system flukes ALWAYS come second-hand to fun and roleplaying. Even for D&D players.

Or, at least, it should.

>>4678278
I agree. The way I see it, WoW isn't a tactical game. The raids are more like puzzles than battles. Many of the boss fights feel more like dance practice than epic showdowns.
A good example is Heigan the Unclean. During the fight with him, at set intervals a toxic eruption thing hits three fourths of the room. Everyone needs to know where the safe zones are for each eruption, and move accordingly. That's it. That's the entire "tactics" for that battle. Don't get hit by the eruptions. Not very interesting.
Sapphiron is another good example. At set intervals, he takes flight, freezes three players, uses his breath weapon, lands, and continues using melee attacks. Repeated until he dies. Players need to hide behind their frozen comrades to avoid the breath, or they get one-shotted. Always the same thing. Every n seconds, find frozen guy and hide behind him. That's not tactics, that's a simple puzzle.

>>4678406
No, though the save mechanic is unbearably luck-based when I want a game that tests my strategic skill more than what comes up on the roll.

What I'm talking about is how 4E, in general, has success rates ranging from 45% to 65%, both of which can end up getting your party raped with nothing you can do about it. That's not heroic - that's bullshit.

>>4678134
I'm sorry, hate to de-rail, but what?

The game that expects you to have magical everything, right down to dental floss is better at low fantasy than 4e?

3.X is virtually unplayable without magic, unless there is a lot of GM fudging going on, whereas it works quite well in 4e.

The level of power is just consistently lower in 4e, when compared to 3.x, which makes it bad for Everyone is God games, but great for the grim and gtritty ones.

>>4678387
I agree. Thinking outside the box in 4e is tough for two reasons. One, the box is fairly large to begin with. There's probably a power for that situation you're contending with at the moment. Two, what you said. Sure, crazy shit should be hard to do. But possible. And I dislike the lack of fluff in the skills too. I miss things like Astronomy as a skill... sure, Arcana or whathaveyou can work for that, but what about people who know about the stars but NOT anything else that's related to magic? What then? Where's the flavor?

>>4678134
Do you seriously believe that? You must have never played AD&D.

>>4678413
Hum. 4th edition certainly has flaws, as any system does, although to say that it has more or worse flaws than 3.5 is a stretch, in my opinion. I would say that certain *aspects* of 4th edition certainly "flaw" believability, mainly the lack of a viable economic system, but such things are easily fixed and are not necessarily system flaws, just "features". Whether they are good or not mostly depends on taste.
As for balance, I would have to nominate 4th edition over most games for balance, especially 3.5. Unfortunately, inherent game balance does not a fun time make, it takes much more than that. Fortunately it does enough right by me to win my money.

>>4678412
I'd defend d20 to the death for its ability to perpetuate fun. As a base mechanic design, it's acceptable. As a system design, it's bad (especially d20 Modern). Unfortunately I can't say that I side with those who name 3.5 "better" than other systems.

>>4678446
"My character is an amateur astronomer." No need for an arcana check, if the DM asks for a roll he should set a DC of 7 or 8 on an unmodified roll.

The skill list is notoriously simplistic, yes, but that's because you're supposed to handle these things on your own. I didn't say I agree with it, mind you, but that's how it works.

>>4678468
d20 is my arch-nemesis system because it will not go the fuck away. It has nigh-constantly prevented me from getting people interested in games that aren't it, has always had mechanics that grind my fucking gears in every way possible, and makes the default "lol roll for it!" instead of "okay, roleplay what you do, if it's not solid enough roll for it". Not that the former is any less roleplaying, it's just that it deliberately sticks out its leg in front of me in terms of what I want to play for no justifiable reason.

>>4678421
Yes.
>>4678430
The tactical aspect of 4e isn't what makes me feel like I'm playing WoW. It's the powers and abilities being spelled out for you that does it. I like hitting shit with my sword in different and unique ways, that's all. Sure, there's a power for that, but you know what? I wanna come up with that shit myself, instead of the game telling me I can do that. That's what separates creative gamers from roll-players. We invent our own 4e powers in whatever system we're playing, and just try it cause we want to see if it works, instead of the game saying "refer to pg. 137 and roll your d20".

>>4678446
The system fluff for 4e feels deliberately lacking when I read through, particularly for Powers and Monsters. On the one hand, I appreciate this. It's much easier to stencil in your setting/campaign/character particulars when there are no real particulars to begin with. On the other hand, I often dislike it because with 4th edition I can NEVER rely on the books to inspire me or drive me to an interesting new concept. For that, I have old edition books and the internet.

A gift and a curse, I guess.

>>4678506
Play Mutants & Masterminds.

>>4678483
Very true. And that should happen, yes. But then you'll get asshats that ruin it for everyone by trying to not spend skill points on things that aren't just fluff or RP footnotes. And I have fighting with gaming fucktards over shit like that, don't you?

>On the other hand, I often dislike it because with 4th edition I can NEVER rely on the books to inspire me or drive me to an interesting new concept.

THIS.

>>4678525
The skills in 4E are all combat-relevant ones in some way, so...

>>4678503
I feel for you, believe me. D20 is the same monster that kept people from playing my Ars Magica games in the early years. I will always hate it just a little bit for that.

>>4678526
While 3.5 was bursting with inspirational fluff? People learned to make their own D&D because the prepackaged one was unbearable, not because it fanned fires of creativity.

>>4678540
Just Ars Magica? That's ONE thing it kept you from playing. I was kept from playing at *least* eleven different systems on a regular basis because of this, and the only way I have experience with most of them is because I ended up GMing out of frustration at this bullshit.

>>4678503
I too hate system-nazis that make you roll for every damn thing. Fuck that. Sure, you can have the Diplomacy skill in my games. But if you don't at least come up with your own plan and what you want your character to say before you roll, then fuck you. It's not a crutch, it's a roll to see how well your character managed to convey your planned notion. It lets people who might not be as eloquent as their character play a face or whatever. It's not there to do the work for you.

>>4678581
It all goes back to the "tweaking" argument. It's a tough argument to make, but basically it seems much easier in 3.5 to pick up a book and go "well the idea is right but... just lemme change this and..." as opposed to 4e where you're basically browsing stats, and have less to work with. Some people like that aspect, and relish the notion of creating the fluff themselves. Others like a bit of a canon jump-start. It's all personal taste.

>>4678593
It's not that I even care about other people wanting to roll for what they do, it's that I want to get significantly more in-depth with what I do than "ROLL FOR IT LOL" because I use method acting techniques when roleplaying, and at that point there is no point in having me roll on anything but things that are too hard to judge.

>>4678581
To say that the 3.5 fluff was *good* is certainly debatable, but yes, certain things did inspire me. The descriptions for certain monsters definitely changed my mind about whether or not to include them in my campaign more than once, I'll admit, and while much of the class abilities were very "do this and get +x to attack", certain class/ability fluff really helped round out their abilities and their potential place in the world, in my mind.

But, no, I would have to agree with you, most of the 3.5 fluff wasn't A plus material (most notably the "WIZARD DID IT" disclaimer at the end of every aberration in the MM)

>>4678620
This sounds like a case of rolling getting in the way of roleing. Shame.

>>4678581
Let's take 2E's monsters, for an example. Not only do you know what these things eat, but you know where they live and what effect they have on their habitat. This gives the DM a truckload to work with when making someplace involving combat, and the more atmospheric the game gets the better it gets.

>>4678584
Of course not JUST Ars Magica, that's just the most hurtful game-I-never-played in my own personal history, a direct cause of D&D.

I also wanted to play a game of Don't Rest Your Head and a game of Shadowrun a little while back, but everyone wanted to play 4th edition D&D. Go figure.

>>4678639
This is what the RPG community at large does. This is *bullshit* because they then cry wolf at much smaller things and look down upon anyone who doesn't think like them when they're not actually affecting what they're doing.

>>4678642

Exactly.

>>4678642
And to finish, if you're doing this in 4E, the only way the players are going to know is if you're dropping hints(which is more work than you could possibly save) for them to pick up at no guarantee... or you have them make a roll to know what's going on there, which renders the entire fucking atmosphere moot. Neither are optimal if you are not interested in mechanics.

>>4678642
Yes. This is another reason I like earlier editions. Reading the MM is like reading a National Geographic or watching fucking Animal Planet. The only difference is if you don't like something, you can change it. And believe me, the "wtf" moments the players have when they get waylaid by something out of the MM that none of them expected/thought about/knew about is gold, every time.

I wish people would stop saying its the players that make a system bad, not the system itself.

Its like someone designing a car that will never break down unless the driver goes over 40mph. using the excuse that there is no need to go any faster because smart drivers will just plan their trips ahead of time so that they will always arrive on time.

I had fun talking, everyone. Thanks for your honest opinions. I'm really very pleased that everyone refrained from turning this into an edition war thread or a " 'FUCK YOU', 'NO, FUCK YOU' " thread. The opinions in this thread are interesting, thought-provoking and conversation-provoking.

Thanks. Best of luck with all your systems.

>>4678697
Good players can make a bad system ignorable, at least to an extent. Bad players can make a good system shit.

>>4678706
I think the trolls are off elsewhere.

>>4678669
how exactly would the players know in 2E unless you told them? the MM is for DMs, not for players.
I remember playing 2E, if someone asked "do i know where a <monster> of this type would normally have it's lair" he would either have to roll something, or the DM would say "yeah you know that blahblahblah", both are possible to do in 4E as well. "any of you trained in nature? yes? alright, well you know that blahblah" you don't have to have them roll?

>>4678720
It's for both, thank you. That fluff is not there for DMs only.

Do you know how I prepare for playing a character that knows tons about wildlife? It's not by taking the Nature skill.

>>4678720
You can't stop a player from owning a book, or reading it. And regardless of how great a player is, we all meta-game a little bit. If we're in a jungle, we know we might come across Monster A, just maybe. Or Monster B. But when the GM throws Monster E at you, and you go "wtf", that's what we GMs live for as far as that goes. That's why I like the earlier fluff so much. The element of surprise it can bring to a game. And the players will almost always enjoy it. Unless they die. But... hey, shit happens, hehe.

I feel like this thread should be archived as the only logical and polite debate on system pros and cons of both "current" D&D generations.

>>4678789
Dammit! You jinxed it! hehe.

>>4678789
I'm usually pretty calm on my dislikes of 4E. It's when people start actually getting in my face about 4E and 4E campaigns when I'm trying to talk about a totally different system that I get pissed off. Going "LOL FAG UR DISLIKES MEAN UR NOT A TROO ROLEPLAYER" does not help in the least.

That usually doesn't happen on 4chan.

>>4678778
"Shit happens" should probably not be how you describe fun in your games. Most people don't find shit to be all that fun. I'm just sayin', that's all. If you and your group enjoy shit, then sure, run with it, but most people don't.

>>4678825
He's talking about what happens if something goes wrong.

>>4678825
I always design my encounters around what I know the players can handle, and sometimes a little bit underpower to take into account dice rolls, etc. The mentioning of a TPK was more of a joke than anything else. Players do like being surprised. And it's fun for the GM as well, especially when you can pull a fast one over on those "well read" players that every game has at least one of.

someone archive this please, so that later generations may benefit from the views contained within.

>>4678868
ctrl+s, copypaste what you need in a topic later on.

I admit, I do feel a strange sense of honor to be a part of a logical, mature, and conversational thread in /tg/ about D&D. I suppose I should "in b4 trolls find us" now, eh?

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread so far, and talking shop with all you fine Anons.

>>4678901
I don't like D&D at all, so I can impartially comment without a need to defend or attack one edition or another. I can just point out what's potentially flawed in it or what's potentially a boon.

mein gott...where da trolls at? There is actual DISCUSSION here.

>>4678937
They went to /tg/chan.

>>4678937
You dirty motha'- You just called them. Didn't you?
But in all seriousness, this isn't a thread that states "one system is better then another" It's just "Dam, I just don't get trolls"
No offense OP.

>>4678937
Stop that, you'll invite them in.

>>4678967
And thusly, we were trolled. Hehe.
Glad I "In b4"ed ahead of time.

Personally, OP? I hated 3.5 long before 4E ever came out, and I hate 4E almost as much. You know what I did to reconcile my problems with both, now that the system shakeup has loosened some peoples' opinions?

I dropped D&D entirely, told the people who kept bothering me about D&D to fuck off and leave me alone if that's what they're going to talk about, and tried to get the still-technically-standing D&D campaign I was in going with a better system.

Is this what it's like when /tg/... talks?

I... like it...

I like all editions of D&D (except 1st).

>>4679020
This is what /tg/ used to be like, actually.

>>4679002
Good for you, I'm glad you finally rid yourself of a game you disliked playing. I hope more people can find what they want to play.

ahem... Gentlemen..

>>4678850
Fair enough, I've just seen too many GMs/groups who fall into the "if you character dies you get to be weaker than everyone else for the rest of time" category, which is one of the things that irked me about 3.5.

And I very much agree; surprises and the unexpected are what make a game fun. I almost always change the printed stats on things or make up my own because, as a player, I know how boring it can be to know what the enemy's capabilities are in full.

>>4679030
That doesn't mean it worked. I'm still down roughly 90% of potential incoming games, and about 9% of the ones left are fucked because of scheduling issues or other bad systems.

I can't even troll because I have not played 4E yet, so I cannot supplement my position with situational evidence.

This is so confusing.

>>4679036
FFFFFFFFFFFFF FUCK YOU YOU SHIT TWINKIE DICK

>>4679044
>you need evidence and/or experience of something to troll it

AHAHAHAHAHA

lol edition warz thred.

DON'T FUCKING WORRY ABOUT WHAT THE INTERNET SAYS ABOUT WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR FREE TIME WITH YOUR FRIENDS. IN A COUPLE YEARS 3.5 WILL BE "lol classic" ANYWAY, SO STFU & GTFO.

>>4679044

I empathize, I can't troll 3.5 players because while the system is imbalanced I had fun playing it and respect people who still do.

wat

>>4679020
Shh, you'll give our secret away.

As for OP's post, I'll give my own two cents.

I do like 3.5, although I did have some gripes with it, espcially as a not so quick guy. The challenges varied from DM to DM, but overall, the biggest mistakes I made on my part, were due to the obvious lack of...comprehension? that the challenge before me was a challenge at all. They smoothed a lot of this over in 4e, by clearly defining what is an encounter, and what your options are. In 3.5, I often ran aground in "What to do between fightin'" scenes, where the DM generally allowed you to find your own unique way to the next encounter. In 3.5, I often stumbled through this clumsily, and went for the straightest path possible. In 4e, they gave me the option to look a bit smarter by saying "I put my heart in the dice!" and rolling to see if I win at doing nothing. By this, I mean it pushes the DM to eliminate the offtime freeform scenes, and give him an opportunity to create an environment in which the players must meet a specific challenge. But all in all, DM's run the game as they will, and in DnD, they make the game fun, or as not fun, as possible.

Theres my two imperial cents. Emperor bless you if you find anything to buy with it.

>>4679081
I can't troll intentionally with my opinions because they're already enough to piss off fanboys of either.

God fucking dammit. It all went downhill after >>4678937.

bizarro /tg/.
well this thread was good while it lasted but morning has come, say hello to daytime tg.

>>4679072

>>4679037
Screw that "lol u start at lvl 1" shit. We call it Kharma XP, and it means that you basically start with a character of the same level as you lost, exactly at the XP you need to be that level, and geared well enough to at least jump back into things. You won't get all your magic items back, but hopefully the party was kind enough to loot your dead character and keep them for later, you know... just in case they met someone who wanted to join up with them. Happens sometimes when you least expect it, hehe.

>>4679083
I completely agree. SO many terms in 3.5 were muddled, poorly defined and inconsistent that it made certain rules unclear and at the very worst, unusable. That was definitely one of the better leaps with 4.0.

>>4679093

Great, you guys thread shitted. Fucking 4chan.

>>4679105
I was actually thinking of the "get revived at -1 level or roll a new character." I can't count the number of times we've had to come up with a rationalization for why the party wouldn't revive someone (and instead find a new member) or why someone would turn down the resurrection because being a level below everyone else is not particularly fun.

>>4678974
knock knock knock...

God damn just switch to GURPS already, editions get released 20 years appart and are all exactly the same except the formatting and level of consolidation is increasingly better in each addition.

NO EDITION WARS. ISN'T THAT CONCEPT ATTRACTIVE AT THIS POINT!

>>4679088
It's cool, we had a good run. The trolls are like the zombies in any good walking dead flic: they will always find you and get you. And you will run out of ammo at the worst time possible.

>>4679083
>By this, I mean it pushes the DM to eliminate the offtime freeform scenes

This is -very very bad- because that's what I look forwards to in a game. The literal best campaign I've played in was ran with a repurposed fucking -arena bot-, and its combat had almost fuck all to do with luck.

>>4679086

IT'S NOT MY FAULT

>>4679138
Sometimes there is no access to a rez, or the player decides they may have liked that character, but they want to try something new. Or... the GM is brutal and uses perma-death to add some realism. Either way, when a new character is the only option, Kharma XP is how my group rolls.

>>4679141

Why would you want to run something like your average D&D hack&slash in GURPS? It's a completely different game, with an entirely different style of play. It's not a replacement for D&D and never will be.

>>4679207
>generic system with several fantasy splats unable to do fantasy

What? The rules that would make it impossible are all optional.

>>4679083

Honestly, I think it all comes down to play style. I'm more of a sandbox DM, and I feel like I'm railroading my players if the goal is too specific/obvious. Without activating the "YOU TALKED ABOUT WOW" thing, I honestly think 4e is more video game styled--it lends itself really well to games with very specific, combat oriented adventures. 3.X (and moreso AD&D) just feels more open in a lot of ways, with more non-combat stuff filled out.

I'm not saying that any edition requires a certain play style, of course--just that the emphasis each one has on different things allows it to lend itself more easily to a certain style.

>>4679223
Noone's saying that 4E isn't focused towards combat.

>>4679207
Well, to some folks story =/= system. I'd run a fantasy game in nWoD if that's the system my players were clamoring for. Fuck it. So long as I could tell the story I want and keep them engaged, then let them roll d10s till their fingers fall off I say.

>>4679223
I feel this way too. And as I stated before, the lists of powers you get in 4e make me feel less inclined to try to think out of the box as far as how to accomplish things, because if you wanna do something that's pertinent to the game, there's probably a power for that built in already. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does stymie some creativity in a way. Or can, at the very least, imo.

>>4679274
For me, the problem was that the list of powers being segregated by class fucked up choice, and I'm seriously inclined to do things that aren't statted out in powers anyways.

>>4679286
Yeah, I get sorta irked when I say... wanna push a goblin off a cliff or something, and we're in combat, so by the rules, if I'm say... a wizard, and for some reason have no power to shift a monster the needed number of squares, don't have Bull Rush, or whatever other pre-determined power/ability, I can't without provoking AoO and causing a shitstorm, assuming the GM wants to follow the rules. Unless I take Imp. Unarmed or somesuch. That bothers me a bit, but it's not hard to work around either. I just relish the notion of being able to at least try something without having to succumb to 27 rules that say I can't or I'm so bad at it that it might get me killed if it's not something totally outrageous. I mean... how hard is it to shove someone in a fight to begin with?

>>4679311
So uh, your problem with 4E is... you can't instant death enemies with a physical attack made by a physically weak character without at least giving the enemy a chance to attack you before he dies. That's pretty fucking retarded.

>>4679238

Ironically, I do actually run a fantasy game in GURPS. However, it's so different from your average D&D campaign that it probably doesn't appeal to many D&D players at all. My point is people mostly play D&D for entirely different reasons than they play GURPS (or any other systems) for.

>>4679286
>>4679311
And that's why 4e has page 42. Simpleguidelines for doing things you don't have rules for, or a character doesn't have powers for. Nobody uses it because they're stuck in the 3e mindset of "If I want to do X I need this specific feat".
If your wizard wants to push someone, and you can justify it to your DM, then page 42 would simply suggest you pick a reasonable defence, roll your attack, and deal appropriate damage off the table. Freeforming is built in. It is, in fact, advantageous as high damage on the table is equal to top-level striker encounter powers at the given level, so your characters can deal far more damage by being creative.

>>4679321
I should probably refrain from trying to explain things when I'm tired. I used it as an example. Seems as though it was a bad one, but the gist was there I think. If I'm an adventurer, and a situation arises where I might be able to do something that otherwise wouldn't be as sound of an option... shouldn't I be able to try? I'll take the AoO. That's cool. But depending on the GM, I might not even be able to -try- if I don't have Imp Bull Rush, Imp. Unarmed, or whatever else. No, I should not be able to ez-mode insta-death things by means that I am not proficient with -all the time-... but I like my combats more free-form. I feel constrained in 4e somewhat about what I can and cannot try within reason.

>>4679338
Hm. Valid point. I suppose I forgot about this, or didn't consider it. I am a 2e player at heart actually, so I'm more used to having to come up with this crap on my own anyway, and given the nature of 4e I suppose I let myself fall into the trap of "this is what you do, deal with it". I sure as hell am willing to admit I'm wrong or neglected something for consideration. It'll teach me to debate the minutiae of PnP at 11am when I haven't slept yet.

>>4679338
...which is fine and dandy if you're interested in damage. Guess what? The Ranger does more with his god damn At-Will. If the benefits for roleplaying are mechanical, they shouldn't be outclassed that easily.

>>4679338
Bow rogue.

>I feel constrained in 4e somewhat about what I can and cannot try within reason.

Yeah. A lot of people's problems with 4E boil down to people's assumptions rather than those of the game.

>>4679414
Mine don't. They all popped up in play.

>>4679391
Valid point though. Eh... it's not about bashing 4e or 3.5 or anything for me though. It's about discussion. Attempts at trolling aside, so far it's been pretty damn good conversation too. I'm sure there's some way to play a bow rogue or whatever other non-standard thing in 4e. Just easier and more natural for me and many others to just fall back on 2e or 3.5 as the "way to do it" for the non-standard concepts I think.

>>4679453
Bow rogues don't exist in 4E. You're supposed to play a Ranger if you want to, but... the Ranger powers don't do a very good job of being a secondary Controller, unlike the Rogue's.

>>4679371
>>...which is fine and dandy if you're interested in damage.
Except, you can choose to stunt whatever you want. You can try to push people, you can see if you can blind them for a round or whatever. That's the point.

>>4679462
You can try.

You can also end up wasting your effort about half of the time.

>>4679462
Oh lawds, 4E had a stunt system all this time? Sweet.

>>4679461
Well yeah, that's the standard, sure. I understand that. I'm saying I'm sure there's a way to make it work, it just might suck alot more in 4e than it would in 3.5 or 2e is all, since there's not a clear-cut way to do it, and there'd be alot of tinkering with the system on the GM's end of things to start. Probably have to mod the throwing-type stuff Rogues can do or something.

>>4679475
The thing that makes it absolutely retarded is that there's actually no appreciable reason to blunting the rogue's ability with the bow. It doesn't diminish the Ranger's ability, and it still requires the same amount of feats as it does to make crossbow loading a free action.

>>4679471
No more so than with a regular attack. Compare it to 3e where any stunt will require one or two skill checks and then an attack roll.

>>4679495
Well honestly there's no reason to limit anyone to any sort of weapon except Exotic types. If you're gonna adventure, and you happened to have Weapon A to take a couple of practice swings/shots with before you left, well... that should be your weapon. That goes for 3.5 too. 2e handles things like magic a bit differently in the fluff, so... I can understand the limits there to a degree. Even in 3.5 too. But something within reason is never a bad option to allow, and I do it all the time as a GM so long as it doesn't take too much extra work to make it feasible.

>>4679515
Sigh.

Compare 4E probabilities with 3.5 probabilities first. A 50% chance of success for something cool you want to do versus anywhere from 60% to 90% rolls?

>>4679527
I should amend this by saying Exotics and any weapon that would reasonably require martial training, such as 2h swords, longbows, etc. Something that, even if it is classed "martial" is something that doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to hurt someone with, because the balance is good and there is no real technique, should be usable. Within reason. I'm willing to hear a case for almost any weapon as a GM if I'm feeling like bending the rules.

>>4679527
It's not that they can't use bows. It's that their powers don't work with bows, and neither does Sneak Attack, so they're totally shit out of luck if they want to use one.

This does not make sense in the least, considering bow-wielding rogues have been around since, what? AD&D?

>>4679141
GURPS is 60-80 years old?

Still want it archived, guys?

>>4679652
Nice. We all knew that it'd degrade eventually. Lasted longer than 90% of the threads I've seen at least. We deserve credit for that.

>>4679690
Archived now.

>>4679627

From the condition my books are in, you'd sure think so. Stupid crappy binding.

>>4679461

Many of the Rogue's powers allow you to use a crossbow.

>>4680063
>crossbow
>can't use bows