Posting mode: Reply
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • ????????? - ??

  • File :1243425571.jpg-(93 KB, 488x516, 1242714637627.jpg)
    93 KB Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)07:59 No.4678012  
    Hello luminescen /tg/ angrenosa.

    All I see all over the internet, in forums, and the like is about how 4e is essentially finally "winning" over most all of the 3.5 players and is a "better" system and how 4e is balanced and fun to play while 3.5 is unbalanced and fighter-nerfing and shitty to play.

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

    The groups I've played in have never had problems with poorly performing fighters or casters outshining everyone else. We've also never been encumbered by any of the system downfalls. I love all the weird little intricacies of 3.5, and all the tweaks that can be applied to change the entire feel of a game. It's like a toolkit.

    So my question is, essentially, why are we no longer allowed to like/have fun playing 3.5? I understand 4.0 is the popular new kid on the block, but the fact that everyone is forcing themselves to leave 3.5 (or D&D in general) because a new edition is out seems shitty.

    I realize 3.5 isn't even close to the greatest thing since buttered toast, I've played a lot of systems, but the mindset that causes people to believe that 3.5 is somehow obsolete is confusing to me. It's a system to itself. 4th edition is more of a new system than a "better 3.5", why can't we still play the old edition?

    Anyway, I guess I'm just butthurt over everybody all of a sudden hating a system that just needs a little love to flourish in a group, like most others.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:01 No.4678028
    I sympathize OP. I still like 3rd edition but most people dont anymore. Such is life I guess.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:04 No.4678041
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:05 No.4678043
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:08 No.4678067

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

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:10 No.4678079
    >I've played both, and I like both, but my true love is still 3.5.

    Shitty people like shitty games. News at 11.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:11 No.4678084
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:11 No.4678089
    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.
    >> op 05/27/09(Wed)08:15 No.4678121
    No need to get personal. We're just talking about glorified games of imagination, here, friend.

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:16 No.4678125
    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.

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:16 No.4678126
    >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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:17 No.4678134

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

    I think op digs on the low fantasy.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:23 No.4678179
    >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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:24 No.4678187
    >>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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:24 No.4678189
    >>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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:24 No.4678193
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:25 No.4678200

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:28 No.4678227
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:28 No.4678231
    >>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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:29 No.4678235
    D&D wasn't heroic fantasy before 3E.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:31 No.4678251

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:32 No.4678260
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:34 No.4678276
    >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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:34 No.4678278
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:35 No.4678293

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:35 No.4678294
    Some shithead that isn't you messes up in either and you die. That's how WoW and 4E both work.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:37 No.4678310
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:38 No.4678314
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:38 No.4678319
    >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
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:40 No.4678334
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:40 No.4678343
    Basically anything he did that wasn't 3E is good, which is a shame because 3E's flaws have tainted his industry image.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:41 No.4678352

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:42 No.4678360
    >>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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:43 No.4678367
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:44 No.4678375

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:46 No.4678387
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:47 No.4678404
    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?
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:48 No.4678406

    I assume you're mentioning the new Save mechanic. I look fondly upon it.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:48 No.4678412
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:48 No.4678413
    4e actually has more flaws than 3.5. You don't even need to look all that hard for them.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:49 No.4678421

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

    Or, at least, it should.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:50 No.4678430
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:50 No.4678431
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:52 No.4678445
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:52 No.4678446
    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:53 No.4678454
    Do you seriously believe that? You must have never played AD&D.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)08:54 No.4678468
    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.

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:56 No.4678483
    "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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:58 No.4678503
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)08:59 No.4678506
    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".
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:00 No.4678511
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:00 No.4678515
    Play Mutants & Masterminds.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:01 No.4678525
    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:01 No.4678526
    >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.

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:03 No.4678539
    The skills in 4E are all combat-relevant ones in some way, so...
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:03 No.4678540
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:07 No.4678581
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:08 No.4678584
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:09 No.4678593
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:11 No.4678614
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:12 No.4678620
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:12 No.4678621
    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)
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:14 No.4678639
    This sounds like a case of rolling getting in the way of roleing. Shame.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:15 No.4678642
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:16 No.4678653
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:16 No.4678658
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:16 No.4678659

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:17 No.4678669
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:20 No.4678686
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:21 No.4678697
    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.
    >> OP 05/27/09(Wed)09:22 No.4678706
         File :1243430538.jpg-(50 KB, 590x397, 1239360461055.jpg)
    50 KB
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:23 No.4678711
    Good players can make a bad system ignorable, at least to an extent. Bad players can make a good system shit.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:23 No.4678714
    I think the trolls are off elsewhere.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:24 No.4678720
    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:28 No.4678745
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:32 No.4678778
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:33 No.4678789
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:35 No.4678798
    Dammit! You jinxed it! hehe.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:37 No.4678823
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:37 No.4678825
    "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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:40 No.4678847
    He's talking about what happens if something goes wrong.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:40 No.4678850
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:42 No.4678868
    someone archive this please, so that later generations may benefit from the views contained within.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:44 No.4678883
    ctrl+s, copypaste what you need in a topic later on.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:47 No.4678901
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:52 No.4678929
    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.
    >> Shas'o R'myr !!TZikiEEr0tg 05/27/09(Wed)09:52 No.4678937
         File :1243432372.jpg-(30 KB, 377x377, Happy Face Confused.jpg)
    30 KB
    mein gott...where da trolls at? There is actual DISCUSSION here.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:53 No.4678943
    They went to /tg/chan.
    >> Guardsman Ted 05/27/09(Wed)09:56 No.4678967
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:57 No.4678974
    Stop that, you'll invite them in.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)09:58 No.4678983
    And thusly, we were trolled. Hehe.
    Glad I "In b4"ed ahead of time.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:00 No.4679002
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:02 No.4679020
    Is this what it's like when /tg/... talks?

    I... like it...

    I like all editions of D&D (except 1st).
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:02 No.4679026
    This is what /tg/ used to be like, actually.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:03 No.4679030
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:04 No.4679036
         File :1243433043.png-(63 KB, 642x1083, 1224553233599.png)
    63 KB
    ahem... Gentlemen..
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:04 No.4679037
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:05 No.4679043
    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.
    >> Shas'o R'myr !!TZikiEEr0tg 05/27/09(Wed)10:05 No.4679044
         File :1243433112.jpg-(10 KB, 256x307, nicholas cage sad.jpg)
    10 KB
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:06 No.4679056
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:08 No.4679072
    >you need evidence and/or experience of something to troll it

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:08 No.4679075
    lol edition warz thred.

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:09 No.4679081

    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.

    >> Guardsman Ted 05/27/09(Wed)10:09 No.4679083
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:09 No.4679084
    I can't troll intentionally with my opinions because they're already enough to piss off fanboys of either.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:10 No.4679086
    God fucking dammit. It all went downhill after >>4678937.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:10 No.4679088
    bizarro /tg/.
    well this thread was good while it lasted but morning has come, say hello to daytime tg.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:10 No.4679093
         File :1243433433.png-(100 KB, 627x442, 1235604252979.png)
    100 KB
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:11 No.4679105
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:12 No.4679113
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:14 No.4679130

    Great, you guys thread shitted. Fucking 4chan.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:15 No.4679138
    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.
    >> sage       05/27/09(Wed)10:15 No.4679139
    knock knock knock...
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:15 No.4679141
    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.

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:15 No.4679143
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:16 No.4679152
    >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.
    >> Shas'o R'myr !!TZikiEEr0tg 05/27/09(Wed)10:18 No.4679167
         File :1243433936.jpg-(49 KB, 667x595, And the Troll Horse you rode i(...).jpg)
    49 KB

    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:18 No.4679168
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:24 No.4679207

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:26 No.4679219
    >generic system with several fantasy splats unable to do fantasy

    What? The rules that would make it impossible are all optional.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:26 No.4679223

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:28 No.4679236
    Noone's saying that 4E isn't focused towards combat.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:28 No.4679238
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:32 No.4679274
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:34 No.4679286
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:38 No.4679311
    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:39 No.4679321
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:41 No.4679331

    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:42 No.4679338
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:43 No.4679342
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:47 No.4679368
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:47 No.4679371
    ...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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:51 No.4679391
    Bow rogue.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:54 No.4679414
    >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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:56 No.4679433
    Mine don't. They all popped up in play.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)10:58 No.4679453
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:00 No.4679461
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:00 No.4679462
    >>...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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:02 No.4679471
    You can try.

    You can also end up wasting your effort about half of the time.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:02 No.4679473
    Oh lawds, 4E had a stunt system all this time? Sweet.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:02 No.4679475
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:05 No.4679495
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:08 No.4679515
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:09 No.4679527
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:14 No.4679559

    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:21 No.4679605
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:24 No.4679625
    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?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:24 No.4679627
    GURPS is 60-80 years old?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:27 No.4679652
    Still want it archived, guys?
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:34 No.4679690
    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.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:44 No.4679738
    Archived now.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)11:57 No.4679809

    From the condition my books are in, you'd sure think so. Stupid crappy binding.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)12:31 No.4680063

    Many of the Rogue's powers allow you to use a crossbow.
    >> Anonymous 05/27/09(Wed)12:33 No.4680090
    >can't use bows

    Delete Post [File Only]
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]