Jump to content

Frankthedm

D&D 4E seems to be looming ahead.

Recommended Posts

I'm tired of D&D's constant "new version" releases. They're as bad as Microsoft. <_<

 

 

Like anvil, I haven't been happy with D&D 3rd ed in general, and miss Hero System and GURPS (I prefer GURPS for fantasy as they do magic better than Hero). I think I'll be working with those systems more and more.

 

 

HERO is still alive and kickin'. Fifth Edition Revised is a bit massive, but there's also Sidekick. My favorite RPG system, almost to the point of "you mean there are other RPGs out there?"

 

Lookie here.

 

 

I know about Hero still being out there, but haven't been able to find a group who is willing to play it around here. They're all D&D or White Wolf, neither of which I'm completely interested in.

 

 

If only we were a little closer to each other in Texas, we could have a game. The closest game buddy of mine that plays HERO moved to Waco about 5 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched to Savage Worlds a couple years ago and never looked back.

 

Well, ok, I played D&D yesterday, but that's just because that's all there is here. I'm working on changing that.

 

It doesn't really matter to me what they do with D&D4, because I don't play it much or at all. I do hope they don't completely screw it up, because if D&D tanks, the rest of the hobby takes a massive hit as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - I go without internet access for a week, and WotC rocks the D&D community.

 

My biggest problem with D&D is that many people won't consider using a different rule set. Some campaign concepts work better with WFRP, or GURPS or HERO or even D&D, yet many people get locked into a system and refuse to play anything else.

 

I think the biggest mistake WotC is making with 4.0 is closing down the SRD and the OGL - that is what really gave 3.0/3.5 dominence over many other systems. I think that because of the SRD/OGL, 3.0/3.5 will remain a viable system for a long time to come outside of official events such as the RPGA.

 

I'm hoping that the players I have who were so insistent on playing 3.0/3.5 over the last 3 years "because we have all this money invested in it" will take the arrival of 4.0 as a wake up call and try other systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside:

Dudes and Dudettes, I have no problem with anyone not liking D&D 3+.

By all means play what you like.

All I'm saying is the "lack of Roleplaying" argument is not a valid argument as the rules in any system are merely the mechanics of the game, designed to be a set of guidlines that helps avoid arguments. It's just a step up from Cowboys and Indians, with the rules insuring that yes, you did get hit, and yes, you can run out of bullets.

However, in every game system I have ever looked at, it is often explicitly written or understood that house rules are acceptable, and that the GM's word is law, even if he throws certain mechanics of the game out the window.

The roleplaying is all on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest problem with D&D is that many people won't consider using a different rule set. Some campaign concepts work better with WFRP, or GURPS or HERO or even D&D, yet many people get locked into a system and refuse to play anything else.

 

Well, I disagree that other campaign concepts work neccessari;y better with other rulesets. If you didn't bother to tweak the game at all, then yes you're right (my biggest complaint about Fading Suns D20 is that the writers were not ambitious enough in the conversion). However, if you're willing to tinker with the system, you can get what you need (and indeed this is what some of the licensed publishers attempted...with varying degrees of success). FREX, I don't like levels in SF games (which I tend to run a bit more in the "hard" SF side rather than Space Opera). D20 has levels...or does it? Mutants and Masterminds did away with that, and so on.

 

But I think there are other reasons why there has been an unwillingness to pick up other rules...

 

1. Gamer Elitism: this is somehting I see somewhat frequently (and yes, it can happen on both sides). For me, having waded through many a flame war insulting my educational level, intelligence, or my connection to reality because I LIKE D&D 3.x, I have to say I'm not really too interested in the Kool Aid being served up. That's not to say I'm not INTERESTED in other rules, but some gamers attitudes really sours some rulesets for me. Yes, it might be petty, but the only failing I can claim to is being human...

 

2. This one is a big one for me: I like to play a lot of genres and campaign styles. Right now, FREX, I really want to play an SF game. But with a job, significant other, and a 20mo daughter who thinks taking her diaper off is entertainment (with or without secret surprises), you know, sometimes I just don't WANT to learn a new ruleset, with all the other things competing for my time. Just like the pre-paints crowd, sometimes I just want to PLAY, not prep (that last is a bit hypocritical of me, but see the last point in #1).

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved D&D 3.0 for what it did to roleplaying in my area. With D&D getting stale - and it was at the time - most gamers in my area switched over to card games or minis. Since this was the late 1990s, we had no Warlord to make this okay. People were starting to splinter off into other games, but there was only so much fun most of us could have pretending we were hanging out in bars before we gave up gaming to hang out in real bars.

 

When D&D 3rd, as we called it back in the days of 56.6k being fast, there was a notable revival in role playing. As long as you had the PHB, you didn't have to understand a large catalog of niche/genre games in order to get into a pickup game. Then there was the in-fighting between the genre types. The local cadre of Amber players was a mean and scary group.

 

D&D 3rd updated the rules in a way I needed to see and helped made gaming a lot more fun again. After reading the larger article about revisions and finances I still feel alienated, but will try to give the game its chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.0 hmmm, well let me find a fire hydrant to let you know my feeling on it.

 

I've enjoyed the advancement from 2nd to 3.5, and i've purchased enough 3.5 books that i won't be buying any 4th edition. Here's a rule thats actually an older rule that fixes all broken game mechanics no matter what edition of D&D you play, for some reason many people have a problem with it, its the "Golden Rule" that the GM sets the rules and players abide by them, simple as pie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how I should be responding to this. The fact is all games must change or die. The question is how much change is enough as to much of anything can be deady (fried foods, chocolate, episodes of the View). Game companies do not want to change things too much else they will scare off their customers. I think WOTC could be on to something. I get the impression 4.0 will have a more online aspect and if this year's Gencon was any sign that is going to do to gaming what CCGs did to it.

 

I cut my teeth on 2.0 and D&D (Yellow box with 6 soft, red plastic minis....ah those where the days), I had tons of books, then I sold them to pay for 3.0, which I only bought one or two of, and then with 3.5 I bought the PHB just in case which I am happy to say is getting use.

 

I think it comes down to how much you like the current system. I prefer some elements over 2.0 but I also see the rampant muchkinism that exisits. I also am not die hard into RPGs as I prefer to mini game. I think 4.0 will do well, so the discussion over it is a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside:

Dudes and Dudettes, I have no problem with anyone not liking D&D 3+.

By all means play what you like.

All I'm saying is the "lack of Roleplaying" argument is not a valid argument as the rules in any system are merely the mechanics of the game, designed to be a set of guidlines that helps avoid arguments. It's just a step up from Cowboys and Indians, with the rules insuring that yes, you did get hit, and yes, you can run out of bullets.

However, in every game system I have ever looked at, it is often explicitly written or understood that house rules are acceptable, and that the GM's word is law, even if he throws certain mechanics of the game out the window.

The roleplaying is all on you.

 

Where is the reward for roleplaying good or otherwise in d20 again? I must have missed that?

and then there are the no roleplaying skill rolls.. Intimidate, Diplomacy... that whole mechanic has always been wonky.

and Lack of roleplaying is an argument when your game mechanics steal from the ability to roleplay

Also having no rules for good roleplay is just that having no rules. not to be confused with actually having rules addressing roleplay in a so called roleplaying game.

I am calling the kettle black. DND is progressing towards miniatures rules oh and you can roleplay if you would like.

The last sentance is probably the most painful, you wrote. Looking at the wizard boards. They suggest just the opposite. Often advocating or even outright saying the DM is wrong or misinterpreted the rule. Last I checked he was the only one that matter on rules interpretation. To be honest this is where I stopped supporting WOTC. They have lost thier minds.

There are tons of other good games out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the reward for roleplaying good or otherwise in d20 again? I must have missed that?

and then there are the no roleplaying skill rolls.. Intimidate, Diplomacy... that whole mechanic has always been wonky.

and Lack of roleplaying is an argument when your game mechanics steal from the ability to roleplay

Also having no rules for good roleplay is just that having no rules. not to be confused with actually having rules addressing roleplay in a so called roleplaying game.

I am calling the kettle black. DND is progressing towards miniatures rules oh and you can roleplay if you would like.

The last sentance is probably the most painful, you wrote. Looking at the wizard boards. They suggest just the opposite. Often advocating or even outright saying the DM is wrong or misinterpreted the rule. Last I checked he was the only one that matter on rules interpretation. To be honest this is where I stopped supporting WOTC. They have lost thier minds.

There are tons of other good games out there.

Dude, are you serious?

Intimidate and Diplomacy may be wonky, but there were non-existent to prior to 3rd edition, and as I see it, and many of the players and DM's in this area see it, meant for trivial in the city tasks, like stopping a bar brawl, not meant to be used as the roll that stops two nations going to war, that's where roleplaying comes in.

You actually need rules for roleplaying? Your DM actually has to have written rules for awarding roleplaying?

I mean, if you've been playing since 1ed on up that stuff is kinda understood.

Even then the DM could reward roleplaying if he wished. I certainly don't remember specific rules for it, rules that anyone actually followed anyway, or rules that specifically said the DM had to award you for roleplaying. Once again it was the DM's choice.

And no matter what the WoTC boards say, whether the DM misinterpreted their intention or not, the DM has final say in the game. You may, however, choose to discuss the matter with him after the game is over and offer your argument, and he may choose to agree with WoTC's interpretation in future games, but his word is still law, even they are not advocating rules lawyering in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, are you serious?

You actually need rules for roleplaying? Your DM actually has to have written rules for awarding roleplaying?

I mean, if you've been playing since, 1ed on up that stuff is kinda understood.

Even then the DM could reward roleplaying if he wished. I certainly don't remember specific rules for it, or rules that anyone actually followed anyway.

 

 

OK I'll play your game..

 

How much XP is awarded for a successful bluff?

How much XP is awarded for killing a bugbear?

Or how much XP is awarded for disarming a cr5 trap?

 

One of the above is not like the others..

and yes rules for roleplaying would actually be nice. In a roleplaying game. Hint hint: It might actually prevent some of the muchkinism that goes on in d20 currently.

Let's look at thier Flagship campaign Living Greyhawk. (ha ha snicker snicker) It is very popular, but In my experience for every 10 people that play that game I find one on average who chooses feats or skills based up what his character whould do and not what future ability it grants. Quite frankly this does wreck the game for me.

 

Is that reason enough Dude?

 

If you really look close at the rules its not a roleplaying game at all... It has NO rules for roleplaying?

It is a miniatures ruleset so that you can create a token on the playfield ... That is all the rules cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I'll play your game..

 

How much XP is awarded for a successful bluff?

How much XP is awarded for killing a bugbear?

Or how much XP is awarded for disarming a cr5 trap?

 

It all depends on the DM, XP reward charts are and always have been guidelines of what probably should be rewarded. DM's are free to change this as they wish.

Some DM's choose to throw out the experience charts altogether and merely award a level when they think their players are ready for it, such as completing a minor battle, at lower levels, major battles at higher levels.

 

and yes rules for roleplaying would actually be nice. In a roleplaying game.

So let me get this straight, you are condemning 3.0 for not having something, 1 on up didn't even really have?

I'll go as far as saying, I've never seen a system that had hard rules for roleplaying, examples, yes, suggestions, yes, but hard rules, no.

 

Hint hint: It might actually prevent some of the muchkinism that goes on in d20 currently.

Let's look at thier Flagship campaign Living Greyhawk. (ha ha snicker snicker) It is very popular, but In my experience for every 10 people that play that game I find one on average who chooses feats or skills based up what his character whould do and not what future ability it grants. Quite frankly this does wreck the game for me.

Once again, DM.

 

 

You may not like the mechanics, Hey, I can understand that. However, the things you are blaming on the game, are in fact, your DM's domain.

 

Addendum: This is why I have a very select group of people I play with, we all want the same thing in a game, and we all despise munchkinism.

When you go out into the great unwashed masses, however, different people have different ideas of what roleplaying is and what type of game they want.

 

We've had to do this since 1st edition, as even then there were munchkins.

Heh, I remember in AD&D a DM allowing a 1st level wizard a baby gold dragon familiar, I quit on the spot.

I've had a player(fighter 10 level 2nd. ed) that demanded a dragon as a mount, I didn't need the rules to tell him no. He no longer plays with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, yeah, after eight years (or five, if you consider 3.5 a complete edition of its own - I don't) I have no problem with a new edition coming out.

When that x.5 edition renders all previously released book obsolete, yes, I consider that an edition of its own. If 3.5 had only added and errata'd the released 3.0 books, then I would have bought into the nomeclature. But they released 3 new "core" books and supplanted all the "splat" class and setting books as well. Pretty greedy, IMO.

 

Anyway, just something to think about.

 

~v

Tell me, exactly what in the 3.5 rulebooks invalidates the content of the 3.0 classbooks and setting books?

I'd like to not belabor this any more than it already has been, but to clarify, I didn't say that the corebooks invalidated the splat books (though without looking, I'd hazard the guess that they did in some cases, by changing the structure of the core classes themselves). The 3.5 versions of the corecooks invalidated the 3.0 versions of the core books. It was the subsequent release of 3.5 versions of the 3.0 accessory books that invalidated the 3.0 versions; Player's Guide to Faerun, Complete Fighter, Complete Adventurer, Spell Compendium, etc. Let's also not forget WotC's practice of reprinting the same material in multiple sourcebooks, so you had the distinct pleasure of paying for the same material several times if you bought all the books.

 

If you have any doubt that this is the case, walk into your local game store that accepts old gaming books in trade, and check out the number of copies of Defenders of the Faith, Song and Silence, Sword and Fist, etc. that they have sitting around on their shelves...

 

As I said, A shame because it was announced they are ending the current living greyhawk campaign at the end of 2008, and starting a new living forgotten realms game using the new 4ed rules. In fact, most of us who play Living Greyhawk are still in shock. We expected this campaign to go until around 2010.

 

I'm sorry for your loss, Gary, but I have to say that if you and your fellow LG players were shocked that you are being shown the door, then you didn't pay attention to recent history very well. VS and LC got the same ignoble treatment; why should they show LG any more consideration? VS was always a second-class citizen (despite its small but loyal following). LC, however, was wildly popular and had even survived the conversion from 2nd Ed to 3e; it was still discarded like a dirty dish towel when they (WotC) had no use for it any longer.

 

Welcome to the club.

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much XP is awarded for a successful bluff?

How much XP is awarded for killing a bugbear?

Or how much XP is awarded for disarming a cr5 trap?

 

Even IF there were rules for stuff like point 1, why the heck would you want them??? Cadaver is absolutely right: such rewards are the purview of the DM, not the game mechanics. I'd even argue the XP for killing the bugbear should be the same (fortunately, such encounters are a numbers-crunching game, so the DMG has guidelines on XP reward for such things).

 

I don't want or feel a game should FORCE roleplaying onto the players. The Fading Suns VPS system, in fact, also does not give solid guidelines on XP rewards either, and is in fact far more nebulous.

 

And Cadaver is also right (this is beginning to be a habit...scary...), what the game is depends on the players. PLay with a munchkin group, play a munchkin game. Play with an RP group, etc. My group, FREX, walks a balance between hack n' slash and RPing. Some nights its a straight-up combat all night. Others, straight up RPing.

 

And before you bash Intimidate and Diplomacy rolls, keep in mind not ALL of us can truely RP a character with a 20 intelligence. Or a fearsome visage. And some of us can't intimidate our FRIENDS because we're not jerks.

 

Damon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest problem with D&D is that many people won't consider using a different rule set. Some campaign concepts work better with WFRP, or GURPS or HERO or even D&D, yet many people get locked into a system and refuse to play anything else.

 

Well, I disagree that other campaign concepts work neccessari;y better with other rulesets. If you didn't bother to tweak the game at all, then yes you're right (my biggest complaint about Fading Suns D20 is that the writers were not ambitious enough in the conversion). However, if you're willing to tinker with the system, you can get what you need (and indeed this is what some of the licensed publishers attempted...with varying degrees of success). FREX, I don't like levels in SF games (which I tend to run a bit more in the "hard" SF side rather than Space Opera). D20 has levels...or does it? Mutants and Masterminds did away with that, and so on.

While I don't mind tweaking a rule set to make it work, some ruleset/campaign concept combos require less tweaking and fewer house rules than other combos. Where possible I try to keep the number of house rules in a campaign to a minimum - they invariably cause conflict or confusion - usually with newcomers to a campaign who are used to playing a certain ruleset a certain way.

 

My Iskitaan campaign frankly works better with WFRP as a ruleset than it does with D&D. My Yrazul campaign works better with D&D. Both are high fantasy campaigns, but the visions I have for each campaign are better served by using the two different rule sets. And I've expiremented a lot over the last 25 years to discover the best ruleset for my Iskitaan campaign - it's been run on The Fantasy Trip, AD&D, GURPS, D&D 3/3.5 and WFRP 1st/2nd editions. I can make the campaign work in any of those systems, it's just that it requires the fewest house rules and tweaking when run on WFRP, and it feels more like my vision for the campaign.

 

I've played in home-brew campaigns that probably would have been better served by using a different rule set, too. When the GMs document of house rules is as thick as the PHB, is he really playing D&D anymore? Maybe, just maybe, there is a better fitting ruleset out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×