Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

[kristof65]

There was a beautiful skill challenge in our X-Crawl game Wednesday night that represented all kinds of swinging platforms, a rolling spiky Giant Coca-Cola can of Doom, a drawbridge, and sliding plexiglass rooms full of various and sundry fire elementals. I shudder to think how the 3.5 skills system would have handled such a complex environment. In 4th, each obstacle amounted to a collection of simple pass/fail skill checks to get across the gauntlet.

I fail to see how 3.5 would make it any more complex. I've designed such environments/traps for my 3.0/3.5 campaigns (and AD&D, WFRP, and Traveller) - they've never been any more complex than I've needed or wanted them to be.

[Lars Porsenna]

I shudder to think how the 3.5 skills system would have handled such a complex environment. In 4th, each obstacle amounted to a collection of simple pass/fail skill checks to get across the gauntlet.

 

Why do you "shutter to think" how 3.5 would handle it? Considering the skill check mechanic is essentially the same, you can still use the skill challenge in 3.5 with little modification. In fact, there could be even MORE variety (due to a larger set of skills) with MORE participation amongst players (due to more opportunities for specialization). With the 4e "everyone will always have something to do" we found this less relevant when playtesting 4e since some players didn't have the neccessary skills even under the 4e mechanic (or, at least compared to other players). The same sort of issue would exist under 3e as well...

 

Damon.

[Gimp]

Apparently Reaperbryan is biased against 4.0 (note who made the poll). Oh wait, he plays in 2 games if it, I'm sure he hates it...

 

Ignore polls if you don't like what they show, tell me that 4.0 HASN'T split the player base. With a straight face.

That was my point. Reaperbryan likes 4th, yet even the poll he set up contained options that would give false negatives against the game.

 

Setting up polling options that can give more than suggestions, in an unbiased format, is much harder than many people imagine. Polls are a good tool for people who understand that and want to spin numbers in specific ways.

 

Online polls make conversational material, but cannot be assumed to give accurate market data. They don't need to be anything more.

 

Research polls are not set up online for multiple good reasons. If you can get a large enough sampling, you can accept the probabilties of false information, while still seeing trends, but you cannot get truly accurate data.

 

Reaperbryan's poll, like any other online poll, can give an idea of respondant's thoughts. Adding the ability to make direct comments gives more capability for feedback. Being able to see some ideas does not correlate to statistical significance.

 

Another quick example: what shows how many physical, distinct people have voted in the poll? The count still stands at 60. Can anyone prove that 60 separate people voted in the poll, versus 60 separate accounts owned by far fewer people? As in any other forum discussion, people can sign in under multiple accounts to vote, just as they can sign in under multiple accounts to 'support' their views expressed under other names.

 

I'm not saying the poll results have no merit. To suggest 4th has not split the player base would be ludicrous. The results accuracy is where the problem lies.

 

Regardless of online polling results, there is no direct statistical correlation between the numbers attained and actual market results.

 

The polls definitely indicate some people like 4th, and some people don't. As Reperbryan noted, the only significant information is that nobody has yet indicated they're playing in a campaign without liking it. That suggests people are willing to look at other options, rather than feeling forced to play 4th. That idea can change as soon as someone decides to push the button to be 'funny,' or else someone who does feel forced adds a response.

 

With the annonymity of the internet, either possibility is present, and again shows a problem with online polling.

 

Believe what online polls you want, but it won't change their actual statistical significance.

 

I like this poll simply because it has sparked conversation, and that discussion, even while holding multiple viewpoints, has been a chance for people to share views in a civil debate. It can't do more than that.

 

As for 4th being better for handling different situations, that's another judgement call based on player preferences. What works for one person will not be as good for another, and every edition of any game can be utilized to handle a situation in a way some players will adore, and others despise. That's part of why no single game controls all of the RPG market.

 

Play what you like, and have fun. So long as your group is having fun, you're doing it right.

[kristof65]

Gotta agree with Gimp on this one. Most online polls simply don't have enough choices to cover someone's feelings, or they have multiple choices that do. For example, in this one I picked I'm going to play a different RPG entirely, but in realityI'll stick with a previous version of D&D could have been a valid choice and when/if my group makes a switch to 4e, my vote could change to something else.

 

The only time I've relied on online polls to give a pretty good inidication of what a group wants is when I set them up for my own game groups - and they are typically set up like this:

 

What game system would you like to use for our next campaign? Please rank in order from most like to play, to least like to play?

-list of possible game systems here

 

And like Gimp, I do like the civil conversation this particular poll has provoked.

[King Tiger]

I purchased the core books the day they hit the shelves, went on vacation, and read the books while I sat on the beach in North Carolina. I have not looked at them much since, I think I may try to set up an adventure or two over the Christmas holiday and see what my group thinks. I honestly can't decide if I like the new edition or not, I think part of my problem is I enjoyed 3rd so much I have a hard time retiring it, though I had the same problem when I said goodbye to 1st (never played 2nd). I was hoping to get some feedback from this thread, and It seems as if I'm going to blow the dust off of the books and give this a shot.

[kristof65]

I honestly can't decide if I like the new edition or not...

My guess is that for many people, it's easier to say they don't like the new edition, than it is to try it or be honest like you.

 

I know in my case, it would be easier for me to say I hate it. I'm not really fond of the class/level system all versions of D&D are based on, and I have ton's invested in 3.5, so why would I want to buy into it's replacement, which is yet another class/level system? OTH, while I detest AD&D, 3.5 made many changes that made me willing to try D&D again - who knows, maybe 4e is even more of a step in that direction? Won't know until I try it.

 

I've decided I'm going to just take a wait and see attitude. Basically, I'm going to let the rest of my group decide which way they want to go when our current campaign ends - if the majority wants to move onto a 4.0 campaign, I'll play along, and if I like it enough, buy a book or two. I doubt I'll like it enough to swap out my 3.5 stuff entirely - from what I've read/heard, I've seen as much that I like more than 3.5 as I have stuff I like less than 3.5. That doubt has more to do with the amount I have invested in 3.5 than it does 4e itself, though.

 

My preferred system is not D&D, I only play D&D because it's a widely accepted system I can find people to play with. Right now, it's as easy to find 3.5 games as it is 4.0 games - no incentive to make a switch for me - and I suspect, many like me.

[Lars Porsenna]

For me, though, I disliked it when I first saw it, played in a months long campaign, and took away from that less desire to want to play the game. My opinions therefore are not based on hearsay but of course direct experience. I found character creation tedious, and the "powers" not only exremely gamey (I like my games to be a bit more "simulationist.") but after a while varying only in small details (this is for low level characters; that might change at higher levels). Furthermore, the PHB feels like it gives me significantly fewer options to build the character I want, but the skill system also means I can't tweak my character as much as in 3e. For me, character creation is just as much fun as playing the game (which is why I love games like traveller or Fading Suns where you have "career paths" that help define what skills your character has...its like pre-RPing.) With 4e, looking through each character class and abilities, I couldn't feel any desire to create a character (which for me pretty much means the game is not going to be a winner)...

 

Damon.

[Reaperbryan]

Diff'rent Strokes, Damon. I can appreciate your persepctive, but for me it's the opposite. I don't want a Simulation. I want a nod towards practicality, but I want Fantastic Adventure Heroics. I want ot be able to do what the characters in novels and movies do, and the more realistic the game mechanics/physics/engine is/are, the less you can pull it off.

 

Example - 3.0 D&D. I had a player who was into the heroics. They go into a room in a tower that houses the adventure bad-guy. This is not a combat scenario, but a RP one. Well, Mister Heroics decides he wants to prove a point, so he declares his action. He pivots teh chair he's standing behind (because he refused to sit in the man's presence) stands in the seat, places his foot on the backrest, tips the chair forward (towards the bad-guy) so that the chair is now leaning on it's two back legs and against baddie's desk, walks over the desk while drawing his sword and puts his sword tip in baddies' face.

 

Wow - really cinematic, really impressive. And really impossible. So many actions, when I made him roll acrobatics to do all that chair-work, jumping, pivoting, flipping, there were so many penalties he couldn't succeed, because the simulationist nature of the skill rules took so many penalties for the action.

 

In 4e, the rules are faster and looser with skills, but a low level player in my games would still probably fail.

 

In a non-level game, though, like Savage Worlds or even World of Darkness or GURPS, the player would have a much higher chance to succeed, becuase I feel those games reward cinematic behaviour more so than D&D traditioanlly has.

 

I know I'm a pretty loud voice for 4e here, but truth be told, my favorite system is Savage Worlds. I've only seen one stting break the system into impossible to fit, and I'm under the impression that that was either because a) that series of novels has no business being an RPG in any rules-set ever or b) the GM was being lazy in not converitng the magic system to be applicable to the setting, since it was a setting in whiche corebook magic was not at all waht the novels said magic was like.

[Gimp]

That's part of the reason we play many different games: we like simulationist and cinematic gaming. We can shift systems to give us whatever we're in the mood for.

 

No system will be right for everyone, but there are enough good systems out there people have a shot at finding what they want.

 

Failing that, a good group with a good DM can find a way to make anything work.

[kristof65]

A pet peeve of mine is when people only want to play (not GM) one system. IMO, GMs who take the time to fit a system to their setting (or vice versa) are really doing the extra work to make their setting really work with the rule system they choose. If a GM and his/her campaign interest me, I'll play anything, even if the RPG was called something stupid like Turkey Crud Shoot 6.0.

 

When I GM, though, I feel I should be able to select the rule set that is best going to fit my campaign. I'm through trying to fit my campaign visions to the ruleset players feel they have to play.

[Lars Porsenna]

A pet peeve of mine is when people only want to play (not GM) one system. IMO, GMs who take the time to fit a system to their setting (or vice versa) are really doing the extra work to make their setting really work with the rule system they choose. If a GM and his/her campaign interest me, I'll play anything, even if the RPG was called something stupid like Turkey Crud Shoot 6.0.

 

When I GM, though, I feel I should be able to select the rule set that is best going to fit my campaign. I'm through trying to fit my campaign visions to the ruleset players feel they have to play.

 

On the flip-side, not everyone is going to have the time and money to play multiple rulesets.

 

In my group, just about everyone has kids and a full-time job. Not to mention other interests besides gaming. Learning one ruleset very well and adapting it to other settings means that they don't have to go out and spend money on a book they may not use all the time, spend time learning a new ruleset when they could be doing family stuff (or reading a novel!), etc. ESPECIALLY if not everyone is on-board with the alternate ruleset.

 

FREX, I really like the Fading Suns setting. I really don't like the House rules though. Most of the group didn't either. Everyone likes D20, so usng that common ground I ran a Fading Suns D20 campaign. The players had to buy a $20 book instead of a $40 book. What here then is the rational choice?

 

Damon.

[kristof65]

Really depends on what players need to play a game. Most RPGs can be run by a decent GM without their players needing to invest in anything. Heck, I have no intention of buying a PHB when/if my group switches to 4e until I've either decided it's too inconvenient not to have it, or I really like the system. Likewise, I've run WFRP campaigns with up to 13 players - and there were maybe a half dozen rule books between us. Classic Traveller may have dozens and dozens of books available, yet I've run campaigns where no one else has owned a single book.

 

A good GM can facilitate a game so that the players don't need a rule book unless they want one. Plus, D&D is the behometh of RPGS - not many other systems have the sheer number of source books available - even ones that do - like GURPS and RIFTS, can typically be played with a single book. I think D&Ds sheer size leads to a misperception that all RPGs have to have that many sourcebooks.

 

Learning more than one ruleset isn't much of a reason, IMO, either. Once you've learned one RPG, the rest is mostly semantics and die types. When someone tells me they don't want to learn another rule set, I'll ask them how many board or card games they've played.

 

That's all from the player's POV. It's a lot different from the GMs perspective. For one thing, a GM has to know the rules well, which means investing in at least the core books. I got suckered once into changing my campaign to fit the game my players wanted to play. I spent tons of money buying various 3.5 source books trying to make the rules work with my campaign setting, and all it did was sour me on GMing, and cause me to scrap the campaign. My players liked the setting enough to ask for it as the next campaign I run, which I'm more than happy enough to - but not using D&D.

[Reaperbryan]

My Thursday Night RPG - which is Reaper Employees and their Family/Friends - rotates DMs and each DM is allowed to choose the system that will be next game. Each DM gets one story arc, whcih has been as short as 2 sessions, and as long as 4-5 months. The Players are under no obligation to buy any of thebooks, the DM must make at least one copy of the book available to the group as a whole if they wish to run it. When the next DM's turn comes up, they basically state what systems they have and which ones thay have stories ready for, the players vote among those options,a nd the DM brings those necessary materials the next session.

 

In nearly every case, the players choose the system with which they are most familiar if there is one familiar and one non-familar option, but that has not always been the case. Sometimes we pic the one we've never tried, just to see.

 

It means that over the last few yeras I've been introduced to a dozen systems I'd never seen, half a dozen DM styles, and a bazillion hours of awesome.

[Doug Sundseth]

A pet peeve of mine is when people only want to play (not GM) one system.

I guess I don't understand why that's a problem. If you don't like a system, don't play it. I've made exactly that choice with D&D 4. I tried it at some length, cordially despised it, and chose not to play in the stuff my regular group is running now. (Now anyone who insists that others also only play the game that he wants to play is just being rude.)

 

When I GM, though, I feel I should be able to select the rule set that is best going to fit my campaign. I'm through trying to fit my campaign visions to the ruleset players feel they have to play.

Absolutely. You should only commit to running a game that you like. IME, other choices fail badly. But if nobody (or only a subset of your normal group) wants to play that system, you might be out of luck. If you try to insist that others play the game that you want to play -- well, we're back to rude again. (Saying that you're only willing to GM if it's your system isn't insisting that anybody play anything. Anybody else can volunteer to run something different if it's that important.)

[Gimp]

That's why the best gaming groups are those willing to work together to have fun together. I'd laugh at anybody who insisted on a single game system for our group.

 

It can be harder when a player won't play a system, but the group doesn't want to lose that player. I've seen groups that had problems because a single player vetoed everything but their personal favorite game, while the group gave in over and over because they were afraid to lose them. Some of those groups lasted longer than I'd expected, but few ended well.

 

I've skipped running some systems with certain players because they had issues, but never has it been due to the mechanics. Some people have issues with different game world concepts: a friend who didn't like Vampire's biblical references, another who felt Deadlands was too dark and horrific, etc...

 

When I want to run a campaign, I'm happy to vary the system I use based on the stories I have planned and the player's perceptions. If something doesn't work for a player, we can play something else with them, and use the other ideas when they aren't there. With us being largely professional people, it isn't odd to have some people unable to be there consistently, so we run what they don't like without them, and flip between stories and systems as needed.

 

It's easier to run multiple games with various player subsets when there are multiple people running the games, but I'm retired, so I have more flexibility when nobody else is ready, and have fun keeping all the stories straight.

 

The DM makes the recipe, the players supply the ingredients, and the system simply adds the spice. We've built up a pretty good collection of spices to try as we need them. Some have been used very sparingly, but they're there when we want them.