Best Version of DnD?

[Pingo]

Interestingly, public book-burnings of comics had been organized in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas as part of the wave of anti-comic hysteria inflamed by Frederick Wertham's one-man anti-comic crusade.  That's part of what flipped out the comics company owners and convinced them they had to crack down on things hard.

 

(I always felt that Wertham, when there was anything at all to his fevered ravings, was taking out-of-context Easter eggs of bored young men, most of them military veterans, who were drawing the silly things at the times, and twisting them into a Malleus Maleficarum-level conspiracy of satanic youth-perversion.  As opposed to, you know, some bored underpaid young guy sneaking a hidden crotch shot into his art.)

 

 

[Cranky Dog]

1 hour ago, Pingo said:

Interestingly, public book-burnings of comics had been organized in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas as part of the wave of anti-comic hysteria inflamed by Frederick Wertham's one-man anti-comic crusade.  That's part of what flipped out the comics company owners and convinced them they had to crack down on things hard.

 

(I always felt that Wertham, when there was anything at all to his fevered ravings, was taking out-of-context Easter eggs of bored young men, most of them military veterans, who were drawing the silly things at the times, and twisting them into a Malleus Maleficarum-level conspiracy of satanic youth-perversion.  As opposed to, you know, some bored underpaid young guy sneaking a hidden crotch shot into his art.)

This is generational thing that keeps popping up over and over again.

 

According to "old-timers", society has fallen (many, many times over) and we're all a a bunch of blood thirsty, lustful, delusional, hyperactive and/or lazy people because we:

• Played AD&D
• Listened to Rock-n-Roll
• Listed to Heavy Metal (especially played backwards)
• Listened to rap music (especially gangsta rap)
• Read comics
• Played chess
• Danced the Waltz (unmarried people shouldn't touch that close!)
• Sat all day watching TV
• Played computer games
• Practice martial arts
• Watched violent movies... with ninjas sometimes!
• The whole "idle hands" thing
• etc.

Yet somehow, loudly supporting sports team is still all right.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Cranky Dog

[Crowley]

36 minutes ago, Cranky Dog said:

This is generational thing that keeps popping up over and over again.

 

According to "old-timers", society has fallen (many, many times over) and we're all a a bunch of blood thirsty, lustful, delusional, hyperactive and/or lazy people because we:

• Played AD&D
• Listened to Rock-n-Roll
• Listed to Heavy Metal (especially played backwards)
• Listened to rap music (especially gangsta rap)
• Read comics
• Played chess
• Danced the Waltz (unmarried people shouldn't touch that close!)
• Sat all day watching TV
• Played computer games
• Practice martial arts
• Watched violent movies... with ninjas sometimes!
• The whole "idle hands" thing
• etc.

Yet somehow, loudly supporting sports team is still all right.

Wait... are you claiming that we're not those things???

[Cranky Dog]

1 hour ago, David Brawley said:

Wait... are you claiming that we're not those things???

Depends on how drunk grandpa is at the dinner table.

[Pingo]

Heh, oh yeah, the waltz scandalized old people around 1800 because it had the horrifyingly sexuality of dancers holding each others' bodies...

 

Instead of the respectable minuets and communal line dances of the eighteenth century, where people barely touched fingertips, if that.

 

Fancy the Victorians being able to scandalize their elders!

 

 

[Auberon]

14 hours ago, Sylverthorne said:

19 hours ago, etherial said:

Did...did you...not read the Warlord Class powers? The Fighter Class Powers? The Cleric Class Powers? The Rogue Class Powers? The horktonnes of combotastic teamwork buildy stuff baked right into the system with Flanking Bonuses and Interrupt Powers and such?

 

It's been a while, and I never felt like giving WotC money for the books, and thus, do not possess them.

What I remember was a character that was, at low levels, largely capable of soloing pretty much anything if their player was half-way intelligent.

This may have suffered from the usual 'gaming company makes dubious premades' issues (I got a paladin once with /no charisma bonus/. She wasn't very effective), but I wasn't impressed with any of it. Not the game play, not the character, and not what I was hearing from people who were playing. Some of them were liking it, but there were all these niggling bits...

 

Like there not being a lot of customization options. Or the afore-mentioned lack of role-play friendliness built into the system.

 

I still don't feel like giving WotC money for the books, but if I stumble over a copy of the PHB going for cheap (doesn't seem unlikely) I might pick it up. ;p

 

I didn't give WOTC money for my 4E books, yet I still possess them.  You can do it too! 

 

There is something wonky with your play experiences.  4E combat is a cooperative skirmish game, so not only should you have teamwork, individual characters should not be able to solo a normal encounter.  Minions yes, because minions are designed to die easily, but not a group of normal monsters. 

A 4E paladin has two different basic builds, one using charisma as a secondary stat and the other using wisdom.  If a pregen has no charisma bonus but charisma powers... someone built it wrong. 

Customization is in 4E, it's just not the same customization as 3E or Savage Worlds. They are different, so if you go in expecting 3E then yes, you are likely to not see what you were expecting.  Also, some elements were rolled out in later books, such as backgrounds in PHB2 and "hybrid" classes in PHB3.

The role-playing I can't help you with since it's not an issue my group noticed.  Perhaps someday I'll try to find a video online and observe the struggle.

 

Not today though. 

[TheAuldGrump]

9 hours ago, Pingo said:

 

Your information is not accurate.

 

The Comics Code Authority and the dogma it enforced was created by the comics companies themselves in a McCarthy-era maneuver to forestall the sort of witch-hunt they feared might come down upon them and their lucrative products.

 

As is often the case with people trying to clamp down on dissent to avoid government regulation, they took up a ferociously rigid, unforgiving code worlds beyond what I suspect anyone in Congress actually cared about.

 

Not a single politician was involved.  The comics companies did it to themselves.

And specifically worded to target one of their competitors - in particular what words were verbotten in regards to titles. (And thus was Tales from the Crypt and other EC titles relegated to history.)

 

The Auld Grump

[TheAuldGrump]

5 hours ago, Pingo said:

Heh, oh yeah, the waltz scandalized old people around 1800 because it had the horrifyingly sexuality of dancers holding each others' bodies...

 

Instead of the respectable minuets and communal line dances of the eighteenth century, where people barely touched fingertips, if that.

 

Fancy the Victorians being able to scandalize their elders!

 

 

Though, by and large, the mores that Victorian England is famous for was as much a reaction to the libertine attitudes of the Georgians as anything else - and that those mores were also, by ald large, for public viewing - behind closed doors was a very different story.

 

Heck, the Victorians gave us the nipple ring....

 

The pendulum of public licentiousness swings back and forth - the miniskirt, that so scandalized the conservatives of the sixties, was also worn in the roaring twenties. (As was the peek-a-boo blouse.) 

 

The Auld Grump

[BlazingTornado]

11 hours ago, Club said:

Crap reboots are a constant threat. The beasties reboot of beast-wars did the same thing.

 

So anyway, editions and stuffs.

 

Anyone else have Tales from the Yawning portal yet? I'm thinking of running White Plume Mountain and Against The Giants once my players meet the level requirements (doing my own thing in the meantime because my first attempt was fun to create, and running Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan if my players just don't dig my moduling)... I'm curious if there's any changes I could make to those adventures to bring back the "old school" feel a bit more.

 

 

[Sylverthorne]

4 hours ago, Auberon said:

 

I didn't give WOTC money for my 4E books, yet I still possess them.  You can do it too! 

 

There is something wonky with your play experiences.  4E combat is a cooperative skirmish game, so not only should you have teamwork, individual characters should not be able to solo a normal encounter.  Minions yes, because minions are designed to die easily, but not a group of normal monsters. 

A 4E paladin has two different basic builds, one using charisma as a secondary stat and the other using wisdom.  If a pregen has no charisma bonus but charisma powers... someone built it wrong. 

Customization is in 4E, it's just not the same customization as 3E or Savage Worlds. They are different, so if you go in expecting 3E then yes, you are likely to not see what you were expecting.  Also, some elements were rolled out in later books, such as backgrounds in PHB2 and "hybrid" classes in PHB3.

The role-playing I can't help you with since it's not an issue my group noticed.  Perhaps someday I'll try to find a video online and observe the struggle.

 

Not today though. 

 

If I see a set going for cheap next I'm in Powells.. or some other place that sells used books..

 

Honestly, if someone came up to me and said, 'I'm starting a game using 4e, this is what I'm doing, do you want to play?!' I'd probably tell them, 'sure', borrow their rulebook, abuse Hero Lab's 4e generator and do my best to find all the corner cases, the way I do with Pathfinder (only, I don't do it deliberately, with Pathfinder). As far as I can tell, it's a good system, it works and it appears to be consistent. It's just not really my jam.

 

I'd appreciate it if you took a slightly different tone; the way this reads to me is not giving me a lot of confidence in your arguments. :/

My dislike of the way WotC has been running and reluctance to give them money has nothing to do with my lack of interest in the system.

What I have seen of the system implies a game that doesn't appeal to me. Without actually playing it, I am not likely to change that opinion.

 

That's not something unique to 4e, or WotC's products. There are a number of systems and editions that I am equally 'meh' about.

[Unruly]

15 hours ago, Club said:

It actually wasn't McCarthy and his crew, but rather a democrat that foisted that crap on us; at least if the information I have is accurate. Highpoints of the original code - no primary protagonists could be black, and police couldn't be portrayed in a negative fashion.

 

Crap reboots are a constant threat. The beasties reboot of beast-wars did the same thing. The various reboots of TMNT have edged towards this a couple times. I'm hoping that the new Samurai Jack avoids this in the other direction by going Grimderp. I don't have high hopes.

 

Like Pingo said, it wasn't any politicians that actually did it, it was the companies themselves. But Congress had held hearing on crap such as the 'corruption of American youth' and all that, saying Batman supported homosexuality and that monster stories led to cults and satanism, all based on the book "Seduction of the Innocent" by Frederick Wertham. It was the same sort of garbage that resulted in the formation of the MPAA, the "Parental Advisory" stickers on CDs, and the formation of the ESRB decades later. If the industry hadn't done it, the goverment was threatening to.

 

As for Samurai Jack's reboot, it isn't a reboot. It's a miniseries that's intended to finish the original story. It's only like 6 episodes or so, and then it's supposed to be done. Besides, Jack was already a pretty Grimdark world. All that's happened is that since it's no longer on prime time as a kid's show they were able to pit Jack against real people rather than just robots.

[Auberon]

48 minutes ago, Sylverthorne said:

 

If I see a set going for cheap next I'm in Powells.. or some other place that sells used books..

 

Honestly, if someone came up to me and said, 'I'm starting a game using 4e, this is what I'm doing, do you want to play?!' I'd probably tell them, 'sure', borrow their rulebook, abuse Hero Lab's 4e generator and do my best to find all the corner cases, the way I do with Pathfinder (only, I don't do it deliberately, with Pathfinder). As far as I can tell, it's a good system, it works and it appears to be consistent. It's just not really my jam.

 

I'd appreciate it if you took a slightly different tone; the way this reads to me is not giving me a lot of confidence in your arguments. :/

My dislike of the way WotC has been running and reluctance to give them money has nothing to do with my lack of interest in the system.

What I have seen of the system implies a game that doesn't appeal to me. Without actually playing it, I am not likely to change that opinion.

 

That's not something unique to 4e, or WotC's products. There are a number of systems and editions that I am equally 'meh' about.

 

What kind of tone would you prefer?  It's hard enough to convince someone of an argument in real life much less on the internet.  The internet is just there to argue. 

 

I haven't given WOTC any actual money since 3E.  I picked the 4E core boxed set up used for $28.38, including shipping. 

[Sylverthorne]

13 minutes ago, Auberon said:

 

What kind of tone would you prefer?  It's hard enough to convince someone of an argument in real life much less on the internet.  The internet is just there to argue. 

 

I haven't given WOTC any actual money since 3E.  I picked the 4E core boxed set up used for $28.38, including shipping. 

 

Mostly, I had the impression you were trying to convince me I was doing it wrong just because I'm not super-enthusiastic; that rubs me an assortment of wrong ways and occasionally results in a desire to rub hot peppers in people's eye sockets. ^^;

I don't generally like to argue about stuff; if I don't like a thing, I generally have a good reason. Without evidence, the reasons don't change, and for something like a rule system for a game, the evidence usually involves actually getting in and messing with it.

 

 ... which, dangit, I want to do. Messing with systems is fun, even when the character build and the arguing about rules makes me .. want to rub hot peppers in people's eye sockets... yes, I /do/ hate arguments about applying the rules, why do you ask ....

There was a /really interesting game/ running 4e on the Portal for a while, but the GM vanished and it stopped. :/

I wasn't playing. But it was interesting to read. I want to muck about with the character I built using The Dark Eye rules. I wanna mess with Cortex! AUGH!

 

Not enough time, or games. :\

[Auberon]

8 minutes ago, Sylverthorne said:

 

Mostly, I had the impression you were trying to convince me I was doing it wrong just because I'm not super-enthusiastic; that rubs me an assortment of wrong ways and occasionally results in a desire to rub hot peppers in people's eye sockets. ^^;

I don't generally like to argue about stuff; if I don't like a thing, I generally have a good reason. Without evidence, the reasons don't change, and for something like a rule system for a game, the evidence usually involves actually getting in and messing with it.

 

 ... which, dangit, I want to do. Messing with systems is fun, even when the character build and the arguing about rules makes me .. want to rub hot peppers in people's eye sockets... yes, I /do/ hate arguments about applying the rules, why do you ask ....

There was a /really interesting game/ running 4e on the Portal for a while, but the GM vanished and it stopped. :/

I wasn't playing. But it was interesting to read. I want to muck about with the character I built using The Dark Eye rules. I wanna mess with Cortex! AUGH!

 

Not enough time, or games. :\

 

Ah, sorry it came across like that but that wasn't my intent.  Enthusiasm wasn't part of my consideration.  I was simply trying to address that your 4E experience seemed atypical for 4E combat.  In a standard encounter you would have a defender tanking, a striker damaging, a controller messing with the opposition, and a leader providing support.  In a way you could argue that 4E only has those 4 classes and the D&D names are the first layer of options for those 4 classes, but that's better a separate topic.  If you were to only have three players you could lose the striker, but overall the 4E system really wants some variation of the classic fighter/wizard/thief/cleric adventuring group.  A single paladin with no charisma bonus but charisma based powers waltzing through encounters solo is just... a unique way of approaching the system. 

[Sylverthorne]

Mrehhhh... I really don't like the four-part party concept; never have. Having a guy run the 'four food groups' theory into the ground didn't make me like it better. Either side of the screen, I prefer six-person parties, with the Anvil/Hammer/Arm party theory in play... less game down time and more space for interpretation. My preference, allowances for others cheerfully made.

 

3 minutes ago, Auberon said:

 

Ah, sorry it came across like that but that wasn't my intent.  Enthusiasm wasn't part of my consideration.  I was simply trying to address that your 4E experience seemed atypical for 4E combat.  In a standard encounter you would have a defender tanking, a striker damaging, a controller messing with the opposition, and a leader providing support.  In a way you could argue that 4E only has those 4 classes and the D&D names are the first layer of options for those 4 classes, but that's better a separate topic.  If you were to only have three players you could lose the striker, but overall the 4E system really wants some variation of the classic fighter/wizard/thief/cleric adventuring group.  A single paladin with no charisma bonus but charisma based powers waltzing through encounters solo is just... a unique way of approaching the system. 

 

The paladin was just an example of poorly built premades; I don't /think/ she was specifically built for 4e. I'm not sure what she was built for, but it wasn't being a functional paladin. :/ (although at least she was functional in the sense that she wasn't dangling 30' in the air over a vat of boiling hand- wait. derailing. Loading..) It was a while ago. I saved the concept. I might still have the sheet around here somewhere, but the concept is what survived. I see a lot of very ... let us say, very interesting premade characters, and very few of them are what I would term useful, although very few had that level of Interesting. :/

 

The premade character I recall playing with who was built for 4e was a rogue, and I admit, she was fun (give me d8s for SA damage ALL THE TIME!), but she had other issues. I think I still have the sheet somewhere... um.. *eyes file* .. it might be pretty well buried. The only thing that stuck - and remember, my recall may be faulty here - she still had a lot more solo potential than I really thought she needed (... I am a rogue. Why do I have the ability to heal myself and others that isn't a potion/scroll/wand? Why is this BAKED IN?!). It was just weird for me, and felt like I was playing an MMO, rather than an RPG. They may have changed that, that may have been a table rule ... I haven't been keeping up with the system.