Why we chose not to go to 4e D&D

12

Comments

  • VegasDM
    VegasDM
    Posts: 14
    I'm a recent convert to 4E and I had the same problems with it that I had with 3E and 3.5E. It seemed like a lot of combat, and I usually play wizards or diplomatic characters in RPGs. However, once I got into it, it just seemed like any other system. In truth, there were never any real rules for role-play elements to begin with, but now there were lots more rules for combat. I believe I was first put off by it because I thought it focused primarily on combat, when in fact it simply made the most complicated part of the game, combat, more streamlined and balanced. It didn't take away any of the other aspects of the game that made it fun.

    In any case, 4E has its problems just like every other edition. Luckily, when I'm sitting behind my DM screen I have a foolproof DM tool that I employ liberally to fix the game and make it awesome. I'll give this to you free of charge, and ask only that you take a look at (and hopefully 5-star!) my campaign: "Shadows of the Dragon God":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/shadowsofthedragongod . Now, this is a very specialized tool and very difficult to use, but you're smart people and I'm sure you'll learn to use it properly. Ready? Here it is:

    I cheat.
  • Hardhead
    Hardhead
    Posts: 65 edited May 2010
    The more I've played 4e, the more I've liked it. Here are a couple reasons I think it's nice.

    *Encounter Powers:* Restructuring the vast majority of powers to work either at-will or per-encounter is great. D&D is a role-playing game, and having powers recharge based on narrative structure rather than in-game time is awesome. I just wish they'd gone farther and made "Dalies" "Per-Story" powers.

    *At-Will Powers:* You always have something interesting to do.

    *A Deep Combat System:* I love RP. I also love tactical combat, though, and when combat breaks out, I enjoy the tactical options the game provides.

    *More Open RP:* I know this is a sticking point for some people, but I find the excising of non-essential skills and feats to be a good thing. I have a player who wants to have been raised as a seamstress in my campaign. Looking at her sheet when she made her character, she said "Don't I need to get my Craft up to be able to sew?" I explained to her that RP aspects like that could just be handled by DM fiat. Your background says you can sew? Done! No need to waste skill points on Craft. This actually helps RPers compared to powergamers, since the RPers don't end up "wasting" choices on RP that they could use to optimize their characters better.

    *Better Balance:* A good DM can make sure the game stays balanced regardless, and don't get me wrong, 4e has problems, but it's /more/ balanced out of the box than previous editions.

    Now, it has issues too. The Ritual system really feels tacked on, and makes me miss some of the "weird utility" spells wizards used to have access to. The multiclass system is pretty much nonexistent, though I have mixed feelings about that since it was multiclassing that caused most of the abuse in 3e (witness 4e's attempt to truly multiclass, the Hybrid system, which is ridiculously abusable and the book even says it's not particularly balanced). But overall, it's a good system and certainly has it's strong point.
    Post edited by Hardhead on
  • sandman
    sandman
    Posts: 155 edited May 2010
    bq). Now, it has issues too. The Ritual system really feels tacked on, and makes me miss some of the
    Post edited by sandman on
  • jemmasmum
    Posts: 33
    @ hardhead- "More Open RP: I know this is a sticking point for some people, but I find the excising of non-essential skills and feats to be a good thing. I have a player who wants to have been raised as a seamstress in my campaign. Looking at her sheet when she made her character, she said
  • gaaran
    gaaran
    Posts: 740
    Ok, so I actually made the mistake of reading most of this post, which means that I owe it to myself to post something.

    That something is, in reference to like the 40th post on the list or something by Invictus where he said something to the effect that ALL character options should be available and perfectly balanced for a game system to be "worthwhile." I for one would really like to play this game system. I just imagine a party with a blue-skinned viking, the chick with three boobs from total recall, a purple headed people eater, and a psyduck. They would all be able to go toe to toe in an epic conflict involving expert mimeing, successfully putting a plastic bag over your head without suffocating, and tap dancing. That would be epic, and I want to play this game now.

    Seriously though, the original spirit of the thread (based on the title) seemed to have gotten very lost there for a while. Onsilius doesn't like 4e. Okay, that's fine. He tells us WHY he doesn't like 4e, again, that's fine. When someone speaks up and says that they like 4e, they get told they're "wrong." That doesn't make sense to me. I like peanut butter. How could someone tell me I'm "wrong." Maybe I can't explain WHY I like peanut butter, but that doesn't change the fact that i do. And maybe if someone were to introduce to me another spread that I tried and like, say nutella, I would switch and spread that on my toast instead. Still doesn't mean I don't like peanut butter. So this is getting really analogy heavy, but I felt I had to say something after reading 80 posts about people telling other people that they're opinions were wrong, and then countering with no, you're opinion is invalid because you failed to convince me to change MY opinion.

    Also, kudos to arsheesh, hardhead, jim and the other recent posts that seem to have gotten this back on to a more productive train of thought, "The things that you like or dislike about 4th edition and why."

    I'm sure I'll get told that I'm "wrong" about all this, but after reading all that I had to post something.
  • JimTriche
    JimTriche
    Posts: 483 edited May 2010
    bq. I
    Post edited by JimTriche on
  • gaaran
    gaaran
    Posts: 740
    Thank you Jim *tips hat*
  • jemmasmum
    Posts: 33
    lol I agree gaaran
  • Hardhead
    Hardhead
    Posts: 65 edited May 2010
    Thanks. Rereading over the thread there are two complaints I see a lot of that I just don't understand at all, and I hope some other people can explain to me.

    *Complaint #1: Too Much Combat*

    There are several variations of "4E is too combat heavy." I just really don't get this. Now, maybe the official adventures are very combat heavy, but I run homebrew so I wouldn't know on that one. But... how can the system itself be too combat heavy? I mean, I don't need rules for when my players go talk to the Duke and convince him that the murdered the Bishop because he was evil, and they really shouldn't be executed. I mean, a Diplomacy roll every now and then is about the extent of what I want to see in that. In fact, I don't *want* rolls to determine those kinds of outcomes. I want roleplaying to determine what happens there. The only reason I need a system at all is for combat resolution, y'know?

    I see any RPG as basically breaking down into "combat time" when the books and dice come out, and "roleplaying time" where there *may* be some Diplomacy or Intimidate checks every now and then, but most of it is just freeform talking to NPCs and whatnot. The system doesn't really factor into this time, no matter what game I'm playing/running. Am I missing something here? Is it just the adventures WotC has put out are dungeon-crawl combat heavy?


    *Complaint #2: Too WoWish*

    This is the other big one. Now, obviously, the big thing here is that martial characters (Fighters, Rogues, etc) have abilities structures similarly to spells. But other than that, I don't see any real similarities. I mean, D&D still seems like a Roleplaying game to me, and the abilities refresh on a narrative-based timeframe (encounters, rather than minutes or seconds). That's actually different from both WoW *and* 3e. In fact, it reminds me a bit of WoD, where encounters care more about "scenes" (read: encounters) than minutes. And, well, I guess I don't see the big deal in giving martial characters cool powers. Or is there something more I'm missing here?
    Post edited by Hardhead on
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850 edited April 2011
    Given the (once?) heated nature of this topic, and some of the virulent rhetoric used in this very discussion, one might question the wisdom of necroposting in this thread. But I recently discovered a few critiques on the matter that I thought rose above the pettiness typical of the the 3x vs 4e debates, and actually presented some fairly decent insights. So, at the risk of reopening old wounds I thought I'd share these critiques here:

    h3. Positive Review of 4th Edition:

    * "Esper's Review: Part 1":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGg6_-RTckM
    * "Esper's Review: Part 2":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI3QobAmEU&feature=related
    * "Esper's Review: Part 3":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtOoScy83HI&feature=related

    h3. Negative Review of 4th Edition:

    * "Justin's Review: Playtesting 4th Edition":http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html
    * "Justin's Review: Pathfinder vs 4th Edition":http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2734/roleplaying-games/pathfinder-vs-4th-edition-grrr

    Wherever you stand on this issue, you might find some good insights worth considering in both of these sets of reviews.

    Cheers,
    -Arsheesh
    Post edited by arsheesh on
  • Chriseagle5782152
    Posts: 2
    Well if nothing else Invictus has convinced me without a doubt that 4E is the system for me. Anyone using so many circular arguements to prove thier point only convinces me that thier wrong. Thanks for the retorhic though, it was a good laugh if nothing else.
  • Duskreign
    Duskreign
    Posts: 1,085
    There have been a lot of intelligent thoughts shared by the people who took part in these discussions, but the general tone has been a bit too vitriolic for this to be considered a healthy debate. It is argument for argument's sake. Plus, honestly, what is at stake, here? What is there to be gained in continuing this discussion. If you don't like 4th edition, don't play it. If you like it, play it. I don't see why this has to be so complicated. How does it benefit anyone to insult people who simply like a different friggin game than you do? Rise above these petty arguments, roll some dice, and have fun. It's just a hobby, for Pete's sake.

    This whole thread is just a troll battle waiting to happen. And, like all D&D edition debates, this thread is as old as the hills. I think. for civility's sake, we should allow this meandering, pointless disagreement to fade gracefully away.
  • Dra8er
    Dra8er
    Posts: 30
    \m/ CHESS RULEZZZ!!! \m/
  • onsilius
    onsilius
    Posts: 50
    Wow, back after a year, and this starts up. I read the Justin review, and if he hadn't written it a year before I started this thread, I would have thought he had ripped off my posts. :)

    Some interesting perspectives. It's been fun reading both sides even though I'm on the Basic/3.X side of the debate.

    Duskreign, forums are for discussing whatever you want, in this case RPGs, or in this thread more specifically the versions of D&D. I don't support vitriolic shouting, but neither do I approve of people who post to condemn a thread and its continued discussion. If people have more to say about the versions of D&D they like or dislike, this is the thread in which to do it. Participation is voluntary. I agree with keeping the tone civil but not with silencing discussion.

    Thanks!
  • Duskreign
    Duskreign
    Posts: 1,085 edited April 2011
    Point taken. I apologize, and I'll stay out of your way. Flame on, folks! Complaint/attack thread, ho! :D
    Post edited by Duskreign on
  • kyuss11
    kyuss11
    Posts: 1
    D&D..hmph..What version? Whats best? Let me see after reading almost all of these responses,I would say you are all right.Everyone here had the fire to type what you thought mattered most,and that is you,that is you understanding of dnd,that is why you still play the game.The world of fantasy is ever changing in the eyes of the coming generations and whether we like it or not,if they didn't care or like there versions than dnd would disappear.In my opinion try out other styles,find dms that have played 2e or 3.5 and 4e,and open your mind to how much the game has changed,or in a different perspective what you can get to make your game better.I have played all of them for that simple reason that I don't want to be left behind or after playing a 100 or so campaigns from adnd to 4e,I wanted to see what I could integrate in my game.I will say that older dms have had a ownership of there character if you will style to "role playing",however you can still do this in 4e.What I mean by ownership is that players had to role play that new at-will power with a bit of explanation detail,just enough to give that spark of vision,sound,smell.These are what you need to give a great remembering game.Adnd and 2e had a lot more time to encompass these since the battles were simpler,however they could be captured like a picture,with all the unique powers and creative movements,such as in one of my games a thief would climb a tree during rest at the campsite.Baffled we were always trying to find ways to find a answer.Until one day the dm allowed his new attack ability,not known to us until we saw it of course,but it was magical to see this thief climb this Ettin as he did the tree with a few dex checks,mind you he had a high number and actually try and do a called shot to the head for extra damage,it was funny,different,exciting,and proud that he was with us lol,but this whole time the player had earned this ability.That being said I bring this to my games of 4e as well by having players make goals and adjusting there already powers.One thing I realized with all my years playing and dming is, the game is only as good as the dm,however the dm is only as good as the players.Basically what I mean is teach your players to play outside the box,let them try stuff and WING IT.Players try and imagine what those 4e powers really would encompass you before to have had learned or be.If you can detail your character with info like that than you have already opened your experience and that your character isn't just another DDI character builder print out.Don't worry I'm not just going to beat up 4e.Dms from before 4e,listen closely for the "Winds are a changin,Lloth is about to come from the underdark and you know the combats about to get heavy,Drizzt is going to be needin those daily powers..."ok my point is try some not everything but just a few things that can bring some combat refreshing.One thing 4e did very well in my opinion is the diseases.They have a scale from cured to completely infected and it progresses or gets better on each day,which seems more realistic than having a healer cure you all the time.I could say a lot more but my fingers are sore,so if anyone responds and wants or has any questions,I will go from there until then have fun at what you do and don't be afraid of creating your own game.
  • Familiar_Raven
    Familiar_Raven
    Posts: 2
    This is the way I see it.

    I don't know who decided it, but Invictus seems to have the idea that a role playing system should be perfect.

    I don't disagree.

    A perfect role playing system would be, well *cough cough* perfect. However, due to the imperfections of the human mind, no RP system will ever be.

    What does this mean? Certain RP systems will focus on certain aspects. For instance, GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) is a system that focuses mainly on being easy-to-use, and universal, fitting different kinds of genres. For instance, there are many supplements for GURPS for martial arts, fantasy, horror, science fiction, etc. However, because GURPS is (theoretically) easy-to-use, this keeps the system from being perfectly realistic. In reality, life isn't simply a few rules. A "REAL-LIFE" RP system would be a HUGE rulebook. Thus, GURPS is limited in this way.

    Does this keep GURPS from being good, wholesome entertainment for those who play? No.

    Why not? Because the people who play GURPS enjoy the system. Sure, it might not be a perfect system. My friend detested the magic system as outlined in 4th edition Basic Set of GURPS and wrote his own. Does this mean GURPS is either unplayable or ought not be played? No. The people who choose to play it, do so because they want to play a game that is easy-to-play, and the rules can apply to many different genres. This makes it so the players do not have to learn a new system for a science fiction campaign versus a fantasy campaign.

    GURPS is far from perfect. But I choose to play it because I want to play an easy, generic/universal game. If I wanted to play a combat heavy hack-and-slash, I would play D&D 4th ed.

    {Cool Transition}

    D&D 4th ed. is not played because it is the crowning achievement of RP systems. Like GURPS, it is far from perfect. But, if I want to play a combat heavy RP, I can play 4th. Sure, it might be a lot like WoW.

    So?

    I can honestly say that I don't care what the authors or publishers say (e.g. "Dumbledore's gay" -Rowling). What's written in the rulebooks is what truly matters. Nowhere in the rulebooks does it say that 4th is perfect, nor that anyone should play it over 3rd, or 2nd, or even 1st. It's gamers' preference. If I want to figure out how many ways I can strip an ancient white dragon of its life, I would pick up 4th in a heartbeat. If I want to play conflict over combat, I would probably ask what system Invictus uses. (By the way, I actually am curious, what system do you use?)

    I would also like to add that, as Invictus said, "It's frustrating to hear someone link the two together; gaming and a game system are not the same thing. One is a bunch of folk having a good time socializing and playing an awesome version of pretend and the other is the guidelines everyone agrees to adhere to adjucate the game."

    I agree with Invictus. However, 'choosing the guidelines that everyone agrees to adhere to adjucate the game' is very important, something to which I think we can all agree. And if I want to hack-and-slash using 4th, not only is that my and my groups preference, but my group and I choose the system because we only want to choose from that 5% of playable characters. If we wanted something more realistic or conflict-oriented, we would use a different system. It's not unlike 'being in the mood' for a certain kind of movie.

    So, I conclude that people should try to find a RP system that best suits them, their group, their style, and what they feel like playing.

    In a final note, however, we are all adults on this forum. No one needs to call someone else or their argument 'childish' or the like, but no one should be casually calling others 'trolls'. Lets be mature, humane, and have a good discussion, which is something that will not endure name-calling. As we can tell, that only got us to be angry towards one another. No one here was 'bashing' 4th, they were only saying that it lacks what they desire in a RP system. However, I understand where Triptych is coming from, since on other forums I have witnessed this 'bashing'. We are all civilized human beings, and although nothing is keeping us from doing so, good manners, open minds, and good discussion can lead us to truth and a better understanding of role playing.

    Thanks to all who read this entire chunk. xD
  • Familiar_Raven
    Familiar_Raven
    Posts: 2
    @Invictus

    I looked at your campaigns, and all of them are played in the C.A.S.T.E. system.

    Now, don't get me wrong, using the same system for multiple games is nowhere near wrong.

    However, do you think the C.A.S.T.E. system is perfect? If not, then why do you get mad at Triptych for playing a game, D&D 4th ed., that so obviously has restrictions?

    And if your system is perfect, then why didn't you tell us about it a long time ago? Hell, I'll play it if you say it's perfect, really. I don't know what genius came up with it, but in order to make a perfect system, you gotta be AMAZING.

    So no, I don't think your system is perfect. Which would mean that it somehow restricts playability. Which is exactly what you don't like about D&D 4th. So...

    In the case that I am wrong somewhere, I apologize. I also apologize if you take this the wrong way; I am attacking neither you nor the C.A.S.T.E. system. I am merely trying to prove my point, and trying very hard to not make it at your own expense.

    My point is, no system is perfect, but we choose certain systems over others because we like what that system focuses on. For C.A.S.T.E., it falls partly under being generic and universal, not unlike GURPS. For D&D 4th ed., it falls more under being combat heavy, or hack-and-slash. Nobody is wrong for playing D&D 4th, since that is their preference and they feel like playing a campaign where they are a huge ass half-orc barbarian that is amazing at slaying even larger monsters -- and not really good at anything else. And, of course, the DM is free to interpret the rules as he or she sees fit. So, there could be a pacifistic cleric who deals with conflict over combat a lot of the time. Is D&D 4th ed. the best at this particular role playing? Not necessarily. Does it matter? Not really. It might be like a MMORPG, but if it's the system that my friends and I feel like using, is that wrong?

    Feel free to leave interesting or creative responses, -- BELOW.

    I am Raven, and I approve this message xD
  • Cruelnicorn
    Cruelnicorn
    Posts: 5
    I have only played 4e at tournaments so i feel i cannot make an accurate judgement- as this is not true RPGing in my book. But i will say the smell of WOW was overwhelming. I still stick with the 1st ed. It is endless and adequate enough. But i would like to point out one difference that glares above others- my brother plays a 4e campaign that started the same time as the new 1e i run, and they are 12-14th level now after 1.5 years, and
    my players are 3-4th after 1.5 years. Guess i dont have too much of a point there, as this is no accurate display of the editions, but it's interesting. Still dont understand why there isnt a AD&D choice on Obsidian tho...
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850 edited June 2011
    Hey there Cruelnicorn, just like to point out for you that there is an AD&D option here at the Portal, both for 1.0e and 2.0e. The 2.0e is filed under "AD&D 2.0":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns?campaign_filters whereas the 1.0e is filed under "D&D 1.0":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns?campaign_filters. You can find these categories by scrolling through the "systems" category on the right-hand side of the the "Campaigns" tab of the Portal.
    Post edited by arsheesh on
  • Cruelnicorn
    Cruelnicorn
    Posts: 5
    Thanks Arsheesh but i was looking for a way to distinguish between Basic and Advanced D&D (or OD&D and AD&D). I believe there are Od&d players that hated Ad&d as much as 3.5 players the 4th...
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850
    True, an OD&D category would probably be helpful. Course then so also would a BECMI category, since it's neither OD&D nor AD&D.
  • Goliath1989
    Goliath1989
    Posts: 2
    I just sat here and read this whole thread, and honestly, I loved every minute of it. I laughed, I cried, at some points I lost faith in humanity...What more could I ask for in an insomnia-fueled Friday night forum crawl?

    I started D&D with 4e, and personally, I love it. Since I first got into the game, after 4e had already been out for a while, I still always find people having this exact same argument. It's real simple people: Play the system you like. That's all there is to it. I like playing 4e, I hate playing WoD. Do I go around crying and moaning and trying to convince WoD players that their game is garbage and they should be playing 4e D&D instead? No, I just let them enjoy their WoD game and I sit back and play my 4e. At the end of the night, when everything is said and done, we all head over to Deny's and have some pancakes.
  • BrokenClock
    BrokenClock
    Posts: 51
    Why we choose to go to 4e D&D: It's more fun.

    -Broken
  • TheLetterM
    TheLetterM
    Posts: 1
    ...because I already have a small fortune invested in Pathfinder Books. Considering I'm a bit of a newb to table-top RPGs, I'm quite happy with the Pathfinder experience so far.
  • DamienMaster
    DamienMaster
    Posts: 34
    I play a lot of differnt systems including D&D and historically I have always moved forward with the editions form Basic, through AD&D and 2nd Ed to 3, and 3.5 and finally 4E... And this is the first time I'll be moving backwards (something I have previoulsy been derisive of)

    Don't get me wrong, 4E is actually a great game, it's just not the right game for me and my group.

    I think it's perfect for a casual game, the ease with which you can generate any level charcter and jump straight into the action is awesome. It's also GREAT for the DM, I found it a lot simpler to design and run a game and I love the way they now handle monsters (except solos and the baffling lack of MM fluff and physical descriptions). In fact there's long list of things I think 4E improved over previous editions (grappling anyone?)

    BUT... I also think it makes every class and race too generic. I played over half a dozen differnt class and race combos at differnt levels and never really hooked into an identity. I didn't feel like a Bard or a Druid, or an Elf or a Gnome, I felt like a tactician with a deck of cards.

    Looking back at 3E I realised how so many minor (even arbitrary) abilities and characteristics inherent to the 3E races and classes helped 'round out' your character. I always felt very clear who each player was, what their role was and importantly, who their character was.

    I actually wish that 4E looked more like Star Wars Saga Edition! I didn't think much of Saga for SW but I thought it was perfect for D&D!

    In conlcusion, i don't think 4E is not 'worse' or 'broken' (quite the opposite) it's just a differnt to what I think of when i wnat to sit down and play D&D. I will check out every next edition of D&D that comes along and I DO think that Pathfinder cleans up a lot of the mess of 3E; so i guess when I'm done with my current D6 Star Wars game (and maybe a session of Deadlands and 40KDH) it will be off to the Paizo site for my fantasy fix...
  • arsheesh
    arsheesh
    Posts: 850
    That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter as well. Nice succinct critique Damien.

    Cheers,
    -Arsheesh
  • Xttapalotakettle
    Xttapalotakettle
    Posts: 2
    I don't need a rulebook to roleplay. I need a rulebook to adjudicate mechanical aspects of a game so that the players and myself are on the same page. If you need a specific sort of "system" to roleplay, then you're doing it wrong. 4th Edition has combat rules. Awesome, I'm glad that's what it is. I can design my own worlds, my own story, and have lots of fun just roleplaying. If I need combat rules, they're there. If I don't, I don't need to crack open a book. Simple.

    I've played Dungeons and Dragons since 1st Edition. I just retired a 2nd Edition campaign because I was tired of the clunky combat and bored players who just waited around to level. It was fun for a long time, but we have moved on to 4th Edition. They enjoy the roleplaying JUST AS MUCH as they did in 2nd Edition, but now they enjoy the COMBAT a lot more because it's not just a simple "What's its AC? My thac0 is this" over and over and over and over and over. We have people playing fighters again instead of triple-classing just so they have something to do other than swing a sword when there is combat. All my players are old schoolers; none of them played MMOs. None of them have any clue between the similarities that exist. What they do know is that combat isn't just a break in the RP action, combat is *part* of the action again. The story is just as strong. The RP is just as immersive. And frankly, they kind of enjoy the skill challenge element in there because they don't feel I'm just arbitrarily railroading the action anymore regardless of their actions in role-playing. They feel like they have more control in the world around them and my job as a DM is made a heck of a lot easier.

    We all win, we all have a good time, and the only thing that has changed are some of the mechanics which had nothing really to do with the roleplaying aspect of the game anyway.

    I'm sold on 4th edition.
  • Baalshamon
    Baalshamon
    Posts: 585
    I grew up on D&D and AD&D 1st ed. I loved the games as a kid but quickly out grew them because of all the problems associated with any class based system as opposed to a skill based system. Still I bought 2nd ed, 3rd ed, 3.5, and now 4th because they still offer good source material and are occassionally fun to go back to. My biggest problem with 4th ed is that it feels more like an enhanced version of warhammer more than a role playing game. Earlier editions of AD&D helped push the players to be role players. Sure you have the hack and slash crowd who just Roll "the dice" play but mor eoften than not the groups I have seen got into the characters, who they were, where they came from, what motivated them, etc. Today's version is only about the combat and little else. It is a sad regression and is destroying what role playing really is. I kind of view the 4th ed rules the same way as I look at Magic the Gathering. A fun game but a far cry from real role playing.

    So for all of you who love the dungeon crawl hack and slash, more power to ya. While I enjoy such a game from time to time, I would much rather have drama, intrigue, and adventure full of romance. Today I only run dungeon crawls for my grandkids.

    "Star Trek Late Night":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/star-trek-late-night
  • Morrinn
    Morrinn
    Posts: 166
    Its weird to think I'm a bit of an old hand at this. I still feel like I'm a newbie to most tabletop rpg's, but in truth, I have been playing for over 15 years. My how time flies when you are having fun! And isnt that what matters really boil down to?

    My two cents (or coppers, or dragons or what have you)

    Every time a new edition came out I really *wanted' to hate the new system. I'd go on tirades, not entirely unlike some we've seen in this thread, and I'd tell everyone I met to avoid and discard the new game/setting/edition.

    I'm not entirely sure why. I guess maybe because I didn't like the publishers (Defending WotC tends to leave the taste of copper in my mouth for days) But then again I *did' enjoy their older stuff or previous editions, so that can't really be it, no matter how much I tried to convince myself that, 'Hey it was good then, but now they've, like, totally changed maaan!!'

    Most likely it was because I'd spent so much time learning the old mechanics, bought all the books, submerged myself in the system, that when presented with a new system, I avoided it because it was unfamiliar and because looking over towering stacks of splashbooks and compendiums often make me think 'money wasted'.

    But what this argument really boils down to is how to critique a game system. Like many have said already, it's all a matter of taste. If you and your party really function well with a system and have fun with it, the system has done it's job. Doesn't matter if other people think your preferences are dodgy.
    Who are they to judge how much you are enjoying yourself.

    It doesn't matter if it's 3.5, GURPS, 4E, Hackmaster, or (god help us) F.A.T.A.L
    If you and your party are enjoying yourselves, the system is a success.

    Of course you can try and detach yourself and value a system based on certain criteria of what you think a game AUGHT to be. Be it player balance, statistical balances, real world emulation, time consumption and rolls required to accomplish the simplest of tasks...
    Your criteria can be whatever you feel broadly strokes the outlines of a good rpg, but I think that how much a player enjoys the game ultimately trumps all foreign criteria on what makes a game good.

    tl;dr
    Don't like it? Don't Play it!
Sign In or Register to comment.

March 2024
Wrath of the Highborn

Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions