General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Players who roll intimidate checks against Chuck Norris have to rip up their character sheets. No save.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
Players who roll intimidate checks against Chuck Norris have to rip up their character sheets. No save.
True. Any attempt to intimidate Chuck Norris provokes an immediate Ranged Roundhouse Kick of Opportunity, line of sight not required. Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks hit on any rolled positive integer and do infinite damage.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Can Chuck Norris create a DC so high, even he cannot beat it?
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Oh, I certainly don't play 4e regularly. I've leafed through someone else's copy of the rules, and I remember how I felt about them--nonplussed and confused that this was somehow "D&D".
I've tried not to rant, and I've tried to use lots of first person language to emphasize this is how *I* feel.
I'm not being judgmental about 4e players.
But for me, this game they play (regardless of its name) does not resemble what I understand by "D&D".
I certainly won't argue 1E feel with you - your excellent OSRIC definitely proves you "get" it. I'm certain you wouldn't have gained so much insight into the "soul" of the game without extensive play experience, and I'm sure you'd agree a cursory glance through the 1E books would not have given you that experience.
Suffice to say, I certainly wouldn't have thought 4E would offer this kind of experience back when the first previews started leaking. Also, I could certainly pull dozens of things out of the books that are emphatically not old-school in any way shape or form.
But there is something during 4E gameplay that takes me back to those glory days of the early eighties. Something that not even the marvelously old-school 3.5 mods from Necro and Goodman were able to capture as thoroughly, so I can only assume that the designers got something right. At least for me and many others.
__________________ "There are few problems a well-placed fireball cannot solve. Now, tell us more about this... orphanage?" - Balfour Grimstaff
----------
Your observations, of course, are all accurate. However, I find them to be superficial, such that they do not make the game play feel like 1e in the slightest. I just don't see how movement in inches, or exactly which book a weapon comes from, is meaningful in terms of game feel.
The at-will/encounter/daily powers mechanics, the detailed reliance on positioning and movement, the balance of classes - all of these steer the game far, far away from having a 1e feel for me and my group.
YMMV, of course.
Now, this I can agree with. I've played 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, and 4th edition. I played 1e a few times, but I don't remember much about it. I do know that 4e absolutely doesn't play at all like 2nd edition, 3.0, or 3.5. I find it very difficult to believe that it plays at all like 1e either. It shares most in common with 3.0/3.5 (feats, d20 mechanic, skills, etc.) and it still has a completely different feel. I don't see how monsters lasting a few round longer (more like 8-10 rounds longer in 4E) or resting in between fights (We did that in 3.0/3.5 too. That's where the CLW wands got a lot of use.) or counting in "inches" makes 4E feel like 1E. I know this is really subjective, but I begin to wonder if people aren't seeing what they want to see regarding the similarities between these two vastly different systems.
In 1E, unless spells were involved, you just could not take down opponents over 1 or 2 hit dice in one shot. If you faced a roomful of hill giants, it was going to take anywhere from 4 to 8 hits (more likely around 8) to bring one down.
...
In 3E, you have martial types able to do anywhere from 10 to 20 damage even at first level (for those big barbarians with the greataxes) to literally a hundred points of damage in a round, with their bonuses stacked high enough to ensure almost every attack was a hit.
Here's the thing I see...
In 1e, you didn't have all that many choices you could make to optimize a character. You had stats, a race, a class, maybe spell choices, and that's about it. In 3e, you have more opportunities for optimization - but you only see the effect you're talking about if the players take them. In the groups I worked with, folks rarely took much care about optimization, and didn't work much on the rules-mastery required to get those massive damage numbers.
So, my 3e fights didn't vary all that much from 1e fights, in that regard.
Quote:
In regard to tactics in 1E, if one played by the rules in the DMG, actively tried to decipher them and put them to use, or looked at some of their precursors in Chainmail, there was a tactical element to them.
The difference being that in 1e, those rules were easily (and IME, generally) ignored, while in 4e they are more strongly written into the individual powers of the characters, such that you actually have to do extra work if you want to ignore them but still remain fair.
I would not be surprised if the way most folks felt 1e "naturally" played was without many of the tactical elements.
I've never played 1e, but I've played plenty of 2e and 4e seems to me much closer to its "spirit" than 3.x: cookie-cutter classes, oversimplified skills, PCs following different rules than the rest of the world...
And that's why I prefer 3.x to 4e. So yes, being "old-school" can be bad.
Or really great All those things you pointed out as bad, are things I'm glad are back in the game :shrug:
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
Or really great All those things you pointed out as bad, are things I'm glad are back in the game :shrug:
And that's why we all should be glad there're different editions of the game and nobody forces us to play one or another
Seriously, although I'm not much of a 4e fan, I find very positive that it's out and that it's not "3.75". Different games (and I think BD&D, AD&D, 3.x and 4e are different enough to be called "different games" rather than "different editions") mean more variety from where to choose your favourite flavour. And not just the flavour for you, but the flavour for your current mood. Myself, I'm sometimes in the mood for a BD&D game, sometimes I want to continue my Rise of the Runelords campaign, and sometimes I want to run an über-HeroQuest game using 4e. And if there were just one edition, two of my 3 possible moods would end up in frustration.
The MM gives advice on different monsters reflecting which ones tend to run away from a tough fight, or which ones will keep going to the death. This excerpt gives good examples:
"A hill giant is wise enough to flee if hopelessly outmatched."
OK, that right there is a big change from how I see 'em!
The average Hill Giant should have slightly more wisdom than my shoe, while about matching said shoe for intelligence. I can see Hill Giants either running for the horizon at the first hint of pain, or lashing out at whatever it is that's hurting them...a basic fight-or-flee impulse. They're not smart enough to figure out if the battle's winnable or not until after they've either won or lost.
Now higher-order Giants e.g. Frosties I can see as smart/wise enough to be able to weigh the odds going in and re-weigh them during the fight; and make halfway useful decisions based on such. But not Hills!
And that's why we all should be glad there're different editions of the game and nobody forces us to play one or another
Agreed Plus, the EnWorld forums would likely wither away and die if the 4E Vs. 3E threads were no longer needed...what else would we talk about?
I didn't mean for my comment to sound confrontational- was just saying those were things I am glad are back in the game. Totally understand and respect your point/s as well.
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
[quote=JeffB;4528561
I didn't mean for my comment to sound confrontational- was just saying those were things I am glad are back in the game. Totally understand and respect your point/s as well.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't confrontational at all, don't worry
I was just trying to state that "old school" is neither a good nor a bad quality, just a feature that may appeal or not.
Although I think we should flame a little more... Agreeing in something is not well looked upon here
I was just trying to state that "old school" is neither a good nor a bad quality, just a feature that may appeal or not.
Although I think we should flame a little more... Agreeing in something is not well looked upon here
You are completely wrong, and I will soon post several links to prove it. Flame flame argue bicker flame.
Feel better?
__________________ "There are few problems a well-placed fireball cannot solve. Now, tell us more about this... orphanage?" - Balfour Grimstaff
----------
You are completely wrong, and I will soon post several links to prove it. Flame flame argue bicker flame.
Feel better?
Much, appreciated, tha... I mean, What are you suggesting? Saying that I'm wrong, as if I were a school kid who failed to do his homework! Oh, I feel so insulted!
Agreeing on an internet forum will eventually lead to dividing by 0. According to my Calculus professor in college, that's an invitation for Satan to come out of the ground.
I've leafed through someone else's copy of the rules, and I remember how I felt about them--nonplussed and confused that this was somehow "D&D".
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
