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.
[quote=justanobody;4533040]
The problem is the fighter should not even know, nay no one should; that they are in need of healing.[/quiote]
Ah. You see, I expect many of us hold the opposite opinion. The fighter is a specialist in combat. Hitting and getting hit is what he does for a living. If there's anyone who should know exactly how much he's got left in reserves, it'd be the fighter. Because if he doesn't know that, he can't apply decent tactics, and if he cannot do that, he's dead.
Though, honestly, anyone who gets into a fight regularly - meaning all the PCs in a typical D&D game - ought to have a clue. Heck, in the real world I only put on armor and whack people with sticks occasionally, but I know when I'm getting too wiped out to keep going.
I'm very disheartened, though, to find that when I say "4e feels oldschool" your response is, "No, you're either fooling yourself or lying."
I guess you should just get used to having any attempt to discuss 4e with other 4e players be dismissed by a certain group of posters as "mouth noise" and the game then attacked as a "greedy marketing ploy" and a "boardgame' and any opinion to the contrary being dismissed as "delusional".
For the record, I agree with you that 4e has a very old school feel to it. I think its directly tied to the DM freedom that is built into the system, that and the re-emergence of class as a central component of character, rather than just a suite of abilities to be chosen at level up. The emphasis is back on leveling within a class as opposed to applying classes to your levels. I think that is a big source of the disconnect for some players, as well. I could see how 4e would feel more constricting to long time 3e players (especially those who started with 3e) with its old school emphasis on class choice.
I guess you should just get used to having any attempt to discuss 4e with other 4e players be dismissed by a certain group of posters as "mouth noise" and the game then attacked as a "greedy marketing ploy" and a "boardgame' and any opinion to the contrary being dismissed as "delusional".
For the record, I agree with you that 4e has a very old school feel to it. I think its directly tied to the DM freedom that is built into the system, that and the re-emergence of class as a central component of character, rather than just a suite of abilities to be chosen at level up. The emphasis is back on leveling within a class as opposed to applying classes to your levels. I think that is a big source of the disconnect for some players, as well. I could see how 4e would feel more constricting to long time 3e players (especially those who started with 3e) with its old school emphasis on class choice.
:clapshands:
Excellent post. I have to laugh at a certain overly vocal element here on EnWorld telling me what I feel/the kind of fun I'm having, is "wrong"- I'm delusional, there is no way I could prefer 4E by far over 3E for "old school" style, nor do I know WTF I'm talking about when it comes to "old school" in general, even though I started playing OD&D in the late 70s with the LBBs. You cannot even try to discuss it in a fun/interesting manner among others who feel the same way about 4E without the vocal "I know what you think and feel better than you do" posters beating you down line by line to "prove you wrong".
__________________ 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
Excellent post. I have to laugh at a certain overly vocal element here on EnWorld telling me what I feel/the kind of fun I'm having, is "wrong"
Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
I'm starting up a 4E campaign but was raised on 1E, and therefore DM Fiat is just an accepted--and necessary--part of gaming. As the 4E DMG itself says, the DM's main job is to create an enjoyable experience; if this means bending or breaking the rules, then so be it.
I've been seeing a core idea expressed here on the internet at least as far back as when 3E came out and it barely makes any sense to me at all.
IME "simulationism" was much more then norm in the earlier editions. The idea that people intentionally made 1E vague I think it overstating the reality. Much of the vagueness and reliance on DM-fiat was a result of the evolution of the game and not some intentional design philosophy. IME alternate rule sets like Dragon Magazine, the basic version of DnD etc. were mined by DMs to establish the rule set. In the end, I just don't see the claims that 1E was rules-light in practice as being back up by what I remember FWIW. Consider the wargaming background of many of the parcicipants in the early days.
And when it comes to "breaking rules" I just don't read how 3E or 4E really makes that any more difficult than it was in earlier editions. The example I think of is climbing. Let's say that the rules say that a wall of a certain nature has a climb check DC of 15. What would the circumstances be for "breaking" this rule? You do realize that circumstantial modifiers are part of the rules, right? Using circumstantial modifiers isn't breaking or bending anything. The DM is well within his rights AFAICT to say that walls on Tuesdays are +10 to their DCs - it's his world and his walls. Sure, the players might think that's stupid, but they also might think that elves and orcs banding together in an alliance is stupid. Ultimately the physics of the campaign world is to be determined by the DM, and this is RAW. Nothing in any of the editions contradicts this.
So what's left under the heading of "bending the rules" by the DM are only the most extreme cases of a complete disregard for letting the circumstances dictate the probabilities. And really, I can't actually think of an example that I couldn't come up with circumstance modifiers to justify. The basic philosophy of every edition of DnD was that both players and the DM would roll dice for the outcome, and that the DM would be a "neutral arbiter" and that his judging of the game would involve determining the circumstances surrounding a particular event, and then determine the chance of success/failure based on these circumstances, and that the judging of those circumstances was ideally to be done in a consistent manner (example - if last week I got a +5 for climbing while wearing spiked gauntlets, I should get the same thing this week barring additional circumstances). No edition of DnD IME has ever tried to prevent this basic DMing philosophy.
If the DM is, in fact, creating a more "enjoyable experience" then I would think he wouldn't have much explaining to do about breaking the rules since the players would all agree what an improvement his change would be. If the DMs and all the players at the table think that limiting halflings to 4th level as fighters makes a more enjoyable and old-school experience then IMO that pretty much settles the issue. The DM wouldn't need the official rule set to validate this judgement in this case.
Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.
Well that's not *me* Alan. You know the kind of people around here I'm talking about, and there is a handful of 4E zealots whom are just as bad. When it was the 2E people doing the sniping at the new 3E fans when this website was new, that was NOT tolerated.
I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ) without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".
__________________ 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
Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.
Well that's funny. I mean, I don't ever recall calling any of those badwrongfun, or that people who claimed to enjoy playing that way were either delusional or lying. I understand that some folks did, but I don't understand how it's relevant to my or JeffB's claims at all.
I'm trying to understand your point. Turnabout is fair play? Two wrongs make a right?
Well that's not *me* Alan. You know the kind of people around here I'm talking about, and there is a handful of 4E zealots whom are just as bad.
Oh, I know. And I never said you were. And I apologize if you felt like I was targeting you.
I'm just saying it goes on on both sides. And like you felt assailed, I felt lumped in by characterization.
Quote:
I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ) without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".
Curious: when do you think it got hostile? Because I feel the trend has been towards less hostile over the last month. Could it be just a matter of perception fed by how many people you think agree with you?
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ) without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".
I really don't... I think a broad-range, General RPG forum is good for the site. Yes, it's annoying that every. single. thread. will tend to turn into exactly the same argument after a while, often with the same people making the same points about the same topic. And often far afield from the original post. (As an example: My post here, which relates to the OP not at all.) But that shouldn't overshadow the value.
I think it's great to separate out the various rules forums - that makes them much more useful. However, I don't like the idea of ghetto-izing either 3e-related or 4e-related general RPG discussions.
To me, "old school" doesn't have so much to do with one or another spot rule as with the modules that made the old school: Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors...
If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).
So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.
Oh, I know. And I never said you were. And I apologize if you felt like I was targeting you.
I'm just saying it goes on on both sides. And like you felt assailed, I felt lumped in by characterization.
No worries, you def are not lumped into that "vocal element" I spoke about.
Quote:
Curious: when do you think it got hostile? Because I feel the trend has been towards less hostile over the last month. Could it be just a matter of perception fed by how many people you think agree with you?
What day was 4E announced?
I don't feel it's all that less "hostile" in the past month or so, though I must admit, I tend not to comb through all threads and forums. As for agreement- not that at all. I have no problems with disagreement. Some people genuinely want to discuss or understand or disagree in rational manne, some just peddle the same old bitter "you are wrong" BS argument over and over in each and every thread regardless of whether the post was warranted or not.
:Galdriel Voice: You know of whom I speak
__________________ 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
Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).
You wouldn't have a link handy for this article, would you?
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
To me, the reason 4E feels "old school" is because it captures the same sort of feelings I had for the game when I first cracked open my AD&D PHB. Nostalgia, a general love for the rules, stuff like that. Even though they are two entirely separate set of rules, it just seems to bring out a feeling that I didn't really get with 3/3.5.
If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).
Well, jeez. Someone better tell Mearls it's impossible for him to run his 4e Temple of Elemental Evil game, and remind him that he specifically designed the game to destroy the module he's running!
Quote:
So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.
I think you, too, are falling into the assumption that there's only one definition or set of characteristics that define "old-school" play.
Also, thanks to another poster, I've found that Mearls has started running a "ToEE" campaign. If you look at his blog on Gleemax, you can see how many changes he felt necessary to make in order to adapt it to 4e. Saying it's "loosely based" is an euphemism if I ever saw one.
To me, "old school" doesn't have so much to do with one or another spot rule as with the modules that made the old school: Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors...
If we believe what we have been said by the designers and the marketing guys at WotC, 4e was designed specifically to make those modules impossible to play as they were. Traps work on a totally different way because they found the previous ones (the ones that appear on them) broken, unfun and unfair, the feeling of "anytime now I could drop dead if I fail a saving throw" has been actively avoided. Even the maps would need to be redrawn because now they're "too small to 4e" (as Mike Mearls stated in an article about this specific topic).
So, if 4e feels old school, and it has been (or so we've been told) designed to achieve the exact opposite results, 4e is a failure.
So 4E was specifically designed to destroy everything that made D&D the most popular role playing game in the world, at the height of its success and popularity?
Wow... according to you 4E is a million times worse than I thought.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Well, jeez. Someone better tell Mearls it's impossible for him to run his 4e Temple of Elemental Evil game, and remind him that he specifically designed the game to destroy the module he's running!
Well, having a look at his notes (as they're posted on his Gleemax blog-thing) I don't think "his" ToEE is similar in anything else that in name to the T1-4 module.
Quote:
I think you, too, are falling into the assumption that there's only one definition or set of characteristics that define "old-school" play.
Damn, and I thought I hadn't forgotten to start my post with "To me". Oh, wait...
So 4E was specifically designed to destroy everything that made D&D the most popular role playing game in the world, at the height of its success and popularity?
Wow... according to you 4E is a million times worse than I thought.
Let me emphasize the tense you used: "made". It's been more than 20 years since then, so it's a smart move to move on and focus on what could make D&D a popular game *now*.
Saying that 4e, by design, isn't anywhere near "old school" isn't the same as saying that 4e is a bad game. Not because of that, anyway In fact, I'm very happy that they wanted to start anew, because now I have more different "flavors" of D&D from where to choose.
And 4e isn't destroying anything, as far as I know. 1e books and retro-clones are still there for the ones who want to play the game as it was 20+ years ago
Complicating this even further were the differences between games in which people played "Old School" D&D as written, and those who played in a looser more narrative style.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
