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.
When I said -3 or -4 I was referring to Dex bonuses in AD&D... so that pirate would turn out to be AC 6 or AC 5, which are the equivalent of AC 14 or AC 15 in 3E/4E.
???? Ok, I think conversing with both Erogaki and BryonD has got me all flummoxed
But then the 4e system isn't arbitary as you explain it. Tack on another 5 points for being a 10th level NPC and the AC in the 4e hits 19/20. Your example would ALSO apply to a PC.
Ok, what level was your PC as something is very weird here....A 10th level PC should be able to hit an AC of 21 without much trouble IMO.
Are we talking about the half-level mechanic or "how the NPC gets their numbers"?
IMHO, kobolds/goblins have always been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a legitimate threat. Like fighting eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them has always been a joke. That is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is not heroic. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle, even when he first started out.
Princess Bride. Done. Hero who only kills one rat in the Swamp of Desolation (he though they were only a myth).
__________________ "If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you."
and
"Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
But rule 0 exists in 3.x and 4e. So any one who feels the way you've stated is self-imposing this restriction upon themselves. I mean I can even be upfront with my players and tell them I will be fudging certain things, it's a player/DM trust thing. Now again where does one go for the system fiddling and mechanic building systems they enjoyed with 3.x in 4e?
Yes, but in my opinion it just doesn't carry the same weight. The feeling of restriction is not necessary self imposed, my personal experience is that a lot of that springs from the baggage of expectation on the part of the players on how the game should be approached and played. Of course the one can buck the system, but why not use something that is more supportive of the style you like out of the box. So yes, if you ignore the rules of 3.x you can make it do certain things, but that's not really informative of the expected experience is it.
The fact is we just have different taste. For you the lack of fiddlybits is a weakness, and for me it's one of the strengths. I played 3.x for a long time, and frankly you'll never convince me that system is as conducive to a more easygoing handwaving approach.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
As far as "kobolds should not be a threat to high level characters", I can't count the number of times I've seen a kobold barb8/sor4/rogue2 meant to be thrown at high level characters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imaro
I guess I'll agree here, even though I have seen more 3.x fans concede that 4e is easier to DM and they could understand why some would like it as opposed to 4e fans who have stated they understand why some might want more complexity within their gaming system.
C'mon now. Both are complex in some fashion.
But, I have played Champions. I know a guy who loves Rolemaster, another who loves BattleTech and Rifts. The issue is not "why some might WANT" so much as why it's enjoyed in the first place.
I can acknowledge certain people like sushi, but that doesn't mean I can agree that I find sushi tasting good.
Apparently Simulationist became a dirty word in this thread or something, but really that's how I see it. 3e is in the simulationist department; the rules are the physics of the world, there's a rule for everything. A lot of people enjoy taking the rules and creating the world with it, to the point of determining what level of druid is necessary per x acre of farmland to increase crop yield by y. I can acknowledge that people like Sim type games, and they would want a game that suits that.
That is the opposite of what I want out of a gaming system.
But I certainly believe that the simulationist guy has a right to his game, and enjoy it, and I'm not criticizing it. I would never say 3e is not D&D. As long as I don't have to play it.
Also, there's mechanical complexity and non-mechanical complexity. A campaign using a complex set of rules can still be unsatisfying simplistic in terms of story, characters, theme, etc. And vice-versa.
Also redux: there's elegant mechanical complexity (ie HERO & Mutants and Masterminds) and inelegant mechanical complexity (ie, 3.5e with all options on).
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
HERO is my all-time favorite RPG system. When I design a PC in HERO, I get exactly what I wanted when I envisioned the PC, 99 times out of 100. (That last 1 represents campaign rules that inhibit a certain design in some way.)
But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or even love other, simpler systems. I have repeatedly sung the praise of Metagames' The Fantasy Trip, for instance- one of the simplest RPGs ever.
For me, my rejection of 4Ed wasn't about its simplicity, but its overall methodology and design decisions that simply didn't jibe with the way I played D&D for 30+ years...and wished to continue to play D&D.
Or, to put it a different way, I could have embraced 4Ed as a FRPG if it had been called anything but Dungeons & Dragons...as I had done with several other FRPGs over the decades.
Instead, it was as if Metallica had given up metal and started playing rasta-influenced jazz.
Uhmm. where did I state 4e had no complexity? However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system. Thjus the use of the words... more complex in my previous post.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
HERO is my all-time favorite RPG system. When I design a PC in HERO, I get exactly what I wanted when I envisioned the PC, 99 times out of 100. (That last 1 represents campaign rules that inhibit a certain design in some way.)
But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or even love other, simpler systems. I have repeatedly sung the praise of Metagames' The Fantasy Trip, for instance- one of the simplest RPGs ever.
For me, my rejection of 4Ed wasn't about its simplicity, but its overall methodology and design decisions that simply didn't jibe with the way I played D&D for 30+ years...and wished to continue to play D&D.
Or, to put it a different way, I could have embraced 4Ed as a FRPG if it had been called anything but Dungeons & Dragons...as I had done with several other FRPGs over the decades.
Instead, it was as if Metallica had given up metal and started playing rasta-influenced jazz.
Fair Enough.
Just don't be surprised that some of us still see "THIS is D&D" when we play 4e.
That was what I read when I read what you said. Sorry to misunderstand.
Quote:
However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system. Thjus the use of the words... more complex in my previous post.
I was taking it as a whole, in comparing the systems. Because you did say "within their gaming system", not "within making NPCs".
However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system.
It is.
But does a more complex rule set necessarily lead to a more complex campaign? What, if any, is the relationship between the two?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
For me, unless the battle is truly epic (end bosses, etc) 10 rounds or longer is too long.
In all honesty I can count the number of times on my hand that a fight lasted that long. The reasons for that were either:
1) big boss fight,
2) a lot of space (like 200 by 300) area we were all moving through, trying to complete a certain goal while dealing with a ton of enemies,
3) dice being so utterly bad everyone was whiffing.
But does a more complex rule set necessarily lead to a more complex campaign? What, if any, is the relationship between the two?
Ok, where did I comment on the simplicity or complexity of anyone's campaign as influenced by 3.x or 4e. Now if you're trying to start a new discussion cool, but it feels like you're insinuating I made a value comparison on the quality of peoples games based on the ruleset they choose when I've done no such thing.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
That was what I read when I read what you said. Sorry to misunderstand.
I was taking it as a whole, in comparing the systems. Because you did say "within their gaming system", not "within making NPCs".
Well in al honesty I do believe overall 3.x is a more complex system, especially with all sourcebooks, than 4e. But at the same time I think 4e is a more complex system than C&C which in turn is more complex than OD&D or Risus. There are levels to complexity and I do feel 4e's level of complexity is lower than 3.5's.
Now... just so were clear this in no way reflects on the quality of one's game or even my preferences as they can be mercurial (heck I run C&C just like I'll run Exalted or 3.5) but I do think there are levels to complexity.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Well in al honesty I do believe overall 3.x is a more complex system, especially with all sourcebooks, than 4e. But at the same time I think 4e is a more complex system than C&C which in turn is more complex than OD&D or Risus. There are levels to complexity and I do feel 4e's level of complexity is lower than 3.5's.
I think 4e's complexity comes with synergies between characters/within groups. Also, on the actual battlefield. I mean, people call it a wargame/boardgame; that's fairly complex imho.
Also, creating a 17th level character from scratch? Complex.
Quote:
Now... just so were clear this in no way reflects on the quality of one's game or even my preferences as they can be mercurial (heck I run C&C just like I'll run Exalted or 3.5) but I do think there are levels to complexity.
Aye.
For the record, I think Mallus is just raising the line of question, not accusing. He made the same point earlier, and I think he's just segueing into his point.
Oh look.. another edition war. This is new and exciting! I'm sure you'll convince the people who've enjoyed whatever edition they've been playing and love to suddenly stop and "convert". Seriously... this is beyond old. I play in a 4e and a 3.5 game and enjoy them both. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Just don't be surprised that some of us still see "THIS is D&D" when we play 4e.
Don't worry about that!
After playing in over 100 different systems, I long ago came to realize:
1) Edition changes are inevitable, and you can't sell Edition N+1 if its identical to Edition N.
2) Some people have fewer "sacred cows" than others when it comes to what is essential to calling Game X Game X.
3) Nobody agrees as to which "sacred cows" are truly sacred.
What hacks me is when people can't or are unwilling to admit those points, and start with the name-calling & condescension.
4Ed and whatever games may be derived from it- including possible future versions of D&D- may be fun to play, but are not and will never be D&D for me. That doesn't mean that my preferences are superior or predominant, just different...and vice versa.
Now if you're trying to start a new discussion cool...
Yep.
Quote:
... but it feels like you're insinuating I made a value comparison on the quality of peoples games based on the ruleset they choose when I've done no such thing.
Oops. Sorry. That wasn't my intent.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EroGaki
The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?
If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end." .
So you really pretend for your GM to make up a Bare Chested Prestige class just to justify him as a threat?
really? A whole Prestige class just for one encounter?
really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EroGaki
"Because I said so" is nothing more than a smoke screen for the DM to *possibly be a tyrant. "Because I said so" implies that at any point in the game, the DM can do whatever he wants to your character.
Okay now I get it. You have trust issues with your GM. You requiere him to prove mathematically everything that happens lest he "cheat" on you.
Well sadly I have bad news for you, in 4E the monsters rules are different than the Players rules. The reason behind this is to ease the work of the DM. No other reason.
Again, if you want an exact/mathematically/rule obsessed game system maybe 3E is more what you are looking for. 4E is an entirely new and different game.
Oh look.. another edition war. This is new and exciting! I'm sure you'll convince the people who've enjoyed whatever edition they've been playing and love to suddenly stop and "convert". Seriously... this is beyond old. I play in a 4e and a 3.5 game and enjoy them both. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
I was under the impression this was a discussion and not a particularly vitriolic one. If you're not interested in the discussion I have to ask why you're even posting. Yes blindly bashing games sucks, but screaming edition war the second anyone dares discuss the various approaches of different editions is kind of getting tired.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
I was under the impression this was a discussion and not a particularly vitriolic one. If you're not interested in the discussion I have to ask why you're even posting. Yes blindly bashing games sucks, but screaming edition war the second anyone dares discuss the various approaches of different editions is kind of getting tired.
I agree. If this is an edition war, what would we call last summer? An edition apocalypse?
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
