+ Log in or register to post
Results 81 to 90 of 102
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 05:00 PM #81
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
1E = 5
2E = 5
3E = 7
4E = 9
5E = ?
I loved every single edition of the game in their time, but each successive edition has brought the game forward and in wonderful directions. For me 4E rocks and is the current pinnacle of D&D.PBP Games I'm In/Run
Shemeska's Planescape Story Hour
And you got a sandwich out of it too. Nisha said. Our sandwiches come with attempted assassination plots. New sales gimmick!
"Chuck Norris is the reason Ilmater suffers."
by Simplicity in thread "Humor - Chuck Norris to be in the 4e Core Pantheon"
"English is not nice, comfy, orderly language. As others have noted - in dark alleys, it mugs other languages and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar. Do you think that after committing such molestation that English is going to be particularly prissy about where it sticks which plural?"
by Umbran in Non-d20 - Origin of Slang Term "Boni"? (post 24)
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 07:19 PM #82
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I knew 4E didn't quite go as planned and led to the rise of Pathfinder...
But didn't it only just come out a little bit ago?
Will we see 6E come 2014?
I feel as I barely got started buying into 4E books, and haven't even seen groups yet that had made a switch up from 3E, and now 5E is entering into hype-up?
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 07:28 PM #83
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I give that a 1, because it was an unneeded edition.
I'd give 4E a 1 because it was not D&D. As an RPG in general I give it an 8. Its a -great- game in my opinion. But Runequest was closer to D&D than 4E was. 4E is the game I would choose to push on the people showing up for 'Fantasy Hero / GURPS / RuneQuest / Etc' night. Pathfinder is the game I'd bring out for the folks who'd show up and say 'lets do DnD'.
I give 1E a 4. It was good until I found games that gave me options.
I give 3E a 7 - it got me playing D&D again as a game with options that still felt like D&D.
So that makes my list:
4E: 1 if called D&D, 8 if considered "WotC Fantasy Roleplay".
Pathfinder: 7 - its just 3E with a new name on the cover, and somebody's d20 book sliced into the pages at random points. Which actually, makes it more or less the go-to choice these days.
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 08:10 PM #84
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 08:51 PM #85
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Realistic weights for arms (two-handed swords do NOT weigh 25lbs), weapons speeds, and to-hit adjustments need to be included in order to emphasize their respective opportunity costs. As a 1E DM I saw players routinely drift toward the heavy-damage weapons until I started mandating that weapons speeds and to-hit adjustments would be a mandatory part of play. At that point, a number of the players realized that the free ride was over and that there was going to be a serious initiative penalty to some of their favorite arms, so no longer was everyone going to have a two-handed sword or an over-sized battleaxe. Striking first often makes a big difference in melee, after all.
Last edited by Tsuga C; Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012 at 08:52 PM. Reason: added 1E
Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012, 10:40 PM #86
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
I think there are ways for all of these sectioned-off elements of the game to be more integrated with one another by virtue of engendering the player's mechanical choices, initially, based on background and character concept during creation and then on actual progression of the character, on-screen and off, over the course of the game. The character is built based on the concept and experiences more flexibly rather than in pre-packaged chunks of numbers with names already attached. I feel this sort of organic creation better facilitates roleplaying rather than thinking of a PC as a bundle of mechanical tricks.
Thursday, 24th May, 2012, 05:35 AM #87
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Basic D&D = 5
1E = 7
2E = 4
3E = 9
4E = 3
5E = ?
2nd was based on initial release - it didn't change the things I wanted changed from 1st ed, and kept stuff I didn't want. Gave up on it as a game system. Had some good setting (Spelljammer is still my favorite D&D setting ever published).
3rd has been my favorite incarnation of D&D.
4E was very elegant, but I play solo and the game was so designed around group tactical play it couldn't do solo. And Essentials (and starting with psionics) moved away from one of the things I really liked - the same power/advancement structure.
I have high hopes for N.
I'm one of the lucky ones. I married a "gamer-girl."
"Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer." - firesnakearies
Thursday, 24th May, 2012, 05:47 PM #88
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Building characters based around a (shared) fictional progression of events might get the players into a headspace conducive to exploratory play, but that is only one possible approach to roleplaying; to assume that it is somehow "naturally" superior or that other foci are simply adjuncts to it is purely an aesthetic choice, and is not necessarily shared, let alone universal.
In short, I think thou dost assume too much... The atmosphere and illusion promoted by the methods you propose are prefectly fine methods to get what you want - but that isn't what everybody wants and it isn't, exclusively, "roleplaying".
Thursday, 24th May, 2012, 08:31 PM #89
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
I recently watched two tables of gamers at the FLGS set up for their own games. To the outside observer, it would have been very difficult to tell them apart. Each was a game that lasted a couple of hours. Before each, one person at the table read a bit of scenario setup text. The remainder of the time was spent moving figures on the tabletop in combat with one another. At one table, a couple of the players referred to their miniatures by names they had been given. The table where the miniatures, the characters if you will, was a Necromunda game where the players didn't have miniatures with the exact weapons they had chosen so they gave the individuals names that could be easily recognized by looking at the miniature: one had an eye-patch and was called by some pirate name, another was very muscular and was called Big Dan or some such, etc. The players on the other table hadn't even bothered naming the individuals and most referred to them in the Third Person, "The Dwarf does (this)" though one went so far as to say, "My fighter does (this)" or "My fighter charges toward the (that)," so at least there was a sense of ownership. When I asked one of the players later if they liked that type of game he said, "Yeah, I love roleplaying games." I didn't have the heart to tell him that what he was actually doing wasn't really playing a roleplaying game. It might say that on the rulebook but what was happening at the table wasn't a roleplaying game or at least was less so than the Necromunda game taking place at the next table where the players' combatants (PCs?) at least had names.
So, yes, I do believe that there are some less roleplay-ey ways to approach a roleplaying game. I won't say superior, because I love games like I just described, I just don't call them roleplaying games and wouldn't likely use a roleplaying game ruleset to run such a game because I feel there are other rules that actually handle that type of game better. Nevertheless, a roleplaying game ruleset should probably encourage the roleplaying aspect all throughout the rules, from character creation through gameplay, whether its in combat or exploring or emulating other social interaction in less combative environments. Integrating all of the aspects of the game so that the focus is on character, not how what a character might do 'mechanically interfaces with the game space' would go a long wa toward helping such a ruleset earn the name roleplaying game on its cover.
Friday, 25th May, 2012, 09:38 PM #90
Magsman (Lvl 14)
I have roleplayed in many situations. There are real time computer strategy games that I think are ripe for roleplaying. Two major ones would be Hearts of Iron and (especially) Crusader Kings II. In CK you are effectively playing a king (or duke or count) in medieval Europe. Your game interface is not first person and the general emphasis is very much on ruling, statecraft, war and combat - but when you find out that your newest wife is plotting to kill your eldest son so that her eldest son will ascend to your throne - look me in the eye and tell me you don't "feel the roleplay vibe"!
As to which I would class as a "roleplaying game" - I think that comes down to design aims. It's funny - back in the early days of D&D, roleplaying games were the "new fangled thing" abhorred by grognard tabletop wargamers a bit like 4e is the current b๊te noir of 3e afficionadoes, and a wargaming crew came up with a very neat little game called "En Garde". For a long time they swore blind that it absolutely wasn't a roleplaying game, nosiree. Of course, it was, as any sensible roleplayer could see...
By Gaming Tonic in forum NewsReplies: 101Last Post: Friday, 1st June, 2012, 01:42 PM
By Aberzanzorax in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 80Last Post: Sunday, 10th May, 2009, 03:24 PM
By LostSoul in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 114Last Post: Wednesday, 17th September, 2008, 08:09 AM
By Henry in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 21Last Post: Monday, 15th December, 2003, 04:29 PM