4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[hong]

RIFTS is one of the better systems still on the market. It may be the only old school system still putting out books. At least we have plenty of 2nd edition books still on bookshelves in hobby shops or newcomers wouldn't know D&D was originally a roleplaying game at one time.

Which shows the power of a compelling setting, not of an elegant rule framework.

You're thread seems to make a point of how horrible 3E was when it comes to simplicity. What will be the mocked element of 4th when the designers come out against it in a few years? You should return to 2nd.

Come talk to me in 5 years time, which is my estimate for when splatbook bloat will make the framework start to implode.

 

[pemerton]

When I created monsters in 3E, I usually tried to find a "theme" for them.

<snip>

I don't think there is any difference between 3E and 4E, except that I don't have to advance monster HD and distribute skill points, or add class levels to my creatures, or have to use a template. I can just slap on the abilities I want, and let the mechanical details be informed on the monster guidelines and comparing to existing powers.

I was just thinking that, whereas in 3E the question is "What sort of powers would a spider have?" whereas in 4e the question is "What sort of powers will express the spideriness (or other thematic concern) of the situation?"

I suspect that the first of these questions is easier to answer (by looking up a biology textbook) than the second (which requires less biology and something closer to a rather specialised type of creative writing). But as I said, I may be wrong about this.

 

[pemerton]

RIFTS is one of the better systems still on the market. It may be the only old school system still putting out books.

Rolemaster Classic (ie reformatted RM2) and RMSS/RMFRP are both still on the market. So are Runequest and Classic Traveller, as far as I know. Chivalry and Sorcery was still on sale several years ago, but I don't know about now. My FLGS has a copy of Tunnels & Trolls (5th ed) on the shelf, but I don't think the game is actually in print anymore.

At least we have plenty of 2nd edition books still on bookshelves in hobby shops or newcomers wouldn't know D&D was originally a roleplaying game at one time.

The implication that 4e is not a roleplaying game is just bizarre.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The question is what happens in play. And if you haven't played the game, you can't really judge it (I suppose, pemerton can neither). But if you read the powers and think about how they can interact, what it means if I slide an enemy into a flanking position, if I daze a Dragon before he becomes bloodied, what happens if shifty Kobold meets Figher with Combat Superiority, you will see a lot of potential for interesting interaction. It is an emergent complexity, but that isn't bad.

I HAVE played it

Or at least, I've played the Keep on the Shadowfell and tinkered around with it a bit.

And I stand by what I say. The powers felt samey and boring to me. Perhaps it's because I've simply never been strongly into wargames and the massive amount of tokens and little things to remember when in combat. But frankly, in my experience, parties don't plan their tactics out long in advance. They almost always tend to go with the "Let's start combat and make things up as we go."

Oh, and to the person that mentioned Half-Orcs: I cannot for the life of me understand why they can be cut for "Nasty backround implications" but half elves are still around. Are all half elves suddenly the product of happy monogamous relations between humans and elves who always have consentual sex in the missionary position these days? Last I checked their backrounds were likely to be just as "nasty" as the half-orcs.

 

[Intense_Interest]

I HAVE played it
Oh, and to the person that mentioned Half-Orcs: I cannot for the life of me understand why they can be cut for "Nasty backround implications" but half elves are still around. Are all half elves suddenly the product of happy monogamous relations between humans and elves who always have consentual sex in the missionary position these days? Last I checked their backrounds were likely to be just as "nasty" as the half-orcs.

It was my response, sooo

1- Elves are pretty and not members of a Chaotic Evil race.
2- I agree that Half Elves should be scrapped anyway and have for years.

 

[sinecure]

Rolemaster Classic (ie reformatted RM2) and RMSS/RMFRP are both still on the market. So are Runequest and Classic Traveller, as far as I know. Chivalry and Sorcery was still on sale several years ago, but I don't know about now. My FLGS has a copy of Tunnels & Trolls (5th ed) on the shelf, but I don't think the game is actually in print anymore.

Thanks. I'd like to play T&T 5th edition. I've always heard that game was pretty fun even if its focus was more gonzo fantasy than high adventure. (the real definition high adventure, not the current one meaning uber-magic)

I'll look for Chivalry and Sorcery too. Do you know who publishes that? I seem to recall Columbia Games still puts out Harn.

The implication that 4e is not a roleplaying game is just bizarre.

That's odd. What I find bizarre is the fact people are calling DDM 4.0 a roleplaying game just because it's labeled so on the cover.

Didn't you get to see Keep on the Shadowfell? It's a collection of 24 DDM scenarios.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I HAVE played it

Or at least, I've played the Keep on the Shadowfell and tinkered around with it a bit.

And I stand by what I say. The powers felt samey and boring to me.

1) Then I concede that it might be true for you (and not only you).. So far, it hasn't been true for me (and not only me.)

Perhaps it's because I've simply never been strongly into wargames and the massive amount of tokens and little things to remember when in combat. But frankly, in my experience, parties don't plan their tactics out long in advance. They almost always tend to go with the "Let's start combat and make things up as we go."

2) I don't know if this is how it was always with my group any more, but I know the past experience with the Paizo and Dungeon Adventure Paths has removed any notion of not planning tactics out gone. If you don't optimize tactics and character build in these modules, you'll lose. (If you don't lose, you're probably using generous point buy values or rolls, or have a DM that will cut you some slack). 4E won't become less then 3E, but I find the tactics seem to emerge more naturally...

 

[Testament]

That's odd. What I find bizarre is the fact people are calling DDM 4.0 a roleplaying game just because it's labeled so on the cover.

ISWYDT...[/rollseyes]

This is always a line of argument that I fail to see any meaning in. Last time I checked, even the supposedly deep and story based WW games can be played as high-action "rargh, kill" type urban dungeon bashes with MP5s and trenchcoats standing in for magic swords and armour. And do I even need to mention Werewolf: The Apocalypse, which even had its own inbuilt Detect Evil, sorry, Wyrm, power? And I say this as a huge W:TA fan.

The role-playing content of any given game is in the hands of the players, not the books.

Didn't you get to see Keep on the Shadowfell? It's a collection of 24 DDM scenarios.

And 20 or so years ago, before DDM existed, that would have been declared a great piece of event based adventure. Or haven't you ever read Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors or any of the vaunted 'classics' like that, which had about as much roleplaying encounters in them as a game of checkers?

 

[sinecure]

The role-playing content of any given game is in the hands of the players, not the books.

The fact that the designers of 4E actually believe this fallacy is why it is such a horribly designed roleplaying game. Rules don't matter to roleplaying, huh? Let's just label Chess, Poker, and Monopoly roleplaying games too. The rules don't matter, right?

And 20 or so years ago, before DDM existed, that would have been declared a great piece of event based adventure. Or haven't you ever read Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors or any of the vaunted 'classics' like that, which had about as much roleplaying encounters in them as a game of checkers?

Have you read Tomb of Horrors? There are what? 2, 3 combats in it? And each of those vastly overpowering the PCs. If you fight something in that module, not only are you doing it wrong, you're going to die.

And G1-3 were all about strategy, not tactics. Play kick in the door in any of those and you'd get your butt handed to you.

If 4th edition plans on basing its status on the quality of its adventures, then people may start seeing D&D games as a devolution over time.

The fact that folks cannot see a few pages of interesting town design with some Q&A added to 2 dozen DDM encounters is a testament to 4E's hype. Take a step back and look at those pages. There is nothing on them that doesn't directly relate to DDM.

 

[Intense_Interest]

The fact that the designers of 4E actually believe this fallacy is why it is such a horribly designed roleplaying game. Rules don't matter to roleplaying, huh? Let's just label Chess, Poker, and Monopoly roleplaying games too. The rules don't matter, right?

Reductio ad Absurdum. RPGs have accumulation of narrative and participatory interaction between players. The rules are there to adjudicate the "Hit You Nah Huh Yah Huh".

The past 3 years of my experience with RPGs and the 3E system as a whole was nigh-diceless Spycraft campaigns. The rules didn't make those games, we did.

Have you read Tomb of Horrors? There are what? 2, 3 combats in it? And each of those vastly overpowering the PCs. If you fight something in that module, not only are you doing it wrong, you're going to die.

And G1-3 were all about strategy, not tactics. Play kick in the door in any of those and you'd get your butt handed to you.

Nothing stopping the DM or Adventure from creating over-whelming encounters. 4E hasn't broken into your house and installed a watching device.