Changeover Poll

[Jasperak]

You really have no idea of why people didn't sit down to play a game of 4Ed. The fact that they haven't doesn't mean they "did not give 4E a chance."

/snip

I'm pretty sure I can judge whether a game is worth my time to try by a thorough read-through of the rules...which is what I did for 4Ed.

It may not seem like it to you, but by my definition, I gave it a fair shake and found it wanting.

Relax Tex, my sentence that you quoted did not mean to offend but clarify my point in questioning if Edena meant one or the other.

I consider an honest read of the rules to be "trying" because IMHO you can see how the game will play. I played in the intro adventure and was unimpressed. I also gave the actual rules a good read and looked at the different options for the classes (except the powers after level 4 or so.) I saw a lot of options in the core rules and changes that I did like, but just as many that I did not. Eventually I realized this game is too different for me and moved on to something different. Neither 3e nor 4e is for me.

After hearing others talk about it, I am looking into Warhammer Fantasy, If anyone has the PDF I can read

BTW I have only been playing D&D since the mid 80's.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

There's two problems with this: (1) [...] We're lacking the really cool, unique powers that differentiate themselves from the existing carnations. (2) We, as the tinkering community of gamers that we are, should be privy to these boundaries (if they exist).

Another thing you missed -- but nearly everyone does -- is that "versatility" is "power." If you increase the options available to a PC, you increase that PC's power.

As a stripped down example, fireball. A balanced ability. No problem. Now give the PC acidburst (call it exactly like fireball, but with acid). Acidburst by itself is still a balanced ability. But if PCs can choose between them, they'll choose the one to which monsters have no resistance. That's increased power.

Power increases by way of options tend to be slower and more manageable than power increases by way of, e.g., damage dealt, but the power increase is still very real. When people say things like, "It increases flexibility, but not power," they're getting it wrong. Those things aren't opposites.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wisdom Penalty's experience is analogous to my own.

Mine, too. But starting a couple of years ago, I began fixing it. Now I very happily create monster abilities, even sometimes on the fly. I wing DCs. I tell my players, "Look, if you pump your ACs into the stratosphere, the monsters are going to magically get stratospheric attack bonuses."

This is all despite my meticulous nature. Three years ago, if I didn't have a major villain stat-block fully completed, we couldn't play that encounter. Now ... ehn. (Don't get me wrong ... I still prefer a complete stat-block, but the lack comes nowhere near paralyzing me now.)

It's been very liberating, and it solves a lot of DMing headaches under 3.5. Even -- maybe especially -- at high levels. The irony, of course, is that 3E did train me to be so rules-dependent in the first place, no question. A rule for everything was one of the things the designers strove for, and they did too good a job.

I just wish there were a full-page, 24-point font section on, "There are a bazillion fiddly little rules here, but if it will speed up your game, screw 'em. Learn them when you learn them." We all know that, but as Wisdom Penalty testified, the knowledge erodes gradually. In at least some of us.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The functional difference is that the rules written in the book show the idea of DCs changing, and that sometimes achallange may be harder or easier then another time you've encountered something similar.

The rule the lawyer ends up falling back on is that DCs are not set numbers. They're variable based on whatever challange level the DM needs.

There is no difference between 3e and 4e like this.

The rules written in the 3e book show that the DM always can set whatever they want as a DC, and they give a host of "typical challenges" so that there is a baseline you can deviate from.

The rules laywer should end up stumbling across Rule 0 and learn that no rule is set in stone -- they're variable based on whatever challenge level the DM needs.

4e did not give you this. It was there all along.

 

[Treebore]

I've only been gaming for 24+ years, and have read and played a lot too. I have found that a read through is not always good enough to judge a game by. Which is why I played 4E weekly for about two months. It confirmed my suspicions, I don't like it.

I thought Aces and Eights would be overly rules heavy and drudgingly slow. I was wrong. I'm loving it.

I thought I would hate Shadowrun back in the day, and GURPS, and RIFTS, and many other games. Then I played them and had a great time.

Some I love, like L5R. Others I don't like, such as White Wolf's stuff. Don't know why, I loved their CCG's like Rage and Jyhad, but I didn't like the rules.

I'm currently looking over TWilight 2000's third edition, twilight 2013, and it reads like I will enjoy it, a lot. I hope I am right when I get to play it.

Still, I won't know until I play it and see how the rules actually work. Just reading never reveals that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Relax Tex, my sentence that you quoted did not mean to offend but clarify my point in questioning if Edena meant one or the other.

Gotcha!

Ahhh, teh Interweb! It giveth the freedom to converse with people all over the world...and it taketh away the subtle body language and inflections that often clarifies our words.

No harm, no foul!

 

[Jasperak]

No harm, no foul!

It's all good. Happy New Year

 

[Knightwind1972]

Tried 4E, went back to 3E.

From now on its 3E or the highway when it comes to DnD.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm honestly surprised every time I read that a DM has a hard time taking control of the game (and by taking control, I mean deciding what's allowed and what isn't, and not allowing the players to run roughshod over them). I've allowed my players to correct me when I get a rule wrong, but only if they know precisely how I'm wrong. I don't take the holier than thou approach, I just don't allow rules arguments to slow down the game.

To be completely honest, there are rules that have appeared in books I helped write that I haven't allowed in my games. Why? Because they just didn't fit the style of game I was running, or I had an objection about the way the rule, in its final edited form, worked.

Oh yeah. Happy New Year!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm honestly surprised every time I read that a DM has a hard time taking control of the game (and by taking control, I mean deciding what's allowed and what isn't, and not allowing the players to run roughshod over them).

If this is in reference to Wisdom Penalty and myself (and others), you may want to reread, because this isn't what we said. (If it's not inreference to us, of course, never mind.)

With particular reference to me, believe me, I've never had a problem with players gaining control of my game.