Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[AllisterH]

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"?

 

[Starbuck_II]

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).

 

[Oni]

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.

 

[Rechan]

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.

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.

 

[Mallus]

Both are complex in some fashion.

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).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

 

[Imaro]

C'mon now. Both are complex in some fashion.

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.

 

[AllisterH]

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.

 

[Rechan]

Uhmm. where did I state 4e had no complexity?

That was what I read when I read what you said. Sorry to misunderstand.

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".

 

[Mallus]

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?