Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Ariosto]

The matter of expectations to which Oni referred is significant -- but from my perspective no notable distinction between WotC's games. I have no dog in that fight.

The question of "how many rounds a combat should last" may illustrate some of the disjunction. It's not a matter of so many rounds to me; it's a matter of an hour of real time versus a few minutes.

Likewise, I neither know nor care much more about "templates" and other such rigmarole than do my characters. That is just another pile of numbers that either reflects a cause or does not, depending on whether the cause is present or not. It does not change nonsense into sense. If I wanted to play an abstract and arbitrary dice-rolling game, I would be off to the casinos.

It is certainly easier to play in the "by the numbers" way when the situation is tightly constrained -- so many characters all of such a level going from one pre-calculated encounter to another. The constraints make for ease, though, not the way, I think. Yet that may have to do with the way I think. It is very strange to me to consider a "story" first in terms of DCs and ACs and levels and such.

First come the tangible things, the substance and gravity of the world. Mountains are greater than men, shaped by wind and water and fire that outlast species. Creatures have characteristics shaped in turn by their inherited constitutions and by their courses through the world from birth to earth.

"By th' mass, and 'tis like a camel indeed." " Methinks it is like a weasel." " It is backed like a weasel." " Or like a whale." " Very like a whale."

Somehow, amorphous mathematical vapors just don't satisfy me. Is it a weasel, or is it a whale?

 

[MerricB]

The campaign I played in was at level 4 or 5 when I dropped. My elven ranger needed a 10 to hit this pirate... which was the number I almost always needed to hit everything at every level.

I've seen this happen in my 4e games; it doesn't happen any more.

If a DM only uses monsters of the PC's level, then you very quickly get into a situation where monster AC has a very small variance. Basically, you need a 10±2 to hit.

Instead, if you follow the encounter guidelines from the DM, and use a mix of monster levels (IIRC, it can be up to 4 higher or lower than the party), then you get 10±6, or a range of 4 to 16 for your to hit number!

Getting trapped by the "only opponents of the same level" is too easy to fall into, despite it not actually being how the game is presented.

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

Getting trapped by the "only opponents of the same level" is too easy to fall into, despite it not actually being how the game is presented.

Yes, indeed! The designers are sometimes blamed for "rules" that players themselves have imposed.

On the other hand, I think the designers have time and again listened to the players, and shaped their designs to accommodate what they have heard. Thus, Oni's point about expectations points to an ongoing dialog -- one to which some D&Ders are for a while (and perhaps some others for another while) largely treated as irrelevant.

 

[Azgulor]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Preach it, amigo!


Oh, and, like, gamism sucks worse, dude.

 

[Ariosto]

I could have embraced 4Ed as a FRPG if it had been called anything but Dungeons & Dragons.

That is the root and thorny problem. There should be no (or at least fewer) "edition wars" but for a certain party's curious concept of "editions".

Pokethulhu is a delightful game, but it is not Call of Cthulhu. Likewise, Issaries' Hero Quest is not RuneQuest (and not Milton Bradley's Hero Quest, either).

What is in a name? The thing named, and one's relationship with it. A rose by any name might smell as sweet, but if Rose is one's sweetheart then it matters which girl one kisses -- a substitute just won't do.

 

[EroGaki]

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?





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.

First off, I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post. Second, I don't have trust issues with my DM; I just certain expectations and ideas of how a D&D game should be run. This might be different than yours, and that's fine, but don't try to play me off as some brat who whines when he doesn't get his way; rudeness is not needed in an intelligent conversation, I would hope.

Third, I don't play 4E for one of the reasons you just listed. Snark aside, I realize the game isn't for me. Hence, I play 3E. Again, I guess I have a different DMing style than you, which is fine.

 

[Anton85]

It just seems saying 4e is a good RPG, is like saying Transformers should win best picture. Yeah Transformers is lots of fun if you just want to vedge out, hoot at girls and look at big explosions but, its just not any deeper then that.

I think 4e is one of the best written RPGs out there (in terms of explaining the rules and certain mechanical elements that get to the core of the matter). However, when ever someone comes up with a situation that shows that the game does not work for their group in a situation, the response seems to be that, "Thats not how the game is meant to be played"

For example the fact that a 9th level fighter cant kill a second level character in one blow is a horrible situation to some groups. There are plenty of fixes (make them minions, just narrate it etc.) but, none of them appeal to me as a DM.

I want my characters to earn their power and i want that power to mean somthing.

I want a system where characters can be diverse, and not just be defined in terms of combat.

I want a system that has rules for situations outside of combat.

My group tried to construct a trojen horse durring our last session. The best mechanical way we could do it was to turn it into a skill challenge. We didnt use a single skill that would acctually help to build the horse, and the entire thing was a bit unsatisfing.

 

[Anton85]

About the rose thing.......

If i gave a girl a flower and she said, "Oh you gave me a roes, you just earned 10 points!"

And I responded, "Well it is a rose, but these flowers are referred to as poop flowers instead of roses....." What do you think her response would be?

The point is that words matter and names matter. Old Bill knew this better then anyone. When people use that particular quote, i think most of them miss the point. Its not about names or words, its about sensations.

 

[MerricB]

On the other hand, I think the designers have time and again listened to the players, and shaped their designs to accommodate what they have heard. Thus, Oni's point about expectations points to an ongoing dialog -- one to which some D&Ders are for a while (and perhaps some others for another while) largely treated as irrelevant.

Indeed. And, let's face it, it's pretty much impossible for everyone who plays D&D to be satisfied. Even within the time AD&D was being developed and released, the game was changing dramatically from the original D&D set! In the years since then...

Cheers!

 

[AllisterH]

My group tried to construct a trojen horse durring our last session. The best mechanical way we could do it was to turn it into a skill challenge. We didnt use a single skill that would acctually help to build the horse, and the entire thing was a bit unsatisfing.

Um, how would you do this before?