Well Greylord, you really shouldn't let a few obnoxious people keep you from playing a perfectly good game system. I've played a lot of Pathfidner in the last year or so, both standard home games and Pathfinder Society, and I haven't seen anyone behave in such a hostile manner. There may be a bunch of off topic chat about movies, news events, etc. but no one I know would rather spend their time with gaming friends griping about a game they don't like. Like most normal gamers, they spend that time playing games they do like.
Is it time for 5E?
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
I've got no objection to those who explain why they don't like to play a game. I do that often enough. I don't mind even that they point out features of the game that give rise to the aspect of it that doesn't appeal to them. I do this to. It's when they draw a conclusion along the lines of ". . . and therefore no creative/rational/sane/non-causal gamer could enjoy this RPG" that I tend to get irritated.
The sort of criticism I don't mind receiving (and don't mind making!): Rolemaster has no encounter build guidelines, which can make designing combat encounters a very hit and miss affair (I know this from a lot of experience GMing Rolemaster). It can also be very swingy, especially at low levels when PCs don't have the magic that will let them compensate for the effects of high- and low-open-ended rolls. For me, these aren't the main reasons I moved from Rolemaster to 4e, but they did contribute. I could perfectly understand someone who thought these features of Rolemaster were, for them, a perfectly good reason not to consider playing the game at all.
I don't have so much 3E experience, but it seems to me that the issue of monster/NPC building, especially at high levels, is a pretty clear one in that game that might put off some people. I can equally see that others regard the resulting mechanical detail as a virtue.
When it comes to 4e, I don't mind at all when others explain how it's non-simulationist approach to encounter design and action resolution isn't for them. What does irritate me is when they go on to assert that these non-simulationist elements mean the game doesn't support serious roleplaying. I don't know if I'd say that's insulting, but it's pretty annoying, especially when it's not backed up with an analysis of the relationship between other non-simulationist games and roleplaying (eg HeroQuest, Burning Wheel). Serious discussion of the potential pitfalls of non-simulationist action resolution, on the other hand (eg the potential for players to bypass the gameworld altogether when thinking about PC actions, and simply to talk in mechanical terms) is always welcome.
Dungeons & Dragons 40E: In the grim darkness of the future, there is only edition war.
Someone set us up the bomb?
New editions only come about for 2 reasons. Revenue streams for the producer, and system overhauls.
I know 1st~2nd doesnt look like an overhaul, but it wasnt an overhaul of the system as much as the people in charge of it.
There have already been about 12 editions, let me restate that, 12 different games with the name Dungeons and Dragons, so a new edition isnt needed. All that is needed is sticking with one that works or with all, and suppirt them with what you can that will make money.
There will be a 5th edition and it will apparently have some CCG elements to it.
Is a 5th edition needed? Not for existing or future players. They have plenty of choices for D&D as it is.
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Was it worse than the WFRP2 vs. WFRP3 flamewars? I only saw the edges of those, but they seemed nasty--almost as bad as the Endless Edition War that dawned in late 2007 and rages to this day in D&D fora.
I actually consider the WFRPv2 vs. WFRPv3 flamewars as a mild summer breeze.
IMO, WFRPv3 did at least one thing right: it united fans of WFRPv1 and WFRPv2 and made them realise that their versions were quite similar after all.
Cheers!
/M
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
I remember skimming a WFRPG 2 book and deciding that there was not enough difference to justify buying it. What did I miss? I thougth there was very little difference.
Hmmm, yeah, that's my take. Some WFRPv1 fans claimed WFRPv2 was a completely new game, at odds with the previous version and that the two versions were incompatible in both tone and rules.
I always thought that was boll... bologna.
EDIT: GreyLord does correctly list some of the changes. It's just that to me, they were not game breakers, or even that substantial. The core ideas were the same, with careers, advances, and what not.
Cheers!
/M
Last edited:
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I agree. I think that this is most often accidental; the critic uses hyperbole and exaggeration that gets misconstrued by sensitive readers, who use more hyperbole and exaggeration, and so on. Before you know it, the discussion goes off the rails, crashes, and burns. Sure, there are a few bad apples who like to pick fights, but I think they are the exception and not the rule.
During the advent of 4th Edition, I went on a week-long vacation and didn't have access to the Internet. It did wonders for my blood pressure. Now, I don't take it so seriously. When people start making sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, they are probably getting emotional and are blowing things out of proportion. (Words like "always," "never," "everyone," and "nobody" are dead giveaways. Excessive smileys and acronyms, slightly less so.) Just take a breath, and give them the benefit of the doubt. They probably don't mean to sound oafish. We are all friends here, after all.
I won't lie; it can be a pain. In fact, I have reason to believe it cost me points in an Iron DM competition a couple years ago, when I screwed up the stats on a fiendish half-dragon advanced gargantuan beetle...
But there are "gearheads" out there, who really love that crunchy, game mechanics stuff. Where some of us see tedium and extra work, others see creativity and versatility. A "low math" game would be easier to play, but it wouldn't feel right to some.
There are a lot of boilerplates out there, and this one is one of the big ones. The trouble is that D&D supports many different styles of play, and we all like different things. After all...what's "serious" to me might be "dismissive" to you.
It's not a design flaw, it's a design feature.
What I don't like are the threads where people try to tell other people how to play the game. "How can I resolve this issue?" reads a lot like "I don't know what I am doing, can you help?" for some people. They might not realize how condescending they are being when they "help." Some examples...
Guy: "How do I incorporate Action Points in my existing 3E game?"
Dude: "Upgrade to 3.5E, duh."
Guy: "How do I reduce combat grind?"
Dude: "Avoid combat."
Chap: "Play something else!"
And the list goes on. Everything from which character build makes the better rogue, to how much storytelling should be blended in between the dice rolls. It doesn't take long for someone to imply (whether accidentally or intentionally) that someone else doesn't know what they are doing. And that's just rude.
PSA: It's okay not to post a reply if you don't know the answer.
Last edited:
mxyzplk
Explorer
Well, they can't release 5e yet, they are still working on a way to make the game
- require collectible cards
- require collectible dice
- require collectible minis
- require a monthly electronic subscription
Actually, reviewing that list, they're already at 3 out of 4. Maybe it is coming soon! They just have to dust off all the old Dragon Dice and make it so you use those instead of standard dice.
- require collectible cards
- require collectible dice
- require collectible minis
- require a monthly electronic subscription
Actually, reviewing that list, they're already at 3 out of 4. Maybe it is coming soon! They just have to dust off all the old Dragon Dice and make it so you use those instead of standard dice.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
True insofar as 3 out of 4 exist; 4 out of 4 if you include your aforementioned Dragon Dice
Not true (yet, and may it always be so) in that 3 out of 4 are not required in order to play the game but are instead optional.
Lan-"requirements are pencil, paper, dice, imagination, beer, in no order"--efan
Similar Threads
