D&D 3E/3.5 5E solve me this: 3Es and 4Es biggest problem

[foolish_mortals]

it sounds like someone has been spending too much time crafting 5th edition marketing propaganda. Of course we agree that the adventure is the most important part of the game. But dnd is not some gigantic story thinger. There are rules associated with it, as in 30-40 years worth. If it really is just about the adventure, than why do I care about playing Dnd? Why not go and play another game where I can have an exciting adventure. The machine matters.

foolish_mortals

 

[Nagol]

Ah. You see, I think the burden of rules regulation should be on the GM's end, not on the publisher's end.

You don't want new rules to send ripples through the campaign, then just don't accept rules updates during the campaign! Leave everyone else the freedom to accept them or not, at their desires.

Of course! A ruleset should run its course. How else will the rules get tested, corrected, and prove their value compared to the other games on offer?

It is just one of my considerations when I decide what ruleset to offer and one of the reasons I reach for some of the older games on my shelf. They have as much errata as they're going to get, all their options and choices are front-loaded for the play group, they are proven in play, and I know that 6 months from start, I won't be put into a position of being asked to retcon stuff to include the perfect campaign addition -- perfect for one player, anyway.

 

[pemerton]

D&D will never be a one-book only, never-errata'd/updated game. Never.

I must have misunderstood the meaning of the word "never".

No, the meaning of the word "will".

I think Rechan's claim was about the future, not the past. Hence his use of future tense.

 

[pemerton]

As a GM of 20 years experience I continue to be amazed by players who think they can predict what a campaign is going to be about, or even worse, what it's ought to be about.

As a GM of nearly 30 years experience, I take for granted that my players will have a say - to some extent, a key say - in determining what the campaign is about.

I don't normally do this the Burning Wheel way - which is to expressly discuss all this stuff in a "campaign set up phase" involving both players and GM. Rather, my players do this by making choices about their PCs' builds and background, their PCs' development, and their PCs' actions.

The magic item rarity system, however staggeringly incompetent one may find its execution (I do), managed to address a real issue: WotC authors could no longer write up mysterious magic items, because whoops-de-doo they'd end up in the player's finger tips before GMs even had a chance to make room for them in their campaigns.

I'm one of those who doesn't like the rarity system, and preferred the original method of handling "GM only" items, namely, artefacts.

Give us an edition where D&D is about campaigns which PCs can play in - and end this nonsense of special snowflake PCs which DMs have to design campaigns around.

My preferences are just about the opposite of this. So I would prefer it if the new edition at least tries to be neutral on this point.

Has it gone too far in 3e and 4e? Yeah, I think it has, but part of the problem too isn't just the "special snowflakey-ness" of feats, powers, and skills---it's that they make adjudication and NPC creation very messy and time-consuming. If WotC could keep special snowflakes, but make it easy to streamline the the results, they'd be on to something.

I don't have much trouble building NPCs for my 4e game. I gather that 3E can be a nightmare, at least at mid to high levels, but it's system for NPC building is quite different from 4e's.

I would love to go back to the days when character building was not as complex as it is now. Back then players looked up from their character sheets more and didn't have to flip through rulesbooks as often.

I can't comment on character sheet referencing - the character sheet has always been pretty imoportant in my games, both D&D and others, because it has the list of equipment, items, spells, abilities etc - but the need to look up rulebooks in 4e play is pretty minimal. That's a design goal that was achieved, and it would be nice for the next edition to replicate it.

This game will be roleplay-heavy and combat-light. Please tailor your characters accordingly.

For a combat-light game, I honestly wouldn't use 4e, or indeed any edition of D&D, or indeed any mainstream fantasy RPG.

My game is roleplay-heavy and combat-heavy (as in combats in probably 9 out of 10 sessions, and often more than one per session). This is the sort of game that I find D&D, and especially 4e, to be well-suited to.

 

[Griego]

The solution to the 3e and 4e problem of players who want to use a variety of material and options is, of course, DM skill, in much the same way that the solution to 1e and 2e's problem of ensuring that all characters, regardless of whether or not they are spellcasters or not, can contribute to the adventure and share the spotlight is DM skill.

Different DM skills, no doubt, but DM skill nonetheless.

Yeah, just pile more stuff on the DM's plate, I don't have a life or anything! No thanks, I'd rather be focused on building great adventures within a great setting. Much better use of my time.

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, just pile more stuff on the DM's plate, I don't have a life or anything! No thanks, I'd rather be focused on building great adventures within a great setting. Much better use of my time.

Ah, so if I don't want to spend time or effort dealing with class balance issues player options, I'm not a lazy or incompetent DM, then? Good to know!

 

[Tallifer]

Originally Posted by E Decker at RPG Geek
You know, I find the whole article rather self-contradictory. On the one hand, you have this claim [by Monte Cook]:

"At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. It's about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen."

And then, there's all the talk about players choosing which options they want to use. But if the adventure's the thing, and the rules just a system of enabling that adventure, then that choice shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

And you know, once upon a time, it wasn't. Nobody ever turned a game down because the DM was running Basic rather than Advanced, or Rolemaster rather than D&D. There was never any big discussion when somebody broke out the lead figures, nor when somebody didn't. It was the adventure that counted, after all.

And for crying out loud, nobody ever dreamed of using rules from a book that the DM didn't own, as has been mentioned in this thread. My goodness.

Those are some very thick rose coloured glasses.

I played in the early 1980s. One thing was guaranteed, that people would debate the merits of different roleplaying games, different source material, different ways of playing the same game and how many dice worth of damage you should suffer from falling.

Many gamers would play anything offered, but there was a very large portion who refused to play D&D or to play anything except D&D or to play anything modern or to play any D&D with any non-TSR material, et cetera ad nauseum.

Plus those years were early enough that there was still a big division between the gamers who refused to play anything but historical miniatures, or anything but hex wargames, or anything but D&D.

My experience was completely the opposite of E. Decker's. In a games club of about 200 at our university, there were plenty of splits and arguments. Now nothing was ever nasty, because the arguments were all face-to-face. People were polite, but firm.

 

[Dragonblade]

I will make 3 short points.

1) Players have always wanted more options and will until the end of time. In high school I was rolling up a ninja PC the very day the Complete Ninja's Handbook for 2e showed up at my game shop. The DM approving it was a total afterthought.

2) Pathfinder fixed Polymorph. So if you like 3e and Polymorph really bugged you, then check out Pathfinder. I have other issues with Pathfinder and 3e in general, but polymorph isn't one of them. A tip of the hat from me to the gang at Paizo for fixing Polymorph.

3) As a 4e DM and player, I have yet to see any power, class or race combo that is truly broken once errata and common sense are applied. In fact when I DM 4e, I don't even want to know what powers my players picked. I'd rather they just surprise me in combat with some cool combo. I love that about 4e.

Oh, sure if you are running a Dark Sun game, then clearly Warforged aren't appropriate, so yes if your players argue with you about wanting to play a warforged cleric in Dark Sun, then I'm with you. But I wouldn't bother banning X power from this source and so on. Frankly, I found with 4e thats just a waste of time I could better spend on my adventure.

That was a concern in 3e, where I felt I had to audit every character sheet, but frankly 4e doesn't have that problem. I tip my hat to WotC for designing a D&D game that for the most part has a ton of options but not a lot of accompanying power creep.

 

[Androkguz]

Man, I'm sorry but I think this is the second law of thermodynamics.
There's no turning back in that way.

(also, first post!)

 

[Jack99]

Earlier today I came across an amazingly insightful comment on Monte Cook's latest column. I'll reproduce it in full:



I agree with this, because this week as I'm starting up a new 4E campaign the usual stuff ensues. Endless bickering over which stuff to declare legit, what's off bounds, what doesn't fit this time, and so on.

You might want to consider playing with reasonable adults, if you can. That certainly helps.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad