3.5 or 4th edition?

[Hussar]

wow you put your opinions up and people complain. Maybe you think people keep putting up the same complaints for a reason?
Anyway If I was going to start a new game I would start with 3.5. There are problems but I find it easier to use than 4, but everyone had different likes and dislikes. Just look at the different types of gaming worlds from Planescape to Ravenloft. Everyone has their own tastes, likes and dislikes. Some people use Mini's, some don't. I use them for large combats except when playing a horror type game, like Ravenloft.
I feel it takes away from the atmosphere but that's another discussion.

Well, perhaps if you could tell people why you like 3e, rather than telling everyone why you don't like 4e, that might help. Instead of piddling all over a game you don't like, why not praise a game you do?

Makes the atmosphere so much more pleasant when you're positive, rather than nothing but negative.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...EVERY SINGLE troll bait hot button in a single post - videogamey, too hard to run, failed promises, 5e in the works, and rules bloat.
<snip>

...But, it would be nice to be able to see someone criticise without retreading the same tired old steps every single time.

Actually, I agree with some of those assessments, and the fact is that despite the retread, many still see those flaws in 4Ed...making it hard to criticize without bringing up those points.

Especially if you feel those are 1) the only issues with the game and/or 2) the most important ones.

That said, I agree with your most recent post that praising the game you like is preferable.

(Though, in all honesty, depending upon how its done, it can be just as big a "flamebait" as direct criticism of a game that one dislikes.)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

(Though, in all honesty, depending upon how its done, it can be just as big a "flamebait" as direct criticism of a game that one dislikes.)

At least it would have the bonus of being somewhat original instead of yet another, "OMG, this game I don't play really sux, you should play this other game instead." post.

I've found that it's much, much more difficult to get annoyed about someone being unflinchingly positive about something they love, than someone piddling all over something they hate.

"I really love X. X has this, this and this feature which make it a fantastic game. My players and I have been playing game X and we're having a blast." is so much more difficult to take as flamebait.

The problem with just bitching about Game Y is that all the points are arguable. Yes, the poster might have these problems with the game, and that's fair, but, so often, those problems are simply personal preference issues, not actual failings in the system. It's not criticism in the sense of trying to point out failings so much as just complaining that Game X doesn't appeal to the poster.

I really don't believe that complaining and criticising are the same thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've found that it's much, much more difficult to get annoyed about someone being unflinchingly positive about something they love, than someone piddling all over something they hate.

True...but if its regarding anything remotely controversial- the Edition Wars, for instance- that positive statement may just bring out the haters.

Kind of like a "Flies With Honey Catch-22" if you will.

 

[Asmor]

I've found that it's much, much more difficult to get annoyed about someone being unflinchingly positive about something they love

Really? Particularly as a gamer, I find that difficult to believe. Unless you've never been verbally assaulted by other gamers who go on and on about their characters or campaigns... I'll take a hate-filled rant over another story about your damn thri-kreen from high school or Harry Potter character any day.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm in my late 30's and my group has played all of the editions. I love them all with the exception of 4th. We played it for several months but I just found the combat more aggravating than anything.

You missed a lot. But 4th is a very different game from 3rd and going in trying to play 3rd in 4th is doomed.

It felt very video gamish to me with the special moves and all.

You know what feels video gamish to me? Vancian Casting. The idea that you never actually learn spells. They are merely plot coupons you can use if you've chosen to prepare them. And they allow you to re-write most of your character sheet on the fly with no coherent reason. Powers merely feel cinematic.

To put things even more clearly - with the exception of Jack Vance and clearly D&D derived stories I can not recall one single example of Vancian Casting that isn't pure gamism. On the other hand I can recall many stories where someone has a signature move that they don't always use and they wait some time before using their strongest abilities rather than spamming them.

As a DM it was also hard to keep track of each monsters powers etc.

That's just practice and a statblock. The 4e statblock is about half the length of the 3e one, and the post-MM3 one is better laid out than any previous edition's. (And then we get to the 2e Monster Manual where the stats for the basic creatures weren't actually presented).

And for keeping track, try casting Dispel Magic on a mid level group...

I just remember it was going to be streamlined, but were up to players handbook 3 now, right?

And it's still less complex than 3e. Exception based design means that the options don't add linearly and the DM doesn't even need to worry about most of them. In 3e whenever you added a book with spells in it then the whole thing was available to everyone - that added massively to complexity. In 4e if you add ten classes and twenty builds, that doesn't add much complexity at the sharp end. But does extend the design space of what's possible. (That said, I'm not a fan of the PHB3 - but the PHB2 is wonderful).

DM's guide 2 (which I dont think has any real good DM info compared to the earlier editions)

Are you kidding? The chapter by Robin Laws on player types has more actual useful advice for running a good game than every single previous DMG combined. Including the ones by Gary Gygax.

And malt vinegar actually IIRC catches more flies than honey.

 

[Hussar]

Really? Particularly as a gamer, I find that difficult to believe. Unless you've never been verbally assaulted by other gamers who go on and on about their characters or campaigns... I'll take a hate-filled rant over another story about your damn thri-kreen from high school or Harry Potter character any day.

Which would you rather be faced with - some wingnut who wants to tell you ad nauseum about how great his gnome illusionist is, or some wingnut who wants to tell you how piss poor and crappy your gnome illusionist is and how much better it would be if you would just see the light and port your character into Edition X?

Hell, even Knightfallsage never bothered me and he was absolutely fanatical about Scarred Lands.

Besides all that, I see a LOT more people pissing and moaning over the years about how Edition X sucks, without bothering to tell me why I should play Edition Y. And this was going on long before 4e was even a glimmer in anyone's eye. 3e=D20 Fantasy? 3e is too ...y? (Insert insult du jour here) This has been going on for years, and I'm just really tired of it.

Pimp your game. EVANGELIZE your game. Praise it to the skies. If you don't play a game, ING IGNORE IT.