D&D 3E/3.5 4E reminded me how much I like 3E

[Wulf Ratbane]

I would say that if it emerges naturally from play, the system/rules itself produced it.

I guess I would say the players produced it. (Including the DM.)

When we play it seems we always end up drinking a lot of beer. Is it fair to say that this behavior emerged from the system/rules? If not, why not?

One thing I really like about 4E is the return to a hallmark of old school D&D. The importance of in game credibility being sourced in DM rulings rather than in game rules.

Well, you know what? If 4e somehow convinced you that you have your credibility back, I am not gonna complain. I can happily chalk that up as a "win" for 4e, even though I still don't understand why folks need to have something so obvious spelled out for them.

It's not in my "win" column because it empowers me, it's in my win column because it's empowering other DMs who apparently need it.

 

[Hussar]

Wulf, I can honestly say that nothing you write comes across as passive to me.

 

[The Little Raven]

Game Balance NOW says that every character must be of equal power at every level or the game is broken and bad.

If level isn't a consistent indication of power level comparisons between two characters, then it's not very useful.

Level should indicate level of power, not class. Class should determine type of power.

Back in 1E (and 2E) some classes were just inherently more powerful than other classes because, simply, []that's the way it is[/i] in the fantasy novels and myths and legends that D&D comes from.

One might say they were inherently more powerful because of designer bias (tons of "old school" designers seem to be of the "wizard uber alles" school of thought).

However, a good deal of the fiction that D&D is supposedly based in didn't have magic-users make everyone else obsolete. Hell, Conan faced spellcaster and usually kicked the crap out of them, despite being a beefcake.

Why in the world should Fighters be just as powerful as Wizards?

Because it's a game and one player shouldn't be immediately more or less powerful than everyone else based on the type of character they want to play.

Does this not fly in the face of the genre itself, that a sword swinging warrior face down any menace that a mighty archmage can do?

No, it supports the genre, which is full of non-spellcaster characters overcoming incredible odds and kicking the wizard in the teeth.

What has become of the moment in the story where "Swords are no more use here;" the point when it becomes obvious that it's down to the sorcerer calling on his deepest magical reserves to do battle with the noisome eldritch obscenity which mere mortals can do naught but quake in fear of?

You mean "What has become of the moment when I tell everyone not playing the wizard to roll up a wizard, since their rogue/ranger/fighter/whatever is now useless because I have a hard-on for spellcasters?" Hopefully, the rogue shivved it and it's lying in a ditch, quietly bleeding out.

I MISS those days.

Then recreate it. 1e is available on the net. There are communities out there that still play it. Have fun.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, I can honestly say that nothing you write comes across as passive to me.

Well, at least you and I are communicating.

Do I recall your name correctly from the old Sweet Spot discussion?

 

[Mercule]

I'm not trying to present this single issue as a choice between 4e and 3e. I think what I am saying is that 3e and 4e both have their good points, and their bad points. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 4e can remove a lot of the stumbling blocks of 3e. But it does this at the expense of adding other stumbling blocks of its own.

Nor am I.

I'm still on the fence with 4e. Actually, I have yet to play more than an evening of it. There is enough that interests me, though, that I do want to give it a chance to win me over.

About the only thing I can say for sure is that 3.5 lost me before 4e was even announced. That may be because I just like rotating systems -- and I do like rotating systems. I think it's more likely, though, that I got "unpleasant" results too many times when I tried to house rule, tweak, and simplify 3e.

I'll absolutely grant that 3.5 suits some play styles well enough. My main beef, right now, is with the hostility and the suggestions (some more explicit than others) that anyone unsatisfied with 3.5 is somehow deficient. I agree, though, that there do seem to be some people who had an epiphany or ten about 3e only when 4e was released/announced. If I wasn't already unhappy with 3e, I imagine that would probably turn me off more than a bit, too.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm open to the possibility that you're being sarcastic, but on the off-chance that you're seriously asking, the answer is that the DM has all the authority that the players allow her to have. Also...you don't need the rulebooks.

I'm not talking about social stuff. What I mean is:

I want to sit down with my friends and play D&D. What do we do?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm not talking about social stuff. What I mean is:

I want to sit down with my friends and play D&D. What do we do?

I am pretty sure I understand your point, so let me clarify mine.

I have no objection if 4e includes language that makes it explicit that the DM is in control. This is fine advice for new players, and because 4e is meant to attract new players, it would have been terrible if they hadn't included it.

In the mouth of an inexperienced DM, "4e gives me explicit control of my game!" is evidence of a good lesson learned.

In the mouth of an experienced DM, "4e gives me explicit control of my game!" is specious praise.

My main beef, right now, is with the hostility and the suggestions (some more explicit than others) that anyone unsatisfied with 3.5 is somehow deficient.

I am in the list of people unsatisfied with 3.5; I am in the list of people who recognize aspects of genius in 4e. I am not in the list of people willing to pretend that 3.5 is worthless, nor willing to shower 4e with specious praise.

 

[Mercule]

I am in the list of people unsatisfied with 3.5; I am in the list of people who recognize aspects of genius in 4e. I am not in the list of people willing to pretend that 3.5 is worthless, nor willing to shower 4e with specious praise.

More than fair. We may not be too far apart, then. Just wobbling slightly different directions.

It's unfortunate that, at the moment, people seem to be forcibly tossed into one "camp" or the other. I know I find it odd to almost certainly appear as a 4e advocate when I haven't even played the game and have doubts that it will really satisfy me (though I suspect I'll get some enjoyment from it).

Honestly, I'd almost rather try nWoD or Aces & Eights, but my group wants fantasy, so it's a matter of picking a system that works without being taxing.

 

[pemerton]

I'm open to the possibility that you're being sarcastic, but on the off-chance that you're seriously asking, the answer is that the DM has all the authority that the players allow her to have. Also...you don't need the rulebooks.

I have no objection if 4e includes language that makes it explicit that the DM is in control. This is fine advice for new players, and because 4e is meant to attract new players, it would have been terrible if they hadn't included it.

In the mouth of an inexperienced DM, "4e gives me explicit control of my game!" is evidence of a good lesson learned.

In the mouth of an experienced DM, "4e gives me explicit control of my game!" is specious praise.

I think Lost Soul's point is that the rules of a game should tell the players what it is that they are expected to do to play the game. If those players are to have different roles (be that player, GM or mid-fielder, goalie or whatever) then the rules should say what those different roles are to do. It is not self-evident what the role of players and GMs in any given RPG is - it differs from game to game, after all (eg given that 4e is a fortune-in-the-middle system, who has narration rights in the context of action resolution? and as Lost Soul asks, who has NPC-introduction rights?).

This is no an issue of social contract or GM experience. I can always house rule soccer if I want to and my friends agree, but this is neither here nor there if I want to know what soccer is.

 

[Spatula]

Oh, sure, you could do it in 3e. But it required a huge amount of work

In what way?

Yes, large groups of low-level monsters aren't a challenge, and the very imperfect EL system obviously breaks down there. Low-level foes can't hit the PCs and don't do appreciable damage when they do. Any DM can or should be able to see that after the first time such an encounter happens and not make the same mistake again.

On a side note - the reason the argument about stat blocks morphed is because the original comment was somewhat unclear. Why did Rounser claim that there was a need for software to write NPC stat blocks? IMO, the need comes from the fact that stat blocks are really, really hard to write.

Well, not hard to write but rather hard to get right. Though that depends on the NPC in question, some are obviously more complicated than others. Templates, prestige classes, and lots of spells are what slows things down, IME.