A Question of Character...

[Grossout]

Okay. Why do we need 4e, again, if we can have fun with any old thing, regardless?

I mean, it's not as if the fiddly math at high levels in 3e was all THAT bad.

I don't know the answer for sure - I actually did not play 3E, though I did own the PHB at one time. But from what I can gather, it seems like we need 4E because the math behind the system/the system itself wasn't all that great. And this new system will make the game better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know the answer for sure - I actually did not play 3E, though I did own the PHB at one time. But from what I can gather, it seems like we need 4E because the math behind the system/the system itself wasn't all that great. And this new system will make the game better.

Actually, the point I was trying to make is that if we just all want to choose an option available that we'll have fun with, any edition of D&D, or even not playing D&D altogether, work just as well. People have had fun by role-playing since the dawn of time, and we don't need D&D to do it, and we definately don't need 4e to do it.

But a lot of people play D&D specifically because it seems like it should be able to give them some of the options they want. And when it doesn't, they get rather understandably irked (especially if it used to, but no longer does).

 

[Grossout]

But a lot of people play D&D specifically because it seems like it should be able to give them some of the options they want. And when it doesn't, they get rather understandably irked (especially if it used to, but no longer does).

Yeah, I'm seeing that now.

I just think it would be worth it (again this is me - one man's opinion) to lose a few options for a character or two, if those losses went a long way toward making the game more balanced for all. It just seems like a trade worth making. But I'm starting to realize some players' desire to play very specific characters...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just think it would be worth it (again this is me - one man's opinion) to lose a few options for a character or two, if those losses went a long way toward making the game more balanced for all. It just seems like a trade worth making. But I'm starting to realize some players' desire to play very specific characters...

See, I'm of the opinion that it is possible to balance the game with those specific characters in mind. I don't think I need to make a trade-off.

And if I do, maybe D&D becomes not so much fun anymore and I go play videogames instead.

There aren't many things that are worth "not having fun" for.

 

[Raduin711]

I think, like Henry, that there are certain players who are in love with a particular concept, and they play that as much as they can... I am partial to the gnome illusionist concept, because I like how clever and creative I can be with the illusions. I also like giving depth to the gnome race. They get pidgeonholed by a lot of players by saying they are just pranksters, but I like to prove that they are more than that.

And I think it is dissapointing when our favorite concept is pushed aside by the game designers as less important than other concepts. We feel pushed aside as well. We even feel pushed aside by the community when others chime in and say that the game designers are right, those concepts are not as important as these other core concepts.

I am sure those who love Half-Orc, Bard, or Barbarian, Druid or even Psionicist concepts feel pushed aside as well.

But really, I think there comes a point where it really is good advice to just suck it up, try to find something we like from what we are being given, because you may just find something similar to what you want, or maybe even find something new to like. We can't just stew forever...

 

[I'm A Banana]

But really, I think there comes a point where it really is good advice to just suck it up, try to find something we like from what we are being given, because you may just find something similar to what you want, or maybe even find something new to like. We can't just stew forever...

No one is MAKING you switch.

So you don't have to suck it up.

You can choose to, but you definately don't have to.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Playing my character is what makes the game fun for me (or GMing others doing the same). Not generic-ass "adventuring". Adventures are fun, but I suspect your vision of what constitutes an adventure is a lot more linear than mine.

What I'd suggest is that you don't assume everyone who plays D&D enjoys it in the same way you do. I know lots of people enjoy it in very different ways to me. It's that assumption that undermines your entire post, ultimately.

Emphasis mine. Might I suggest that you not make an unwarranted assumption in one sentence, and then turn around and chide others for the same in the very next sentence?

For the record, it isn't possible to run an adventure any less linearly than I routinely do, and I share the OP's preferences more than most. This isn't surprising, when you consider that "linear adventure" and the style of characterization have absolutely no inherent connection.

 

[Grossout]

I think, like Henry, that there are certain players who are in love with a particular concept, and they play that as much as they can... I am partial to the gnome illusionist concept, because I like how clever and creative I can be with the illusions. I also like giving depth to the gnome race. They get pidgeonholed by a lot of players by saying they are just pranksters, but I like to prove that they are more than that.

And I think it is dissapointing when our favorite concept is pushed aside by the game designers as less important than other concepts. We feel pushed aside as well. We even feel pushed aside by the community when others chime in and say that the game designers are right, those concepts are not as important as these other core concepts.

I am sure those who love Half-Orc, Bard, or Barbarian, Druid or even Psionicist concepts feel pushed aside as well.

But really, I think there comes a point where it really is good advice to just suck it up, try to find something we like from what we are being given, because you may just find something similar to what you want, or maybe even find something new to like. We can't just stew forever...

Great post!

 

[Grossout]

No one is MAKING you switch.

So you don't have to suck it up.

You can choose to, but you definately don't have to.

I completely agree that no one is being made to switch, but I get the feeling that deep down, everyone wants to switch - everyone wants to like the game.

Someone brought up videogames earlier, so I'll try to use that as a crappy analogy.

I haven't purchased a Playstation 3 yet, because frankly none of the games (characters) currently available look that great to me, even though the system itself has a lot of really cool features. But that's not going to stop me from playing the system and having some fun when I go over to a friend's house. Chances are, I'm eventually gonna dig the system and its games enough that I'm gonna make the purchace. I mean, the PS3 (4e) clearly does a lot of things better than the PS2 (3e) - at least we're hoping as far as D&D is concerned. I would still keep my old system, but sooner or later, PS3 is gonna be my system of choice.

I don't know if that little rant just helped or hurt my point. It may have made us all a little dumber! Make a save v.s. INT Drain!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know if that little rant just helped or hurt my point.

Heh, it's a pretty good point, actually. Fanatics on both sides aside, the system is only as good as the games you can play on it. If 4e lets you play some kickass games, chances are good people will sign up to play 4e.

I'm taking the same attitude with 4e that I've been taking with the PS3: It's gotta win me over with some good games before I shell out for it. Or I might just end up buying a competitor (something like True20 or one of the liscenced games).