Are people still mad about . . .

[Mournblade94]

The worst part is that years later, people STILL contend that these posts were so insulting.

Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.

MAny boiled down to: "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition. It will be better for everyone this way. Trust us."

 

[Mournblade94]

Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance.

And as for 3Ed, while it wasn't perfectly compatible,

• WotC was kind enough to publish a 2Ed to 3Ed conversion manual that made conversion very easy
• The degree of incompatibility from 2Ed to 3Ed was MUCH less than from 3.X to 4Ed.

By way of example, I'm part of a group that has run a campaign since 1986 or so. We converted...well, really, alloyed 1Ed & 2Ed, and when 3Ed came out, we started converting to that. Now, I know I had problems with converting some multiclassed PCs, but none with single or dual classed ones. And even the multiclassed ones didn't really lose functionality or capabilities, they just lost a class because the remaining ones did the job nearly as well.

There simply wasn't a PC we couldn't model in 3Ed out of the box. The only question was fine details.

But converting from 3.X to 4Ed? Not a chance!

Absolutely! My campaign has been running since '88. However I am giving you experience for this:

well, really, alloyed 1Ed & 2Ed

I use the word alloy everyday with my job and never thought to use it so eloquently to describe what I did with 1st and 2nd edition.

Brilliant use of a word.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.

MAny boiled down to: "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition. It will be better for everyone this way. Trust us."

Agreed, alot of "your game must suck if you use this rule" or 'if you us rule x your games are unfun"

I found it very insulting as my games all suck and are unfun so saith the 4e dev team

 

[Starbuck_II]

I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.

I have to do 10 saves just to get through it so far (that way I lose less when primary saves get corrupted randomly).

 

[avin]

I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.

100% agreed!

Too bad Troika died... worst, too bad Bethesda did FO3 instead of Troika (which worked on the original) guys.

 

[Mournblade94]

I wouldn't call Pathfinder traditional myself. In many ways it is even more gonzo than 4e is. The mechanics of Pathfinder are more like 3e I suppose, but the flavour text of the classes and races is pretty much as over the top as 4e's flavour text.

I have to agree with that. With Pathfinder, I did not read the flavor text as much as the crunch. I don't need flavor text at this point, so I did not give it a proper analysis. The rules allow me to run the classes with 1st through 3rd edition flavour so I am satisfied. I have not done a comparison of the flavor, but maybe now I will

and 4e and Pathfinder seem to have made the new flavour the new norm.

Sadly I must agree

 

[ferratus]

Quite! It's also a problem with modules published for 4E specifically, e.g. Demonqueen's Enclave where we even know that the cartographer got the dimensions wrong and ended up drawing maps with too confined spaces.

I'll have to remember that.

You're fine with this rescaling as long as you don't break verisimilitude. Sometimes, adjustments are in order; e.g., if a bed occupies a square in the original map one isn't to assume that the bed now stretches 10 feet in length.

Yeah, clutter is another problem too. I treat whatever I can get away with as "difficult terrain" rather than obstacles

Small rooms can work sometimes as a nice change of pace. With so much movement and dynamic tactics going on in 4e, it can feel claustrophobic to fight in a small room (or over 2 or 3 small rooms) because you can't move as you are used to doing.

When I ran a conversion of Castle Korvosa as an adventure, it was too much. Lots of pointless combats that were over when you rolled up initiative, and everyone reverted back to the 3e D&D combat default of fighting in the doorways. It was a room to room slog, and not really suited to 4e's strengths.

 

[Shemeska]

I wouldn't call Pathfinder traditional myself. In many ways it is even more gonzo than 4e is. The mechanics of Pathfinder are more like 3e I suppose, but the flavour text of the classes and races is pretty much as over the top as 4e's flavour text.

I'd prefer a game with 4e's mechanics and the modesty of flavour text of earlier editions. We sort of drifted away from pulp fantasy dungeon crawling and low magic worlds over the decades to high arcana, exotic fantasy and superheroic panache. Planescape and Spelljammer were the harbingers, 3e tried to take us back to the dungeon but gave up a couple years into its run, and 4e and Pathfinder seem to have made the new flavour the new norm.

And herein we've got a really fascinating paradox, because I've seen people grin and describe Pathfinder as more amenable to old school tastes than 4e, and at the same time I know that I'm about as far away from old school as you can get (started in 3e, and heavily influenced by the craziest of the 2e setting fluff) and likewise I find Pathfinder to be more amenable to my tastes than 4e as well.

There's something for a really wide variety of tastes in the system and/or its associated setting material to make a really wide variety of players and DMs appreciate. I've gotten to write tons of flavor text and a lot of planar stuff, so I'm as happy as a famished imp let loose in an orphanage. But even so, even outside of my favorite niches, I enjoy the whole package just as much as people who approach gaming from and have particular gaming genres and influences from totally different backgrounds. It's pretty cool and kinda perplexing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And herein we've got a really fascinating paradox, because I've seen people grin and describe Pathfinder as more amenable to old school tastes than 4e, and at the same time I know that I'm about as far away from old school as you can get (started in 3e, and heavily influenced by the craziest of the 2e setting fluff) and likewise I find Pathfinder to be more amenable to my tastes than 4e as well.

Most likely because old/new school, tone, etc. come mostly from the DM and the group, not the system. It then boils down to what rule parameters float your boat. The true feel of the game is only going to come from you, not the game and it takes work no matter what system you use. If you like the rule system you can make any system work for you instead of working against the system. All the arguments I've seen stating that "System X" doesn't work all boil down to the added caveat "for me." I've been guilty of the same thing at times, as others find solutions to the problems I have with a system and I buck against them becuase the solution doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.

I have to do 10 saves just to get through it so far (that way I lose less when primary saves get corrupted randomly).

Are y'all aware that Circle of Eight modified the game very heavily, fixing bugs, increasing difficulty where called for, and building new quests and dungeons? I imagine the Co8 stuff is still available out there.