Asmor's dealbreaker list

[Klaus]

Well, since I did it for the other one...



Not in my experience. I'm a very improv-heavy DM, meaning, I prepare as little as possible before the game. A little thought about the kind of plot I want driving over to the place, maybe, but almost nothing.

It works pretty well in 3e.

Of course, I don't labor under any obsessive need to get things "right" for my home game. Just "fun." I also use a lot of published products -- Elder Evils and Exemplars of Evil were GREAT additions to my game, and I've been clamoring for a "monster manual of NPC's" for a while. I can be laborious to design, but I don't care about design when I'm bopping around my own table.



Oddly enough, I've seen this be a "DM problem" more than a "system problem." 3e has a LOT of good environmental rules -- heat, fire, lava, smoke, ice, weather....the dungeon features were very detailed, and easy to use as set pieces. Any DM worth his flamboyant purple cape doesn't just have a party and BBEG in an empty room. Any DM who DOES have that scenario is going to be boring.



Not IMXP. A magical market and ready availability of scrolls and wands help remedy the slightly small number of spells/day (if you actually suffer under that). I don't have a lot of experience against spellcasters of any sort, since, as I mentiond, I'm improv-heavy, so I don't design NPC's myself very often. But the few spellcasting monsters I found quite thematic, and the few spellcasting pre-prepared NPC's I've used have always been concentrated on a theme, as well.

And, again, I didn't labor under the Sysphean desire to get the NPC "right" before I plopped him down and had him launch spells. I just had one or two or four spell effects I wanted to deliver, and I hand-waved the rest.



As above. Thematic choices + "I don't need to get it totally 100% statted" worked endlessly in my favor here.



Yeah, by the RAW, this kind of blew. I managed a few adept house rules for it, that mostly fixed the problem, so I didn't really have this problem for long.



I'm mostly with you here. Combat overall was very binary, and unwieldy at high levels while not feeling very fantastic at low levels. The "middle range" was usually more than enough for my campaigns (which tended to be short), though.



....Oh, so this is more a list of reasons you're switching, rather than a list of things you don't like in a game?

The biggest annoyance in 4e for me so far are overzealous trufans who act like 3e killed puppies and that 4e will give them all free ice cream.

And, really, that's more than enough to make me very wary of the game.

QFT.

The last 3.5 game I ran had the 2nd-level party clearing the entire dungeon (including fighting a beetle swarm, two horrid rats and an iron defender) in less than two minutes, game time. The Druid had cast Produce Flame and wanted to make the most out of the duration (it was her best attack spell, plus it served as a torch), so they went SWAT on the dungeon. I tracked actions closely, and they were going "Clear!" "Clear!" as they moved along. The ticking clock and the action-tracking added a great sense of anticipation and suspense to the session.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The bulk of your posts is a rebuttal about the OP's feelings to 3.X RAW, but all your points are based on your own homebrew way of getting around the problems with 3.X RAW.

Actually, most of those are ways that you can use right in the RAW. No 3e gestapo is sitting down at your table to make sure you allocated every skill point correctly for your 30th level archmage. The major house rule in my post has to do with a work-around for the multiclassing casters problem, but, by the time 3e was over, that hole had been patched time and time again, anyway. I mean, it's kind of crudely duct taped, but it's not like it was a persistent problem with the edition.

My DMing philosophy has largely been "don't sweat the small stuff." That's not really a house rule, just a way of approaching any RPG. I don't need 4e to give me permission for that.

Yet I've had no small amount of 4e trufans telling me I'm some sort of horrible simulationist who wants to use the rules to emulate the physics of the real world (for instance).

I am really confused with your post and I have to say in response your last comment (quoted above) I really get irked with people trying to argue against something in a hypocritical fashion.

Psh. That little catchphrase isn't an argument, it's just a reason that 4e has grated on me (through no significant fault of WotC's, I might add).

3.X in RAW doesn't suit your play style (not saying 4E will) for about all the same points mentioned by the OP, and you brought forth what presented itself to me as an arguement against the OP.

Yeah, see, things like telling me "You weren't really having fun with 3e!" aren't very useful.

I was. Part of the reason I was having that fun was because 3e had a nice, thick net underneath all my improv acrobatics, so if I slipped and fell from my high-wire act, I could get back up again pretty quickly, and no one would be hurt. Part of the reason I was having fun was because there were gnomes and sorcerers and druids and bards. Part of the reason I was having fun was that I could get the rules for free online or offline whenever I wanted on my laptop.

Even though I didn't personally feel a need to attribute every individual skill point, I'm glad they were there for when I needed them in the official products. I'm glad I paid for people to go through and attribute every individual skill point. It has paid off quite often.

I loved 3.0 and 3.5, but I think I am ready to move beyond a heavy rules setting, and into something that allows a bit more freedom, and still makes the rules work.

No matter what game, no matter what system, you are only ever as free as you let yourself be. If 4e helps some people who can't unleash themselves otherwise feel more free, that's great.

Though I think the books have about the same amount of pages, so the weight of the rules isn't going to change much.

 

[Teemu]

Luckily, I never witnessed 3e killing puppies. Killed the hell out of my desire to DM, however.

You too, huh? Maybe that's why I didn't bother statting the NPCs/monsters the last time I ran a 3e game. Who the hell actually assigns skill points and the proper amount of feats to monsters that die in a few rounds of combat? And don't even mention the various buffs they cast before the fight - I ruled 0 them to last the encounter. Jesus, those spells are annoying... let's hope 4e fixes that for good.

 

[ruemere]

*Too long to prepare. Unless you fudge things, which I usually did, altering monsters in most meaningful ways, or creating high-level humanoid NPCs, was incredibly boring and tedious.

Two words: PcGen. Templates.

*Combat didn't feel dynamic. Usually your best choice was pretty obvious, and most of the time it was "Stand there and full attack." Your most meaningful choice each turn shouldn't be how many points to sink into power attack.

Agreed. Hence: feats, roleplaying, player's creativity.

*Low-level casters (Wizards especially) suck. They suck to play as and they suck to play against.

Wands. Scrolls. Familiars with personality. Retainers.

*High-level casters. I once spent all night picking out spells for a level 18 sorceress I was making for a soon-to-be epic game. Talk about a resource-management nightmare! I actually wanted the character to be a wizard, but that would have meant spending even more time figuring out what I wanted to memorize.

Agreed, though I doubt you'd see much of a difference in 4E. More spell levels to manage now. Again, PcGen solved things for me.

*Multiclassing, as far as casters are concerned, is broken and completely useless, barring certain prestige classes (Mystic Theurge, for example). Even then, until you've taken a few levels of the prestige class, you're still way behind the power curve.

Agreed. Hence: friendly GM extends helping hand to suboptimal characters (retainers, items and plot opportunities).

*Narrow fun range. [...]

No banana. It's GM's job to adapt to evolving game style. Who wants to dungeoneer for 20 levels?

*Almost everything I've seen about 4th edition, I really, really like. Not really a dealbreaker for 3.5, but provides yet another strong impetus to switch. The only thing about 4th edition I've disliked was the thing about counting diagonals, and I've warmed to that.

To me, 4E is a great unknown. Previews showed us that lower level play is dynamic and very wuxia. The rest is pure marketing plus several gaming simplifications I do not like (diagonals, forced movement rules).

What we really need, is for someone to provide playtest reports of higher tiers.

So these are the reasons that I will not run a 3.5 game ever again, and why it would take a lot of convincing to get me to play one. Viva la 4e!

Good for you. Me, I'm going to wait and see.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. GSL is also strongly discouraging me from 4E. It may be not important to an average gamer, but I ran my campaign using almost exclusively 3rd party gaming materials (and tools). And GSL, while not as bad as it seemed in the beginning, may become a reason for several good things to disappear from the market.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Who the hell actually assigns skill points and the proper amount of feats to monsters that die in a few rounds of combat?

I don't think anyone did, which is why that makes for such a bizarre argument against 3e.

Honestly, one of the reasons I liked 3.x so much was because all these complaints against it seem to all revolve around "You had the option to do things I didn't like!" Yes, that's just it though - options. Options are key.

 

[neceros]

Ran a 3.5 game last night.

• Did not give my monsters stat blocks. Took random percentages from players to make sure it wasn't too hard, but still challenging. I shouldn't have to do that, I should be able to pick a monster or make one in a few seconds, depending on how involved I want it.
• Using a monster out of the MM, matching CR against party level, I almost killed my players twice in two swings. These were non crits. 3.5 just isn't balanced properly and battle becomes too swingy. I had to Divine intervention to save my Paladin from death (These people know how to make characters and are not slouches, nor did I do anything horrible. It's just 3.5's too variable system.)
• I voluntarily forced a couple monsters to move around in order for the fight to feel fluid. They died in a couple rounds because they couldn't do their full damage with a full attack. Pathetic.
• Everyone had fun, but that's because I made the game more like 4e. I will grant you that most of my group is looking forward to or interested in seeing how 4e plays out.
• 3.5 is keyed at Restrictions: Explicit rules to govern actions. 4e is keyed at options: Rules to adjudicate actions and reactions, while giving players options and not restrictions.

We don't look to 4e because it's the savior or all games. We don't want to switch because it's the new fad and we're fan boys or overly zealous. We are honestly tired of having to play the game instead of play our characters.

3.5 was a great system. It had it's time, and may pop up again in the future when we want to go retro or need to convert something. However, because WoTC has worked on and is releasing a new version, a version which has the mechanical bugs that many players don't like (Note: That doesn't mean they are broken, they are just unfavorable.) my group will gladly switch to gain the system that works better and longer. I'm glad I don't have to start my players at level 3 and end at level 12.

 

[Teemu]

I don't think anyone did, which is why that makes for such a bizarre argument against 3e.

But why are there several pages in the core rule books devoted to that, assigning skill points and feats to NPCs and monsters? What a waste. If the 4e MM really delivers what it's promising, I'm happy.

 

[Asmor]

My goal here was not to persuade people to switch to 4th edition. It wasn't even to persuade people to stop playing 3.x. My goal here was to post a parody of someone else's list of "dealbreakers" for 4th edition and explain why I'm positive that 3.x is not in my gaming future. In fact, most of the things he listed as dealbreakers were things I really liked. Just goes to show you, different strokes for different folks.

I'm a heavy rollplayer. Combat is important to me, and interesting combat is more important to me. In fact, I daresay, I like my combat to be like a simple board game. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against roleplaying, and I'm actively trying to enhance my own roleplaying abilities as both player and DM, but I'm unapologetic in regards to the importance I place on the system in general and combat in particular.

D&D, as a roleplaying game, is actually kind of unique. Every RPG owes its existence to D&D, and many RPGs are similar to it, but nothing has the exact same feel to it. Some games simplify it, some games are low magic, some games change the setting. D&D is not the rules, or the setting, or the archetypes; it's the sum of all of the above.

I want a high fantasy system with relatively complex, and balanced, character options with a heavy focus on combat and a race, class, and level-based system where you take turns rolling polyhedral dice to remove hit points from things and then take their stuff.

Heck, are there even any other RPGs that use classes and levels and which aren't D&D-derived? I'm no RPG scholar, but off the top of my head I can't think of any. The only other things I can think of are True20 and SpyCraft and d20 Modern and other games derived from D&D. Classes and levels are mostly seen as an anachronism in the modern gaming world, and in my opinion that's a damn shame. Lots of games have classes (WHFRP's jobs, White Wolf's clan/tribe/etc), but the only level-based systems I can think of are a stretch and definitely don't have classes (Savage Worlds's Novice/Seasoned/Veteran/Legendary and the d20-derived Mutants & Mastermind's Power Levels, which are levels in name only and really just more of a classification of how many points people have).

And ultimately, D&D's got one huge trump card that can't be imitated. It's D&D. D&D is the Kleenex brand tissue, the Band-aid brand adhesive strip, and the Xerox brand copier of the RPG world. The name itself, and the idea of Elves and Dwarves and Fighters and Wizards and Beholders and Drow and Hit Points and Saving Throws* is indelibly etched into my mind.

So that's the reason I know D&D's in my future. And I've listed all the reasons why 3.5 isn't. So that just leaves 4th edition (older editions aren't an option for me, and that's a whole 'nother thread). When 4th edition was announced, I was between games with the prospects of starting a new one soon. After the announcement, I switched over to Savage Worlds permanently. I knew that D&D was on the horizons, and I was a big fan of Star Wars Saga Edition, so I knew that there 4th edition was destined to be a step up.

*Yes, I know saving throws are being replaced by "defenses." Same idea, different name and implementation.

 

[pemerton]

Heck, are there even any other RPGs that use classes and levels and which aren't D&D-derived?

Does Rolemaster count? It has races, and classes, and levels, and they're not just a cloak for points-buy (contrast HARP, also from ICE, in this respect).

Undoubtedly many of the tropes common in RM are inspired by AD&D (though by no means all of them), but in the details of both character build and action resolution it plays extremeley differently.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't think anyone did, which is why that makes for such a bizarre argument against 3e.

Who cares if it's in the 3E rules? No one actually used it, so it's okay.

But anything in the 4E rules that's bad? Dealbreaker.