Changeover Poll

[Wulf Ratbane]

3e felt like it encouranged them to whine more. 4e feels (thus far) like it doesn't as much. Rah rah- I like that.

Ah, those mystical mind-altering powers that 4e has. Its mechanics turn rules lawyers into sheep and DMs back into manly men.

You know I wonder if all this "freedom" with the rules of 4e is because...well there hasn't been as much time for people to master the rules like they did with 3.5...

No! You don't say...

 

[Scribble]

That's actually quite nice. It's handy. Our resident rules lawyer (GlassJaw) now knows that he has about 10 seconds to find the rule. (Sufficient group pressure through STFU and RTFD applied.)

If he has the rule at hand, great.

If not, there are bad guys that need killin' and lootin'. He knows that we're not going to derail our fun over a rule.

Which brings up somethign else...

Generaly I play D&D because it's a fun thing to do with my friends. I like running the game because I'm the type of person who likes to see everyone have fun. (I like to throw parties, I like to buy gifts, I like to cook dinner for people, etc...)

One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.

I preffer to see less headaches as I wing a DC and don't have to say Shut up roll the dice!, and less times I have to make someone upnhappy because they knew a rule and I didn't.

Shrug. To each his own man.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.

And some folks' sense of fun is contingent on being a glory hog, or an evil character, or in general causing intra-party conflict.

What can you do?

It's a mystery-- but I am sure 5th edition will contain some mechanics to magically address this psychology, too.

 

[Scribble]

Ah, those mystical mind-altering powers that 4e has. Its mechanics turn rules lawyers into sheep and DMs back into manly men.

Since it's built along the lines of DCs are variable, rules lawyers (in my experience thus far) seem to be ok with DCs not being exactly spelled out in some way. No mystical mind tricks involved.

Since monsters are built just with the ability to do random things by the book, they seem to accept the fact that a monster is doing something, as opposed to their usual "X monster can't do that!" ingrained response.

Again nothing mystical.

You know I wonder if all this "freedom" with the rules of 4e is because...well there hasn't been as much time for people to master the rules like they did with 3.5...

Always possible. I can only go by what I've seen so far in my games. I could be completely wrong. When 3e came out I was originally happy and thought all the rules spelled out clearly would lessen the rules lawyers... But then I found out it didn't, and seemed to encourage them.

I could be wrong about 4e, but so far I haven't noticed it.

At which case, I tell the player, "I don't care about the Complete Figure skater as it is an optional book. Furthermore, this ice is apparently slippier than normal.
However, your character is so focused on why is this ice more slippery than other ice that he misses an even slicker patch, falls and cracks his head.

Now, the ice around your character's head is slowly becoming red in color!"

Cool. Glad it works for you. I've had similar situations before too. I'd preffer to avoid that situation from the start, and just have everyone having fun as much as possible.

 

[Scribble]

And some folks' sense of fun is contingent on being a glory hog, or an evil character, or in general causing intra-party conflict.

What can you do?

It's a mystery-- but I am sure 5th edition will contain some mechanics to magically address this psychology, too.

If it does so in some way I find enjoyable, and find makes the game more playable/fun for everyone then I'l be all for it.

Seriously what is your issue here? What difference does it make to you whether or not I feel 4e makes a better game night with my group?

 

[FallenTabris]

More distance? Um, we've had three editions in 8 years.

I thought it was only two, 3.x and the new 4e. I don't see 3.5 and 3.0 as significantly different.

 

[mmu1]

One thing I've noticed over the years is even when the ules lawyer eventually shuts up and rolls the die... they still sulk. They get all quiet, and stare at the table a bit... They're not having fun. Which sucks.

I don't know what your experiences were like, exactly, but I'm actually one of those people who gets upset when I know the rules and I base my decision-making on them, but the DM does not and wings it badly, in effect arbitrarily deciding that my character is going to fail at something I thought was a reasonable course of action based on my experience and skill at playing the game.

I also dislike it when a DM decides to wing it and gets it wrong when it's an extremely simple matter (like a DC) and they could just ask and get an answer without slowing the game down to any appreciable extent. Players who know the rules can be a valuable resource.

Of course, you need to be able to accept that there will often be times when the best thing the DM can do is make a ruling on the fly - few things benefit from a lengthy discussion in a committee.

 

[DaveMage]

I don't see 3.5 and 3.0 as significantly different.

It was different enough that WotC was able to release books for each (3.0 and 3.5) that had the same classes, same races, same spells, same equipment, same magic items and same monsters.

3.5 was most certainly a different edition from 3.0 from their perspective.

 

[S'mon]

Warning: Here comes a thread hijack.

Have you tried this S'mon? That is - have you tried a 1-10 spread? For a time during the transition I considered doing this. As a DM, I'm highly in favor of it. But some of my players voiced significant resistance. The problem, in our group, came down to a "best for the DM" and "best for the Players" and those two views were oft-times conflicting on this issue. And since we're all a bunch of appeasers, I tried to meet them halfway and they tried to meet me halfway and everyone was only halfway happy. :0

I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

WP

Forked reply to new thread.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Since it's built along the lines of DCs are variable, rules lawyers (in my experience thus far) seem to be ok with DCs not being exactly spelled out in some way. No mystical mind tricks involved.

There's no functional mechanical difference between 4e, where DCs are not exactly spelled out in some way, and a 3e game where the DM "wings it" with DCs that are not exactly spelled out in some way.

Except for the mystical part, wherein 4e gives you "permission" to wing it and now everybody is ok with that. Yay, 4e fixed it!

Since monsters are built just with the ability to do random things by the book, they seem to accept the fact that a monster is doing something, as opposed to their usual "X monster can't do that!" ingrained response.

Again nothing mystical.

That's entirely mystical. It is dependent on the players' acceptance of the variation, not the system.

Seriously what is your issue here? What difference does it make to you whether or not I feel 4e makes a better game night with my group?

I don't have an issue with you having fun. I have an issue with magical thinking. Your players' ability to lighten up and have fun with a new system has nothing to do with the system other than its newness.

Let's say that starting tomorrow, every game session I run, I am going to wear a red T-shirt that says, "My House, My Rules." Amazingly, my players lighten up, there are no more arguments, and everybody has fun.

Should I attribute the new and improved game to the players, to the system, or to the red T-shirt?

And if your answer is, "The red T-shirt!" how much are you willing to pay me for it?