Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6578416" data-attributes="member: 85870">Hmmm, see, I kind of have a problem with this comment. D&amp;D is a &quot;bad&quot; game? (Except for your beloved 4e, I'm assuming). This is exactly the kind of thing the 4vengers were forever rolling out during the height of the edition wars----&quot;Just because YOU don't like 4e doesn't mean it's bad!&quot; I'd say the same thing---just because you don't like any version of D&amp;D other than 4e doesn't mean it's &quot;bad.&quot; Wait, as a matter of fact, I seem to recall many, many 4e proponents trying to tell me &quot;just how much like classic D&amp;D 4e really is&quot; as a selling point.....so which is it? Millions upon millions of people have derived countless hours of enjoyment from this &quot;bad&quot; game, your favorite version included.Look, frankly, D&amp;D does a lot of things RIGHT. Class-based advancement makes it easy for players to choose a niche / character type. Level-based advancement makes it easier for GMs to set encounter difficulty. While I don't like it much, &quot;Vancian&quot; magic is a robust, flavorful spell system that makes it easy to incorporate checks and balances (whether they've been implemented well or not in the past is another story).And as much as I've come to not like the concept of hit points generally---at least not as D&amp;D implements them---it makes a very easy shorthand for &quot;combat readiness&quot; and &quot;health factor&quot; that is ubiquitous across gaming media.D&amp;D players don't prefer it for its &quot;egregious flaws,&quot; they prefer it because it provides a play experience they understand and enjoy. (Believe me, I personally have discovered I can get a much better play experience using a different system, but not everyone has had that experience yet, and frankly maybe they don't need to.) Second, few would consider Pathfinder an &quot;equally bad&quot; clone of D&amp;D. To me the concept of Archetypes alone makes Pathfinder a reasonably objective improvement over 3e multiclassing. Whether it improves anything else, by how much, whether it improved enough of the right stuff (or didn't go nearly far enough) is subjective, obviously. For the record, I think Fantasy Craft is the best implementation of &quot;Fantasy D&amp;D&quot; on the market.......but at this point I just don't go for d20-based stuff at all. 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft, True20, Arcana Evolved, 13th Age, doesn't matter, I just don't care for the base assumptions and tropes of D&amp;D-based systems anymore. You'd be hard pressed to get me to play or run anything d20. A buddy of mine tried to run a &quot;core only&quot; 3.5 campaign maybe 7 months ago, and after Savage Worlds and the One Ring it was like nails on the chalkboard every session. Every instinct of mine was fighting against the system. Heck, I don't like GURPS at all, and frankly I'd be more inclined to run GURPS over D&amp;D / d20 of any variety. (But really this whole paragraph is tangential to the topic at hand.)The point is, bagging on an entire group of the RPG population for liking and enjoying D&amp;D comes across as arrogant and elitist. You're more than entitled to your views, but if the goal is have a productive dialogue about RPG play experiences---with the intent of making a positive impact on people's approach to the game and their system of choice---this probably isn't the way to go about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6578416, member: 85870"] Hmmm, see, I kind of have a problem with this comment. D&D is a "bad" game? (Except for your beloved 4e, I'm assuming). This is exactly the kind of thing the 4vengers were forever rolling out during the height of the edition wars----"Just because YOU don't like 4e doesn't mean it's bad!" I'd say the same thing---just because you don't like any version of D&D other than 4e doesn't mean it's "bad." Wait, as a matter of fact, I seem to recall many, many 4e proponents trying to tell me "just how much like classic D&D 4e really is" as a selling point.....so which is it? Millions upon millions of people have derived countless hours of enjoyment from this "bad" game, your favorite version included. Look, frankly, D&D does a lot of things RIGHT. Class-based advancement makes it easy for players to choose a niche / character type. Level-based advancement makes it easier for GMs to set encounter difficulty. While I don't like it much, "Vancian" magic is a robust, flavorful spell system that makes it easy to incorporate checks and balances (whether they've been implemented well or not in the past is another story). And as much as I've come to not like the concept of hit points generally---at least not as D&D implements them---it makes a very easy shorthand for "combat readiness" and "health factor" that is ubiquitous across gaming media. D&D players don't prefer it for its "egregious flaws," they prefer it because it provides a play experience they understand and enjoy. (Believe me, I personally have discovered I can get a much better play experience using a different system, but not everyone has had that experience yet, and frankly maybe they don't need to.) Second, few would consider Pathfinder an "equally bad" clone of D&D. To me the concept of Archetypes alone makes Pathfinder a reasonably objective improvement over 3e multiclassing. Whether it improves anything else, by how much, whether it improved enough of the right stuff (or didn't go nearly far enough) is subjective, obviously. For the record, I think Fantasy Craft is the best implementation of "Fantasy D&D" on the market.......but at this point I just don't go for d20-based stuff at all. 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft, True20, Arcana Evolved, 13th Age, doesn't matter, I just don't care for the base assumptions and tropes of D&D-based systems anymore. You'd be hard pressed to get me to play or run anything d20. A buddy of mine tried to run a "core only" 3.5 campaign maybe 7 months ago, and after Savage Worlds and the One Ring it was like nails on the chalkboard every session. Every instinct of mine was fighting against the system. Heck, I don't like GURPS at all, and frankly I'd be more inclined to run GURPS over D&D / d20 of any variety. (But really this whole paragraph is tangential to the topic at hand.) The point is, bagging on an entire group of the RPG population for liking and enjoying D&D comes across as arrogant and elitist. You're more than entitled to your views, but if the goal is have a productive dialogue about RPG play experiences---with the intent of making a positive impact on people's approach to the game and their system of choice---this probably isn't the way to go about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification