Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Crafting... can anyone make anything in 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4311495" data-attributes="member: 63272"><p>But why should it? What benefit did it bring to us in the end? There was plenty of playstyles and subsystems that 3e didn't have either. You can't include everything. So what to include and what not to include? If you include one subsystem but leave out another then people who liked that subsystem/playstyle are upset. Instead, the game provides a solid base to conflict resolution, the core of the RPG, and leaves DMs and players free to do what they always did anyway - tweak the game to suit their needs. The books include plenty of advice on how to tweak it, giving DC tables by level so the math matches up, for example. With those tables, devising a working craft system is cake. As is devising about anything you need to do. </p><p></p><p>4e focuses no more on combat than any other edition of D&D did. 3e was a bit bloated, but the corebooks certainly focused on conflict resolution. So did 1e - I have that PHB beside me, if you would like to post the table of contents. Why? Because that is the central element of the game. People seem to be in agreement that crafting in 3e was crap, so why port it into 4e? 3rd party publishers will cover the niche markets for gamers that don't want to or aren't creative enough to tweak their own games to suit their own wants. But why bloat the rules with a bunch of unnecessary subsystems that don't even get used in most games and many groups just houserule to suit their needs anyway? </p><p></p><p>With the way many gamers try to abuse every little loophole they can find, the more subsystems you use the more potential problems you create. Not too many groups will design their own system and then seek to abuse it or complain that it isn't realistic enough, or doesn't model medieval armorsmithing well enough, or a hundred other things. </p><p></p><p>And when the designers state from the beginning that this is, indeed, their design intent. That they credit the average gamer with common sense, a sense of fair play, and enough creative muscle to tweak the game to their own groups playstyle and preferences, complaining that this is some kind of design flaw or limiting the versatility of the game is just baseless nerd rage. </p><p></p><p>And for the record. 3e wasn't nearly as versatile as you want to claim it was. There isn't a group I am aware of that didn't have a collection of houserules to cover things the way they wanted. Even if the rules included this or that subsystem, many groups houseruled those subsystems to make them work better, or more logical, or more realistic, or more powerful, or whatever based on their own perception. My own group used a notebooks worth of houserules, a completely different and uncomplicated (but mathematically sound) XP system that didn't require tables and a calculator for every enoucnter, much less irritating identification rules (to our view, of course), modified craft systems, treasure systems, level/training, prestige class requirements, and many other things. </p><p></p><p>I'm already working on houseruling a couple things in 4e, but don't plan to finalize anything until we have more experience with the system. Point is, it is not a design flaw for the game to account for the creativity and individuality of gamers. It's a feature. The skeletal framework is there for you to easily build just about anything you want to add into the system, including crafting. Complaining that they didn't do it for you is where the arrogance lies - in thinking that the game designers failed if they didn't account for your personal preferences.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4311495, member: 63272"] But why should it? What benefit did it bring to us in the end? There was plenty of playstyles and subsystems that 3e didn't have either. You can't include everything. So what to include and what not to include? If you include one subsystem but leave out another then people who liked that subsystem/playstyle are upset. Instead, the game provides a solid base to conflict resolution, the core of the RPG, and leaves DMs and players free to do what they always did anyway - tweak the game to suit their needs. The books include plenty of advice on how to tweak it, giving DC tables by level so the math matches up, for example. With those tables, devising a working craft system is cake. As is devising about anything you need to do. 4e focuses no more on combat than any other edition of D&D did. 3e was a bit bloated, but the corebooks certainly focused on conflict resolution. So did 1e - I have that PHB beside me, if you would like to post the table of contents. Why? Because that is the central element of the game. People seem to be in agreement that crafting in 3e was crap, so why port it into 4e? 3rd party publishers will cover the niche markets for gamers that don't want to or aren't creative enough to tweak their own games to suit their own wants. But why bloat the rules with a bunch of unnecessary subsystems that don't even get used in most games and many groups just houserule to suit their needs anyway? With the way many gamers try to abuse every little loophole they can find, the more subsystems you use the more potential problems you create. Not too many groups will design their own system and then seek to abuse it or complain that it isn't realistic enough, or doesn't model medieval armorsmithing well enough, or a hundred other things. And when the designers state from the beginning that this is, indeed, their design intent. That they credit the average gamer with common sense, a sense of fair play, and enough creative muscle to tweak the game to their own groups playstyle and preferences, complaining that this is some kind of design flaw or limiting the versatility of the game is just baseless nerd rage. And for the record. 3e wasn't nearly as versatile as you want to claim it was. There isn't a group I am aware of that didn't have a collection of houserules to cover things the way they wanted. Even if the rules included this or that subsystem, many groups houseruled those subsystems to make them work better, or more logical, or more realistic, or more powerful, or whatever based on their own perception. My own group used a notebooks worth of houserules, a completely different and uncomplicated (but mathematically sound) XP system that didn't require tables and a calculator for every enoucnter, much less irritating identification rules (to our view, of course), modified craft systems, treasure systems, level/training, prestige class requirements, and many other things. I'm already working on houseruling a couple things in 4e, but don't plan to finalize anything until we have more experience with the system. Point is, it is not a design flaw for the game to account for the creativity and individuality of gamers. It's a feature. The skeletal framework is there for you to easily build just about anything you want to add into the system, including crafting. Complaining that they didn't do it for you is where the arrogance lies - in thinking that the game designers failed if they didn't account for your personal preferences. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Crafting... can anyone make anything in 4E?
Top