If you love 3.5 so much....go DM it!

[Aus_Snow]

Oh come on, you can do better than that (parroting).

If you don't like the fact that it's just as relevant and appropriate (i.e., parody, not 'parroty') as the 'original', I honestly couldn't care less, and well, it *is* just as relevant and appropriate.

 

[Steely Dan]

If you don't like the fact that it's just as relevant and appropriate (i.e., parody, not 'parroty') as the 'original', I honestly couldn't care less, and well, it *is* just as relevant and appropriate.

Save it, please, we all know what you were "trying" to do.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

ProfessorCirno,
I never said "you cannot enjoy 3.5!! It is evil, a con game to get more money from us, the females' boobies are too big, it's a MMORPG clone!" etc, did I?

If you like 3.5, fine, go enjoy

I'm just fed up with folk bashing 4th ed because:

a) they've never bothered really trying it.
b) Min/Maxing casters who don't care about other players and don't want their tricks nerfed.
c) Don't have a clue how annoying 3.5 is to DM vs 1st and 2nd. If you DM and like it, fine, me and most I know, don't. It's just over complex, and I perosnally don't like how horribly little melee types have to do.
d) Complain about 4th ed some how having no roleplaying...eh, RP is not and never should be what most of the game rules are about. RP is whole other ball game and can be attached to many games if you wish to make up a way to do it.
Social skills in 4th ed work fine for me.

Some folk just don't get how lucky they are to be able to HAVE a 4th ed and play games

Must resist urge to repost I'M IRRATIONAL comic...

a) Quite a few people who dislike 4e have tried it. You're wrong.
b) Min/maxers will always break a system, making that a bad argument. You're wrong.
c) Most of us know EXACTLY what it means to DM a 3.x game. I'd wager most people on EN World, period, DM. You're wrong.
d) This is completely up to each and every individual to make up their mind.

In short, by attempting to paint all people who dislike 4e with one broad brush, all you've done is set up a bad scarecrow argument - and look how effeciently you knocked it down!

PS: Aus_Snow's argument is completely valid. If the same phrase you use CAN successfully be parroted back against you, you should reconsider the phrase, not just say "NO PUNCH BACK, THAT'S NOT FAAAIIIIR."

 

[Steely Dan]

not just say "NO PUNCH BACK, THAT'S NOT FAAAIIIIR."

My, aren't we fierce…


…And looking at your join date, you've made a horrendous debut.

 

[Wolfspider]

Ahh, so now this thread has come down to discussing the join dates of posters, eh?

Pitiful.

I DM v3.5, among other games. I was interested in 4e, but I had enough reservations after reading through the rulebooks to adopt a wait and see attitude. I want to see how much errata piles up, what corrections are made, and what impressions people have of the game after playing for more than just a week.

I am quite satisfied with v3.5. I have no problems prepping adventures. My players are satisfied with the game, not because they can exploit the rules, but because it offers them all the options that they want. 3rd edition is pretty much a complete game at this point. Why should they start over with three books that won't allow them to create the kind of characters they want?

I can't fault this line of reasoning at all.

 

[Steely Dan]

Ahh, so now this thread has come down to discussing the join dates of posters, eh?

The Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire - discuss!

 

[BryonD]

just a point, as I see so many folk who complain about 4th ed, are only *players*, not DMs.

Interesting, because one thing I've noticed is that of the ENWorlders whom I respected as great DMs, most are very cold on 4e and none are actively promoting it.

I DM 99% of the time and love 3E.
And my dislike of 4E is in a large part based on how the gamism over simulation degrades the rewards of DMing. Yeah, 4E is easier to DM. And a baseball is easier to hit off a tee. I'd still rather play baseball than teeball.

 

[Zil]

just a point, as I see so many folk who complain about 4th ed, are only *players*, not DMs.

I don't think you're right there. Most of the complaints I see are from people saying they are going to keep _running_ their games using a different system.

I preffer 4th ed, play whatever version you like, no worries to me
But, do not moan and complain without realizing how unpleasant DMing in 3.5 was for many folk! Jeesh.

As above, I'm not so sure that you have accurately pegged the demographic of the posting 4E dissenters. Most seem to be DMs.

As for my experience of DM'ing 3.5, yes, it can be more work than DM'ing 2E in terms of prep time, but with experience you do find short cuts. However, even with 3.x's warts, I just can't get excited about giving it up to DM a 4E game. 4E is such a different animal, and one that I don't really like. If someone took away 3.x/Pathfinder/OGL options from me, I'd probably go back to some kind of 2E derived home brew instead of 4E.

3.5 ed was no fun, as far as I was concerned, doing combat encounters or having to spend hours making NPCs, ick!

Yes, but there are some short cuts you can take. I think that would have been a better focus for improving the game rather than throwing out a working system.

Waaaay too many hassles, unecessary complexity, too many rolls etc.
Stealth vs Perception in 4th ed is wonderful, how it should be, 2 rolls, not 4 rolls as in 3.5!

I never found 3E too complex to run and still don't. However, I do find 4E too limited and narrow in scope. YMMV.

If you enjoy DM'ing or playing 4E, all the power to you. It's just not the game system for everyone (including many DMs).

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

I am quite satisfied with v3.5. I have no problems prepping adventures. My players are satisfied with the game, not because they can exploit the rules, but because it offers them all the options that they want. 3rd edition is pretty much a complete game at this point. Why should they start over with three books that won't allow them to create the kind of characters they want?

I can't fault this line of reasoning at all.

Ditto. 3.5 does what I and my players need it to do. I don't think prep time is difficult at all as a DM. There are plenty of tricks to speed things up and after doing it long enough, it has become second nature.

In addition, three of my six player's PCs would be invalidated by 4e (two druids and a half-orc). That aside, conversion would be a nightmare. We have no desire to end our current campaign and start over.

 

[Azgulor]

I DM 3.5 and don't have any problems.

If there are classes, items, spells, etc. I don't want, I don't allow it in my game but those instantces are rare.

If I want to make an NPC in 5 minutes, I stat out what's most critical. If I want a detailed NPC, it takes a little longer and I don't view the time as wasted.

Neither I nor my players have ever had a problem with grapple.

My players LIKE that NPCs use the same rules as PCs.

Some of the best games & storylines we've ever ran/played occurred due to unexpected outcomes of the die. I didn't spontaneously morph a minion into a "real" NPC b/c my BBEG died and he lived. I turned the unexpected result into a story that fueled my game.

To each their own.