Okay people, a little wake up call.

[Gallo22]

I can run the same campaign, with the same characters, and have the same outcome (generally speaking) in 1e, in 2e in 3e and in 4e. I can have all my NPCs. I can have my gnomes running around, i can have all the events in any campaign in any edition, just because the rules are different doesnt mean anything. For god sakes people, its a game of imagination, OMG OMG OMG ITS ALL COMBAT. Im glad they gave robust rules for combat. Hell they even gave us rules for non combat encounters. Skill challenges anyone?

Oh no they dont have this spell or this one or this in there. MAKE IT UP !!!!! STOP RELYING ON EVERYTHING TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU. Geeze.

I promise all of you will will be okay with 4th edition.

That's funny, I could say the samething about 3.X when it comes to rules that may not work "Oh no the grapling rules are too hard. MAKE IT UP !!!!! STOP RELYING ON EVERYTHING TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU." Geeze.

 

[billd91]

This is a style of play in 3e that emerged spontaneously in many different regions. I'd wager I'm not the only person to have experienced it myself.

Granted it existed prior to 3e in D&D and many other systems. But you don't see how 3e itself played some part in players leaving "well-rounded" PCs behind for twinked-out mega-warriors of doom and mayhem?

I mean, Dragon used to have articles about this stuff. Monk teleport, anyone?

This style of play emerged "spontaneously" because it was a style of play already out there since the first fighter in 1st edition eschewed proficiency in broadsword in order to use a long sword because it did better damage against large creatures and constituted 70% of all magic swords. Lots of players naturally want the most bang they can get for their buck and Dragon has been covering aspects of it, sometimes favorably sometimes non, since the early days. But it's never been universal.

3E provided substantive tools to support that style of play, sure, but it also provided substantive tools to support a style of play geared in a completely different direction AND tools to support a style of play that sat on the fence. That wasn't really new either, but a certain level of customization and granularity was new.

The deciding factor is, and always has been, the approach the group takes to it. I agree that there have been plenty of people who talk up a high falutin' game of ROLE-play and INTRIGUE and end up kicking in doors and swinging swords to the point where you'd be justified in calling it bait and switch. But, again, that was nothing new with 3E either and I predict it will continue on in 4e. It's just easier, in many ways, to run pulse pounding action games than the alternative. Pick the monsters, find an interesting place to fight, let the dice roll.

 

[drjones]

The first part of your statement is dead simple to house-rule. Two options off the top of my head:

But I don't want to house-rule, I want Pole Dancing skill spelled out for me in at least 5 pages!!

 

[Agamon]

It occurs to me that people are getting a taste of OD&D's flavor in this: "If there isn't a rule for this, work with your DM and make it up." People have been so used to the situation for the past five years or so where you could cobble almost ANYTHING together with a combination of books, that they forget that back in late 2000, people were doing this exact same thing with 3E; many people refused to switch initially, and stuck with 2E until the breadth of 3E material matched all of the splat books, character kits, optional rules, etc. that 2E had come out with by that time. When 3E reached a sufficient "critical mass" of rules, people more readily switched in droves. While a lot of people had bought their books, they were waiting for the point when they didn't have to make enough stuff up. Right now, the 4E pioneers are filling in the gaps with homemade spackle, whereas the rest of the gamers are waiting for the WotC-approved construction-repair products.

Yeah. Ick. 3e was fun until I made the mistake of adding splats (well, that and I tried playing over L14...).

Funny how 4e is looking good to me and that RC is the only older version of D&D I would be willing to play...hit the nail on the head, Henry.

 

[smathis]

The deciding factor is, and always has been, the approach the group takes to it. I agree that there have been plenty of people who talk up a high falutin' game of ROLE-play and INTRIGUE and end up kicking in doors and swinging swords to the point where you'd be justified in calling it bait and switch. But, again, that was nothing new with 3E either and I predict it will continue on in 4e. It's just easier, in many ways, to run pulse pounding action games than the alternative. Pick the monsters, find an interesting place to fight, let the dice roll.

Totally agree here.

While I think 4e will be supportive of roleplay and intrigue focused games, I think a good part of that (outside of Skill Challenges) will be relegated back to where it was in 1e and 2e. Mainly, outside of the purview of the rules.

So we'll have more talkie-talkie than "I roll Profession: Actor".

The one thing I am happy about with 4e is that I can gear my PC towards these sorts of backgrounds with no penalty to my combat effectiveness. I don't sacrifice 2 points in Spot for 1 point of Craft: Blacksmith.

I like that because I retain my PC's relevance even if I'm in a "bait-and-switch" situation. I can also retrain to modify my PC after the fact, once the ruse has been played.

This is one part I think the design team got right. I'm not implying that 3e got it wrong. Just that I like the siloing of combat/non-combat abilities that kind of manages the question of combat utility for me.

Dumbing it down?

Maybe.

But I look at it as giving us poor "Storytellers" and "Method Actors" (to borrow from Robin's Laws) a fighting chance alongside the "Tactician" and "Powergamers".

In a sense, they've flattened the table so more people could play. But I totally understand how losing some of the spotlight associated with "Rules Mastery" in 3e could be a negative.

I, for one, would never play 3e without my twinked-out Dwarven Cleric. It's a one-trick pony but it's the only rules mastery I figured out that allows me to keep up.

 

[Arnwyn]

MAKE IT UP !!!!! STOP RELYING ON EVERYTHING TO BE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU. Geeze.

That's not what I pay them for. In fact, I pay them specifically so I don't have to "make things up". If other game can provide the info people want, then it's not unreasonable to want such a thing. (Note that I'm not saying 4e does or does not provide it one way or another.)

I see from your join date that you're a 2008'er, so you do get cut some slack for an argument that has long been meaningless.

Piratecat here. This is not okay. You do not get carte blanche to be a jerk because someone you disagree with is new to the forums. A better solution might be to report their post if it is a problem, or to welcome them and let them know that shouting in a post is probably inappropriate.

Thanks. ~PCat

 

[Sledge]

But I look at it as giving us poor "Storytellers" and "Method Actors" (to borrow from Robin's Laws) a fighting chance alongside the "Tactician" and "Powergamers".

In a sense, they've flattened the table so more people could play. But I totally understand how losing some of the spotlight associated with "Rules Mastery" in 3e could be a negative.

I, for one, would never play 3e without my twinked-out Dwarven Cleric. It's a one-trick pony but it's the only rules mastery I figured out that allows me to keep up.

I'm not sure its logically valid to say the game is better for storytellers or method actors because it removes all options of doing anything for those in the rules. May as well grab just the miniatures game and use it for anything in combat and use no rules for the rest. Why buy the big books?

 

[hong]

I'm not sure its logically valid to say the game is better for storytellers or method actors because it removes all options of doing anything for those in the rules. May as well grab just the miniatures game and use it for anything in combat and use no rules for the rest. Why buy the big books?

Storyteller in RL's schema means someone who wants to follow a storyline. This is as opposed to someone who wants the freedom to go anywhere and do anything. In turn, this is facilitated in 4E by the greater emphasis on encounter design, skill challenges, the implicit assumption that NPCs can be divided into "important" and "unimportant", and generally a more structured approach to adventure design.

Method actors are actually kinda screwed in 4E compared to 3E....

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Now, since the reward system for D&D has always been "kill things and take their stuff", I suspect you are fairly right in saying that the differences at the table between the editions aren't all that large.

Well, in that respect, 4e is an improvement, since now there are explicit rewards for skill challenges, quest completion and the like...

 

[smathis]

Storyteller in RL's schema means someone who wants to follow a storyline. This is as opposed to someone who wants the freedom to go anywhere and do anything. In turn, this is facilitated in 4E by the greater emphasis on encounter design, skill challenges, the implicit assumption that NPCs can be divided into "important" and "unimportant", and generally a more structured approach to adventure design.

This.

Method actors are actually kinda screwed in 4E compared to 3E....

My bad then. At least they can take the DDXP Tiefling Wizard's angsty tagline to heart...

"This is much harder than it looks. I wouldn’t expect you to understand."