Playing 2e, 3e, and 4e at the same time: Observations

[Celebrim]

I've played numerous campaigns, generally up to 12 - 15th level.

I hate the "10-foot pole style of dungeon exploration" and it doesn't happen in my games.

I love overarching story arcs.

You say those last two things as if they were mutually exclusive.

In a campaign that went to 12th-15th level, I'd prefer that over that period there be 3-6 levels worth of 'exploring the dungeon with my 10' pole', along with 3-6 levels worth of wilderness exploration, and 3-6 levels worth of urban mysteries and political drama, along with an overarching story arc.

I've never really understood the idea that gaming should be all dungeon crawling OR all role playing OR all political intrigue OR all sandbox exploration OR all linear adventure path. The occasional meal that's just a steak or just dessert is fun, but I wouldn't want my whole life to be that way. Normally, I prefer a balanced meal, or if not a balanced meal then at least a a balanced diet.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Edit: posted in wrong thread!

 

[Herschel]

And there aren't crits in old school D&D (pre-3e)..

*looks at crit chart from 1986*

 

[Raven Crowking]

*looks at crit chart from 1986*

Do you remember the "Wandering Damage" chart in one of the old April issues?

"Cut yourself shaving; roll on the Limbs Severed subtable." (Or something like that!)

Good times!

 

[Herschel]

Those were pretty hilarious.

I sometimes wonder if those were in reaction to MERP, or "Don't get attached to your character because it probably won't live through the session. Oh and have three more ready to be served up also".

 

[BryonD]

You say those last two things as if they were mutually exclusive.

No I didn't.
I simply went back through the list that was previously established.

You are reading something into my post that is not there.

In a campaign that went to 12th-15th level, I'd prefer that over that period there be 3-6 levels worth of 'exploring the dungeon with my 10' pole', along with 3-6 levels worth of wilderness exploration, and 3-6 levels worth of urban mysteries and political drama, along with an overarching story arc.

Cool, no argument from me. I don't want any levels of 'exploring the dungeon with my 10' pole'. Exploring dungeons and risking traps, hell yeah. But the whole 10' pole thing, particularly in the established context, no thanks. But that is just my preference.

I've never really understood the idea that gaming should be all dungeon crawling OR all role playing OR all political intrigue OR all sandbox exploration OR all linear adventure path. The occasional meal that's just a steak or just dessert is fun, but I wouldn't want my whole life to be that way. Normally, I prefer a balanced meal, or if not a balanced meal then at least a a balanced diet.

Has anyone suggested it should be just one?

 

[Celebrim]

Has anyone suggested it should be just one?

I guess not, but sometimes I find it hard to follow what is being suggested. I often get the feeling that most people look at my text dumps and go, "tl;dr". Well, idiot that I am, I look at post people short posts and go, "Too short; don't understand."

After some explanation, I'm left with a new conundrum. I don't understand this:

I don't want any levels of 'exploring the dungeon with my 10' pole'. Exploring dungeons and risking traps, hell yeah.

Does not compute. Does not compute. What's the difference between these two things? I could understand if the explanation was, "I just don't like traps.", but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.

If I'm in a dungeon where there is a risk of traps, then chances are I'm going to have a 10' pole and be exploring with it on the grounds of 'better it than my hands'. If it didn't eat the 10' pole, then maybe we'll try touching it with my hands.

Granted, not every dungeon is of the sort where there are planned traps. Unless I know my DM is the sort that springs lethal death traps on you in well trafficed corridors, I'm not going to always engage in that meticulous of exploration. I think my first post at EnWorld was on that subject. But if traps makes sense for the dungeon, don't 10' poles make sense as well?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

However, if you guys are this efficient, then you should be able to get through combats quickly in 4e then. Every spell has a particular effect, and is as simple as attacking a defense, so shouting out "Fireball, 28" should be even easier, because you have a particular square burst, and there is no half-damage.

I didn't say everyone in my group played like I do, I just said that I do. Others in my group haven't even begun to plan what they wanted to do until the GM calls their name, much less pre-rolled.

Also, in your example, as one player to another I would suggest the slower player do two things.

1. Always figure out where you are targeting your spell ahead to time so you can say exactly who is going to get caught in it. There is no reason to not do this before your turn. If a chinese fire drill happens just before your turn nobody is going to grief you for saying "Darn it! There went my perfect lightning bolt!" and having to replan.

2. Roll the Xd6 damage ahead of time and add in all your modifiers so you can give the GM a total. If you are really nice pre-divide by two so you can say "31 fire damage, or 15 if they saved".

It's not like playing DnD has to be breakneck paced, but if you, as a player, can do things to help speed up combat everyone else will have a better time with the game.

Give it a shot.

DS

 

[BryonD]

Does not compute. Does not compute.

I'm sorry you don't understand. Posts which reply to other posts generally use those posts for context.

 

[TwoSix]

Does not compute. Does not compute. What's the difference between these two things? I could understand if the explanation was, "I just don't like traps.", but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.

If I'm in a dungeon where there is a risk of traps, then chances are I'm going to have a 10' pole and be exploring with it on the grounds of 'better it than my hands'. If it didn't eat the 10' pole, then maybe we'll try touching it with my hands.

Granted, not every dungeon is of the sort where there are planned traps. Unless I know my DM is the sort that springs lethal death traps on you in well trafficed corridors, I'm not going to always engage in that meticulous of exploration. I think my first post at EnWorld was on that subject. But if traps makes sense for the dungeon, don't 10' poles make sense as well?

I'll bite. (note that I'm not speaking in any way for BryonD's understanding of the topic.)

I personally like traps, but I hate looking for them. Why? Because I hate spending game time dealing with trying to avoid having something happen. If there's a trap in the dungeon, why would I want to bypass it? What fun is that? If you're going to put traps in a dungeon, make them interesting! (2d4 Str damage is not interesting, -1 Str every hour until you find the antidote is interesting.)

*Obligatory disclaimer that my game is my game, play what you like, I understand that we're all different*