thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Sense Motive - newspeak for KILL THIS RULE WITH FIRE. KILL IT. MAKE IT SO IT CAN'T HURT ANYONE EVER AGAIN!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Weakness by Edition
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
Sense Motive - newspeak for KILL THIS RULE WITH FIRE. KILL IT. MAKE IT SO IT CAN'T HURT ANYONE EVER AGAIN!
Calico_Jack73
First Post
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. While I can't say that I haven't been enjoying the game (I'm running my group through Shadowfell and we just started the 2nd level) it seems that all we do is set up one map, have a combat, set up another map, have a combat, repeat...
Obryn
Hero
In fairness, I think a lot of that is KotS's fault.
But yes, that's what KotS turned into, without a doubt.-O
Dragonbait
Explorer
That's KoTS. It needed one or two RP encounters and break points to allow the PCs to feel like they accomplished soemthing and take a breather. Otherwise it's one long grind.
I haven't read KotS or played it. But LostSoul had a thread on it, reporting his actual play experiences, which seemed pretty different from this.In fairness, I think a lot of that is KotS's fault.
Moldvay Basic: Few weaknesses, really, unless you're looking for long-term campaign play in which case you're stuck at level 3. Quick start, quick play, so the rate of character death is tolerable.
Cook Expert: Starts to suffer from problems with unbalanced classes, unbalanced spells, magic items that are poorly balanced (or at least give the GM little guidance on how to use them).
AD&D 1st ed: The same problems as Cook Expert, to a greater degree. I don't mind the baroque rules systems so much (they're good training for Rolemaster), although after a while (eg with Survival Guides added in) they start to become internally contradictory (eg why is climbing percentage-based but riding is d20 vs stat-based)?
AD&D 2nd ed: The tone encourages GM railroading, the internal contradictions in mechanics are entrenched, many camaign supplements (eg Planescape, Dark Sun) read to me more like fiction than gaming - they don't really tell me what sort of game action is meant to take place in them.
3E: Besides the maths which breaks down at high levels (games like RM and RQ, and to a lesser extent AD&D, try to avoid this via diminishing returns), and balance problems that are frequently mentioned (along the lines of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit) I think that there is a tension between the combat rules, which are far from grim and gritty, and the skill rules (both build and resolution) which are much closer to RM or RQ - except that there are not enough points to use skills to give a true picture of the character! The game doesn't know what it wants to be.
4e: A bit early to get a good feel for it, but one glaring weakness is that the rulebooks don't give very good advice to players and GMs on how to relate the mechanics to the gameworld - I think that some other games using similar sorts of mechanics are much stronger in this respect.
Cook Expert: Starts to suffer from problems with unbalanced classes, unbalanced spells, magic items that are poorly balanced (or at least give the GM little guidance on how to use them).
AD&D 1st ed: The same problems as Cook Expert, to a greater degree. I don't mind the baroque rules systems so much (they're good training for Rolemaster), although after a while (eg with Survival Guides added in) they start to become internally contradictory (eg why is climbing percentage-based but riding is d20 vs stat-based)?
AD&D 2nd ed: The tone encourages GM railroading, the internal contradictions in mechanics are entrenched, many camaign supplements (eg Planescape, Dark Sun) read to me more like fiction than gaming - they don't really tell me what sort of game action is meant to take place in them.
3E: Besides the maths which breaks down at high levels (games like RM and RQ, and to a lesser extent AD&D, try to avoid this via diminishing returns), and balance problems that are frequently mentioned (along the lines of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit) I think that there is a tension between the combat rules, which are far from grim and gritty, and the skill rules (both build and resolution) which are much closer to RM or RQ - except that there are not enough points to use skills to give a true picture of the character! The game doesn't know what it wants to be.
4e: A bit early to get a good feel for it, but one glaring weakness is that the rulebooks don't give very good advice to players and GMs on how to relate the mechanics to the gameworld - I think that some other games using similar sorts of mechanics are much stronger in this respect.
Terramotus
First Post
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on these boards. It also describes my experiences with 3E exactly. Eventually we all moved on to being Angel Summoners, and the encounter system fell completely apart.
yesnomu
First Post
I've only played 3E and 4E, so:
3E: Hideous imbalance between classes. Play a caster or bookmark the CO boards if you want to be useful after level 7 or so. Combat takes forever for a single round, at least when spellcasters are involved, and it gets orders of magnitude worse when summoners are brought in. CR system is unintuitive, and the huge balance issues mean that an encounter's difficulty for any given party is very hard to judge. Combine that with the way monster abilities and optimal tactics are hard to decipher at a glance, and the whole thing becomes very intimidating for new DMs. Epic rules are a joke, as are rules for playing as a stronger-than-normal race. Divine casters (or at least wands of CLW) are required for every party, since nonmagical healing is impossible.
4E: Focus on class balance and standardization means that the classes lose some uniqueness, although they all still play very differently. Everyone progresses on the same framework, which will make experimentation like the Bo9S or Magic of Incarnum difficult. Removal of "required classes" means that nonmagical parties are possible, but also that no situation must require casters.
3E: Hideous imbalance between classes. Play a caster or bookmark the CO boards if you want to be useful after level 7 or so. Combat takes forever for a single round, at least when spellcasters are involved, and it gets orders of magnitude worse when summoners are brought in. CR system is unintuitive, and the huge balance issues mean that an encounter's difficulty for any given party is very hard to judge. Combine that with the way monster abilities and optimal tactics are hard to decipher at a glance, and the whole thing becomes very intimidating for new DMs. Epic rules are a joke, as are rules for playing as a stronger-than-normal race. Divine casters (or at least wands of CLW) are required for every party, since nonmagical healing is impossible.
4E: Focus on class balance and standardization means that the classes lose some uniqueness, although they all still play very differently. Everyone progresses on the same framework, which will make experimentation like the Bo9S or Magic of Incarnum difficult. Removal of "required classes" means that nonmagical parties are possible, but also that no situation must require casters.
Orius
Legend
OD&D I think suffered from the fact that it was meant as an add-on to wargaming campaigns, and not a seperate game in its own right. Though to be fair, I don't really think Gary expected it to happen like it did. And it only took a few years for the game to be fleshed out as a game rather than a suppliment.
1e: I'm not really familiar with 1e, so can't comment much. I will say things like level restrictions made little sense when games generally only went up to name level and stopped. Some of what I know seems a bit arbitrary and piecemeal too.
BECMI/etc: Can't really comment on this, since I only have a small amount of experience with the system. I don't really like the simplified alignments and races as classes, but I'm not sure if they're a weakness per se.
2e: Biggest weakness was a lack of consistancy. TSR's designers were largely working on the campaign settings, so the basic splats and stuff like that were done by freelancers. So there was no consistancy in flavor, rules, or balance. So there'd be times when you'd have several different spells or NWPs that would do the same thing, multiple kits that were pretty much the same, and the massive inbalances between say, the Priest's Handbook and Faiths and Avatars. This is less a problem with core than it is with additions to the system.
And BTW, I never thought THAC0 was all that bad. It was a bit tricky to use with the subtraction and all, but I never hated it.
3e: It could be a couple of different things. Certainly the Christmas tree of magic items, the 15 minute workday, and rules like CR that were good ideas in theory but didn't pan out are up there. My campaigns never really got far enough to hit the magic item problems, but the 15 minute workday certainly popped up in my games, and I did my damndest as a DM to stamp it out without over stomping the players in the process.
4e: Never played. Maybe it's good, but I haven't found anything I read on it to be all that encouraging. It just sounds like it's a totally different game now, which is a shame, because there are a few good ideas in it.
1e: I'm not really familiar with 1e, so can't comment much. I will say things like level restrictions made little sense when games generally only went up to name level and stopped. Some of what I know seems a bit arbitrary and piecemeal too.
BECMI/etc: Can't really comment on this, since I only have a small amount of experience with the system. I don't really like the simplified alignments and races as classes, but I'm not sure if they're a weakness per se.
2e: Biggest weakness was a lack of consistancy. TSR's designers were largely working on the campaign settings, so the basic splats and stuff like that were done by freelancers. So there was no consistancy in flavor, rules, or balance. So there'd be times when you'd have several different spells or NWPs that would do the same thing, multiple kits that were pretty much the same, and the massive inbalances between say, the Priest's Handbook and Faiths and Avatars. This is less a problem with core than it is with additions to the system.
And BTW, I never thought THAC0 was all that bad. It was a bit tricky to use with the subtraction and all, but I never hated it.
3e: It could be a couple of different things. Certainly the Christmas tree of magic items, the 15 minute workday, and rules like CR that were good ideas in theory but didn't pan out are up there. My campaigns never really got far enough to hit the magic item problems, but the 15 minute workday certainly popped up in my games, and I did my damndest as a DM to stamp it out without over stomping the players in the process.
4e: Never played. Maybe it's good, but I haven't found anything I read on it to be all that encouraging. It just sounds like it's a totally different game now, which is a shame, because there are a few good ideas in it.
firesnakearies
Explorer
Similar Threads
