Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Ariosto]

Maybe it's just more West Coast (high entropy, mythopoetic, etc.) versus Midwest?

The "final arbiter of fantasy role playing" ain't in Wisconsin anymore, though.

 

[BryonD]

That's fine. But stop saying that 4e can't do this or can't do that, when it's simply because you do not like how 4e has done things.

How's this:
For me, there are a lot of things that 4E can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can.

 

[BryonD]

To go a little more back to the original topic (though maybe not), one thing I particularly like about 4E is a monsters identity and nature is far better represented in the game mechanics then ever before.

Maybe I used the wrong word with "Sneaky" when talking about Kobolds. "Shifty" might be better.
But it is definitely a great example of what the 4E game rules do. The monster race "Kobolds" feel different from the monster type "Orc" not just because they are lower level monsters. They also have different abilities. Kobolds shift as a minor action as their racial ability. That makes them a real pest in melee combat, they constantly evade your attacks and reform their battle lines, making it hard for the party to concentrate on one Kobold.
The Orc instead gets a special attack he can use if he is bloodied that heals some hit points. If you fight an Orc, and you hurt him, you see him lashing out against you and regaining his fighting spirit.

Compare that to a 3E Orc or Kobold? What is so unique about them? The Kobold is just a weaker threat, but he is not different. The only way you "know" that it should play differently is because the flavor text says so. The "simulationist" rules do not actually support much of that. And if you still want to use your Kobold 10 levels later, he's a Kobold with 10 levels in Sorceror and could as well be Orc with 10 levels of Sorceror - you wouldn't notice the difference by the way the battle played out.

So for me, the MM is definitely not dry or devoid of flavor or fluff. Each monster (or group of monsters) has its unique thing that makes it stand out from the others, it has a shtick, something that will come up in play when I use the monster.

To me, I see the opposite.

At the very best it is a wash, because 3E is built with the assumption that the DM can add these things in as they see fit.
3E kobolds are vanilla and a whole pile of flavors and toppings are there to be added. 4E kobolds are all chocolate chip. There isn't anything to stop you from building your own kobolds in 4E from the ground up. But if you do that then it is just a wash between the two systems.

And even then I give 3E the edge. You are throwing out exactly the element you are praising 4E for having if you build a different version. Whereas the variation is exactly what 3E expects.


I do agree that wider differences for 10th level versions of orcs and kobolds (and elves and gnomes) would be very preferable. I was highly intrigued when this feature was teased for 4E. But I found the implementation to be underwhelming. Either way, it is certainly a detail that I would like to see handled better in 3E.

 

[cangrejoide]

And I think that part of that Transformers analogy is because 4Ed is a bit more combat-centric than 3.X, at least at the starting line. 3.X has non-combat skills, non-combat feats, non-combat spells & powers...things relatively absent from 4Ed.

Your 4E game mastery is showing.

 

[Jack99]

How's this:
For me, there are a lot of things that 4E can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can.

Which is fine. That's an opinion, and even though I disagree a lot, you are entitled to it. But it was not what the guy I quoted claimed.

 

[wedgeski]

3E kobolds are vanilla and a whole pile of flavors and toppings are there to be added. 4E kobolds are all chocolate chip. There isn't anything to stop you from building your own kobolds in 4E from the ground up. But if you do that then it is just a wash between the two systems.

I have to agree with M_R, here. Being able to open up the MM and ask myself "what's this guy's schtick?", and to have that question answered in a few short power descriptions, is awesome. You're right to say that 3E gave you options -- lots of options -- for modifying a bland monster and creating something cool, but I fail to see how providing *at least one* interesting dynamic can be seen as anything except a net gain.

 

[Psion]

I disagree, and I think more than anyone, Mr Browning has hit the nail on the head in this regard:

While I think Joe hit upon an important distinction which has consequences, I don't think it captures the totality and conflict over same. I think you'd be remiss to overlook some of the other posts on the prior page, which I for one am finding very insightful.

 

[Psion]

It is correct that 4e is not as unforgiving as the older versions, especially 3.x. But IMO that makes it all the more suited for a sandbox game. Because when you run into something 10 levels higher than you, instead of dying during the first round, you now actually have options. Stay and fight (and lose) or run.

Anyone else notice the assumption here I'm noticing?

It's not that you didn't have options before, just that combat wasn't always an option. But now, combat is automatically an option, where it might not have been before. I personally find enjoyment in having the players think their way around problems they can't fight.

"Combat is always an option" is a design assumption I don't want to see in my games, ever.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But they _are_ making a meaningful contribution to the party. Because that 4 Minions, if left unchecked, can ruin your PCs. And if you have to "check" them without a Controller, then they cost you.

That is exactly my point. The minions exist simply to provide a fire that controllers must put out. If these artificial constructs didn't exist then controllers could be replaced with more strikers.

 

[Jack99]

Anyone else notice the assumption here I'm noticing?

It's not that you didn't have options before, just that combat wasn't always an option. But now, combat is automatically an option, where it might not have been before. I personally find enjoyment in having the players think their way around problems they can't fight.

"Combat is always an option" is a design assumption I don't want to see in my games, ever.

You are the one assuming. But let me clarity.

Example:

The DM runs a sandbox game. The players, having heard stories of the Red Wood and it's ancient elven ruins, decide to ignore the warnings that trolls live near the ruins in great numbers. The players figure they can either parlay/bribe the trolls or run away.

As they make their way through the forest, they are surprised (ambushed) by a couple of trolls.

In 3.x: At least two, if not more characters die the first round. If surprised, they might not even have a chance to attempt a non-lethal resolution.

In 4e: Chances are that noone will outright die in the first round. The players are still SOL, but at least the get the chance to run.

This example illustrates what I meant. I was not talking anything about combat always being an option. That's the whole point. It's not. They are still going to die, but in 4e, they will at least live long enough to have a chance to do something else besides fight. Often that was not the case in 3.x. IME anyway.