Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Dannyalcatraz]

The other 10% was that I was trying to say that 4e is more conducive to a less literal and more free-wheeling play-style than 3rd edition.

I disagree. As I said above, eventually, 4Ed will have its own crop of literalist RAW-only rules lawyers, if it doesn't already.

IMO, 4e needs players to be more imaginative at the table and less literal with the rules to facilitate a more narrative type of play.
<snip>
3e IME was always more suited to the more literal and strict gaming style where the rules are well-explained and are meant to be taken exactly as written with no narrative interpretation.
<snip>
I think people who argue the superiority of one system over another fail to see or recognise this.

Very creative 3.X players (and those who play other systems) might take that as an insult.

I daresay nobody has ever played 3.X- or 99% of the rest of the RPGs out there- with all of the rules in effect, or without houserules.

How narrativist or simulationist your game is depends upon you and your fellow players. The way your group interacts with a given system will determine whether your game is N-ist or S-ist, not the game itself.

That said, a game that doesn't serve the "unimaginative" or casual gamer well might be doing itself a disservice in being opaque to their enjoyment.

 

[Rechan]

So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch?

I guess I don't see the point in the question. I mean, can 20th level AD&D character kill ogres with a single blow? No? Okay then.

Or are you just complaining about the SYSTEM in how a level 9 PC cannot kill a level 1 monster in one hit on average?

The power curve is different. As are hit points. As are classes; fighters just aren't the damage dealers.

It's also funny that you mention '9th level fighter daily might not kill a level 1 kobold'. I was in a test run yesterday, and a level 1 barbarian's daily killed a kobold skirmisher in one hit, without a crit. From full HP to dead.

But this all seems to be a wasted exercise. Why are we comparing 6th level fighter to 1/4 HD monster in AD&D to 9th level fighter to 1st level monster in 4e? That's like comparing D&D characters to GURPS characters; they are just Different.

 

[Ariosto]

The difference, I think, is the point. (By the way, that's 1/2 HD, or for the leaders roughly 1 HD in HP -- just half a point below average -- but fighting at -1 to hit.)

It's not lack of imagination that leads some people to be less than thrilled by one game or another. That a 5-level difference should always be (as you put it, Rechan) "a pointless exercise" might be as undesirable to some as the classic D&D scheme is to others.

 

[evildmguy]

I understand what the OP is trying to say and while I get the revelation he had with hit points, which I myself had in the past year, I also agree with the general sentiment that it's the group and what they do with the rules to have fun that matters.

As for myself, I had a rules lawyer in my group from the time I was eight until thirty. These particular rules lawyers killed role playing in favor of what the rules could do for them and that's not what I wanted from the game. Unfortunately, being young, I tried to counter with more rules, and it became a habit, rather than try to tell a story and gain their trust with how I used the rules. I don't know how different things would be if I had tried that, or indeed if I had been able to do that back then.

What I like about 4E is that it is easier to prepare. What I realized recently is that only the DMs see this, most players might not realize how tough it got to be to design a high level 3.X monster using the rules. Having said that, sure it's possible to "fake" it and not spend tons of time on prep. Again, for myself, I go back to the rules lawyer and him almost wanting to audit the DM to make sure I made them properly, so for me it did take a long time.

(I think one rules lawyer I had figured a few things out when he DMed but I didn't stick around for the full campaign to see.)

So, it seems that the consensus on here is, it depends on the group, as with almost any game.

edg

 

[BryonD]

Very creative 3.X players (and those who play other systems) might take that as an insult.

A year or so ago I may have taken it as an insult. But I've learned that these type comments reflect the speakers own limitations within 3E (or whatever) and the assumption that no one else could have a better experience.

If anything it is an ego stroke.

 

[Ariosto]

That's really it as far as I can see: Different strokes for different blokes, and what's hot to someone from the Arctic may be cold to someone from the Tropics.

My gut tells me that 4E is probably one of the last to run into the latest design cul-de-sac, sort of a fin de siècle Powers & Perils for the anti-sim set, but time shall tell.

There are sleeker "story-telling" games, and leaner "simulation" ones as well. There are plenty less apparently confused and conflicted about just what they're trying to do. There is also no shortage of complex designs benefiting from much longer development.

That's a potential problem for the Wizards, though, and nothing but an embarrassment of riches for hobbyists! If someone really is not acquainted with the wide variety of approaches out there (as the original post seemed to me to suggest), then there is plenty to discover.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A year or so ago I may have taken it as an insult.

Which is why I said "might."

 

[Barastrondo]

So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch?

It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset.

I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.

In AD&D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of "So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?"

I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design.

4e's really not very good for the "the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation" approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics" approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that.

I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well.

 

[Rechan]

There are sleeker "story-telling" games, and leaner "simulation" ones as well. There are plenty less apparently confused and conflicted about just what they're trying to do. There is also no shortage of complex designs benefiting from much longer development.

This is true.

But the problem is that if you want to play Indy RPG #8287, it's very hard finding players for it. It's also always a very niche game for a niche genre. So not only do you have to find people willing ot play a strange new system, but you have to find those that buy into the idea.

D&D? Everyone knows what D&D is. Anyone who has ever rolled a polyhedrian knows what a +1 sword is and what level a fireball is. D&D is the gateway game, a touchstone for all RPGs. Finding people who who know it (or at least decently), and have experience with it, and are interested in playing, is MUCH easier than putting a flyer up at the local college saying 'Hey let's play Dogs in the Vineyard'.

This is not a problem if you game with the same people every weekend for years on end. Myself? I've never had a group (much less a game!) hold together longer than two years. It seems even harder Today to hold a group together, with people more mobile and with little free time for hobbies (not to mention conflicting schedules). I just moved to a new area, and it's freaking hard to put a committed group together.

There's also the issue that you have to find people who like what you like. One of the problems my last group had was that everyone had their own favorite system and wanted things more like that. One guy loved D&D 3.5; I loved 4e; another tried twice to turn the game into Rolemaster; I know another who would rather play Rifts. When everyone is really pining to play THEIR system, you come into a problem.

I would leap at the chance to try Spirit of the Century/Dresden Files RPG, Dread, Paranoia, or Prime Time Adventures. But I can't. So I settle for D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's also the issue that you have to find people who like what you like. One of the problems my last group had was that everyone had their own favorite system and that really crippled things. One guy loved D&D 3.5; I loved 4e; another tried twice to turn the game into Rolemaster; I know another who would rather play Rifts. When everyone is really pining to play THEIR system, you come into a problem.

One solution for that is to have everyone who wants to run a game design a campaign, and have everyone design PCs for each campaign.

You then set up a schedule of rotating games. And if someone wants to introduce a new game, it supplants his regularly scheduled campaign.

I was part of a group in Austin that did essentially this for 3 years, and it worked like a charm. Sure, you may hate 4Ed, and someone else hates 3.X, and someone else hates RIFTS or Rolemaster...but nobody's playing something they hate for long, and you always have your preferred games to look forward to.

Think of it like the RPG equivalent to Kissingerian diplomacy- everyone is equally happy and unhappy, in turns.

And as a bonus, you may find other games you like.