Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silverblade The Ench" data-source="post: 4861537" data-attributes="member: 19083">I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame where there's rules for everything including chaffing from carrying "x" amount of gear giving "y" penalty to hit! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Most folk I have ever played with, want fun. Now, to some, fun is of course, uber detailed simulationism, as said if that's what ye like then fair dinkum, but it is not the reason most folk play D&D.They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders, and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.Ever seen "The Crimson Pirate"? old movie, rollicking good fun, and the antecedent of "Pirates of the Carribean".. How many folk would rather play that, than "100 Years War"?How many folk would rather play "Conan" than "Kreigspiele"?We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.3rd ed started adding in some more believable tactics (bullrush, trip, disarm), but it was still largely "whack-a-rat": standing there seeing who could whittle the other down first...without much tactics. And when grapple came up...ugh!!You also couldn't put in loads of critters in 3rd ed, due to complexity and the very tricky balancing issues, which ruined a whole facet of combat.Please do not say that is wrong, because it's patently obvious fact (or there wouldn't have had to be so much house ruling etc)I started putting numbers on minis so you could keep track of their hit points spells etc....OMG as a DM it was extremely unpleasant having to be a book keeper, rather than a story teller.In 1st and 2nd ed, I knew monster's stats by heart and could come up with them at whim, not so in 3rd ed, when you were forced to use a E-Tools to have any realistic chance of a "quick" build.And Challenge Ratings, Effective Character Level and Level adjustment was just plain broken at times, as well as a pain in the posterior.So a large number of folk got fed up DMing! Go on ask them, I am far form being the only one.Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*I dare anyone to take a new player to D&D, give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed, with E-Tools and the Character Builder, and see which is the most confusing and unpleasant for them to make a character.it will nearly always be 3.5 ed.it's not that 3rd ed is "bad" or "simulationism is wrong", but as said, over complexity should be left to a CPU, and D&D isn't, cannot and shouldn't be "realistic" with a bazillion rules...it should be plausible though, within the setting, which is a fantasy game.So the player base has fractured, some going back to 1st and 2nd ed, others going to Pathfinder. 3rd ed was a great idea, added much needed things, like the skills, but the over simulationism, like skill points, made it too unwieldy...all to the detriment of D&D in the long run.Imagine the "Crypt" battle in Conan the Destoryer, now THAT folks, is pure D&D, like it or not <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> It's awesome fun. Imagine playing that with each edition.   1st and 2nd ed you may need to tweak existing critters or NPCs to fit, but it's not too much problem, unless you have to make a lot of saving throws (against umpteen potential resist types, which was a pest). Tying creatures directly to Hit Dice was a flaw in those editions, preventing easy advancement/challenge3.5 ed..um...say Conan is a 1st lvl barbarian, 7th lvl fighter, 2nd levle thief, then...30 enemies of appropriate level, then work out skill points track hit points...for the DM, that is a HELL of a lot of work and frankly, DMs have a life you know.4th ed hey, 30 minions and a handful of leaders, easy as pie! take any critter you want, change it's name, maybe change a few iconic powers if needed, and voila'! I've always spun a story on how a fight goes as the PCs and NPCs hits misses and damage are rolled, but if you just sit there and roll dice and deal only with the mechanics...meh, what fun is that, that ain't roleplaying?!At the end of a game, everyone, including the DM, should feel like they've had a great time, playing a rip-snorting adventure, rather than spendig 3+ hours doing statistics or wargaming (which is another hobby entirely).on another point:If folk wish simulationism, there must always be the sense of real danger,  hence EVERY opponent should potentially deadly (hey, adventurers travel in bands, 5 against 1 is just being smart! hehe)For "High adventure", not every encounter has ot have the threat of death, but instead, have the risk of things going wrong.For example, it could be skill check going wrong, or a weak enemy may shout and alert more weak enemies, LOTS Of weak enemies who together are a threat, etc.The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I can't stand how much the media, of all types, has got so damned cheap and dumbed down in plotting and tension. Great works are still made though (See "Rome" for example).The fault though is not about "heroics" or fun etc.Go have a look at "The French Connection", that absolutely rules. Partially because it's so damn rough looking, look at the car chase cinematography.I HATE how everythhing now is so smooth,even when they are trying to be "rough" it often looks fake.The attention to detail for "rough realism" actually takes a lot of work.I may love "Kagemusha" but I do not want to play that, it's too much angst-ridden and tragedy, there's more than enough of that in real life, I play D&D to get away from real life's garbage, to have FUN!Pirates of the Caribbean or Hawk the Slayer are a hell of a lot more "fun" than Kagemusha, even though the latter is an awesome film.Sure, some folk like simulationism, but they are in the minority of players.Most folk out there want to have fun, the rules are just the framework, not the reason d'etre!Yes folk have the right to thei opinion that simulationism and 3.5 is superb, but many folk do not (or think there are serious flaws)D&D is interactive story telling and grown ups playing "soldiers".4th ed, for me, does a good job of that. Still can be improved, but what doesn't need improvement? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Some folk love a certian edition, ok I get that <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I just love D&D itself, long as it's fun to play I don't give a hoot what edition, when I'm 60 I guess I'll be playing 8th or 10th edition, so what?</blockquote>

Verification