TheRPGSite

Are there any D&D players that love 4th edition that hate the new D&D 5th edition playtest rules?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;543945Are there any D&D players that love 4th edition that hate the new D&D 5th edition playtest rules?

From what I've seen around various forums there is a metric ton of butt-hurt from the loudest 4e fans.

The time between Original D&D and Advanced D&D was five years.  So, the time frame really is ok, even though it may seem short to folks that are older.  The concept they are chasing seems challenging, which is where it should be for the iconic role-play game.  So, over all it is proceeding in a good way from my perspective of liking D&D4 and Original D&D / AD&D 1.

I would say most.  But it's not limited to 4e fans.  People in general are really resistant to change, so you've got 4e fans who are looking for any excuse to rant and hate on D&D next, even going so far as to make threats that they will actively try to hurt the next version.  I have no idea how that's supposed to happen, but that's what they are saying.

I imagine it was much the same when 4e came out.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;543945Are there any D&D players that love 4th edition that hate the new D&D 5th edition playtest rules?

There sure are.  Just not on this site.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;543945Are there any D&D players that love 4th edition that hate the new D&D 5th edition playtest rules?

I don't love 4e I like 4e.  I found the playtest to be rather weaksauce.  It was to disjointed trying to pull in from too many editions at once and(to me) suffered for it.

Quote from: Piestrio;543948From what I've seen around various forums there is a metric ton of butt-hurt from the loudest 4e fans.

Yeah, especially people who only started to play D&D with 4e (Kiero, anyone?), and people who actively dismiss D&Disms as "legacy mechanics" or "sacred cows". It makes sense.

No. I see great potential in some of their choices, and I'm indifferent to most of the rest. Whether or not I consider the game, depends on chargen.

Quote from: Melan;543985Yeah, especially people who only started to play D&D with 4e (Kiero, anyone?), and people who actively dismiss D&Disms as "legacy mechanics" or "sacred cows". It makes sense.

Yeah, it just further confirms my suspicions that 4e was, ultimately, designed for people who didn't like D&D (or at least were high dissatisfied with it).

Actually from what I've seen the butthurt has only been suffered by either a subset of old schoolers like Benoist and even he still has an open mind and the subset of 4e players that's worried the Fighter will be 3e style with no options to alter it.

Quote from: Piestrio;543991Yeah, it just further confirms my suspicions that 4e was, ultimately, designed for people who didn't like D&D (or at least were high dissatisfied with it).

I think it was more that it was designed by people who simply did not understand D&D, at least initially. By the time you get to Essentials, I think that had been rectified, but by that time the train had long left the station for most people.


Its interesting that at ENWorld, 5th seems to be getting a pretty positive reaction from people who currently play 4th*. Its on RPG.net and the official WotC forums where your getting a significant anti 5th pressence from 4th edition fans.


*and from people who play every other edition as it happens.

4e fans seem to be reacting to 5e the worst out of all from what I have seen. I suspect a chunk if that simply the reaction to one's favourite edition being eclipsed.

Quote from: jadrax;543996I think it was more that it was designed by people who simply did not understand D&D, at least initially. By the time you get to Essentials, I think that had been rectified, but by that time the train had long left the station for most people.

I think, if you look at what they were saying leading up to it, with the almost gleeful slaughter of "sacred cows*" they knew what they were doing.

*"sacred cows" are of course everything that made D&D unique and everything the people who use that term hated.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;543945Are there any D&D players that love 4th edition that hate the new D&D 5th edition playtest rules?

The above describes me and my entire gaming circle. The emphasis on mother-may-I style gaming is the primary deal breaker, while the lack of character abilities(particularly on the Fighter and Rogue) and the boring ass monster rules are also major negatives.

I see a lot of anger from the hardcore 4E fans. Expect to see bargaining next.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544017I see a lot of anger from the hardcore 4E fans. Expect to see bargaining next.

Whereas I'm hoping that we see mass suicides next.  Remember, this isn't just a game, it's part of their personal identities.

Quote from: Piestrio;544012I think, if you look at what they were saying leading up to it, with the almost gleeful slaughter of "sacred cows*" they knew what they were doing.

I think they knew what there plans were, I don't think they realised why those plans would never work.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;544016The above describes me and my entire gaming circle. The emphasis on mother-may-I style gaming is the primary deal breaker, while the lack of character abilities(particularly on the Fighter and Rogue) and the boring ass monster rules are also major negatives.

OP:  The above is an example of what we're talking about.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544025OP:  The above is an example of what we're talking about.

He is a bitter non-gamer whose opinions don't matter because he refuses to keep moving forward and is holding the hobby back because he is stuck with nostalgia gaming, so his opinions don't matter.  Meanwhile the rest of the world is playing the latest and greatest and having fun while his world has been reduced to bitching about an edition he doesn't even play.  Grognards.  What are you gonna do, right?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544017I see a lot of anger from the hardcore 4E fans. Expect to see bargaining next.

They don't bargain, that's "mother-may-I".  :D

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544031He is a bitter non-gamer whose opinions don't matter because he refuses to keep moving forward and is holding the hobby back because he is stuck with nostalgia gaming, so his opinions don't matter.  Meanwhile the rest of the world is playing the latest and greatest and having fun while his world has been reduced to bitching about an edition he doesn't even play.  Grognards.  What are you gonna do, right?

You're incorrigible.

Quote from: CRKrueger;544035They don't bargain, that's "mother-may-I".  :D

Their phases will go something like : Denial, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544042Their phases will go something like : Denial, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger.

I think they went through Denial before it was announced ("There's not going to be a 5e anytime soon, they just released Essentials!")

My 1 theory: Most players of any edition don't really care about other editions, not even enough to complain about it. They may tease other people about their edition choice, much in the same way sports fans may tease each other about their favorite team; they may also, if asked, explain what they don't like about Edition X. But they don't care if other people prefer an edition other than the one they play. BUT...

There is a very small group of players in each edition who are overly sensitive about any teasing or criticism of their favorite edition, and they scan all forums for "attacks".

And there is a somewhat larger group, currently centered on 4e, but not exclusive to 4e, who consider "I don't play X" or even "I play Y" to be an attack. And this group is LOUD. And the kind of person who does that doesn't just do it about RPGs, but about everything -- music choice, favorite films, favorite food... a friend of mine once stumbled across an argument over how you're supposed to wipe yourself after using the toilet.

There are some people who just can't stand the idea of personal tastes.

Quote from: talysman;544114I think they went through Denial before it was announced ("There's not going to be a 5e anytime soon, they just released Essentials!")

My 1 theory: Most players of any edition don't really care about other editions, not even enough to complain about it. They may tease other people about their edition choice, much in the same way sports fans may tease each other about their favorite team; they may also, if asked, explain what they don't like about Edition X. But they don't care if other people prefer an edition other than the one they play. BUT...

There is a very small group of players in each edition who are overly sensitive about any teasing or criticism of their favorite edition, and they scan all forums for "attacks".

And there is a somewhat larger group, currently centered on 4e, but not exclusive to 4e, who consider "I don't play X" or even "I play Y" to be an attack. And this group is LOUD. And the kind of person who does that doesn't just do it about RPGs, but about everything -- music choice, favorite films, favorite food... a friend of mine once stumbled across an argument over how you're supposed to wipe yourself after using the toilet.

There are some people who just can't stand the idea of personal tastes.

I do think it is a personality thing. It is the same sort of person who gets mad if you didn't like a movie they thought was great.

Quote from: talysman;544114There are some people who just can't stand the idea of personal tastes.

This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.  

This is what's being fought against.  I know I kid with the AM-esque posts but these people need to fucking leave my hobby and never come back.  They didn't want D&D, they wanted...I don't know and don't care what they wanted.

However, like I said before they're going through the D-A-A-A-A stages.  That thread I linked to proves it.  So when I say things like "go back to Somethingawful", yeah, I'm not fucking kidding.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544117I do think it is a personality thing. It is the same sort of person who gets mad if you didn't like a movie they thought was great.

I never really liked The Big Lebowski

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544120I never really liked The Big Lebowski

Then you, sir, hate America.


Yeah, never seen it myself.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.  

Meh, that was written by people who think no other edition existed prior to 3e (as evidenced by their complaints of problems that didn't exist prior to 3e, like access to scrolls&wands), so take it with a grain of salt

QuoteSo when I say things like "go back to Somethingawful", yeah, I'm not fucking kidding.

I've come to the conclusion that SA forums consist of 35% of people who do nothing but quote people from other sites in an attempt to create conversation on their forum, rather than actually start one on their own.  It's especially sad when someone pulls a quote from another site and replies to it.  What, do they expect the person who made the quote to see what they said and create a SA account just to reply back?

SMH

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.  

This is what's being fought against.  I know I kid with the AM-esque posts but these people need to fucking leave my hobby and never come back.  They didn't want D&D, they wanted...I don't know and don't care what they wanted.

However, like I said before they're going through the D-A-A-A-A stages.  That thread I linked to proves it.  So when I say things like "go back to Somethingawful", yeah, I'm not fucking kidding.

I've said it before and will say it again, that forum is the most aptly named site on the internet.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;544121Then you, sir, hate America.


Yeah, never seen it myself.

   :D ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544122What, do they expect the person who made the quote to see what they said and create a SA account just to reply back?

No, it's just plain cowardice because they can snipe from behind a paywall with the reasonable certainty that they won't be directly confronted on their asshattery.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).

:banghead:

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!

Quote from: misterguignol;544127No, it's just plain cowardice because they can snipe from behind a paywall with the reasonable certainty that they won't be directly confronted on their asshattery.

*instantly gets quoted on grognards.txt*

(I don't actually know, haven't looked.)

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544137*instantly gets quoted on grognards.txt*

(I don't actually know, haven't looked.)

I've been mentioned twice there so far, if I get a third do I get some sort of prize?  I hope it's an autographed copy of Apocalypse World or something.

Quote from: misterguignol;544139I've been mentioned twice there so far, if I get a third do I get some sort of prize?  I hope it's an autographed copy of Apocalypse World or something.

It's a leather-bound copy of Poisn'd.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544140It's a leather-bound copy of Poisn'd.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Actually, I remember how a couple people there were talking about how the fucked up rape stuff in Carcosa is fucked up but that the fucked up rape stuff in Poison'd was totally okay because it was "addressing a theme" and not "done for shock value."

I mean, come on, no one would know what Poison'd was if not for the shock value.  The game was conceived as a "let's do a naughty gross-out thing about pirates since Pirates of the Caribbean is popular."  And make no mistake, it is a fucked up game whose fans have played out fucked up things.  

But it "addresses a theme" so it's good to go, amirite?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544140It's a leather-bound copy of Poisn'd.

Bound with human skin and soiled panties wrapped around it.

Quote from: Benoist;544148Bound with human skin and soiled panties wrapped around it.

Eew.

Quote from: One Horse Town;544151Eew.

Yeah I know. Makes me think of Poisn'd too.

It's even worse - they're Baker's panties.

All that aside, to refocus: again, these "people" don't just like 4e, they hate everything that came before it to the point that there's just a blank spot in their brains where other people say they have fun playing 3e, 2e, etc.  They (as evidenced in that post, this isn't hyperbole on my part) literally cannot conceive that someone playing AD&D, OD&D, 2e, etc. is having a good time.  So they reject the possibility.  They'll apparently tell people*...I guess that they're lying?  when they say they enjoy AD&D and so on?  I guess that's what?  

...


*=no, they won't, they'll sit behind a paywall and throw their shit at the glass partition when anyone comes to gawk, but no, they won't actively leave their echo-chamber and discuss the not-logic of their bizarro-world point of view.

Quote from: misterguignol;544127No, it's just plain cowardice because they can snipe from behind a paywall with the reasonable certainty that they won't be directly confronted on their asshattery.

If Darwinism and Halloween Jack are typical examples of SA posters, it won't be much of a confrontation.

Quote from: jeff37923;544160If Darwinism and Halloween Jack are typical examples of SA posters, it won't be much of a confrontation.

Those guys are a treat compared the the g.txt all-star team.  I've had perfectly pleasant with Halloween Jack, at least.  And to be honest, I give both of them credit for actually engaging people instead of hiding behind the paywall.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.  

This is what's being fought against.  I know I kid with the AM-esque posts but these people need to fucking leave my hobby and never come back.  They didn't want D&D, they wanted...I don't know and don't care what they wanted.

However, like I said before they're going through the D-A-A-A-A stages.  That thread I linked to proves it.  So when I say things like "go back to Somethingawful", yeah, I'm not fucking kidding.

So..a couple people have issues and you lump every single 4e fan in with them.....:banghead:

Quote from: Sommerjon;544162So..a couple people have issues and you lump every single 4e fan in with them.....:banghead:

I'm sorry, did you post in that thread?

No

I fail to see the reason you have to lump every 4e fan in with a small outlying group.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544162So..a couple people have issues and you lump every single 4e fan in with them.....:banghead:

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544163I'm sorry, did you post in that thread?

So... the definition of "4e fan" is "someone who posted in that thread"?

In that case, it doesn't look like there's that many of 'em. We could probably take 'em in a fight, if we gang up on 'em.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.

As a 4e fan, who is also a fan of 1e, 2e, 5e and several retroclones, I beg to differ.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544118This is the reaction of 4e fans to 5e.  And any other versions of D&D (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3487597).  This is people literally insisting nobody gets to have fun with any version of D&D, ever, except 4e.  

Eh, I avoid sites that use substitute words to get around the profanity filter.  Either say what you fucking mean or leave out the colorful metaphors.  What's the deal with using "loving" as a replacement word?  Every time I see that, I zone out and close the link.

Quote from: Skywalker;544169As a 4e fan, who is also a fan of 1e, 2e, 5e and several retroclones, I beg to differ.

There is a difference between a 4venger and a 4E fan.

Quote from: Skywalker;544169As a 4e fan, who is also a fan of 1e, 2e, 5e and several retroclones, I beg to differ.

I think there are lots of 4E fans who feel the way you do. The problem is there is some truth to what tdd is talking about here. There is a very loud and vocal group of pro-4E posters who say stuff like this all the time. To the point that they simply don't allow for opinions that differ from their own.

Quote from: Skywalker;544169As a 4e fan, who is also a fan of 1e, 2e, 5e and several retroclones, I beg to differ.

If anything, the issue is that those - what, 10 people, tops - 10 or so pooflingers actually think that they represent the interests of the D&D fanbase at large.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544164No

I fail to see the reason you have to lump every 4e fan in with a small outlying group.

No, they shouldn't all be lumped together. I know a lot of very reasonable 4E fans. But if you post on virtually any forum, you encounter these guys (usually in groups) and they give 4E players a bad name. This isn't something folks are pulling out of thin air. They are on places like the WOTC forum (and not an insubstantial number either) as well as rpgnet and enworld.

Quote from: Skywalker;544169As a 4e fan, who is also a fan of 1e, 2e, 5e and several retroclones, I beg to differ.

You do know he was only meaning those specific people that posted in that specific thread not the entirety of 4e fans? Delver was making an indictment about Something Awful not 4e.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544173I think there are lots of 4E fans who feel the way you do. The problem is there is some truth to what tdd is talking about here. There is a very loud and vocal group of pro-4E posters who say stuff like this all the time. To the point that they simply don't allow for opinions that differ from their own.

There is a group of 4e fans who do say stuff like that. I am not sure that its the only edition to have fans who have a blind spot for the virtues of other editions and are vocal about it though.

The reasons 4e sticks out is that it is the current edition and it is being phased out, making such comments prominent, and 4e's design approach is markedly different from previous editions of the D&D, meaning that some arguments as its virtues fall into a blind spot of those who don't like the edition.

Quote from: Marleycat;544176You do know he was only meaning those specific people that posted in that specific thread not the entirety of 4e fans? Delver was making an indictment about Something Awful not 4e.

I read his post several time to see if that is what he meant, as I suspected that it might be the case. That is not how his posts read to me. If I misread it, then fair enough.

Quote from: Marleycat;544176You do know he was only meaning those specific people that posted in that specific thread not the entirety of 4e fans? Delver was making an indictment about Something Awful not 4e.

I agree that was his intent, but I can also see the confusion because he said 4e fans in general, and didn't specify the vocal minority.

Quote from: Skywalker;544177There is a group of 4e fans who do say stuff like that. I am not sure that its the only edition to have fans who have a blind spot for the virtues of other editions and are vocal about it though.

The reasons 4e sticks out is that it is the current edition and it is being phased out, making such comments prominent, and 4e's design approach is markedly different from previous editions of the D&D, meaning that some arguments as its virtues fall into a blind spot of those who don't like the edition.

I don't know. I have been gaming for a long time and been through plenty of edition war nonsense. But this is really a much more volatile group in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I know there are jerks on any side of a debate. But in this instance, it feels like a lot of these 4E avengers are nursing some longheld greivances and it comes out in the debates about 4E and other editions.

I can honestly say 4E is well designed for what it tries to do. But it just isn't for me. I don't have much interest in the kind of play it achieves and its design approach is the opposite of what I want in an RPG. There is room for people who like the 4E way and people who don't in the hobby. The problem I encounter is as soon as I state this, or offer possible reasons for why it never quite worked for me, it is an immediate inquisition followed by endless debate on minor points and attempts to desconstruct the language I am using. I find it very frustrating to communicate with such people. Possible I and others are unfairly projecting this sort of experience onto others who are merely passionate about 4E but not as ornery. But I do think there is a legitimate reason you see this issue raised again and again. And I do think these sorts of posters have really mired down discussions in a lot of places (there is almost no point in posting in certain sections of enworld now).

No harm no foul I just wanted to point that out. But Delver does have a certain sarcastic posting style that can be misunderstood in my opinion.

Quote from: Marleycat;544176You do know he was only meaning those specific people that posted in that specific thread not the entirety of 4e fans? Delver was making an indictment about Something Awful not 4e.

Quote from: Skywalker;544178I read his post several time to see if that is what he meant, as I suspected that it might be the case. That is not how his posts read to me. If I misread it, then fair enough.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544179I agree that was his intent, but I can also see the confusion because he said 4e fans in general, and didn't specify the vocal minority.

Also, when anyone suggested a less extreme interpretation, he re-affirmed that he meant "4e fans".

Seems a bit extreme to me. I don't even *like* 4e, or 3e for that matter. But here I am, defending the 4e fans, because even though I see the later editions as deeply flawed, I can't say "And therefore no one should ever play these games" with a straight face. What the hell business is it of mine what other people play?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544182I don't know. I have been gaming for a long time and been through plenty of edition war nonsense. But this is really a much more volatile group in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I know there are jerks on any side of a debate. But in this instance, it feels like a lot of these 4E avengers are nursing some longheld greivances and it comes out in the debates about 4E and other editions.

I can honestly say 4E is well designed for what it tries to do. But it just isn't for me. I don't have much interest in the kind of play it achieves and its design approach is the opposite of what I want in an RPG. There is room for people who like the 4E way and people who don't in the hobby. The problem I encounter is as soon as I state this, or offer possible reasons for why it never quite worked for me, it is an immediate inquisition followed by endless debate on minor points and attempts to desconstruct the language I am using. I find it very frustrating to communicate with such people. Possible I and others are unfairly projecting this sort of experience onto others who are merely passionate about 4E but not as ornery. But I do think there is a legitimate reason you see this issue raised again and again. And I do think these sorts of posters have really mired down discussions in a lot of places (there is almost no point in posting in certain sections of enworld now).

Very good insight.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544173I think there are lots of 4E fans who feel the way you do. The problem is there is some truth to what tdd is talking about here. There is a very loud and vocal group of pro-4E posters who say stuff like this all the time. To the point that they simply don't allow for opinions that differ from their own.

deleted

Quote from: Skywalker;544177There is a group of 4e fans who do say stuff like that. I am not sure that its the only edition to have fans who have a blind spot for the virtues of other editions and are vocal about it though.

The reasons 4e sticks out is that it is the current edition and it is being phased out, making such comments prominent, and 4e's design approach is markedly different from previous editions of the D&D, meaning that some arguments as its virtues fall into a blind spot of those who don't like the edition.

No. The reason it sticks out is that 4e is a completely different game that sucked the dick of the Forge and tried to be this "coherent" Tactico-storygame, whereas there is, despite the numerous twist and turns noticeable throughout the game's history, a recognizable tradition stretching from the OD&D roots all the way down into 3rd ed's design and, hopefully, beyond into 5e as well.

That's what these guys are railing against. They're railing against actual D&D.

4e has a place at the table just like every other edition.  I.e., people will continue to play it because that's their edition they like the most.  I just get frustrated at this sense of entitlement that seems to echo so loudly among 4e circles that they somehow deserve special treatment.

It was like StephenLS (I think) a few months ago, when he said something to the effect of "I'm going to go easy on 4e fans because imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and your edition was going away."

Um...as a player of 1e, the shoe has been on the other foot for 20 years.

Not to mention the other thing that bothers be are the claims of how 4e is objectively a better and funner version than the others before it.  But the thing that really annoys me are the people who trot out the "mother may I" BS, as if players of 1e all sit around sucking off the DM in hopes of a favor because a particular scenario wasn't explicitly spelled out for them.

Whenever I hear someone say "mother may I", that tells me that have zero cooperative social skills at the table because obviously they've never had a reasonable discussion and consensus as a group (players&DM).  If they did, then it wouldn't be a very big issue, let alone one that invokes a phrase that implies the players are all a bunch of kids begging at the feet of a DM.

Quote from: Benoist;544188That's what these guys are railing against. They're railing against actual D&D.

If you're talking about rulings not rules, than I agree with you.  DM fiat has been such a huge part of D&D as a core aspect that it's been explicitly called out numerous times among the editions.  And that's what make a freeform, sandbox rpg great.  There is no way you can quantify every scenario into a rule, so you go with what works for your gaming table and move in.  The forefathers of D&D have said over and over and over to not let the game get in the way of having fun, and to mold the game as you want it.

So yeah, people that are against rulings not rules?  That's pretty much against the culture of what makes D&D D&D.  Go play your boardgame.  But understand why the DM is called a Dungeon Master, and a referee before that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544190If you're talking about rulings not rules, than I agree with you.

Among other things, yes. I'm talking about the way 4e made the game about the rules and solely the rules (SYSTEM MATTERS!!ONE), about the total bullshit about story-everything, as if actual fucking role playing was an option in this game. About the one-size-fits-all game design. About edifying rules lawyering and whining bullshit as paragon of game play at the core of the game's design and aspirations. About "fun is this, get on with the fun, now now, it can't possibly be that thing instead" (whether we are talking about talking to town guards, rolling a save or die, whatever is deemed "unfun", wrong and boo hoo bad design). About the tactical encounter and skill challenges being the be-all, end-all of everything that is fun about this game. About everything that makes 4e this piece of shit Forge propaganda it really was.

There ARE some good things about 4e. There are. But man, what a shitcake it was around those few worthy ideas.

Quote from: Benoist;544188No. The reason it sticks out is that 4e is a completely different game that sucked the dick of the Forge and tried to be this "coherent" Tactico-storygame, whereas there is, despite the numerous twist and turns noticeable throughout the game's history, a recognizable tradition stretching from the OD&D roots all the way down into 3rd ed's design and, hopefully, beyond into 5e as well.

That's what these guys are railing against. They're railing against actual D&D.

And people here are perplexed on why there are edition wars.....:rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;544192Among other things, yes. I'm talking about the way 4e made the game about the rules and solely the rules (SYSTEM MATTERS!!ONE), about the total bullshit about story-everything, as if actual fucking role playing was an option in this game. About the one-size-fits-all game design. About edifying rules lawyering and whining bullshit as paragon of game play at the core of the game's design and aspirations. About "fun is this, get on with the fun, now now, it can't possibly be that thing instead" (whether we are talking about talking to town guards, rolling a save or die, whatever is deemed "unfun", wrong and boo hoo bad design). About the tactical encounter and skill challenges being the be-all, end-all of everything that is fun about this game. About everything that makes 4e this piece of shit Forge propaganda it really was.

There ARE some good things about 4e. There are. But man, what a shitcake it was around those few worthy ideas.

Can't help but think that Brendan might be the guy we send to the RPGSite/4E-Fans diplomatic summit though , eh :D

Quote from: Sommerjon;544193And people here are perplexed on why there are edition wars.....:rolleyes:

:forge:

Quote from: jibbajibba;544194Can't help but think that Brendan might be the guy we send to the RPGSite/4E-Fans diplomatic summit though , eh :D

Yeah I'm guessing that might be a good idea. :D

Quote from: Benoist;544196Yeah I'm guessing that might be a good idea. :D

At least you admit you're not the most levelheaded guy on this topic.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;544199At least you admit you're not the most levelheaded guy on this topic. :)

Well of course. You did check out my avatar, right? ;)

PS: For the record, I did play, and would play 4e again. With the right people.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5441894e has a place at the table just like every other edition.  I.e., people will continue to play it because that's their edition they like the most.  I just get frustrated at this sense of entitlement that seems to echo so loudly among 4e circles that they somehow deserve special treatment.

It was like StephenLS (I think) a few months ago, when he said something to the effect of "I'm going to go easy on 4e fans because imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and your edition was going away."

Um...as a player of 1e, the shoe has been on the other foot for 20 years.

Not to mention the other thing that bothers be are the claims of how 4e is objectively a better and funner version than the others before it.  But the thing that really annoys me are the people who trot out the "mother may I" BS, as if players of 1e all sit around sucking off the DM in hopes of a favor because a particular scenario wasn't explicitly spelled out for them.

Whenever I hear someone say "mother may I", that tells me that have zero cooperative social skills at the table because obviously they've never had a reasonable discussion and consensus as a group (players&DM).  If they did, then it wouldn't be a very big issue, let alone one that invokes a phrase that implies the players are all a bunch of kids begging at the feet of a DM.

I'm with you here. I absolutely do not get this at all. The complaints about DM fiat and DM interpretation making a game "broken" or "unplayable" are, without a doubt or exception, either complete lies or completely mistaken people problems rather than game problems. I've been playing D&D since '78, including all versions of D&D and a great many other traditional RPGs and not once in all this time have I observed these flaws in any RPG or RPG session. Not once. There's been many other flaws, but never those. Any person that posts, in a serious manner, this "mother may I" complaint causes me to immediately disregard anything they say about the game in question because it becomes obvious to me that they are either completely ignorant of the reality of the game, or fucking liars. My 6 year old son could make up better flaws for a game and he's never played D&D before. These people are among the lowest common denominators of our sub-culture. I'm with TDD, we'd be much better off without them, so here's hoping they all throw massive temper tantrums and storm out of our hobby in a great big pathetic huff. That would make my heart smile.

Quote from: Benoist;544200Well of course. You did check out my avatar, right? ;)

PS: For the record, I did play, and would play 4e again. With the right people.

Yeah I noticed, who is it?

As for 4e I would also play it again with the right people. My attitude about the game pretty much mirrors yours, but with far less vitrol.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;544202Yeah I noticed, is it Jack Nicholson?

Nope. You've seen the Harry Potter movies, right? Sirius Black?
That's Gary Oldman in the pic. His "Wanted" poster in the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Quote from: Marleycat;544202As for 4e I would also play it again with the right people.

As Kyle would say were he still with us, 'it's all about the people and the snacks, now roll the dice and shut the fuck up...'

Quote from: Benoist;544203Nope. You've seen the Harry Potter movies, right? Sirius Black?
That's Gary Oldman in the pic. His "Wanted" poster in the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Yeah, I watched some of Harry Potter. Gary Oldman always makes great villians just like Kevin Spacey.

QuoteAs Kyle would say were he still with us, 'it's all about the people and the snacks, now roll the dice and shut the fuck up...'

Most definitely that's why Sigmund is spot on about "Mother May I". It really is about the human interaction (good snacks, beer, etc never hurt either).

Quote from: jibbajibba;544205As Kyle would say were he still with us, 'it's all about the people and the snacks, now roll the dice and shut the fuck up...'

People Snacks Setting System. In that order. Brought a smile to my face. :)

Hell, I'd play just about any game with the right people because it's a social past time.  It's the people around you that make the game great, or make the game suck much moreso than any particular ruleset.  That's why we sit there face to face in actual conversation.  I think that gets lost on a lot of this generation--the people make the experience, not the rules.  The rules are just guidelines to help facilitate your particular level of fun.

Christ, now I sound like a bitter old man.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544208Hell, I'd play just about any game with the right people because it's a social past time.  It's the people around you that make the game great, or make the game suck much moreso than any particular ruleset.  That's why we sit there face to face in actual conversation.  I think that gets lost on a lot of this generation--the people make the experience, not the rules.  The rules are just guidelines to help facilitate your particular level of fun.

Christ, now I sound like a bitter old man.

Maybe to the young hipsters you do, but you also make a lot of damn sense to me, bud. ;)

Quote from: Benoist;544207People Snacks Setting System. In that order. Brought a smile to my face. :)

You posted this as I was drafting my mini rant, and I'm stealing it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544211You posted this as I was drafting my mini rant, and I'm stealing it.

Kyle Aaron, who used to post here, was saying that all the time, and he was right. :)

Hee hee, D&D edition wars, ho ho, how cute. Play badly children.

Quote from: B.T.;543967There sure are.  Just not on this site.

The forums I visit don't seem to have any 4e players that are against or hate D&D Next.  I haven't seen any hate rants about the 5th edition rules on YouTube so far.  I just now answered WOTC's 5e playtest questionnaire I got in my email today.  I hope there are not 4e players sending them bogus info to derail 5e's development.

Quote from: tzunder;544214Hee hee, D&D edition wars, ho ho, how cute. Play badly children.

Except no one is arguing an edition war.  One person made a comment against 4e in general, but none of us are arguing that point.  We are arguing against a behavior.  No one is saying that any edition sucks.  We are saying that people who play with a particular play style sucks, regardless of edition.  Just so happens that many people of that behavior are currently playing 4e, but that's not 4e's fault.

Go back to drinking warm beer.

Yeah. I did make the 4e-bashing comment, and yes, it was totally over the top. On purpose.

The thing is you're right in a way. It's a very tight ruleset and it's stellar at supporting the playstyle it was built for. The monster creation stuff is great and there are other really nice elements to it.

Problem is Dnd is a kitchen sink game and is supposed to support many different playstyes.

Quote from: Marleycat;544219The thing is you're right in a way. It's a very tight ruleset and it's stellar at supporting the playstyle it was built for. The monster creation stuff is great and there are other really nice elements to it.

Problem is Dnd is a kitchen sink game and is supposed to support many different playstyes.

Exactly!

4e seems to have one of the best presentations (BECMI and B/X are also up there) of any version, is by far the best for tactical combat, and is the most balanced of any of the editions.

But in achieving that, they went far away from what made D&D D&D and limited itself far too much into a particular niche.

Quote from: Marleycat;544219The thing is you're right in a way. It's a very tight ruleset and it's stellar at supporting the playstyle it was built for. The monster creation stuff is great and there are other really nice elements to it.

Problem is Dnd is a kitchen sink game and is supposed to support many different playstyes.

This is the heart of 4E's problem I think. If it was just some new game or D&D side project, it would have found an audience and folks like us wouldn't have cared one bit. However it was D&D and it was an edition of the game that seemed to be built with a small group of the play base in mind. So it created waves, not because it was too ahead of its time or too new, but because it was not what many wanted from D&D.

Quote from: Benoist;544188No. The reason it sticks out is that 4e is a completely different game that sucked the dick of the Forge and tried to be this "coherent" Tactico-storygame, whereas there is, despite the numerous twist and turns noticeable throughout the game's history, a recognizable tradition stretching from the OD&D roots all the way down into 3rd ed's design and, hopefully, beyond into 5e as well.

That's what these guys are railing against. They're railing against actual D&D.

Truth.  As I have said before and as I will say again: good role-playing games must arise organically; they cannot be planned out with a checklist of design goals.  Once you have the game, you can iron out the kinks.  But 4e was the opposite--it put game design before D&D's quirks and traditions--and it was a pile of shit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544182The problem I encounter is as soon as I state this, or offer possible reasons for why it never quite worked for me, it is an immediate inquisition followed by endless debate on minor points and attempts to desconstruct the language I am using. I find it very frustrating to communicate with such people. Possible I and others are unfairly projecting this sort of experience onto others who are merely passionate about 4E but not as ornery. But I do think there is a legitimate reason you see this issue raised again and again. And I do think these sorts of posters have really mired down discussions in a lot of places (there is almost no point in posting in certain sections of enworld now).

These people may act the same way if you tell them you are not a fan of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3?  Their anger/ADHD gene sets them right off.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544222This is the heart of 4E's problem I think. If it was just some new game or D&D side project, it would have found an audience and folks like us wouldn't have cared one bit. However it was D&D and it was an edition of the game that seemed to be built with a small group of the play base in mind. So it created waves, not because it was too ahead of its time or too new, but because it was not what many wanted from D&D.

...and that's where the "4venger hate" comes from.  People were voicing opinions about how fundamentally 4e had changed and were shouted down, mocked, tied up in intellectually dishonest arguments, accused of edition warring, dismissed as a grognard etc...  Discussion about the game itself was deliberately locked down. Every.Single.Time.Every.Single.Board.

I think WotC is stupid flushing 4e down the toilet because 5e sure as hell isn't going to support the focused play at RPGA that they want.  Look at the media blitz for this Rise of the Underdark, drow stuff across all game lines, even the MMOG and FB game.  Tell me 5e with a move away from encounter-based adventures is going to support this MMOG-like "expansion wave" as well as 4e?  No way.  If they really want to keep making money, they should keep 4e alive as D&D Tactics or something.

Still, due to the vehemence and venom the 4vengers have used I wouldn't feel bad if 4e went away completely and they were left totally out in the cold - they do deserve it.

Halo 3 suxxx! The BR iz br0ken!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;544225These people may act the same way if you tell them you are not a fan of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3?  Their anger/ADHD gene sets them right off.

Could be. I don't really know. But what I do know is I keep running into them on rpg boards and I have never had this kind of trouble participating in discussions about D&D. I don't like pathfinder one bit, can't stand the whole adventure path concept, but I haven't had a pathfinder fan perform the sort of linguistic gymnastics 4Evengers are so fond of in any discussion I have had. And I haven't been dog piled on by pathfinder fans in the way 4vengers do. As I said before I could be projecting some relatively isolated events onto too broad of a group. I just think this isn't arising out of thin air. People are complaining about it for a reason.

QuoteIf they really want to keep making money, they should keep 4e alive as D&D Tactics or something.

This should be done. You're correct in thinking it would be a good money maker.

Quote from: Benoist;544188That's what these guys are railing against. They're railing against actual D&D.

FWIW I think that the design jump from AD&D2e to D&D3e is larger than the design jump from D&D3e to D&D4e. D&D4e is IMO very much the delivering on the promise that D&D3e contained. It was the natural progression of that line of development and not something entirely new that came out of the Forge (sure there were some new elements obtained from there).

As such, I don't see these guys as "railing against D&D" but "railing against moving back down the path that D&D3e began and D&D4e improved on". That is not to say that the path taken in 3e/4e is either the right one or a good one as that is a matter of preference. But I see the logic of the kinds of posters refered to is more about continuing to advance D&D by using all the lessons learned to date rather than winding the clock back and starting again. It only becomes "railing against D&D", if you arbitrarily define D&D as everything up to D&D3e.

These aren't really new or unusual positions in arguments about many things. There always seems to be those who want to build on everything that has come before now and those who want to go back to some other point in time and build on from there.

What if they bolted modules and shit onto 5e to create that D&D Tactics experience though?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544230Could be. I don't really know. But what I do know is I keep running into them on rpg boards and I have never had this kind of trouble participating in discussions about D&D. I don't like pathfinder one bit, can't stand the whole adventure path concept, but I haven't had a pathfinder fan perform the sort of linguistic gymnastics 4Evengers are so fond of in any discussion I have had. And I haven't been dog piled on by pathfinder fans in the way 4vengers do. As I said before I could be projecting some relatively isolated events onto too broad of a group. I just think this isn't arising out of thin air. People are complaining about it for a reason.

What it has really done that is bad for all of us isn't the edition warring but the absolute insidious seepage of political correctness at every board. TPB is just the worst of it.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233FWIW I think that the design jump from AD&D2e to D&D3e is larger than the design jump from D&D3e to D&D4e. D&D4e is IMO very much the delivering on the promise that D&D3e contained. It was the natural conclusion of that line of development, and not something entirely new that came out of the Forge (sure there were elements obtained from there).

As such, I don't see these guys railing against D&D but against a move back down the path that D&D3e began and D&D4e improved on.

That is not to say that the path taken in 3e/4e is the right one or good one. But the logic of these kinds of posters is more about continue to advance D&D by using the lessons learned rather than winding the clock back. It only becomes an argument against D&D, if you define D&D as everything up to D&D3e.

I have heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. the move from 2E from 3E was no where near as big as 3E to 4E IMO. 4E was a response to 3E, not an evolution of 3E. It was created as a reaction to many of 3E's excesses (problems with builds and optimization for example). Just because they field tested some of the 4E mechanics during the 3E era, that doesn't make it a natural extension of 3E. With 4E you have a complete restructuring of the game, and a pure kind of class parity around combat we just never saw before.

Quote from: Benoist;544234What if they bolted modules and shit onto 5e to create that D&D Tactics experience though?

I'd have to see the complete game and see if they do the modules correctly. If so why not? It would be far more economical for them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544230Could be. I don't really know. But what I do know is I keep running into them on rpg boards and I have never had this kind of trouble participating in discussions about D&D. I don't like pathfinder one bit, can't stand the whole adventure path concept, but I haven't had a pathfinder fan perform the sort of linguistic gymnastics 4Evengers are so fond of in any discussion I have had. And I haven't been dog piled on by pathfinder fans in the way 4vengers do. As I said before I could be projecting some relatively isolated events onto too broad of a group. I just think this isn't arising out of thin air. People are complaining about it for a reason.

You're not wrong, and it's not isolated to RPGs.  In many MMOGs you have people who just play the game as a cRPG, then you have people that attempt to roleplay.  Trying to explain why being a Paladin of Camelot and seeing a Necromancer named Massengill Getzdastinkout dragging an undead creature behind him through the court of Camelot might just fuck with immersion into your character is met with the same type of derision, scorn and organized opposition.

In the MMOG community there is a large number of anti-roleplayers who are not live and let live, they are actively hostile to the idea of roleplayers in a MMOG and attempt to be actively disruptive on RPG servers.

Remember this is the key 4e audience (by the designers own admission), MMOGers.  The people who love the tactical gameplay of MMOGs moved to the tactical gameplay of 4e and they brought their hated of roleplayers with them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544236I have heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. the move from 2E from 3E was no where near as big as 3E to 4E IMO. 4E was a response to 3E, not an evolution of 3E. It was created as a reaction to many of 3E's excesses (problems with builds and optimization for example). Just because they field tested some of the 4E mechanics during the 3E era, that doesn't make it a natural extension of 3E. With 4E you have a complete restructuring of the game, and a pure kind of class parity around combat we just never saw before.

I am sure that its a matter that is never going to be quantified or agreed on.

FWIW I do agree that the result of 4e was a mental shift which was greater than between 2e and 3e. But the design of the mechanics itself IMO is less of a shift. 4e is very much a lesson of be careful of what you wish for :)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544236I have heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. the move from 2E from 3E was no where near as big as 3E to 4E IMO. 4E was a response to 3E, not an evolution of 3E. It was created as a reaction to many of 3E's excesses (problems with builds and optimization for example). Just because they field tested some of the 4E mechanics during the 3E era, that doesn't make it a natural extension of 3E. With 4E you have a complete restructuring of the game, and a pure kind of class parity around combat we just never saw before.

Correct. 4e was a direct result of a subset of the playerbase that craves literal class balance and really hated the QW/LF. It's all they can talk about even currently. 3e didn't help itself because fact is, it wasn't balanced. Removing all the limitations of magic users turned that up to 11.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544236I have heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. the move from 2E from 3E was no where near as big as 3E to 4E IMO. 4E was a response to 3E, not an evolution of 3E. It was created as a reaction to many of 3E's excesses (problems with builds and optimization for example). Just because they field tested some of the 4E mechanics during the 3E era, that doesn't make it a natural extension of 3E. With 4E you have a complete restructuring of the game, and a pure kind of class parity around combat we just never saw before.

Correct.  While some elements of 4e were floated early at the end of 3.5, 4e was a reactionary design, not an evolutionary one.

Quote from: Marleycat;544235What it has really done that is bad for all of us isn't the edition warring but the absolute insidious seepage of political correctness at every board. TPB is just the worst of it.

Political correctness is a seperate issue I think. I find outside of TBP few gamers really spend much time worrying about either side of that debate. Believe me if they did, we would have been slammed for putting out Terror Network. Not saying this stuff never comes up...I just don't think it is related to the edition wars (though I can see how people at TBP might have somehow tied the too together). I see the 4E versus pre-4E divide being more centered around legitimate playstyle and expectation issues, not about use of the male pronoun.

Quote from: CRKrueger;544239Remember this is the key 4e audience (by the designers own admission), MMOGers.  

Honestly? There was one oblique reference by designers to MMOs for 4e (and for 3e too IIRC) and you managed to jump all the way to that conclusion? Good to see some blind spots opening on both sides of the fence :)

Quote from: Benoist;544234What if they bolted modules and shit onto 5e to create that D&D Tactics experience though?

I said years ago that the logical next step for 4e D&D was to get rid of the DM and replace with a set of cards or similar that generated tactical options for the monsters as they were encountered. Effectively saying that 4e should move towards an Advanced HeroQuest boardgame paradigm without even a DM . If I recall AM then went off on a rant about how well designed the 4e monsters were and how good a DM needed to be to get teh best out of them.

He might have been right of course. The point really is that a TTRPG fills a niche certainly for me and my mates for us to play a D&D tactics style game it would need to stand apart from a TTRPG so getting rid of he DM and making it a cooperative board game for me woudl be an advantage. Since the DM isn't there to make rulings just assign tactics to the bad guys and fill in teh gaps between encounters I am sure you could come up with a card based algorythm that handled all their jobs quite smoothly.

Quote from: Skywalker;5442424e is very much a lesson of be careful of what you wish for :)

Nicely put.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233FWIW I think that the design jump from AD&D2e to D&D3e is larger than the design jump from D&D3e to D&D4e. D&D4e is IMO very much the delivering on the promise that D&D3e contained. It was the natural conclusion of that line of development, and not something entirely new that came out of the Forge (sure there were elements obtained from there).

You're comparing apples and oranges. The shift from 2e to 3e was down to the core mechanic of the game, which modified the aesthetic of the game at the level of the rules as well as the logic sustaining the system.

4e was a sort of refinement of the trends of 3.5 with the volume turned to 11, all the way into "not D&D" territory. It's as if they had taken all the sewer crap from all edition and turned it into the most horrible Forge-like experience you could get out of the d20 system.

If you want a comparison, they did to 3rd ed with 4e the complete opposite 2e did to AD&D First Ed, where the game basically retained the core of the mechanics and design but turned it over its head, flushed everything that was cool about it and turned it into a formless blob about encounters and story and bullshit without structure to it. Well. 4e did the reverse, turning 3rd ed into this one-playstyle, one-size-fits-all approach that is consistent with the Forge's design theories describing how role playing games need to be coherent, focus on one segment of the threefold model primarily to squeeze the juice out of it. Here, with 4e, it was the "gamist" focus with a sprinkly of "narrativism" to make it feel like an RPG still.

Hence, shitcake. Because the Forge's theories are shit, and the threefold model's definition of gamist, narrativist and simulationist are shit as well. And Robin Laws's terminology is an extension of that shit, and thus crap as well, by the way.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233As such, I don't see these guys railing against D&D but against a move back down the path that D&D3e began and D&D4e improved on.

No. They're railing against the core game play of D&D, about rulings v. rules, about magic users playing differently than fighter and using different mechanical representations to get there, against the social aspects of role playing games at the center of game play, for the rules as the arbiter of all going-ons, against save or die, against level drain, against 'sacred cows'... against D&D. They're the guys who hate D&D who want to change it into something it's not. Fuck them.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233That is not to say that the path taken in 3e/4e is the right one or good one. But the logic of these kinds of posters is more about continue to advance D&D by using the lessons learned rather than winding the clock back. It only becomes an argument against D&D, if you define D&D as everything up to D&D3e.

It's about them regurgitating the bullshit progress indie Forge kool aid they've been drinking for the past few years. It's crap, and it should be denounced as such. Fuck them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544249I said years ago that the logical next step for 4e D&D was to get rid of the DM and replace with a set of cards or similar that generated tactical options for the monsters as they were encountered. Effectively saying that 4e should move towards an Advanced HeroQuest boardgame paradigm without even a DM .

Well, they did actually do that too. It was called Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon and Legend of Drizzt :)

Quote from: Skywalker;5442424e is very much a lesson of be careful of what you wish for :)

Though we disagree on the other aspects of the debate, here we agree. This is very true. I was one of the people calling for more balance during the 3E era. I was just getting tired of the optimization builds that were becoming rampant in some of the groups I played with, and felt the system master issue was a serious problem for many peoples' enjoyment of the game. But I never imagined 4E would be WOTC's solution to this problem. If anything I just wanted things dialed down to where they were in 1E and 2E in terms of game balance (and limiting stuff like class dipping).

Quote from: Skywalker;544248Honestly? There was one oblique reference by designers to MMOs for 4e (and for 3e too IIRC) and you managed to jump all the way to that conclusion?

Based on the design, the advertising and the result, who did you think they were going for, 0-3.5ers?  No company that focus groups like WotC could have made that mistake.  They knew damn well what they were doing.  They were deliberately tossing out the old and bringing in the new.  Who is the new?  They built it, but the new didn't come  and so here we are.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544253Though we disagree on the other aspects of the debate, here we agree. This is very true. I was one of the people calling for more balance during the 3E era. I was just getting tired of the optimization builds that were becoming rampant in some of the groups I played with, and felt the system master issue was a serious problem for many peoples' enjoyment of the game. But I never imagined 4E would be WOTC's solution to this problem. If anything I just wanted things dialed down to where they were in 1E and 2E in terms of game balance (and limiting stuff like class dipping).

I have heard this sentiment many times. It seems many were expecting a kind of cleaned up and stripped down 3x.

Quote from: Skywalker;544252Well, they did actually do that too. It was called Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon and Legend of Drizzt :)

Yup :) Exactly where 4e should end up :)

I haven't actually played any of them any good?

Quote from: CRKrueger;544254Based on the design, the advertising and the result, who did you think they were going for, 0-3.5ers?

They were aiming for 3.5ers and new players IMO.

They were also reacting to the shift of market position that had been brought about by the OGL. This is the reason why and where most of the burning of bridges took place.

Quote from: Marleycat;544255I have heard this sentiment many times. It seems many were expecting a kind of cleaned up and stripped down 3x.

WotC should have manned up and told us to say "NO" to bullshit builds instead.

But they got caught up in their own lie, that the rules are the game, and the game the rules. Idiots.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544256Yup :) Exactly where 4e should end up :)

I don't think it needs to end there. The path from those three board games, to Essentials to full 4e is a nice progression of game concepts and complexity.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544256I haven't actually played any of them any good?

Yep. They are all excellent.

Quote from: Skywalker;544260Yep. They are all excellent.

Do you have any experience with Advanced Heroquest or WarhammerQuest?

How replayable are they?  They seem very focused(of course so is Space Hulk).

Quote from: Benoist;544258say "NO" to bullshit builds instead.

But it's right there in rules as written, you're just trying to stomp all over my fun just because you're not as smart as me or as strong as my character!

Quote from: CRKrueger;544262Do you have any experience with Advanced Heroquest or WarhammerQuest?

How replayable are they?  They seem very focused(of course so is Space Hulk).

I own both and have considerable experience with them.

Neither of the three D&D boardgame are designed to provide a campaign experience like those two you list. So I don't really see them as substitutes. But the game play in the three D&D boardgames is generally more exciting and consumerable IME.

Quote from: CRKrueger;544262Do you have any experience with Advanced Heroquest or WarhammerQuest?

How replayable are they?  They seem very focused(of course so is Space Hulk).

How awesome was SpaceHulk such a shame I never bought my own copy of it. Tried Doom but not even close

Quote from: Kord's Boon;544264But it's right there in rules as written, you're just trying to stomp all over my fun just because you're not as smart as me or as strong as my character!

Shut the fuck up and roll the dice. ;)

Quote from: jibbajibba;544266How awesome was SpaceHulk such a shame I never bought my own copy of it. Tried Doom but not even close

Space Hulk is a nice comparison. SH is probably more fun again than the D&D board games, but even more focussed.

On the point of board games, has anyone been keeping an eye on Descent: Journey into the Depths 2e by FFG?

It is moving into 4e's vacating territory pretty swiftly (and looks damn good too as a result) :D

Quote from: Skywalker;544268Space Hulk is a nice comparison. SH is probably more fun again than the D&D board games, but even more focussed.

I have the 2nd and 3rd editions of SH (and passed on a chance to get the 1e set FOR A SONG...WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME???) and both rock on toast.  SH3 kind of recaptures SH1's gonzo, over-the-top feel (psykers and grenades and assault cannons, oh my!), but both are good.

Quote from: Skywalker;544275On the point of board games, has anyone been keeping an eye on Descent: Journey into the Depths 2e by FFG?

It is moving into 4e's vacating territory pretty swiftly (and looks damn good too as a result) :D

You mean "Descent: Journeys in the Dark"?  I've played it a couple times, it's pretty good.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;544280You mean "Descent: Journeys in the Dark"?  I've played it a couple times, it's pretty good.

Yep. There is a second edition due any time soon and it seems to be stealing 4e's concepts as quickly as 4e sheds them :D

Quote from: Skywalker;544282Yep. There is a second edition due any time soon and it seems to be stealing 4e's concepts as quickly as 4e sheds them :D

Well there they go, then.

Quote from: Skywalker;544282Yep. There is a second edition due any time soon and it seems to be stealing 4e's concepts as quickly as 4e sheds them :D

Could you give some examples of 4e ideas going into the next edition of Descent?

I liked 4e a lot, and so far I like D&D Next a lot.  Then again, I liked all the editions to some extent.

The thing I liked the most about 4e was the reduced DM prep time, and the return to disassociating monster rules from PC rules (the later of which was not new, it was just a return to old).  I hope they keep those two concepts.

Quote from: Rum Cove;544287Could you give some examples of 4e ideas going into the next edition of Descent?

Sure. There are now four PC archetypes - Warriors, Rogues, Healers and Wizards. Each has two classes. Warriors have Berserkers and Knights, Healers have Priests and Shamans, Rogues have Rangers and Thieves etc. The set up is very reminiscient of Essentials, with the Archetype being a "role" and the class being, well, the class.

The abilities have also become much less about damage and more about Hero interaction and forced movement. Healers can heal Heroes with 3 squares of them automatically. Knights can make it harder for opponents to hurt nearby allies.

They have also added in more interesting Campaign Story Structure and Encounters, which remind me of 4e's overall default play structure.

Its not like the two games are the same. But I think there is a shift in that direction, and for Descent it should make it much more exciting than the current version.

Tbh, I am still not sure If I do not prefer 4th edition to 3rd, but in my case that is definitely damning with faint praise.

To me 3rd edition takes D&D and utterly savages it to appeal to the glut of rules lawyers who where created by Magic the Gathering. Its not that I think its not an RPG, it clearly is, but its an RPG designed for people who like sitting at home optimising characters and beating their opponent with ultra complex rules glitches. (Note you do not have to actually play it like this, but it's still how its fucking designed to be played).

4th I think in many ways is a better game, system mastery is less important, arseing around with your build will often have fuck all effect. There is no assumed constant battle of optimisation between player and GM, so its runs out of the box. Its real sin is then taking years of D&D continuity and rubbishing it, for no reason. If 4th Edition had been set in Greyhawk, had not utterly fucked the Realms and had put the fucking core races and classes in the first sodding Players Guide, I think 5th edition would be a few years off.

Both games have a lot more problems, and we could spend a few years listing them, but I think those are the prime sins of each edition that I hope to god 5th does not repeat.

Quote from: Marleycat;544219The thing is you're right in a way. It's a very tight ruleset and it's stellar at supporting the playstyle it was built for. The monster creation stuff is great and there are other really nice elements to it.

Problem is Dnd is a kitchen sink game and is supposed to support many different playstyes.

And what playstyle is that?

Quote from: Sommerjon;544310And what playstyle is that?

What playstyles do you think 4e supports?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544311What playstyles do you think 4e supports?

Any playstyle you really want, with roughly the same amount of effort it takes to make any other edition support any playstyle you want.

D&D hasn't been good at being anything but a murder simulator since AD&D, but people go through insane contortions to make it fit what they'd rather play.


Of course I'm sure this is pure heresy here because obviously 4E can only ever be a board game WoW on paper [insert comparison that fits any prior edition of D&D as well]. The hypocrisy really makes me smile.

Quote from: Darwinism;544313Any playstyle you really want, with roughly the same amount of effort it takes to make any other edition support any playstyle you want.

D&D hasn't been good at being anything but a murder simulator since AD&D, but people go through insane contortions to make it fit what they'd rather play.


Of course I'm sure this is pure heresy here because obviously 4E can only ever be a board game WoW on paper [insert comparison that fits any prior edition of D&D as well]. The hypocrisy really makes me smile.

The irony is, AD&D a) has a very strong implied setting, and a default mode of play (dungeon->wilderness->domain) but b) is super-flexible to do other modes of play and other settings (assuming you're familiar with the guts of the thing).  Admittedly, Classic is more flexible.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544316The irony is, AD&D a) has a very strong implied setting, and a default mode of play (dungeon->wilderness->domain) but b) is super-flexible to do other modes of play and other settings (assuming you're familiar with the guts of the thing).  Admittedly, Classic is more flexible.

There is?  Where is this implied setting located at?

I read through the big 3 books and fail to see this implied setting, however this part does jump out at me
"APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. AD&D is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participents desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.  Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544311What playstyles do you think 4e supports?

I asked first.

Quote from: Darwinism;544313Any playstyle you really want, with roughly the same amount of effort it takes to make any other edition support any playstyle you want.
.

Really?  My personal playstyle is one with out minis or maps, and quick resolution combat.  I much prefer the "zero to hero" style over "hero to superhero" playstyle.

How exactly can I do this with 4e with the same amount of effort as other editions?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544311What playstyles do you think 4e supports?

Mary Sue and Gay Cousin Oliver Save the World

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544332Really?  My personal playstyle is one with out minis or maps, and quick resolution combat.  I much prefer the "zero to hero" style over "hero to superhero" playstyle.

How exactly can I do this with 4e with the same amount of effort as other editions?

Pretty easily! Defenders have three healing surges, strikers and leaders two, controllers one. Use the exact same mother-may-I as you would in other editions where you're not playing with minis or maps. Have people actually become familiar with their powers or just play Essentials classes.

Bam, done, that sure was easy.

Quote from: B.T.;544334Mary Sue and Gay Cousin Oliver Save the World

you know, this sort of stuff doesn't help

Quote from: B.T.;544334Mary Sue and Gay Cousin Oliver Save the World

No, no, BT, he said think.

I know it's foreign to you, but instead of bursting out BUT IT'S BAD he asked you to think.

Quote from: Darwinism;544337Pretty easily! Defenders have three healing surges, strikers and leaders two, controllers one. Use the exact same mother-may-I as you would in other editions where you're not playing with minis or maps. Have people actually become familiar with their powers or just play Essentials classes.

Bam, done, that sure was easy.

Well, I don't play mother may I, so I don't know what you're referring to.

Quote from: Darwinism;544339No, no, BT, he said think.

I know it's foreign to you, but instead of bursting out BUT IT'S BAD he asked you to think.

While my response was tongue-in-cheek, it was partially serious.  In 4e, every character is a precious snowflake, death is rare, and you never have to fear fleeing a perfectly balanced encounter.  Your character is a mighty hero from level one, and you will never, ever risk the inglorious death at the hands of Generic Orc #23.  You are a protagonist in an epic tale.  You were meant for greatness and glory.  All will listen to your five-page backstory and recognize your creative genius.  The DM will give you what you want, when you want it, or you're going to complain on the forums about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544340Well, I don't play mother may I, so I don't know what you're referring to.

How do you determine who's where? Ranges, how many goblins you catch in that fireball, if you have flank, so on.

Without a map and minis, it's purely mother-may-I. The DM says who's where and does so in a flawed manner; no one can really be expected to keep track of the ever-changing locations of eight to twelve different people all moving about in a grand melee accurately in their head. Some can, probably, the vast majority cannot.

Not that it's necessarily bad, but you're basically just relying on your DM to be fair/nice to you in those situations.

Quote from: B.T.;544342While my response was tongue-in-cheek, it was partially serious.  In 4e, every character is a precious snowflake, death is rare, and you never have to fear fleeing a perfectly balanced encounter.  Your character is a mighty hero from level one, and you will never, ever risk the inglorious death at the hands of Generic Orc #23.  You are a protagonist in an epic tale.  You were meant for greatness and glory.  All will listen to your five-page backstory and recognize your creative genius.  The DM will give you what you want, when you want it, or you're going to complain on the forums about it.

Sorry, you're basically wrong on all levels but I'm used to that from you.

Of course you won't believe it because obviously the opinions you've formed about 4E based on what you want to believe to justify your weird-ass hate for it are the right ones and nothing like silly logic or evidence will sway you.

Quote from: Darwinism;544344Sorry, you're basically wrong on all levels but I'm used to that from you.

Of course you won't believe it because obviously the opinions you've formed about 4E based on what you want to believe to justify your weird-ass hate for it are the right ones and nothing like silly logic or evidence will sway you.

You're welcome to prove me wrong.  I'm obviously exaggerating in some spots, but 4e is very much less lethal than every other edition of D&D.

Quote from: Darwinism;544343How do you determine who's where? Ranges, how many goblins you catch in that fireball, if you have flank, so on.

so...it appears that it's not as easy in 4e to adjust to my playstyle than other editions.  Not even you know that answer it seems.

QuoteWithout a map and minis, it's purely mother-may-I.

Again, I don't play mother may I.  the fact that you're using that term to begin with tells me that you're not being honest.  See, I've never had to beg a DM for anything.  I've never had to put myself at the mercy of a DM's whim.  There are times when I explain what I'm doing to the DM, and he or she evaluates it as part of the overall game play reasonably.  Sometimes other player input is used to come to a consensus for the table.  But it's a consensus.  

Oh, and those times where this happens?  Only a few times per session.  Without using minis or maps, how many times would this come up in a typical 8 hour session, with about 6 or 7 different combat encounters by using 4e?  More than once or twice?

I'm sorry, but 4e was designed with a very specific purpose, and it is objectively wrong that you can play all playstyles with those rules just as easily as other editions.  You literally have to ignore 80% of the rulebook, and if you're doing that, you might as well be playing a different game.

QuoteThe DM says who's where and does so in a flawed manner; no one can really be expected to keep track of the ever-changing locations of eight to twelve different people all moving about in a grand melee accurately in their head. Some can, probably, the vast majority cannot.

And yet, hundreds of thousands of us were able to do just that for 20+ years.  Are you implying that this new generation of gamers isn't as intelligent?  That would be sort of controversial, wouldn't it?

Oh, and at my gaming table at least, the DM doesn't decided where everyone is.  If the need arises, the DM usually asks, "Where are you at?"

Quote from: B.T.;544345You're welcome to prove me wrong.  I'm obviously exaggerating in some spots, but 4e is very much less lethal than every other edition of D&D.

Character deaths from the first adventure(lvl1-3) in our Gray Vale Campaign

QuoteRandar; Halfling Sorcerer(lvl1)
Gerraud Krane; Human Warlord(lvl 1)
Adrien D'Vough; Human Bard(lvl2)
Jack Samuelson; Human Paladin of Laphera(lvl 2)
Axel Mordon; Drow Assassin (lvl 2)
Wulbo Bullywoggin; Halfling Wizard(lvl 3)
Lo-Kag; Goliath Barbarian(lvl 3)
Derven; Revenant Warlock(lvl 3)

Quote from: Sommerjon;544347Character deaths from the first adventure(lvl1-3) in our Gray Vale Campaign

Anecdote =/= data

A better question would be, "What is the chance that each class can die from a single hit from an orc at level 1, and what is the chance of a character surviving from being poisoned or turned to stone at level 1"

Those are things you can objectively measure.  I would posit that BT is very much correct in this one particular subject.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544348Anecdote =/= data

A better question would be, "What is the chance that each class can die from a single hit from an orc at level 1, and what is the chance of a character surviving from being poisoned or turned to stone at level 1"

Those are things you can objectively measure.  I would posit that BT is very much correct in this one particular subject.

Oh true, my sessions are far more lethal and combats far shorter than what the various 4e detractors say.

I equate it to the idea of "This sucks and I will 'prove it' to you" then going out and over-exaggerating parts as 'proof'  Usually this is done in miniature gaming where someone 'knows' that unit/fig/etc is bad(cuz they read it on the internet typically) and to 'prove it' goes out of their way to get said unit/fig/etc killed.  But the concept works just as well in rpgs.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5442214e . . . is by far the best for tactical combat . . .

No, it's not (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=285136&postcount=607).

Really, it's not (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/grumbler.html).

Wow, this site is gonna be fucked when 5e doesn't magically bring back the joy of 8th grade to everyone.

I am unsure which group is more screwed in the skull. The 4e people trying to shit on a yet to be published game or the pseudo-grogs trying to convince themselves that 5e is the second coming of 1e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544348A better question would be, "What is the chance that each class can die from a single hit from an orc at level 1, and what is the chance of a character surviving from being poisoned or turned to stone at level 1"

But even that alone isn't going to determine how lethal a game is. The chance of being hit, the number of attacks in a round, the speed at which opponents go down, healing, the variety of hits and how the death of a PC might effect the above for other PCs will also all have an impact.

I agree 4e is less lethal than previous editions, but it's more lethal than many 4e critics make it out to be IME. I saw more TPK in 4e than in any other editions. Sure, anecdote =/= fact, but I think there is more to tha matter than the one variable you mention.

Quote from: Spinachcat;544364Wow, this site is gonna be fucked when 5e doesn't magically bring back the joy of 8th grade to everyone.

I am unsure which group is more screwed in the skull. The 4e people trying to shit on a yet to be published game or the pseudo-grogs trying to convince themselves that 5e is the second coming of 1e.

I've no doubt WOTC is fully capable of fucking it up.

In fact I'd say their record with D&D does not inspire confidence.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;544355No, it's not (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=285136&postcount=607).

Really, it's not (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/grumbler.html).

"tactics" I'm these discussions usually excludes anything resembling thought.

Only selecting options from a list that you spent countless hours faffing over counts.

Quote from: Darwinism;544343How do you determine who's where? Ranges, how many goblins you catch in that fireball, if you have flank, so on.

Without a map and minis, it's purely mother-may-I. The DM says who's where and does so in a flawed manner; no one can really be expected to keep track of the ever-changing locations of eight to twelve different people all moving about in a grand melee accurately in their head. Some can, probably, the vast majority cannot.

Not that it's necessarily bad, but you're basically just relying on your DM to be fair/nice to you in those situations.

I wouldn't equate this with mother may I. I have used both miniatures and played without them. Provided the GM is 1) consistent and 2)provides accurate descriptions it is entirely possible to know where you are and where you can go. If the GM or players have difficulty picturing and keeping track of spacial  relationships, yes it can break down. In practice I have had good experiences with this method on both sides of the screen. Obviously you get more precision with a mat (and when the combat gets crazy we usually pull it out) but isn't so starkly black and white, with mother may i on one side and a battle mat on the other.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544347Character deaths from the first adventure(lvl1-3) in our Gray Vale Campaign

Doesn't disprove a thing I said.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544328There is?  Where is this implied setting located at?

I read through the big 3 books and fail to see this implied setting, however this part does jump out at me
"APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. AD&D is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participents desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.  Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

The way the world works is pretty heavily implied throughout the 3 hardback books of AD&D.  As ever, D&D is a pretty specific brand of fantasy.  If you're restricted to understanding "setting" as "these place names", then you're sorta out of luck, I guess.

Quote from: Spinachcat;544364Wow, this site is gonna be fucked when 5e doesn't magically bring back the joy of 8th grade to everyone.

I am unsure which group is more screwed in the skull. The 4e people trying to shit on a yet to be published game or the pseudo-grogs trying to convince themselves that 5e is the second coming of 1e.

Since the bulk of opinions here have ranged from "cautious optimism" through "healthy skepticism", you're shooting a little wide, there.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544399The way the world works is pretty heavily implied throughout the 3 hardback books of AD&D.  As ever, D&D is a pretty specific brand of fantasy.  If you're restricted to understanding "setting" as "these place names", then you're sorta out of luck, I guess.

Sorry, calling  BULLSHIT this time.

Quote from: B.T.;544394Doesn't disprove a thing I said.

You didn't 'prove' anything.

You just said something and people here would rather take the negative as gospel than actually try.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544400Since the bulk of opinions here have ranged from "cautious optimism" through "healthy skepticism", you're shooting a little wide, there.

Yeah, I don't see anyone betting on it on being the next best thing.  Most of us have said there are a few things we like, but a lot of things we don't.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544410Sorry, calling  BULLSHIT this time.

Maybe my DMG is special but it's filled with tables and examples. It talks about what towns and wilderness areas are like, it talks about what kind of people you can find in different places. It talks about the different races and how they act and live, etc...

If that's not "implied setting" I don't know what it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544328There is?  Where is this implied setting located at?

Equipment lists.  Magic item descriptions, particularly the artifacts and relics.  Treasure type tables.  Which races you can play and which you can't.  The spells with proper names in them.  The classes that come with implicit organizations attached to them (Thief's Guild, Assassin's Guild, Druidic hierarchy, Bardic colleges).  The domain rules.  The wandering monster tables.

Quote from: jrients;544420Equipment lists.  Magic item descriptions, particularly the artifacts and relics.  Treasure type tables.  Which races you can play and which you can't.  The spells with proper names in them.  The classes that come with implicit organizations attached to them (Thief's Guild, Assassin's Guild, Druidic hierarchy, Bardic colleges).  The domain rules.  The wandering monster tables.

Ah, but he used big red text to call bullshit.

By the rules of 3rd grade that's going to be tough to refute.

Quote from: Piestrio;544417Maybe my DMG is special but it's filled with tables and examples. It talks about what towns and wilderness areas are like, it talks about what kind of people you can find in different places. It talks about the different races and how they act and live, etc...

If that's not "implied setting" I don't know what it.

"Looks like we got ourselves a reader." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvs2g5Nj0NI)  :hand:

Quote from: Sommerjon;544328There is?  Where is this implied setting located at?

I read through the big 3 books and fail to see this implied setting . . .

Then stop wearing your ass as a ski mask.

Should clear that problem right up for you.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544328There is?  Where is this implied setting located at?

It's been said already but basically every random table, every description of wandering monster types per climate or level or whatnot, all these elements point to a default repartition, probabilities to meet, inhabitants of a world that is... implied. Implied setting.

See also the structure of spells pointing out to the existence of the planes, their names and structure. See references to the Layers of the Abyss in the DMG text.

See also the actual names of spells and magic items. Stuff like "Mordenkainen" and "Bigby" and "Melf" and "Heward". The "City of Brass". "Gaxx". "Vecna". The Wind Dukes of Aaqa and the great battle of Pesh. References to the "Nyr Dyv" and the world of Greyhawk.

I mean. I'm just scratching the surface here. I did this by scanning the pages for like 2 minutes. Stop being a total idiot dude.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544328I read through the big 3 books and fail to see this implied setting, however this part does jump out at me
"APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. AD&D is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participents desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.  Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

This paragraph, I do not think it means what you think it means.

There's a little thing called context you might have heard about. This paragraph is written as a response to specific criticism about the D&D game that led to the creation and publication of other games, which then competed with D&D, on one side, and to respond to some of the most hardcore wargamers who wanted a greater accuracy of the D&D simulation (sometimes the same guys, I'd wager).

In any case, this quote here is definitely a product of its time. It was the defense of D&D has a passtime that engages in Fantasy, and not this hardcore simulation so many criticized the game for not being.

Context, dude. Use your brain, if you have one.

Quote from: Piestrio;544417Maybe my DMG is special but it's filled with tables and examples. It talks about what towns and wilderness areas are like, it talks about what kind of people you can find in different places. It talks about the different races and how they act and live, etc...

If that's not "implied setting" I don't know what it.

When they say
"As the creator of a milieu, you will have to spend a considerable amount of time developing the population and distribution of monsters in dungeon and wilderness and in urban areas as well. It is highly recommended that you develop an overall scheme for both population and habitation. This is not to say that a random mixture of monsters cannot be used, simply selecting whatever creatures are at hand from the tables of monsters shown by level of their relative challenge. The latter method does provide a rather fun type of campaign with a "Disneyland" atmosphere, but long range play becomes difficult, for the whole lacks rhyme and reason, so it becomes difficult for the DM to extrapolate new scenarios from it, let alone build upon it. Therefore, it is better to use the random population technique only in certain areas, and even then to do so with reason...."
Or
"You may find it interesting to mix titles, invent them, and place the whole in the campaign setting you devise accordingly. Research in various histories will be helpful, as will be a copy of a good thesaurus."
Or
"There is nothing wrong with using a prepared setting to start a campaign. just as long as you are totally familiar with its precepts and they mesh with what you envision as the ultimate direction of your own milieu. Whatever doesn't match, remove from the material and substitute your own in its place. On the other hand, there is nothing to say you are not capable of creating your own starting place; just use whichever method is best suited to your available time and more likely to please your players. Until you are sure of yourself, lean upon the book."
Sure seems to run counter to what you say.  Giving examples in no way implies anything.

Quote from: jrients;544420Equipment lists.  Magic item descriptions, particularly the artifacts and relics.  Treasure type tables.  Which races you can play and which you can't.  The spells with proper names in them.  The classes that come with implicit organizations attached to them (Thief's Guild, Assassin's Guild, Druidic hierarchy, Bardic colleges).  The domain rules.  The wandering monster tables.

Really?
"Because of the unique nature of each artifact and relic, their powers are only partially described. You, the Dungeon Master, must at least decide what the major powers of each item are to be. This prevents players from gaining any knowledge of these items, even if they happen to own or read a copy of this volume, and it also makes each artifact and relic distinct from campaign to campaign."
My DMG seems to be different from yours.
As to your classes with organizations
Thief "Any thief character of 10th or greater level may use his small castle type building to set up a headquarters for a gang of thieves, and he or she will accordingly attract from 4-24 other thieves. However, this will bring the enmity of the local Thieves Guild,"the only time the thieve's guild is mentioned with the thief. Domain rules=optional, wandering monster tables you are encouraged to create your own.

Worthless thread just keeps getting more and more worthless.

To actually address the OP - Who gives a fuck.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544411You didn't 'prove' anything.

You just said something and people here would rather take the negative as gospel than actually try.

Swift action healing, self-healing, neutered save-or-dies, hit point bloat.  In 2e, your fighter might have 1 HP and be dead at 0 HP.  In 4e, that fighter has more HP and can go to negative HP.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544447Really?
"Because of the unique nature of each artifact and relic, their powers are only partially described. You, the Dungeon Master, must at least decide what the major powers of each item are to be. This prevents players from gaining any knowledge of these items, even if they happen to own or read a copy of this volume, and it also makes each artifact and relic distinct from campaign to campaign."
My DMG seems to be different from yours.
As to your classes with organizations
Thief "Any thief character of 10th or greater level may use his small castle type building to set up a headquarters for a gang of thieves, and he or she will accordingly attract from 4-24 other thieves. However, this will bring the enmity of the local Thieves Guild,"the only time the thieve's guild is mentioned with the thief. Domain rules=optional, wandering monster tables you are encouraged to create your own.

My DMG isn't different.  Your reading skills might be the issue.  No one here, as far as I can tell, has disputed the idea that any or all facets of the implied setting can be modified to fit a particular DM's project.  For example, I omitted all forms of armor more advanced than chainmail from my last campaign because it was set in a pseudo-England before the development of plate.

My ability to alter these setting elements (and Gygax's advice to do so) doesn't alter the fact that the Machine of Lum the Mad implies something about how technology and magic can interact, that the existence of hostile Thieves Guilds implies something about organized crime, that the racial sympathy/antipathy charts imply something about how often the various humanoid species encounter each other.  These implications are all over the AD&D books.  Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they aren't there.

My favorite example of how implied setting works in AD&D is the addition of the arquebus to the equipment charts in 2nd edition.  The introduction of gunpowder weapons totally blew away my playgroup at the time.  Our reading of the implied setting in the prior edition suggested that gunpowder was utterly alien to baseline D&D, except when you visited Boot Hill or Gamma World via planar shenanigans.

I think it is fair to say that in all the D&D PHBs and DMGs there are some implied default assumptions about the kind of setting the game is meant to support. This doesn't mean every campaign has to be forgotten realms or GH or that the GM shouldn't make his setting unique in a number of ways, but reading through the first three DMGs and PHBs at least (being less familiar with the 4E books I won't comment on whether it applies to them) is clear to me the writers assume quasi-medieval europe/dark ages with races pulled from tolkein mixed heavily with other sword and sorcery. There are more exotic elements as well. People can quibble over some of the details (maybe I am overplaying tolkein or other influences for instance), the key thing is to make a campaign that doesn't fit the default assumptions you need to do some work (and that is half the fun in my opinion).

I haven't been following the most recent posts too closely, so I don't know if I am really contradicting your point here at all sommerjon. I just saw some dispute about whether there is an implied setting in D&D and think it is obvious there are some implied assumptions.

That said, I see nothing wrong with breaking away from those assumptions to make a more interesting campaign world. One thing 2E really showed was the variety of D&D settings that are possible by taking the core classes and races and tweaking or modifying for taste. But it also showed you really do have to alter core things (races, equipment, magic items, spells, classes, etc) the further you go away from the games core assumptions. If you want to run D&D out of the box, then it is much easier to build your setting around the existing races and other material. Take settings like ravenloft, dark sun or spell jammer...they break away significantly from core D&D assumptions in their own way (not to mention exotic settings like Al-Qadim). But to do this well they made some major changes to the PHB.

Reading the original DMG, since it comes up an alot, one of the things that struck me was Gary seemed to build in some key setting ideas (a fighter, wizard, thief for example are setting components that shape what a campaign will look like) but he also talked about going off the rails for some truly unique campaigns people wouldn't even think of today (I can't recall the specifics but I remember he describing a really bizarre, almost alice in wonderland style, game he likes to run from time to time).

Benoist did point out the importance of context with the 1E dmg, and I don't think that can be excluded from this discussion. He also is writing at a time when the gulf between wargames (which could be heavily simulationist at times) and rpgs was a lot less obvious. Not to rehash the gamist/simulationist debate that seems to be brewing, but I think context applies here as well. Also while there are some serious Gary worshippers out there, a lot of us (while we admire him for his style and for being the first) don't take everything he says as revealed truth from on high. So posting clips of gary saying something doesn't really persuade me to change my position on anything (I think he was wrong on a number of things). By the time I started playing, I don't think anyone in my grew was running a Gary-esque campaign or viewing the purpose of the system through his lens (in fact when I started there was considerably more pull to make D&D more realistic like some of its competitors---most complaints at the time centered on believability, not playability.

WOW. Sommerjon IS a total idiot, judging by his reading skills. My bad.

Quote from: jrients;544453My favorite example of how implied setting works in AD&D is the addition of the arquebus to the equipment charts in 2nd edition.  The introduction of gunpowder weapons totally blew away my playgroup at the time.  Our reading of the implied setting in the prior edition suggested that gunpowder was utterly alien to baseline D&D, except when you visited Boot Hill or Gamma World via planar shenanigans.

I found this interesting because I began GMing in 89 or 90 with 2E. While I had played 1E before that, most of my assumptions were developed by the 2E materials. And having gunpowder on the list created an interesting tension in most of my groups. On the one hand we initially looked to stuff like excaliber, conan and dragonslayer for inspiration (I don't know why but those three films just seemed to be really big influences on the people I played with). Yet gunpowder was in the rule book and received more and more play as the line developed. To the point that by the end of the 90s most of my own campaign settings had a clear renaissance-vibe in many regions, but kept pushing against other much more dark age aspects....so the final product tended to be a bit of a curious hodgepodge. And I think this was largely just me trying to make sense of the equipment list and setting material.

Quote from: B.T.;544450Swift action healing, self-healing, neutered save-or-dies, hit point bloat.  In 2e, your fighter might have 1 HP and be dead at 0 HP.  In 4e, that fighter has more HP and can go to negative HP.

Actually, monsters do more damage on average, which solves your first two points and your fourth, save-or-die is a stupid mechanic on both sides of the table because unless you're playing OD&D you get to go through a half-hour to an hour plus of chargen because of a single failed roll, rolled HP is a really really bad legacy mechanic that you don't see anymore because outside of people stockholmed into thinking it's ~*so great*~ it accomplishes nothing but presenting another barrier to entry.

Seriously, you present the idea that it's not as lethal because either you've never played it or you played it purposefully just to hate it more. I mean, come on, your spout of idiocy would be like me claiming that all OD&D could ever be was Fantasy Vietnam with 120 minutes of ambush setup before each 10 minute fight and that it was literally impossible to ever play it differently.

You make huge blanket statements based on a complete lack of any sort of knowledge and then try to place the burden of proof onto other people because you know you can't prove anything.

Quote from: Darwinism;544463Actually, monsters do more damage on average, which solves your first two points and your fourth, save-or-die is a stupid mechanic on both sides of the table because unless you're playing OD&D you get to go through a half-hour to an hour plus of chargen because of a single failed roll, rolled HP is a really really bad legacy mechanic that you don't see anymore because outside of people stockholmed into thinking it's ~*so great*~ it accomplishes nothing but presenting another barrier to entry.

Seriously, you present the idea that it's not as lethal because either you've never played it or you played it purposefully just to hate it more. I mean, come on, your spout of idiocy would be like me claiming that all OD&D could ever be was Fantasy Vietnam with 120 minutes of ambush setup before each 10 minute fight and that it was literally impossible to ever play it differently.

You make huge blanket statements based on a complete lack of any sort of knowledge and then try to place the burden of proof onto other people because you know you can't prove anything.

My experience with 4E was it was easier to avoid character death than previous editions (though to be fair it was pretty easy in 3e as well). The amount of healing seemed to blunt the danger. My experience with the game is somewhat limited so i wnt deny i could be wrong. It was never my major complaint about the edition but i my experienve of it and what i hear from friends who play and like it is it is a substantially less lethal game than say 1e or 2e (even 3e). But this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544473this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

As someone who played mostly 3.5 and 4e, this sounds about right.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544473My experience with 4E was it was easier to avoid character death than previous editions (though to be fair it was pretty easy in 3e as well). The amount of healing seemed to blunt the danger. My experience with the game is somewhat limited so i wnt deny i could be wrong. It was never my major complaint about the edition but i my experienve of it and what i hear from friends who play and like it is it is a substantially less lethal game than say 1e or 2e (even 3e). But this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

This theory has been bantered around a lot re: video games, and the trend to much easier games than they were 20-30 years ago.

Quote from: Darwinism;544463Actually, monsters do more damage on average, which solves your first two points and your fourth, save-or-die is a stupid mechanic on both sides of the table because unless you're playing OD&D you get to go through a half-hour to an hour plus of chargen because of a single failed roll, rolled HP is a really really bad legacy mechanic that you don't see anymore because outside of people stockholmed into thinking it's ~*so great*~ it accomplishes nothing but presenting another barrier to entry.

Seriously, you present the idea that it's not as lethal because either you've never played it or you played it purposefully just to hate it more. I mean, come on, your spout of idiocy would be like me claiming that all OD&D could ever be was Fantasy Vietnam with 120 minutes of ambush setup before each 10 minute fight and that it was literally impossible to ever play it differently.

You make huge blanket statements based on a complete lack of any sort of knowledge and then try to place the burden of proof onto other people because you know you can't prove anything.

A couple things.

First, you accusing someone else of being disingenuous is really, really ironic.

Secondly, it's pretty much common knowledge that 4e is less lethal than previous editions, and explanations as to why are littered all over the internets.  If you are saying it's not, then it's up to You to prove otherwise.  If I say the sun is hot and you disagree, then it's not up to me to prove it so because pretty much everyone on the planet agrees with me.  It's on you to prove it's not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544503Secondly, it's pretty much common knowledge that 4e is less lethal than previous editions, and explanations as to why are littered all over the internets.  If you are saying it's not, then it's up to You to prove otherwise.  If I say the sun is hot and you disagree, then it's not up to me to prove it so because pretty much everyone on the planet agrees with me.  It's on you to prove it's not.

Wow, that's how debate works in your bizarro world? Because, seriously, if someone makes an assertion in the real world it's up to them to provide proof, it's not up to others to disprove. Otherwise you get intellectually dishonest, "Heh, here's my opinion, prove me wrong only no evidence you ever provide will ever be good enough because I'll just refuse to acknowledge anything," type statements seen on this forum and Intelligent Design debates.

Besides, 4E being less lethal is open to debate. Is it less lethal than OD&D? Yep, but so is pretty much every other edition. And the only actual evidence for/against it being less lethal is going to be anecdotal; looking at the mechanics doesn't change this because people here are simply doing a 1:1 comparison of 4E HP to 3E/2E HP which is pretty silly. You're comparing two different systems, with different average numbers for damage and health, and then claiming one is 'less lethal' because of bigger numbers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544501This theory has been bantered around a lot re: video games, and the trend to much easier games than they were 20-30 years ago.

You know what made games 'difficult' 20-30 years ago? It wasn't actual difficulty; it was completely false difficulty such as clunky controls, attacks meant to drain lives (most early console games were heavily influenced, if not direct ports, of arcade games meant to make money), and so on. It's not so much that games have gotten easier as much as it is that games have stopped with the arcade model of trying to bleed quarters out of people. There are still some very punishing difficulty settings in most games, and they're not perfect (many are no more than more accurate enemies with bags of health), but it's loads better than Nintendo difficulty.

I gave WOTC feedback yesterday on D&D 5th.  So I look forward to the updates/changes they'll send out.

Quote from: Darwinism;544525Wow, that's how debate works in your bizarro world? Because, seriously, if someone makes an assertion in the real world it's up to them to provide proof, it's not up to others to disprove. Otherwise you get intellectually dishonest, "Heh, here's my opinion, prove me wrong only no evidence you ever provide will ever be good enough because I'll just refuse to acknowledge anything," type statements seen on this forum and Intelligent Design debates.

wow.  You really are a special kind of dumb.

"The sun is hot".
"Until you prove it, I don't believe you."

I mean, it's common accepted knowledge that 4e (and 3e) are less lethal than TSR era D&D.  Note I didn't say this is a bad thing, just that they are different.

And once again, you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is rich.  Speaking of, are you going to answer my question and explain to me how converting 4e to my preferred playstyle is just as easy as with any other edition?

QuoteBesides, 4E being less lethal is open to debate. Is it less lethal than OD&D? Yep, but so is pretty much every other edition. And the only actual evidence for/against it being less lethal is going to be anecdotal; looking at the mechanics doesn't change this because people here are simply doing a 1:1 comparison of 4E HP to 3E/2E HP which is pretty silly. You're comparing two different systems, with different average numbers for damage and health, and then claiming one is 'less lethal' because of bigger numbers.

No, it's not anecdotal.  We can easily measure the differences.  Take a level 1 character of each class from each edition, and have them do a mock combat with a level 1 monster and run the numbers.  Is it possible for a level 1 orc to kill a level 1 fighter in 4e with a normal, max damage attack?  Do characters in 4e automatically die if they fail a save vs poison?

This isn't rocket science.  It's easily measurable.

QuoteYou know what made games 'difficult' 20-30 years ago? It wasn't actual difficulty; it was completely false difficulty such as clunky controls, attacks meant to drain lives (most early console games were heavily influenced, if not direct ports, of arcade games meant to make money), and so on. It's not so much that games have gotten easier as much as it is that games have stopped with the arcade model of trying to bleed quarters out of people.

Practice what you preach.  Prove this.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544473My experience with 4E was it was easier to avoid character death than previous editions (though to be fair it was pretty easy in 3e as well). The amount of healing seemed to blunt the danger. My experience with the game is somewhat limited so i wnt deny i could be wrong. It was never my major complaint about the edition but i my experienve of it and what i hear from friends who play and like it is it is a substantially less lethal game than say 1e or 2e (even 3e). But this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

Thing is that it's really easy for 4E to be lethal as all hell. But you, as a DM, know going in that it'll be one insanely lethal fight, you don't accidentally level your party because you're new to CR and you figured man it'd be cool to include some level 3 orcs with barbarian levels and a shaman with Glitterdust. 4E players might stay in the game longer, assuming combat encounters built to challenge but not overwhelm the players, but it's also very easy to build encounters that are incredibly lethal; healing surges are often a poor move to make, tactically, unless absolutely necessary, and other forms of healing can run out very quickly. Healers only get two heals an encounter at first, and a healing surge requires you to spend your standard - meaning you're not doing anything to reduce the damage you're taking.

Of course, DMs nearly never play monsters really smart. It'd just turn into both sides focus-firing down one target and moving to the next, which is logical to do but really boring and leads to tons of chargen in the middle of a session unless you've already planned for it.

Games play different depending on how the DM and party want to run them, 4E's just more clear in how combat encounters are built so you don't need a DM who's played for years to avoid insanely swingy encounters.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532wow.  You really are a special kind of dumb.

"The sun is hot".
"Until you prove it, I don't believe you."

I mean, it's common accepted knowledge that 4e (and 3e) are less lethal than TSR era D&D.  Note I didn't say this is a bad thing, just that they are different.

Yes, obviously, stating that something is common knowledge moves the onus of proof onto the other side! How could I have forgotten this debate method! I am sure, the next debate I am in, I will simply be able to claim, "Heh, it's common knowledge, now disprove me," and it will be a valid technique.

Seriously, OD&D was more lethal, but at the point of 2E AD&D you had -10 HP and people had many ways of mitigating damage; the majority of campaigns I've played in AD&D and boxed adventures, even the frigging Dark Sun ones, weren't high-lethality because the point is to play the game, not chargen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532And once again, you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is rich.  Speaking of, are you going to answer my question and explain to me how converting 4e to my preferred playstyle is just as easy as with any other edition?

Already did that! But, hey, it's cool. Reading is hard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532No, it's not anecdotal.  We can easily measure the differences.  Take a level 1 character of each class from each edition, and have them do a mock combat with a level 1 monster and run the numbers.  Is it possible for a level 1 orc to kill a level 1 fighter in 4e with a normal, max damage attack?  Do characters in 4e automatically die if they fail a save vs poison?

Oooh, good job redefining your position as soon as you're called out! So, only instant death amounts to lethality, then? Okay, sure, if you redefine lethality to be only instant death then yeah 4E is less lethal! Of course you do this by redefining lethality to include things that are explicitly not part of 4E, and by putting up false standards (why not a goblin? oh right not enough damage to take down a level 1 fighter, you had to choose orc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532Practice what you preach.  Prove this.

Ever played Battletoads? Nearly impossible jumps, instant-death spike levels, the game being literally unplayable two-player, so on. Or the first Contra? Screens full of bullets, only three lives, no continues, almost everything in the game is one-hit instant death.

These are not things that constitute actual difficulty; no reasonable level of skill avoids them, you have to play by trial and error until you learn exactly what to do when. That's memorization, not skill.

Quote from: Darwinism;544538Yes, obviously, stating that something is common knowledge moves the onus of proof onto the other side! How could I have forgotten this debate method! I am sure, the next debate I am in, I will simply be able to claim, "Heh, it's common knowledge, now disprove me," and it will be a valid technique.

It is common knowledge, just because you don't think so doesn't mean it's not.  Jesus H Christ...

QuoteSeriously, OD&D was more lethal, but at the point of 2E AD&D you had -10 HP and people had many ways of mitigating damage; the majority of campaigns I've played in AD&D and boxed adventures, even the frigging Dark Sun ones, weren't high-lethality because the point is to play the game, not chargen.

Still more lethal than 4e.  Saying "2e wasn't as lethal as OD&D so 4e isn't less lethal than other editions" is one of the worst logical fallacies I've ever read on the internet.  Great job.  Who the fuck cares about 2e compared to OD&D.  We're talking about 4e compared to other editions, and I even gave you examples as to why.

QuoteAlready did that! But, hey, it's cool. Reading is hard.

NO you didn't.  You said, "how do you know where everyone is?  Just turn everything into mother may I and ignore most of the rules."  Nothing in there says or proves that converting 4e into my style is just as easy as other editions.  When you have to do the MOST changes to RAW, then it by definition isn't as easy as those editions where you don't have to throw out most of the rulebook.

QuoteOooh, good job redefining your position as soon as you're called out! So, only instant death amounts to lethality, then? Okay, sure, if you redefine lethality to be only instant death then yeah 4E is less lethal! Of course you do this by redefining lethality to include things that are explicitly not part of 4E, and by putting up false standards (why not a goblin? oh right not enough damage to take down a level 1 fighter, you had to choose orc).

What did I redefine?  Speaking of definitions, do you know what the definition of "lethal" is?

If a 1e character can die in one hit from a comparable creature when all things being equal (same character, same level of opponent) in 4e cannot result in a character dying form one hit, then by the very definition 4e is not as lethal as 1e as typically played.  Sure, you can throw a dragon at a level 1 party in 4e to make it lethal, but then you're not playing it as it is typically played.

Holy Christ on a cracker you have to be trolling because no one can be this legitimately retarded.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545Holy Christ on a cracker you have to be trolling because no one can be this legitimately retarded.

I'm glad you finally realized. :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545NO you didn't.  You said, "how do you know where everyone is?  Just turn everything into mother may I and ignore most of the rules."  Nothing in there says or proves that converting 4e into my style is just as easy as other editions.  When you have to do the MOST changes to RAW, then it by definition isn't as easy as those editions where you don't have to throw out most of the rulebook.

It may be more difficult in some cases because of the large amount of movement effects for both players and creatures, but if you're cool with handwaving everything else that doesn't slow you down any more. When did I say to ignore the rules? I said you just rely entirely on the DM being nice to you and resolving things like flank/cover/whatever 'fairly' even though it's being utterly made-up on the spot.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545What did I redefine?  Speaking of definitions, do you know what the definition of "lethal" is?

You make a comment about lethality, I comment that 4E can be lethal, you immediately redefine 'lethal' to only include instant death in your examples. You never before stated that you only considered single attacks as lethal, because I was just going by the assumption that you meant combat!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545If a 1e character can die in one hit from a comparable creature when all things being equal (same character, same level of opponent) in 4e cannot result in a character dying form one hit, then by the very definition 4e is not as lethal as 1e as typically played.  Sure, you can throw a dragon at a level 1 party in 4e to make it lethal, but then you're not playing it as it is typically played.

Except... you're playing different games. Sure, if you play 4E the exact same as 1E you're not going to get the same result. If your made-up definition of lethality is "only one creature versus one player" then yep I guess you're right! To achieve the same lethality in different games you actually have to realize that they're different games and adjust accordingly! And, christ, your example only works at low levels. You're not even being honest about that! Your example of prior editions being more lethal falls apart past like level 3. Because past that point you're nearly immune to instant death, barring the odd save-or-die (which I hardly ever see used against players if resurrection isn't a fairly easy option, making save-or-die simply save-or-sit-a-session-out-then-come-right-back. Hell, there are even defenses explicitly to counter save-or-dies! And they're pretty easy to get!

Quote from: Benoist;544551I'm glad you finally realized. :D

The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!" when it's nothing of the sort.

For one, nothing I have said is anti-4e.  It's simply saying that 4e is less than lethal compared to previous editions.  That doesn't make it a bad game because some people like it that way.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's not defending 4e that gets you labeled a troll.  It's when you adhere to an argument that is so easily shown to be false when you get that label.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544565The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!" when it's nothing of the sort.

We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Quote from: Darwinism;544563It may be more difficult in some cases because of the large amount of movement effects for both players and creatures, but if you're cool with handwaving everything else that doesn't slow you down any more. When did I say to ignore the rules? I said you just rely entirely on the DM being nice to you and resolving things like flank/cover/whatever 'fairly' even though it's being utterly made-up on the spot.

Relying on DM fiat instead of the rules literally means, "ignoring the rules."

wow...

QuoteYou make a comment about lethality, I comment that 4E can be lethal, you immediately redefine 'lethal' to only include instant death in your examples. You never before stated that you only considered single attacks as lethal, because I was just going by the assumption that you meant combat!

I never said 4e can't be lethal.  I said that it is less lethal than previous editions

QuoteExcept... you're playing different games. Sure, if you play 4E the exact same as 1E you're not going to get the same result. If your made-up definition of lethality is "only one creature versus one player" then yep I guess you're right! To achieve the same lethality in different games you actually have to realize that they're different games and adjust accordingly! And, christ, your example only works at low levels. You're not even being honest about that! Your example of prior editions being more/less lethal falls apart past like level 3.

Holy fuck.....

If all things are equal, and players play the game as typically played, then previous editions are more lethal.  You can't say "play 1e like you would play 4e, then it's the same" because that's not how 1e is typically played.

And no, I'm not talking just about low levels.  In fact, at high levels the disparity is even greater.  In 1e, you can still have a level 20 character die from a 1 HD snake in one bite.  Can you do that in 4e?  In 1e, a level 15 fighter can kill a level 15 MU in one hit.  Can you do that in 4e?

Fuck, you have completely missed the point the entire time of this thread.  And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Quote from: Benoist;544572We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Dunno, mate. I think they've all been scared off.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544565The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!"

That was yesterday. (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1913#post404172248)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544575I never said 4e can't be lethal.  I said that it is less lethal than previous editions

The frustration is understandable. Among the explicit design goals of 4e was to make low level combat and save or die effects less dangerous. Worked fine for me as most my 3.X games started at 2nd or 3rd level anyways.

Hey Sommerjon, I've got a great bridge for you to live under rent free. It'll help you save up and take a reading class.

Quote from: One Horse Town;544579Dunno, mate. I think they've all been scared off.

Not me, I'm still here. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;544579Dunno, mate. I think they've all been scared off.

I don't hate 4e but I'm primary a 3x player and that isn't considered to be in the old school club.

Quote from: Darwinism;544463Actually, monsters do more damage on average, which solves your first two points and your fourth, save-or-die is a stupid mechanic on both sides of the table because unless you're playing OD&D you get to go through a half-hour to an hour plus of chargen because of a single failed roll, rolled HP is a really really bad legacy mechanic that you don't see anymore because outside of people stockholmed into thinking it's ~*so great*~ it accomplishes nothing but presenting another barrier to entry.

Seriously, you present the idea that it's not as lethal because either you've never played it or you played it purposefully just to hate it more. I mean, come on, your spout of idiocy would be like me claiming that all OD&D could ever be was Fantasy Vietnam with 120 minutes of ambush setup before each 10 minute fight and that it was literally impossible to ever play it differently.

You make huge blanket statements based on a complete lack of any sort of knowledge and then try to place the burden of proof onto other people because you know you can't prove anything.

Hey, assface, you might not like high-lethality mechanics like save-or-dies, but that doesn't mean the game isn't less lethal without them.

You are the worst poster on these forums.  Far worse than I am, and I routinely shit up perfectly good threads.  If you were just a dumbfuck 4venger you would be tolerable.  As it stands, you're a ranting, irrational turd of a human being.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;544594That was yesterday. (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1913#post404172248)

It's a sad day when even I get mentioned on grognards.txt. How irrelevant can you get?

Quote from: One Horse Town;544579Dunno, mate. I think they've all been scared off.

As I said, I like 4e, and I also like D&D Next (so far). And I've seen others say the same, here.  I think you notice the squeaky wheels more than the more agreeable people.

Quote from: Marleycat;544677How irrelevant can you get?

Darwinism, sommerjon....

Quote from: jeff37923;544686Darwinism, sommerjon....

Well my bridge is big enough for them to share ....

Quote from: B.T.;544673Hey, assface, you might not like high-lethality mechanics like save-or-dies, but that doesn't mean the game isn't less lethal without them.

It depends; Battletoads is high-lethality for arbitrary reasons, like earlier D&D versions. A similar game, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, is also very lethal at higher difficulties without being so intellectually bankrupt as having to resort to hurrr durrr you touched a spike you die gameplay mechanics.

Yeah, maybe it's easier to die in Battletoads. But an actual decent game can be nearly equally lethal while presenting players with actual choices to mitigate lethality. Marvel can be nearly equal in terms of lethality, it's just that death is more due to the players making the wrong choices instead of being told, "Woops, you failed your save vs. poison/the orc hit you for max damage," which makes many players wonder why they're even there. And is also a reason most prior edition games don't start at level 1.

Seriously no one responded to 'high lethality' only existing at levels 1-3. You invest so much into other editions being more lethal while being so incapable of realizing that the absolute majority of the game is not more lethal.

Quote from: B.T.;544673You are the worst poster on these forums.  Far worse than I am, and I routinely shit up perfectly good threads.  If you were just a dumbfuck 4venger you would be tolerable.  As it stands, you're a ranting, irrational turd of a human being.

Hahaha no you still take the cake, racism-is-okay dude. I mean come on you're just a horrible person. I may not have popular opinions about elfgames and I may not espouse them in a manner that RPGSite tolerates, but you're objectively one of the most disgusting people alive that I've encountered! When it all comes down to it, we disagree about how we play pretend but you'll always be pretty much contemptible in every way.

Seriously you value elfgame arguments higher than you do actual real people. You're fucked in the head, man.

Quote from: Marleycat;544677It's a sad day when even I get mentioned on grognards.txt. How irrelevant can you get?

Actually you're pretty groggy, I mean come on there's a reason this site gets quoted so often. It's pure strain grog. I mean come on the entire site is built around RPG elitism.


Oh guys by the way SA doesn't really give a shit about you, it's just a small subsection of a subforum (and said subforum is bigger and more active than you, man bet that burns) finds you absolutely hilarious.

Actually, i think Darwinism wins. (Edit - well, before his edit, anyhow.)

What is this game "Battletards" and where can I get it?

Quote from: One Horse Town;544817Actually, i think Darwinism wins. (Edit - well, before his edit, anyhow.)

Well, at the end of the day I just go to sleep; people here bring me up left and right like I'm some kind of bogeyman. It's kind of flattering!

Quote from: talysman;544824What is this game "Battletards" and where can I get it?

I think you mean Battletoads. Battletards is the totally retarded old-school version, replete with wineskins, 10 foot-poles, and caltrops.

Quote from: jrients;544420Equipment lists.  Magic item descriptions, particularly the artifacts and relics.  Treasure type tables.  Which races you can play and which you can't.  The spells with proper names in them.  The classes that come with implicit organizations attached to them (Thief's Guild, Assassin's Guild, Druidic hierarchy, Bardic colleges).  The domain rules.  The wandering monster tables.

And...

In AD&D the gods are real. Period.

Alignment. Tied specifically to the gods and outer planar powers.

Alignment languages.

GG's description of how how magic works and how the MU taps the Positive & Negative Material Planes.

That reminds me. Vancian casting.  

Tons from the Monster Manual. Baby orcs exist and comprise a certain % of the inhabitants of a lair. Etc.

Quote from: Darwinism;544816Actually you're pretty groggy, I mean come on there's a reason this site gets quoted so often. It's pure strain grog. I mean come on the entire site is built around RPG elitism.

Oh guys by the way SA doesn't really give a shit about you, it's just a small subsection of a subforum (and said subforum is bigger and more active than you, man bet that burns) finds you absolutely hilarious.

You were doing so well until these two comments.  I could give a fuck about SA I'm a Mage player idiot!  Pretty sure that means I like some degree of narrative storytelling.  

As for Dnd the bulk of my experience lies in 2e and 3e. Old schoolers pretty much dismiss the first and the second is only barely tolerated because it's somewhat back compatible and in the same ethos as its predecessors.

Quote from: Marleycat;544836You were doing so well until these two comments.  I could give a fuck about SA I'm a Mage player idiot!  Pretty sure that means I like some degree of narrative storytelling.  As for Dnd the bulk of my experience lies in 2e and 3e. Old schoolers pretty much dismiss the first and the second is only barely tolerated because it's somewhat back compatible and in the same ethos as its predecessors.

I like 3.x and Pathfinder! Just like I enjoy Basic D&D and labyrinth Lord!

Wait, does this mean I'm not an old schooler?

Quote from: jeff37923;544838I like 3.x and Pathfinder! Just like I enjoy Basic D&D and labyrinth Lord!

Wait, does this mean I'm not an old schooler?

No it just means you like the same flavor of Dnd I do. I just don't consider MYSELF old school because I never played anything before 2e (beyond one shots). For example I love Pathfinder because it cleans up 3e a bit and has at-will cantrips which isn't very old school last I knew. :)

Quote from: Marleycat;544842No it just means you like the same flavor of Dnd I do. I just don't consider MYSELF old school because I never played anything before 2e (beyond one shots). For example I love Pathfinder because it cleans up 3e a bit and has at-will cantrips which aren't very old school. :)

Cantrips were actually first introduced in a Dragon magazine article for AD&D 1E, then they got crammed into Unearthed Arcana.

I like how Pathfinder cleaned up grappling.

Quote from: jeff37923;544846Cantrips were actually first introduced in a Dragon magazine article for AD&D 1E, then they got crammed into Unearthed Arcana.

I like how Pathfinder cleaned up grappling.

Fine, just call me Miss Minnie Grog.;)

I knew about cantrips via UA but didn't know they were at-will, cool. The most important reason I love Pathfinder is because of the Magus. A Spellsword done right, a GISH without multiclassing. :)

Quote from: Marleycat;544847Fine, just call me Miss Minnie Grog.;)

I knew about cantrips via UA but didn't know they were at-will, cool. The most important reason I love Pathfinder is because of the Magus. A Spellsword done right, a GISH without multiclassing. :)

The cantrips aren't at-will in AD&D 1E. Sorry.

The biggest reason why I love Pathfinder is that the thousands of dollars of books and minis that I have collected over the course of 3.x is completely compatible with the game. I can even port over stuff from Pathfinder to Labyrinth Lord very easily as well. The second and intertwined reason is that it is d20 OGL, which means I can create stuff for the game and publish it if I so choose as long as I follow the rules for doing so.

Quote from: jeff37923;544850The cantrips aren't at-will in AD&D 1E. Sorry.

The biggest reason why I love Pathfinder is that the thousands of dollars of books and minis that I have collected over the course of 3.x is completely compatible with the game. I can even port over stuff from Pathfinder to Labyrinth Lord very easily as well. The second and intertwined reason is that it is d20 OGL, which means I can create stuff for the game and publish it if I so choose as long as I follow the rules for doing so.

Well obviously I have no interest in publishing but the game being OGL is just as good for me as you because I have LL on PDF from a friend. And I like LL.:)

Quote from: One Horse Town;544817Actually, i think Darwinism wins. (Edit - well, before his edit, anyhow.)

I don't think so. He's just shifting the goalposts from the subject of lethality to actual choices, which he consciously or not frames as what appears in the rules and what doesn't, which is a retarded point of view when talking about RPGs to begin with.

Quote from: Darwinism;544816Marvel can be nearly equal in terms of lethality, it's just that death is more due to the players making the wrong choices instead of being told, "Woops, you failed your save vs. poison/the orc hit you for max damage," which makes many players wonder why they're even there.

See, the funny thing here is that it's actually mentioned in the books (DMG I believe, but I know I've read it more than once.  Possibly Dragon) that most the times when a character has to make a save or die saving throw, it IS because of bad choices, like not adequately checking the chest for traps or avoiding the rattlesnakes instead of fighting them.  It's also mentioned several times that if a character dies because of a bad choice, tough titties.  But if the player is making good choices and is involved in the game, then it's A-OK for the DM to give extra help to keep those players from permanent death.  Things like extra healing potions, or a rod of resurrection.

I'm afraid this is just another case of you not knowing a damn thing of what you're talking about.

QuoteAnd is also a reason most prior edition games don't start at level 1.

They didn't?  Hey Mr. "You better prove your claims", why don't you practice what your preach and prove this little bit.  Seeing as how level 1-3 modules were the most commonly made and highest selling, I highly doubt what you claim is at all fact.  I know it was a common houserule to start with max HP, but it was much less common to start at higher levels.

QuoteSeriously no one responded to 'high lethality' only existing at levels 1-3. You invest so much into other editions being more lethal while being so incapable of realizing that the absolute majority of the game is not more lethal.

With the frequency of raise dead and resurrection tools available to players in early editions (several modules even gave costs at the local temple to raise dead), it seems you're wrong again.  But you don't have to look at that evidence.  Simply look at the game mechanics and it's easy to see that 1e combat was more lethal than 4e combat.  Run a bunch of like scenarios through each edition, and mathematically 1e would result in more deaths.  Hell, I even gave you examples a couple hours ago (which like every fact that proves you wrong you ignore)

QuoteHahaha no you still take the cake, racism-is-okay dude. I mean come on you're just a horrible person.

BT might be a bigger asshole in real life than you, but you're by far much dumber.

QuoteOh guys by the way SA doesn't really give a shit about you, it's just a small subsection of a subforum (and said subforum is bigger and more active than you, man bet that burns) finds you absolutely hilarious.

Sorry, not buying it.  You've got people constantly quoting other forums (and not just this one) and they're not laughing about the posts.  They are trying to drum up conversation because apparently without it, your thread dies out to just a couple posts a day.  Heck, you've got people outright replying to the quotes like they are having a conversation, which is pretty stupid because it's not like the person they are quoting is going to join SA just to continue a conversation started somewhere else.  If it's so important for Ettin, or Halloween Jack, or Prof Cirno, or Mikan or whoever to reply to a quote, why not just reply to it on the thread it was created.

Oh, wait...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544870Sorry, not buying it.  You've got people constantly quoting other forums (and not just this one) and they're not laughing about the posts.  They are trying to drum up conversation because apparently without it, your thread dies out to just a couple posts a day.  Heck, you've got people outright replying to the quotes like they are having a conversation, which is pretty stupid because it's not like the person they are quoting is going to join SA just to continue a conversation started somewhere else.  If it's so important for Ettin, or Halloween Jack, or Prof Cirno, or Mikan or whoever to reply to a quote, why not just reply to it on the thread it was created.

Oh, wait...

Glass pooshield.  Needs no explanation.

In any case, why are we arguing with this idiot?  Ignore it and it'll go away.

Quote from: Darwinism;544816It depends; Battletoads is high-lethality for arbitrary reasons, like earlier D&D versions. A similar game, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, is also very lethal at higher difficulties without being so intellectually bankrupt as having to resort to hurrr durrr you touched a spike you die gameplay mechanics.

Yeah, maybe it's easier to die in Battletoads. But an actual decent game can be nearly equally lethal while presenting players with actual choices to mitigate lethality. Marvel can be nearly equal in terms of lethality, it's just that death is more due to the players making the wrong choices instead of being told, "Woops, you failed your save vs. poison/the orc hit you for max damage," which makes many players wonder why they're even there. And is also a reason most prior edition games don't start at level 1.

Seriously no one responded to 'high lethality' only existing at levels 1-3. You invest so much into other editions being more lethal while being so incapable of realizing that the absolute majority of the game is not more lethal.

Ah, something resembling an actual argument.  This I can deal with.  Doesn't it feel good to talk things out?

Let's talk 3e.  Despite the hit point bloat in 3e, combat is deadly at low levels due to critical hit multipliers.  Now, 3e was generous and offered a window before death claimed a PC, but the stretch between 0 HP and -10 didn't last long when an orc was critting for 16 damage a pop.  High levels were a worse bet because attack bonus rapidly outstripped AC, monsters could make devastating full attacks, and spellcasters could throw out save-or-lose effects each round.  There's a reason it is called rocket tag.

In 2e, on the other hand, you had no hit point bloat.  You also had save-or-dies, death traps, and character-debilitating abilities like permanent level drain.  There was no death buffer beyond your pool of hit points--reach zero and you're dead.  On top of this, there was no guarantee your character was coming back from the dead.

4e does away with traditional SODs, adds more HP to PCs, makes it easier for them to heal, increases their healing options in combat, extends the negative hit point pool, and offers high level monsters with much lower damage capabilities.  Altogether far less lethal.

QuoteHahaha no you still take the cake, racism-is-okay dude. I mean come on you're just a horrible person. I may not have popular opinions about elfgames and I may not espouse them in a manner that RPGSite tolerates, but you're objectively one of the most disgusting people alive that I've encountered! When it all comes down to it, we disagree about how we play pretend but you'll always be pretty much contemptible in every way.

Seriously you value elfgame arguments higher than you do actual real people. You're fucked in the head, man.

Hey, asshole, I'm not "racism-is-okay dude."  I'm a cisgendered bigot.

Quote from: Benoist;544572We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Unfortunately Benny, there are plenty of people like you here who attack, attack, attack.  You have no desire to 'talk to each other'.

Quote from: Marleycat;544646Hey Sommerjon, I've got a great bridge for you to live under rent free. It'll help you save up and take a reading class.

Oh, I see who finally pulled your head out of Benny's ass to make an attack as well.

Good Job:cheerleader:

Quote from: Sommerjon;544947Oh, I see who finally pulled your head out of Benny's ass to make an attack as well.

Good Job:cheerleader:

We don't exactly get along but whatever. That particular post was in relation to your lack of understanding context when reading a book but my phone wouldn't let me cut and paste your post for some reason. So I just assumed that you must be trolling because nobody can be that stupid without some kind of ulterior motive.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544946Unfortunately Benny, there are plenty of people like you here who attack, attack, attack.  You have no desire to 'talk to each other'.

Ask people who've actually played with me. There are a few on these boards. Or check other threads than the ones you come to fishing for a fight, like the links in my sig. The day you'll start actually contributing something, anything constructive to the site, I'll take you more seriously. As it is now? You're just one of those faceless random accounts trolling occasionally here and there. It's good for the occasional lulz, but not much else.

Quote from: Drohem;544656Not me, I'm still here. :)

Same here. I like 4e and have had no problems.

Our resident 4venger, TCO, does not like 5e thus.  He says he "need more buttons to press," especially after "over two decades of computer and console RPGs."  He also complained that characters "swung away with the same shit until the dice picked a winner," and one of his players threw a bitch fit and "crossed off his character's name and put 'Radiant Lance' as his new name."

5e is sounding better and better.

Quote from: JRR;544171Eh, I avoid sites that use substitute words to get around the profanity filter.  Either say what you fucking mean or leave out the colorful metaphors.  What's the deal with using "loving" as a replacement word?  Every time I see that, I zone out and close the link.

Yeah, I lasted about two minutes. I like my profanity undiluted.

For a modest $10 registration fee, you can enjoy all the classics, as well as several new, innovative combinations. They are only censored for guest posters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544256Yup :) Exactly where 4e should end up :)

I haven't actually played any of them any good?

I've given up on D&D a long time ago. I don't really fit in any of the camps aside from the much-maligned AD&D2e "Save The World" group...but I think they are a blast. My kid and I have much fun with them. Not the best board games ever made, but still fun.