So, my interest is in what the edition war actually achieved that was positive. We all love Dungeons and Dragons, thats why people on both sides fought so hard, but have we managed to put some positive influence on the game designers and so on that the future of our favoured game is more healthy and welcoming to both parties in the war itself?
I`ve seen a good few constructive topics pop up, where proper analysis of 4th edition has been done, talking about the weaknesses of the system, things that people want changed and so on. These are not "battles" in the edition war but are more a kind of negotiation. They seem to be constructive as both sides work out why they are fighting and try to broker some sort of peace. Of course, a good few have abandoned the fight altogether, becoming pathfinder players, but for those who stuck around, the interest is now making 4th edition welcoming to everyone.
So, simply put, how have we, the brave fighters on both sides, managed to succeed or fail in altering the course of dungeons and dragons for the better? What improvements to 4th edition have we managed to create through the pressure of our forum posts and wallets?
What are our victories and where do we go from here?
I would deeply love to see traffic results from the boards now versus a year ago, versus two years ago, etc.
The risk is that the place becomes an echo chamber to opinion about 4e, since at least in my experience, a lot of people that didn't particularly care for 4e were metaphorically run out of town by a small but rabid fanboy mob with torches and pitchforks. Rather than put up with constant trolling, they gave up and jumped ship entirely, or just went back to lurking.
Honestly, if you're against the whole basis of a system, and refuse to play it, why would you want to hang out on the boards discussing it? I know a lot of D&D players don't like systems like GURPS or WoD, but I don't hear about them constantly hanging around on forums made to discuss these systems, only to say “I hate everything abut this game and I'll never play it”. It's one thing to say “I like this class over this one”, or “I think this mechanic should be changed” (notice how the errata board isn't patrolled by 'fanboys' trying to get rid of people), or “how do you think I could implement this?”, it's another completely to say “this whole system is bad, I'm not playing it”.
I also haven't actually seen polite people (“I don't personally care much for 4E, it doesn't appeal to my taste”, as opposed to “4E sucks, only idiots play it”) be run out. And to be fair, when someone went to the 3.5 boards to talk about how much that system sucked, they were equally harshly dealt with, it just didn't happen as often.
There are the extremes, the so-called 4vengers and h4ters. These groups, while few in number, did, by far, the most damage. Their desire to show that their side was right and that all otgher points of view were wrong, did a lot to prevent any of the other points of view in between the two excesses from actually being able to have a conversation about any particular topic.
Now I am not trying to say that everyone who liked (or disliked 4E) is at fault. ON the contrary. Most of them I would be glad to have a conversation with about the pluses and minuses about 4E, 3.5E and the transition from one to the other. Reasonable people can have such conversations. It is the extremes who make having such conversations impossible. When people are screaming at each other "$E kills roleplaying!!" and "4E is the best game that has ever been made anywhere!!!", conversations about other things are difficult, at best.
There are the extremes, the so-called 4vengers and h4ters. These groups, while few in number, did, by far, the most damage.
And there are still people active on the forums here openly advertising themselves as 4vengers. I can't recall having seen any openly self-declared h4ters in recent memory.
Whether there is overlap between the 4vengers and Avengers, I could not say, as everybody's definition of "4venger" and "h4ter" is going to differ. But the folks who identify themselves as 4e Avengers (and often give themselves a superhero sobriquet) are not necessarily 4vengers.
My interest is in whether or not the game is being changed in progress to recover some of the lost players. There are expansions coming out, like the new handbooks and new classes, so are they fixing any of this damage?
I, for example, played a necromancer/ neutral priestess, so i`m still in the position where my class does not exist. In theory, one day, a necromancer may appear and i may well get the chance to play my favoured character type once again. This change has yet to happen, however.
The Bards seem to be back and people seem happy with those, i`m glad to see that.
However, i do note that one of the books that contained magical items was seen as somewhat troublesome and overpowered. Many people have expressed the concern that the editions are moving backwards, and that instead of going forward, the problems of 3.5 are starting to reappear.
I am interested to see how things turn out, now that the newness of 4th edition is less of an issue and people can start to exert influence on its development without being instantly denounced.
I can't say that the 4ed Avengers really made a difference, as March brought us some previews of 4ed and more spoilers eventually explained more about the system. The actual release of the Core books, as well as the Forgotten Realms books, brought out some more uprage. It's taken a year's time for this forum to slow down the number of threads about if 4ed = D&D. (I think PHBII had a big part in it).
Are the forums alright now? Unfortunately, we are developing a following of 4ed grognards who are as inelegant and arrogant of their defense of 4ed as the trolls from 2007 were in their bashing of it.
But to answer the OP's question, 4ed helped split the gaming world in two, and it was a good thing. Simulators could use 3ed while gamers could use 4ed, and each group was happy with its system. Before this, the general forums were full of threads where gamers asked "Why are Wizards better than Fighters?" and simulators asked "Why isn't there more fluff in the sourcebooks?" 4ed no longer pretends to be hardcore simulation. It has kicked sacred cows to the curb, and chosen what WotC considers to be the best fluff for the 21st century D&D game.
Basically, it broke up a bad marriage, for which I'm grateful.
Okay, so there is the concern that, in the changeover between editions, we lost a significant proportion of the people who liked the game. There does seem to be evidence that 4th ed has attracted a hefty amount of newcomers, however.
My interest is in whether or not the game is being changed in progress to recover some of the lost players. There are expansions coming out, like the new handbooks and new classes, so are they fixing any of this damage?
I, for example, played a necromancer/ neutral priestess, so i`m still in the position where my class does not exist. In theory, one day, a necromancer may appear and i may well get the chance to play my favoured character type once again. This change has yet to happen, however.
The Bards seem to be back and people seem happy with those, i`m glad to see that.
However, i do note that one of the books that contained magical items was seen as somewhat troublesome and overpowered. Many people have expressed the concern that the editions are moving backwards, and that instead of going forward, the problems of 3.5 are starting to reappear.
I am interested to see how things turn out, now that the newness of 4th edition is less of an issue and people can start to exert influence on its development without being instantly denounced.
1st bold: Eventually, classes with legacy names will return. But if you do not like the underlying rules systems and assumptions ("Say yes, but...", "Page 42", and the power system), I don't think 4ed will ever be for you.
2nd bold: The problems in the underlying system seem, IMO, to be okay or fixed. Issues with modular additions (IE. new weapons, new powers) seem to be fixable by just working on the class. To be honest, problems with introducing new material is inherent in any system that's regularly updated. SAGA has it, 3ed had it, and 4ed will have it.
3rd bold: Actually playing the game will give you a lot more credential to affect it. Sitting on the sidelines, waiting for your favourite class/race, or judging something just by reading it will make people not take you seriously. As it is, there are plenty of things 4ed lovers don't like about the system. For me, there's never a good time to discuss this because a much more specious argument of 4ed's fault (EX. "4ed fails because of healing surges!") is usually trolling itself out.
snip... I know a lot of D&D players don't like systems like GURPS or WoD, but I don't hear about them constantly hanging around on forums made to discuss these systems, only to say “I hate everything abut this game and I'll never play it”. It's one thing to say “I like this class over this one”, or “I think this mechanic should be changed” (notice how the errata board isn't patrolled by 'fanboys' trying to get rid of people), or “how do you think I could implement this?”, it's another completely to say “this whole system is bad, I'm not playing it”.
Your statement got me thinking how unusual the current situation is. The reason so many 3.5 players were here expressing their distaste at launch is that this is, or was, their home. I think I was one of those people initially, but stuck with the very different system and now play it exclusively. I did, however, preorder Paizo's 3.75, or whatever they're calling it, and am looking forward to that read because I do still like 3.5, and might even play it somewhat. I do sometimes miss the level of detail and volume of crunch, but at the same time love the simplicity of 4e.
In a sense, I think the only positive outcome is that there are now two really good, active versions of D&D being played actively. But, of course, that's also a downer. Like I said, it's an odd situation.
Now, by "Edition Wars" I do not include the following:
- The Eberron fans whose campaign helped convinced the developers not to advance the Eberron timeline forward 100 years, as they had done with Forgotten Realms.
- The people in the Rules Q&A, Character Optimization, and Errata forums who tirelessly tested the 4e mechanics and point out when things are unbalanced.
By "Edition Wars" I refer to the people who argue over whether 3rd edition was a better game than 4e, and vice versa. I reference the numerous threads about "verisimilitude", "realism", "balance", "WoW", and "MMORPG" The only thing that those threads may have accomplished is turn some people off the hobby altogether by makng us all look like a bunch of self-centered arrogant jerks.
As for the second point as to whether the new releases are going to attract the folks who still play 3.x? I doubt it. The main reason most people stick with 3.x is because they like the game engine and that isn't going to change (until possibly at the end of 4e's run if WotC releases analogs to 3e's Book of Nine Swords, which was a 3.x precursor to 4e). I don't think releasing a Necromancer class is going to bring people back, if the Necromancer class still has to play within the parameters of all other 4e classes.
As for the third point -- as to whether 4e is facing the same problems as 3.5 -- that may be inevitable to a degree, but generally, people seem to be in agreement, that any power creep has been minimal. Every supplement introduced a new (and presumably inadvertant) exploit that needs errata, but we haven't had anything like Pun-Pun or CoDzilla, as of yet. Yes, some items that were problematic in 3e are being reintroduced, but the extra delay has allowed (hopefully) the developers to find a more balanced way to introduce such elements.
I've learned a lot about 4e over following the arguements of 3e v. 4e. I've learned to argue against 4e haters and convert my gaming groups into 4e-philes.
3rd bold: Actually playing the game will give you a lot more credential to affect it. Sitting on the sidelines, waiting for your favourite class/race, or judging something just by reading it will make people not take you seriously.
Actually i have run 4th edition, i may not play it, but running it gives me more than enough backing to talk about it. I dont play it because i cant play the sort of characters i like, but i do run it so that others may enjoy it. I think there is a lot of good in the system, which is why i have it on my shelf, but i feel that, as this topic implies, there is much improvement left to do, before i am comfortable with it.
By that i mean i`m a 4th edition DM but not a 4th edition player.
... I dont play it because i cant play the sort of characters i like, but i do run it so that others may enjoy it. I think there is a lot of good in ...
What kind of player do yu like to play?
Actually i have run 4th edition, i may not play it, but running it gives me more than enough backing to talk about it. I dont play it because i cant play the sort of characters i like, but i do run it so that others may enjoy it. I think there is a lot of good in the system, which is why i have it on my shelf, but i feel that, as this topic implies, there is much improvement left to do, before i am comfortable with it.
By that i mean i`m a 4th edition DM but not a 4th edition player.
That's just as good. Probably better, in my opinion.
Hehe. The Edition Wars are like my own personal Duck-Hunt. XD
Each edition of D&D should be looked at as separate games. I liked each of them for what they were worth at the time but gladly moved on to a new "Game" with each edition. I should mention that I only started around 1988 so I did not have experience with 1st edition.
I'm not so sure. The differences between 1e and 2e never struck me as significant (though in fairness I didn't get into D&D till 3e), and the differences between 2e and 3e likewise never struck me as major since core "sacred cows" remained intact, if tweaked somewhat. Additionally, there was a continuity of fluff between 1e/2e/3e that isn't there with 4e, which not only produced much larger breaks in the ruleset, but which also deviated from the prior editions' flavor text conventions and continuity on a massive and intentional level.
I would argue that 1e/2e/3e are still by and large the same game, while 4e is a different game entirely, and for the first time it's that way by intentional design. Of course others may see this differently.
I'm not so sure. The differences between 1e and 2e never struck me as significant (though in fairness I didn't get into D&D till 3e), and the differences between 2e and 3e likewise never struck me as major since core "sacred cows" remained intact, if tweaked somewhat. Additionally, there was a continuity of fluff between 1e/2e/3e that isn't there with 4e, which not only produced much larger breaks in the ruleset, but which also deviated from the prior editions' flavor text conventions and continuity on a massive and intentional level.
I would argue that 1e/2e/3e are still by and large the same game, while 4e is a different game entirely, and for the first time it's that way by intentional design. Of course others may see this differently.
I am one who sees it differently. I've played both 1e and 2e and saw the changes, not very significant. The difference between 2e and 3e are huge. 3e plays more like 4e than it does 2e. Some huge cows were slain with the coming of 3e. First racial level limits. In 1e and 2e, certain races could only advance so far in different classes. Some classes were banned by certain races, such as dwarves could not be wizards. I had a 2e friend say that dwarf wizards are just absurd. Second cow slain, differentiated class level advancement. Each class advanced in levels at different rates. For example it took more exp for a wizard to advance to 2 level than it did a fighter or any other class. Heck a thief could reach 9th level, name level, by the time a wizard made 6th level. This is how they balanced the descrepencies in power between classes of the same level. By the time you reached the higher levels fighters and thiefs have 1 or 2 levels a head of spell casters.
There are many more similarities between 3e and 4e than there are 2e and 3e, I will go into more detail if you wish to continue the debate.
There are many more similarities between 3e and 4e than there are 2e and 3e, I will go into more detail if you wish to continue the debate.
Please do, because I'm honestly curious here since you're approaching from a very different background than I am (since I never formally played 1e or 2e). And just to show where I'm approaching this from, my perspective also probably focuses much more heavily on the flavor text side of the game, since I run very rules light, and I've heavily incorporated 2e and some 1e fluff sourcebooks and supplements into 3e games.
I see a 1e/2e/3e flavor continuity that abruptly breaks at 4e, but I might be downplaying some of the rules discontinuity across the editions that I'm seeing firsthand only for the first time here between 3e and 4e, since I only started as of 3e.
I see a 1e/2e/3e flavor continuity that abruptly breaks at 4e, but I might be downplaying some of the rules discontinuity across the editions that I'm seeing firsthand only for the first time here between 3e and 4e, since I only started as of 3e.
It's a perfectly valid perspective; the Core Setting for every Edition of DnD up until 4E has been Greyhawk, and changing that made plenty of people far more uncomfortable than just changing THACO to AC. Mechanical changes are just something you have to unlearn, as they don't usually unduly affect a person's Character Concept. Changing the entire Universe you've been playing in for a decade or two just really threw a lot of people off.
The problems always arise when someone who doesn't like an edition resorts to personal attacks, generalizations or produces false facts. That's not limited to either side. Even the most 'volatile' argument can be harmless if it is presented properly.
For example:
"I've played a game of 4E and I just feel it's a bit too like WoW in some things. I've had more fun with the game before." - fair enough.
"4E has become WoW, thanks wizards for ruining my game and turning it into a stupid wargame that caters only to the young and impatient generation who can't roleplay." - suck! Cue edition war.
For me, the edition wars are not issues of taste, but simply manners. Of course, the paragraphs above were generalizations in themselves, so draw your own conclusions, but hey :P
All the games have strengths and weaknesses, but they will appeal to different people. Me, I've tried 4E for over a year now and I simply haven't enjoyed it much. I'll keep an eye on how it's doing now and then, and see what the next edition brings. When it arrives, I'll give it a try with an open mind as I did with 4E.
I think the whole concept of '4Evengers' did immense harm to people who had issues with the game and wanted to discuss them. Rabidly shouting down genuine criticism is not a good thing.
Speaking of which... Troll Avenger may very well be my character, it'll require drafting up some rules for troll PCs though... :p
To further illuminate the differences, I have to agree completely with the point that 3.X represented a far greater break with precedent than 4e has. I will address mechanical differences first then move to story. Please keep in mind that this is NOT an exhaustive list and there are undoubtedly more differences I am not remembering.
1.) THAC0. I can not explain this mechanic as its not worth the time, just know that the way ACs and your to-hit were calculated was COMPLETELY different and not very intuititive in 1e/2ed.
2.) Weapon Speeds. Weapons had speeds, a nod to realism perhaps, but it allowed just as much brokenness as without. These speeds effectively added a penalty to your initiative for when you attacked.
3.) Weapon Attacks by Weapon type. By this I mean, you could attack X number of times per round with a bow, but X+2 number of times per round with darts. This led to crazieness of mega-strong characters wielding tiny darts and drilling holes in people.
4.) Differing Experience. This was hinted at earlier, but it bears repeating as it had a MAJOR impact on the game. A rogue hit level 3 at the same time a wizard hit level 2. This obviously made a big difference as the game went on (and remember, you could lose experience in buckets in these editions as certain monsters permanently drained XP with each hit).
5.) Kits. Classes could be modified by "kits" which usually amounted to a straight upgrade to your character. Consider these the precursor to Prestige Classes/PP perhaps, but they led to a lot of broken combinations. See the Complete Bard's Handbook for some especially grevious examples.
6.) Saving Throws. This is like THAC0, almost too complicated to explain. Just know the basics. A) It was COMPLETELY different. B) It was arbitrary, the types of saves were against things like Breath Weapon, Rod/Staves/Wands, Petrification/Polymorph and so on. This led to lines in books like "you make an attack to influence everyone's attitude around you, they then make a save vs Rods/Staves/Wands..." Arbitrary.
7.) Dual Classing/Multiclassing. Again, completely different. Humans (ONLY) could dual class. Which meant they climbed to a level in a single class (say a level 8 rogue) then they stop, go back to level 1 in a new class (barred from using nearly every ability) and you could then relevel. Demihumans and such used multiclassing, where they were 2 or 3 classes at once, but then split their experience between all of them. I can not go into the shenanigans this all caused, but use your imagination, it was scary.
8.) Racial restrictions/Max Level. This again was mentioned above but it bears repeating. When you dwarf can not be a wizard and your gnome can only be an illusionist and then only to 9th level, it makes a big impact on your race/class choices.
9.) Hit Points/Bonuses per level. More or less every class stopped gaining what we would call hit dice when they reached level 9 or 10. Instead, from that point on, they gained +1/2 or 3 hit points per level and that was it. No stat mod, nothing. Just 1/2/3. This meant things like fighters petered out at higher level, where as wizards and clerics who kept gaining spells, just kept building power.
10.) Spells had differnent maximum spell levels. Clerics spells went to 7th level, wizards went to 9th.
11.) Tables, Tables, tables. Want to know if you can pole vault? Want to know your chance to succeed? Better find the table with your pole vault percentage. Then that was modified by class/race/armor worn/base dexterity/items/kit and much much more. Just typing this makes my brain hurt a little.
And much more. Corner case things like the way initiative resolved, targeting spells, and so on were so murky most people just played with them house ruled and 3.X adopted most of those house rules into the cannon.
Now all of those things I listed were mechanical, let me take a moment to address the idea of the base sotry world changing.
Up until 4e, the "base" world of D&D was Greyhawk, the world of Gary Gygax's "creation" filled with the famous names of all his friends original characters. This may have been true as a point of fact, but in my experience (and this is supported by the market research) the base world was in fact "homebrew world." The majority of games were being and continue to be played in worlds of the DM's own creation and/or heavy modification.
Also, though the base world in 2ed was Greyhawk, comparitively, it got little attention. When I walked into Walden Books, I didn't see many greyhawk books, they were lost amongst the sea of Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Hollowworld, Maztica, Red Steel, Dark Sun, Mystara and more (how can all of that NOT be an exhaustive list!?) So as a percentage of the attention of the playing audience the world of greyhawk could capture, it was much lower due to simple "market" competition.
I hope that illuminates why 2ed to 3.X was a much larger jump that 3.X was to 4e, certainly for myself who has been playing since circa '86, that is the case.
Your statement got me thinking how unusual the current situation is. The reason so many 3.5 players were here expressing their distaste at launch is that this is, or was, their home. I think I was one of those people initially, but stuck with the very different system and now play it exclusively.
I realise that, but it doesn't change what happened. A lot of people weren't interested in 4E, they were hurt and upset over what had been done to 'their' game, and they wanted everybody else to know (and pay for) how hurt and upset they were. A certain amount of 'which edition is better?' is understandable, but it was taken to the extreme with people basing their whole (very negative, and very loud) opinion on nothing but preview material they often hadn't even seen personally. No matter how hurt and upset you are, trying to ruin it for everybody else out of spite, is just childish.
Imo, people who're against the whole concept of a fourth edition have the right to express themselves (which they did, repeatedly), but after a couple of months, it's time to move on. So the company producing one of your favourite products have decided to put their time and energy into something else. It happens. And unlike a hand lotion, you wont run out of roleplaying just because nothing new is being produced. Hanging out on forums just to complain about a system you've never played, is exceptionally petty, and while I didn't participate in the edition war, and still like 3.5, my sympathies go out to the people who were constantly confronted with such pettiness.
In a sense, I think the only positive outcome is that there are now two really good, active versions of D&D being played actively. But, of course, that's also a downer. Like I said, it's an odd situation.
I like the variety, and I often visit the previous edition board. Unfortunately, a lot old posters seem to have disappeared from there, which I think is a real shame
I would have liked all the people wanting to stick with 3.5 to keep playing the game, and visit the boards set aside for discussing their favourite edition, instead of either disappearing, or go to the 4E boards in order to tell 4E players to stop having fun.It's a perfectly valid perspective; the Core Setting for every Edition of DnD up until 4E has been Greyhawk, and changing that made plenty of people far more uncomfortable than just changing THACO to AC. Mechanical changes are just something you have to unlearn, as they don't usually unduly affect a person's Character Concept. Changing the entire Universe you've been playing in for a decade or two just really threw a lot of people off.
It always strikes me as odd to hear this, even though I understand where it comes from. I'm definitely a Greyhawk diehard, partly because that's what I started with, and partly because I just love the setting. It just never felt like the core setting, per se, until 3rd edition. There were so many other strong settings, especially during 2nd that calling GH core feels way off the mark. Frequently it felt more like "neglected" than core. The 3rd edition made it core, and continued the neglect, somewhat worse since it was core with very little tangible support. However, I can't argue with the overall sense that most people see it as historical core.
And yes, I'm one of the few holding out hope that the announcement for '10 will be a couple of shiny new Greyhawk books! I know it's an extreme longshot, but every time I hear a developer discuss GH tidbits from their campaigns I think...maybe? : )
Good post, by the way. Nice to participate in reasonable dialogue.
I can certainly understand how the rug would be pulled out from under the feet of some people, though, and how disappointing it must be. After all, I'm also heavily invested in the Final Fantasy series, and every time a new FF game comes out, even though there are generally huge Mechanical improvements, I just feel like they're producing crap because the whole flavor and Setting looks like complete junk. There are exceptions, but 13 certainly isn't looking impressive to me, and neither did the previous 3. :S
Please do, because I'm honestly curious here since you're approaching from a very different background than I am (since I never formally played 1e or 2e).
I'll start with a comparison with what is similar in 4e to 3e in game play and how they may differ from 2e.
The d20 system was established with 3e. Everything is resolved with the roll of the d20. Everything from attacking with you sword, jumping over a table, picking a pocket, roll a d20 the higher the better. In, 2e as stated above, you had a table for everything. The default was a d% roll for things you couldn't find a table for a resolution.
Initiative in 3e as in 4e, is determined with a d20 at the begining of an encounter. Higher roll goes first. You repeat that order every round. In 2e you declared your action then you rolled a d12, and lowest roll goes first. You roll initiative every round.
3e introduced actions, standard action, minor action, move action still used in 4e. 2e you would declare your action (i.e. I jump on the table and stab the villian in the face), and then rolled intiative.
In 3e and 4e, Ac increased as it got better. In 2e and previous Ac got lower as it got better. Both 3e and 4e use BAB, roll a d20 add you BAB compare to AC. 2e used THaco, which means "To Hit Armor Class 0), you took the targets AC and subtracted it from your THaco to determine what you needed to roll on a d20 to hit.
These are just some of the similarities in game play between 3e and 4e that differ from 2e. In my experience 3e and 4e play far more similar than 2e.
And just to show where I'm approaching this from, my perspective also probably focuses much more heavily on the flavor text side of the game, since I run very rules light, and I've heavily incorporated 2e and some 1e fluff sourcebooks and supplements into 3e games.
I see a 1e/2e/3e flavor continuity that abruptly breaks at 4e, but I might be downplaying some of the rules discontinuity across the editions that I'm seeing firsthand only for the first time here between 3e and 4e, since I only started as of 3e.
I see you perspective. As far as fluff, 4e broke out some big sacred cows like alignment and the Great Wheel Cosomology. I loved the Great Wheel, I am a huge Planescape fan. But when I read they were smashing the Great Wheel in 4e (World and Monster book @ Borders), I was intrigued and wanted to know more about 4e. I haven't looked back. Maybe because I already played those editions, each for years. ;)
I'm not so sure. The differences between 1e and 2e never struck me as significant (though in fairness I didn't get into D&D till 3e), and the differences between 2e and 3e likewise never struck me as major since core "sacred cows" remained intact, if tweaked somewhat.
May I direct your attention to this thread?
May I direct your attention to this thread?
What's the source of the text in that thread? It looks like either a scan of a print product, or a well done shoop.
What's the source of the text in that thread? It looks like either a scan of a print product, or a well done shoop.
I'm pretty sure it's from the Letters column of Dragon magazine (could be Dungeon). The font and general style looks very familiar.
Just a little reminder, while the edition wars have left the WotC boards there are places on the internet where they still rage. Especially in the dark and seedy underbelly where people who willingly call themselves fatguys directly insult the heritage of their opposition's mothers and troll is the most common character race.
That's actually where a lot of our trolls came from you could tell by their obsession with spouting memes and posting macros with every 'argument'.
Speaking of which... Troll Avenger may very well be my character, it'll require drafting up some rules for troll PCs though... :p
Warforged stats with some reflavoring works surprisingly well for DnD style trolls.
It also helps that its written by Paizo who produce rather high quality books, especially the adventures
My 2 cents
I imagine Pathfinder will perform better than those games. First, because it has a reputation that the other designers didn't have, and second, because it can pretty much single-handedly capture the market of 3e players who want new material.
But I don't imagine that Pathfinder will capture a very large market share in the RPG industry. Basically, to compete with WotC, you need to come up with your own game , not a derivative one. The only company that ever came close was White Wolf because World of Darkness was entirely unlike anything previously seen and it captured people who wouldn't otherwise have gotten into D&D, which is how must RPGers get into the hobby.
Basically, to compete with WotC, you need to come up with your own game , not a derivative one.
Well, one could argue that WotC did just that with 4e - with 4e being different enough from everything previous in D&D, and with the previous edition still amazingly popular, that they ended up competing with themselves. And with WotC not supporting 3.x, that opened things up for Pathfinder to go after the market segment happy with 3.x but not with 4e for various reasons.
What's the source of the text in that thread? It looks like either a scan of a print product, or a well done shoop.
One of the first issues of Dragon Magazine after 3.0 dropped. I had that issue, I remember seeing that, as well as the ranting/complaining/bickering over at ad&d.org and laughing my tuckus off at how immature it all was. And I was only 19-20 at the time.
Also where did you get your numbers for the print run. There has been no official number given out yet, only forum speculation
Well, one could argue that WotC did just that with 4e
Except that 4e is not competing with 3e because 3e was discontinued. So WotC did not do "just that". They did what always happens when a new edition is released -- discontinue the prior one.
And with WotC not supporting 3.x, that opened things up for Pathfinder to go after the market segment happy with 3.x but not with 4e for various reasons.
Yes, and as I said, other game companies have tried to do that. I think Pathfinder has a good chance to do better than prior hopefuls -- and I agree with those wh point out all indicationgs are that Pathfinder is having a very good initial run -- but I doubt they can supplant WotC's market share. In 35 years of RPGs, only one gaming company has ever made a dent in D&D's market share -- White Wolf. (And even at its height, White Wolf never claimed more than half D&D's market share.) And they did that not by luring D&D players (well, not entirely), but by expanding the universe of RPGers.
Well, thats the thing, we have ended up with a fractured community playing different versions of the same game. It's a very strange state of affairs. I was hoping that there was something on the horizon that may draw us all back together again.
Yet I hope it doesn't. Having Pathfinder and 4th Edition under two separate design philosophies gives people two distinct options for fantasy gaming. I do not want to play the kind of games Todd Stewart plays. He can work with Paizo to produce new material that tickles his fancy, and I can let WotC (and maybe Goodman Games) produce material I want.
Well, one could argue that WotC did just that with 4e - with 4e being different enough from everything previous in D&D, and with the previous edition still amazingly popular, that they ended up competing with themselves. And with WotC not supporting 3.x, that opened things up for Pathfinder to go after the market segment happy with 3.x but not with 4e for various reasons.
Am I correct in remembering that you didn't play D&D before 3rd edition? Because as someone who started with OD&D, I would say that the only change of edition where there weren't major changes in the PHB from what was normal in the previous edition was in the 1st to 2nd edition switch. 2nd edition made up for that later. 4th edition isn't alone in making significant changes to what was around before.
But I don't imagine that Pathfinder will capture a very large market share in the RPG industry.
I dunno about that wrecan. At my local gameshops, they all run more pathfinder games than 4e LFR games and they are always full (whereas the LFR games aren't). I'm surprised at the current following it seems to have. Of course, that's both a different matter from maintaining that level of dedication as 4e material expands over time, and from being an objective analysis of actual market share. ;)
Of course, that's both a different matter from maintaining that level of dedication as 4e material expands over time, and from being an objective analysis of actual market share. ;)
Agreed. I lived in an area where, in the early 2000's, the local game shops only ran White Wolf Games. Vampire, Mage, Werewolf. They had a dozen of those games, and also sponsored Mind's Eye Theater events. You couldn't find a 3e game (and I tried). People at that game shop were convinced that 3rd edition D&D was a flop, that D&D was a dinosaur and World of Darkness was the wave of the future. When I pointed out that even White Wolf's own press releases never claimed White Wolf had more than 30% of the RPG market, they usually responded "Well, market share cant explain this game shop".
Personally, I 'm under the impression that h4ters usually get better cred than the 4vengers... (even more so with some infamous weekly topic starters on their side), probably because the big evil bully that is WotC is on the later's side.
I 've seen my fair share of action in the Edition Wars, but I 'd like to remind you all the namecalling and trolling didn't come from the 4vengers alone. Often false accusations were levelled at people defending 4th edition or posts that were supposed to be helpful - rather than counter-baiting - were shot down by the 3e crowd.
I do not want to play the kind of games Todd Stewart plays.
I'd love to run a game for you and hopefully change your mind. Rules light, no battlemap, no minis, RP heavy, immersive and involved metaplot campaigns. I love them so.
Generally speaking I don't much care about what system I'm using to run a game, be it 3e, 3.5, Shadowrun, Cthulhutech, nWoD, or a deck of cards and a bent nickel. But if it provides for a framework in which I can write a ton of flavor text, or get books in which others likewise provide tons of detail and flavor text to inspire me and give me tons of ideas to play off of, that tends to be the system I'll go with.
Am I correct in remembering that you didn't play D&D before 3rd edition? Because as someone who started with OD&D, I would say that the only change of edition where there weren't major changes in the PHB from what was normal in the previous edition was in the 1st to 2nd edition switch. 2nd edition made up for that later. 4th edition isn't alone in making significant changes to what was around before.
While 2nd ed did not have major changes from 1st ed in the PHB, it did in the MM.
The biggest one was altering the damage of weapon using monsters to include Strength bonuses to damage. When hill giants go from doing 2-16 damage to 2-12+7 damage, it changes the overall challenge of certain encounters rather dramatically.
More restricted in effect, but equally critical because of what it affected, was the major power up that certain "iconic" creatures, such as dragons received. A 1st ed dragon was an excuse for getting gratuitous loot for most groups. A 2nd ed dragon was an excuse for getting gratuitous TPKs. This later applied to the certain planar races.
Between those two effects, certain classic modules were difficult to impossible to use as written anymore, one of the key indicators people like to cite for compatability.
Am I correct in remembering that you didn't play D&D before 3rd edition? Because as someone who started with OD&D, I would say that the only change of edition where there weren't major changes in the PHB from what was normal in the previous edition was in the 1st to 2nd edition switch. 2nd edition made up for that later. 4th edition isn't alone in making significant changes to what was around before.
I feel the biggest change 4E introduced to the game was changing the premise of the game in regards to the PCs and the setting (which, IMO, reflects the trends in the game industry, e.g. 'instant gratification'). In previous editions the 1st level PCs were (usually) fledgling nobodies, taking their first steps on their path to greatness, and despite their status as "protagonists" of the "story", the world didn't revolve around them. In 4E, NPCs are more or less "irrelevant" (up to every DM, but this is how I feel the 'PoL' treats NPCs) and should not ever "outshine" the PCs; they start out as having unique and special abilities, and the world always adjusts to their level and reacts to events (e.g. monsters or NPCs transforming into minions if they trigger several encounters simultaneously; I think this was called "narrative role" or something on several threads?). Simply put, while 4E fixes a lot of balance issues with classes and high-level play, I feel it removes many aspects of the "growth story" with its level appropriateness.
I feel the biggest change 4E introduced to the game was changing the premise of the game in regards to the PCs and the setting (which, IMO, reflects the trends in the game industry, e.g. 'instant gratification'). In previous editions the 1st level PCs were (usually) fledgling nobodies, taking their first steps on their path to greatness, and despite their status as "protagonists" of the "story", the world didn't revolve around them. In 4E, NPCs are more or less "irrelevant" (up to every DM, but this is how I feel the 'PoL' treats NPCs) and should not ever "outshine" the PCs; they start out as having unique and special abilities, and the world always adjusts to their level and reacts to events (e.g. monsters or NPCs transforming into minions if they trigger several encounters simultaneously; I think this was called "narrative role" or something on several threads?). Simply put, while 4E fixes a lot of balance issues with classes and high-level play, I feel it removes many aspects of the "growth story" with its level appropriateness.
Ok, first of all, there's no rule that says NPCs and monsters turn into minions if it's the Xth encounter of the day, or if Event A happened before Event B, or whatever.
Are you telling me that in 3.X, you were setting your 2nd level party up against a great Red Wyrm dragon, and your 17th level party up against 3 CR 1/2 orcs?
No, of course you didn't. You built level appropriate challenges for your party. Whether it stuck to the tables in the books or not is irrelevant. You built an encounter that would challenge your party, and so, in previous editions, the world revolved around your PCs as well.
Alas.
At my LGS, nobody plays 4E, it's all 3.75/Pathfinder, and has been for some time... fueled largely by misconceptions about the changes in the game from 3.5 to 4.
Alas.
The FLGS I used to go to played oWoD a lot, but never a game of nWoD. I feel your pain.
I've played 1e and 2e, though have played 3e the most. I can see where Shemeska was coming from, seeing the 2e-3e mechanics changes as less drastic than the 3e-4e changes, as many of the changes simply altered the exact mechanics while keeping the same concepts, the same way 1e To-Hit tables and 2e ThAC0 achieve the same thing but are expressed differently:
1.) THAC0. I can not explain this mechanic as its not worth the time, just know that the way ACs and your to-hit were calculated was COMPLETELY different and not very intuititive in 1e/2ed.
ThAC0 and BAB are essentially the same thing: in 2e, you roll 1d20, add modifiers, and compare it to your ThAC0 - opponent's AC; in 3e, you roll 1d20, add modifiers, and compare it to your opponent's AC. This works because lower AC is good in 2e and higher is good in 3e--if your ThAC0 is 10, you need to roll a 20 to hit AC -10 (10-[-10] = 20), where if you have BAB +10 you need to roll a 20 to hit AC 30 (10+20 = 30), and these are equivalent because you start at AC 10 in both editions and either go up or down.
The major change wasn't ThAC0 -> BAB or low AC->high AC, it was removal of the AC cap; in 2e, AC goes from 10 to -10, whereas in 3e it goes as high or as low as you want. The basic mechanic is the same, it's the number range that changed.
5.) Kits. Classes could be modified by "kits" which usually amounted to a straight upgrade to your character. Consider these the precursor to Prestige Classes/PP perhaps, but they led to a lot of broken combinations. See the Complete Bard's Handbook for some especially grevious examples.
They're also similar to alternate class features. Whether they're broken or not (and they mostly were) is secondary to whether they remained in 3e conceptually, and the answer to that is yes.
6.) Saving Throws. This is like THAC0, almost too complicated to explain. Just know the basics. A) It was COMPLETELY different. B) It was arbitrary, the types of saves were against things like Breath Weapon, Rod/Staves/Wands, Petrification/Polymorph and so on. This led to lines in books like "you make an attack to influence everyone's attitude around you, they then make a save vs Rods/Staves/Wands..." Arbitrary.
Not all that arbitrary, actually. In 3e you have Fort for effects harming your health, Ref for effects harming your body, and Will for effects harming your mind (oversimplifying, of course). In 2e you have Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic, Rod/Staff/Wand, Petrification/Polymorph, Breath Weapon, and Spell saves. Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic maps to Fort saves, Breath Weapon to Ref saves, and Spell to Will saves, most of the time. Petrification/Polymorph was separated out as an analog to the System Shock system--you needed to roll it to survive resurrection, aging, transformation, and other, well, system shocks.
Rod/Staff/Wand was in there to handle items, "skills"/NWPs, and other effects that didn't quite map to spells or what in 3e would be SLAs. If in 3e you translated all instances of Fort saves to Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic saves, called Ref saves Breath Weapon saves, called Will saves Spell saves, introduced Fort saves to survive being rezzed or spending XP and called those Petrification/Polymorph saves, and called any sort of save with a nonstandard DC (something not 10 + level + key mod for spells or 10 + 1/2 HD + Cha mod for monster abilities) a Rod/Staff/Wand save, you'd achieve basically the same effect.
Like the ThAC0/BAB issue, the saves were mostly the same but flipped around. In 3e, a 10 HD creature always has a base DC 15 for their abilities; if you're a wizard 10, you have base Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +6 and need to roll a 10 or higher for F/R saves and a 7 or higher for Will saves. In 2e, you're given a table saying you need to roll 13 or higher on P/P/DM saves and BrW saves and 10 or higher on Sp saves--the same difference, in fact, just shifted 3 points. In 2e what received ability modifiers was spotty (monsters didn't add them, PCs sometimes did) so basing 3e saves off the 2e saves and DCs and assuming no modifiers actually worked out pretty well.
7.) Dual Classing/Multiclassing. Again, completely different. Humans (ONLY) could dual class. Which meant they climbed to a level in a single class (say a level 8 rogue) then they stop, go back to level 1 in a new class (barred from using nearly every ability) and you could then relevel. Demihumans and such used multiclassing, where they were 2 or 3 classes at once, but then split their experience between all of them. I can not go into the shenanigans this all caused, but use your imagination, it was scary.
Essentially, humans were 3e monks and paladins (pick 1 class and level it; if you switch, you can't go back) and demihumans gestalted 2 or 3 classes with some penalties.
9.) Hit Points/Bonuses per level. More or less every class stopped gaining what we would call hit dice when they reached level 9 or 10. Instead, from that point on, they gained +1/2 or 3 hit points per level and that was it. No stat mod, nothing. Just 1/2/3. This meant things like fighters petered out at higher level, where as wizards and clerics who kept gaining spells, just kept building power.
This is one of the reasons for spell level caps in 3e: if you only got up to 10 HD in 2e, a lowly 3rd-level spell like fireball shouldn't do more than that.
10.) Spells had differnent maximum spell levels. Clerics spells went to 7th level, wizards went to 9th.
Though 7th level priest spells were roughly equivalent in power to 9th-level wizard spells, so only the acquisition rate changed, somewhat like the the sorcerer/wizard spell level issue in 3e.
11.) Tables, Tables, tables. Want to know if you can pole vault? Want to know your chance to succeed? Better find the table with your pole vault percentage. Then that was modified by class/race/armor worn/base dexterity/items/kit and much much more. Just typing this makes my brain hurt a little.
Skills essentially are to these tables as ThAC0 was to 1e To-Hit: Take whatever the table results were and set arbitrary DCs or come up with a formula.
And much more. Corner case things like the way initiative resolved, targeting spells, and so on were so murky most people just played with them house ruled and 3.X adopted most of those house rules into the cannon.
So while there are many differences between 2e and 3e, the underlying concepts were mostly the same. The things that were thrown out like weapon/spell speeds and such were deliberately removed, just like things like death spells were deliberately removed from 4e.
Now all of those things I listed were mechanical, let me take a moment to address the idea of the base sotry world changing.
Up until 4e, the "base" world of D&D was Greyhawk, the world of Gary Gygax's "creation" filled with the famous names of all his friends original characters. This may have been true as a point of fact, but in my experience (and this is supported by the market research) the base world was in fact "homebrew world." The majority of games were being and continue to be played in worlds of the DM's own creation and/or heavy modification.
When people say the base world was Greyhawk, they don't necessarily mean people played the game in Greyhawk most of the time; I did Planescape more than anything else. What they usually mean is that the shared identity was Greyhawk. A D&D player from 1e, 2e, or 3e knows what the Great Wheel is, has heard of Heironius (even if they can't always spell his name ;)), and generally knows that no matter what people do in their own game they can make jokes or tell stories about the cosmology and gods and such and everyone will know what they mean to a limited extent.
D&D players new to the game in 4e have never heard of Acheron, have no idea what a Positive Energy plane is, think you misspoke about the Shadowfell if you mention the Plane of Shadow; they think eladrins are teleporting high elves rather than animalistic celestials, have no idea tieflings and "devas" once shared the same origin, consider demons to be elementals; have never heard of the Blood War, think Asmodeus is just another god, don't know or care who Mordenkainen is; they don't know why a githyanki would want a silver sword, have no idea why any god would cooperate with devils instead of angels, don't know why an elemental archon would look like a hound or a lantern. That is the major impediment to many prior-edition gamers who lament the de-core-ification of Greyhawk (if that's a word)--not the fact that they can't play in Greyhawk anymore, but the fact that their old D&D stories are meaningless to the new generation and that there's a loss of a shared mythos.
I hope that illuminates why 2ed to 3.X was a much larger jump that 3.X was to 4e, certainly for myself who has been playing since circa '86, that is the case.
Which brings me to my point about all of the above. Here's my personal theory as to the disagreement:
The people who consider 4e a much larger break from older editions than 3e were simply already houseruling out racial level limits and the other things that were removed from 3e for being too arcane/complex, and enjoyed the shared mythology of the game; they consider the feel of 3e to be much closer, and 4e to be alien, because they're looking at their home games to measure mechanical changes and D&D in general to measure flavor changes.
The people who consider 3e a much larger break from older editions than 4e were playing with most of the 2e rules or are directly comparing the rules of the editions without addressing houseruling, and didn't use or reference the Wheel much at all in their home games; they consider 3e and 4e to be much closer, and 2e-3e to be the massive break, because they're looking at D&D in general to measure mechanical changes and their home games to measure flavor changes.
Neither side is wrong. Both are large changes, but both editions are still just as much D&D as 2e is.
The risk is that the place becomes an echo chamber to opinion about 4e, since at least in my experience, a lot of people that didn't particularly care for 4e were metaphorically run out of town by a small but rabid fanboy mob with torches and pitchforks. Rather than put up with constant trolling, they gave up and jumped ship entirely, or just went back to lurking. The place is less hostile now, but perhaps only because rather than be targets, a lot of people left, and the devoted edition warriors have less opportunity to aim and fire.
I would deeply love to see traffic results from the boards now versus a year ago, versus two years ago, etc.
Still here still loathe 4E hate 3.x still running 1st ed ad&d but leaning towards a better system that I wont name. Why am I still here well hoping they will wake up and make it better with 5th edtion but I dont see that happening, I will say I would have played 4E if the virtual table had worked as it was promised the whole postive effect of that would let my group go past what we disliked about 4E. Now back to my lair for another few months.:evillaugh
I'd love to run a game for you and hopefully change your mind. Rules light, no battlemap, no minis, RP heavy, immersive and involved metaplot campaigns. I love them so.
Generally speaking I don't much care about what system I'm using to run a game, be it 3e, 3.5, Shadowrun, Cthulhutech, nWoD, or a deck of cards and a bent nickel. But if it provides for a framework in which I can write a ton of flavor text, or get books in which others likewise provide tons of detail and flavor text to inspire me and give me tons of ideas to play off of, that tends to be the system I'll go with.
A good gm can make me hate the system slightly less but leaving out minis and I am out the door been using minis since I started in 75 and wont quit now
I know I have. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I did a lot of "soul-searching" during the edition wars. I talked to a lot of intelligent people on both sides, tried to find common ground, and tried to splice the "real differences" from my personal bias and colored perceptions - and find out whether those differences could be overcome or embraced. I wound up asking myself "what do I like in a game?", "why am I so bent out of shape for a game?", "what am I not seeing that the 4vengers are?", and other such questions. I'd been playing since 2e, but I played lots of White Wolf and other rpgs too...I wouldn't have said I was a "D&D player" until 3e.
[I am going to avoid edition wars specifics in this post - I have spent far too much time on them already!]
I wish I could say I came up with an easily-reproducible scientific rubric to define the differences, but I didn't. In the end, I was holding out for something too close to my personal idea of gaming perfection - something more between 3.5 and 4e - and it was not to be.
As it stands, I play in a weekly 4e game and DM my years-long weekly 3e game, and I'm making do...I daresay even enjoying it. :P
4e for me can't compare to 3e - for some reason 3e just feels more substantial and satisfying; I still feel like 4e lost too much in the "reimagining" along with all of its undeniable improvements...and so far nothing WotC has put out has made me feel hope that these "missing pieces" will be reintroduced...I'm not even sure I can define what they are.
But 4e is still fun. It's fun, quick, and easy, compared to 3e being a lot of work - and my 4e game makes me feel relevant (maybe that's a pathetic need, but whatever), while my 3e game is like an old friend.
I try not to compare them in my mind too often though, as it inevitably brings a bittersweet taste. I think between the shock of the drastic changes, what happened to Forgotten Realms, and the disappointments of DDI...well, I feel a kind of wistfulness if not sadness. Watching most people in my area convert, and on this forum (which I agree, was once "3e player's home" but no longer), I've never felt more distant from the company I've supported in previous years. It really is a bit like saying goodbye to an old friend, or watching them pass from glory days to twilight (not the company itself, but my personal WotC/3e relationship if you will).
But then, all things change (and there's always 5th edition). And in the meantime - I plan on making sure my 3e still has some truly epic adventures left in 'er! We all play what we love, and we love what we play.
Ok, first of all, there's no rule that says NPCs and monsters turn into minions if it's the Xth encounter of the day, or if Event A happened before Event B, or whatever.
Are you telling me that in 3.X, you were setting your 2nd level party up against a great Red Wyrm dragon, and your 17th level party up against 3 CR 1/2 orcs?
No, of course you didn't. You built level appropriate challenges for your party. Whether it stuck to the tables in the books or not is irrelevant. You built an encounter that would challenge your party, and so, in previous editions, the world revolved around your PCs as well.
No, I'd not build an adventure for a 2nd level party which pits them against Great Wyrms or 17th level NPCs -- however, if they persistently (despite my warnings and nudging) tried to go seeking an infamous red dragon's lair to loot it (relying on their status as PCs to grant them "plot immunity" against high-CR monsters), they might actually find the dragon. But I'd try my best to steer them away from such a foolish course, and in any case I'd use lower-CR monsters first to chase them back into town. Likewise, if the PCs decided to attack a high-level NPC for no other reason that said NPC is "evil", I'd ask them to reconsider; if it wouldn't, they'd be literally begging to be killed/captured. I don't make the world literally revolve around or adjust to the PCs; if you deliberately go seeking overwhelming challenges, you might die. Likewise, if you travel near the orc citadel X, the rank-and-file orcs don't suddenly gain 5 or 10 or 15 levels of warrior or fighter just to make a combat "challenging enough" for the PCs; this doesn't mean that *most* planned encounters (i.e. which are part of the adventure) in my campaign wouldn't be level-appropriate (although I like variation there; some encounters may be easier while others are more challenging), since they're part of the "script". However, random encounters or encounters that happen due to PC actions are another thing (as for the former, I don't generally use high-CR monsters against PCs; 2nd level PCs might get a glimpse of, say, a flying manticore, but they don't need to fight it unless someone starts lobbing arrows or spells at it).
As for high-level PCs mowing down a patrol of orcs... sure, why not? It's not any different from using minions, is it (except that higher-level minions pose a bigger threat than 3E orcs)? An occasional easy encounter makes the players feel they've progressed as characters and become more "heroic" -- and it feels (for me, at least) in many ways even more satisfying than facing legendary characters and ever-increasing challenges. I can give you two examples of such encounters: after our weary 9th level PCs had completed 'In the Abyss'-module, it felt absolutely *great* to be ambushed by an orc patrol; the other example if when my 14th level fighter took a stand against thousands of goblins as they tried to flood through the gates into a besieged city, and as I kept hewing them down I truly felt like I was playing a heroic fighter -- much more so than when I (barely) took down a "level-appropriate" threat (and I couldn't care less about not getting any combat XP for that).
No, I'd not build an adventure for a 2nd level party which pits them against Great Wyrms or 17th level NPCs -- however, if they persistently (despite my warnings and nudging) tried to go seeking an infamous red dragon's lair to loot it (relying on their status as PCs to grant them "plot immunity" against high-CR monsters), they might actually find the dragon. But I'd try my best to steer them away from such a foolish course, and in any case I'd use lower-CR monsters first to chase them back into town. Likewise, if the PCs decided to attack a high-level NPC for no other reason that said NPC is "evil", I'd ask them to reconsider; if it wouldn't, they'd be literally begging to be killed/captured. I don't make the world literally revolve around or adjust to the PCs; if you deliberately go seeking overwhelming challenges, you might die. Likewise, if you travel near the orc citadel X, the rank-and-file orcs don't suddenly gain 5 or 10 or 15 levels of warrior or fighter just to make a combat "challenging enough" for the PCs; this doesn't mean that *most* planned encounters (i.e. which are part of the adventure) in my campaign wouldn't be level-appropriate (although I like variation there; some encounters may be easier while others are more challenging), since they're part of the "script". However, random encounters or encounters that happen due to PC actions are another thing (as for the former, I don't generally use high-CR monsters against PCs; 2nd level PCs might get a glimpse of, say, a flying manticore, but they don't need to fight it unless someone starts lobbing arrows or spells at it).
So explain to me how this was all done in previous editions, but it's impossible to do in 4th edition.
Still here still loathe 4E hate 3.x still running 1st ed ad&d but leaning towards a better system that I wont name. Why am I still here well hoping they will wake up and make it better with 5th edtion but I dont see that happening, I will say I would have played 4E if the virtual table had worked as it was promised the whole postive effect of that would let my group go past what we disliked about 4E. Now back to my lair for another few months.:evillaugh
Why is the VTT such a big deal to people? How does a computer program that does the same thing as a battlemap and a handful of minis make or break your game experience. If it's needing a way to play with people you don't live near, there's plenty of other programs, my favorite being maptools (which I think at this point WotC would be hard pressed to compete with, especially since it's free). I just don't see how the VTT really impacts your like or dislike of the system.
So explain to me how this was all done in previous editions, but it's impossible to do in 4th edition.
Indeed that sounds very much like the type of 4e game I run.
I generally like 4th Ed over 3.X, but I do occasionally miss 2nd edition for one reason- the ability to play the game while sitting around the living room on comfortable couches as opposed to huddling around a battlemap on the kitchen table. Supposedly, people claimed to be able to play 3.X without a map or minis, but I never really saw how you could do this very effectively with the abilities the way they were.
So for me, if you want an exciting, dangerous and tactical game 4.0 is my preference. If you want a game that makes it easier to tell a story and has less dungeon crawls, I'll go back to 2nd and skip 3.X.
When people say the base world was Greyhawk, they don't necessarily mean people played the game in Greyhawk most of the time; I did Planescape more than anything else. What they usually mean is that the shared identity was Greyhawk. A D&D player from 1e, 2e, or 3e knows what the Great Wheel is, has heard of Heironius (even if they can't always spell his name ;)), and generally knows that no matter what people do in their own game they can make jokes or tell stories about the cosmology and gods and such and everyone will know what they mean to a limited extent.
D&D players new to the game in 4e have never heard of Acheron, have no idea what a Positive Energy plane is, think you misspoke about the Shadowfell if you mention the Plane of Shadow; they think eladrins are teleporting high elves rather than animalistic celestials, have no idea tieflings and "devas" once shared the same origin, consider demons to be elementals; have never heard of the Blood War, think Asmodeus is just another god, don't know or care who Mordenkainen is; they don't know why a githyanki would want a silver sword, have no idea why any god would cooperate with devils instead of angels, don't know why an elemental archon would look like a hound or a lantern. That is the major impediment to many prior-edition gamers who lament the de-core-ification of Greyhawk (if that's a word)--not the fact that they can't play in Greyhawk anymore, but the fact that their old D&D stories are meaningless to the new generation and that there's a loss of a shared mythos.
This pretty much sums up my opinions on 4e. 4e is a good system, and though it does lean towards the combat elements of the game don't begrudge it that. The main reason it makes me unhappy is that I feel that many of the flavour changes are unwarranted departures from earlier editions with little rhyme or reason behind them. I realise that WotC want to do their own thing, and that's a large part of what 4e is about, but I would like to see the older parts of D&D maintained as well.
I generally like 4th Ed over 3.X, but I do occasionally miss 2nd edition for one reason- the ability to play the game while sitting around the living room on comfortable couches as opposed to huddling around a battlemap on the kitchen table. Supposedly, people claimed to be able to play 3.X without a map or minis, but I never really saw how you could do this very effectively with the abilities the way they were.
My group plays 3e without minis--having 10 of us messing with tiny figures across the table just doesn't work. I do use a "map" in that I draw a sketch on a whiteboard with letters for monsters and PCs, but it's not divided into squares or highly detailed or anything like that. I wouldn't even do that if we didn't have some newer players in the group who aren't that good at visualizing yet; the only thing you really need a map for is AoOs, and my group has messed around with different ways to get rid of them to make mapless play easier ("everyone gets one immediate action attack" being one of the favorites). Most other abilities can be left the way they are.
Unfortunately, I don't have any experience playing mapless in 4e, so I can't help you there; the sheer volume of abilities dependent on movement, forced or not, would seem to make it impossible (you can't just remove all forced movement like you can replace AoOs), but I haven't seriously looked at it.
So explain to me how this was all done in previous editions, but it's impossible to do in 4th edition.
I didn't say it's not possible, just that "sandboxing" is discouraged in 4E, at least that's my impression based on DMG and what the devs have said in Design & Development articles (for example, the Epic Cave Slime and the use of level appropriate minions instead of 1st or 2nd level monsters). I feel this is why people are are discussing the "narrative role" of monsters (here and on EnWorld), i.e. that any deviation from the "norm" (caused by PC actions) should affect the numbers; if the PCs decide to storm a bastion of evil 5 levels before you planned it, you adjust the numbers so that they will have a fair, level appropriate adventure. Or, if they trigger several encounters simultaneously, some of the monsters suddenly become minions on the fly.
I'll readily admit that 4E holds an edge over 3E in regard to overwhelming combats; namely that PCs are not easily "one-shotted" by higher level monsters or NPCs, so usually there's time to retreat from an impossible-to-win battle.
I'd love to run a game for you and hopefully change your mind.
I'd love to play a RPG with Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Ed Greenwood, or Keith Baker if I had the chance. But would I play a game in a setting based on their campaign? That's a different story. A good DM can make a setting or system enjoyable that I otherwises would not want. When you lose the personal touch and the work is filtered though campaign books and other DMs, it loses the appeal.
Now, if you're offering to DM everybody who buys "The Great Beyond"... ;) :P
Now, if you're offering to DM everybody who buys "The Great Beyond"... ;) :P
*wry grin* I could be convinced ;)
I didn't say it's not possible, just that "sandboxing" is discouraged in 4E, at least that's my impression based on DMG and what the devs have said in Design & Development articles (for example, the Epic Cave Slime and the use of level appropriate minions instead of 1st or 2nd level monsters). I feel this is why people are are discussing the "narrative role" of monsters (here and on EnWorld), i.e. that any deviation from the "norm" (caused by PC actions) should affect the numbers; if the PCs decide to storm a bastion of evil 5 levels before you planned it, you adjust the numbers so that they will have a fair, level appropriate adventure. Or, if they trigger several encounters simultaneously, some of the monsters suddenly become minions on the fly.
I'll readily admit that 4E holds an edge over 3E in regard to overwhelming combats; namely that PCs are not easily "one-shotted" by higher level monsters or NPCs, so usually there's time to retreat from an impossible-to-win battle.
I can definitely see why the DMG would suggest those kinds of things, but I definitely wouldn't expect most DMs I've played with to do them. There should always be consequences for the PC's actions, and if a Party decided to storm Sauron's Castle at Level 1, or try to take down the Evil Vizier in the middle of the King's Court, Logic dictates that they've made an erroneous decision, and will now experience the results of such a decision. :S
Of course, making the escape from the subsequent jail cells a whole adventure all on its own would be an excellent idea, anyway, and maybe taking all of the PC's Cool Stuff away might teach them a mild lesson about how no, this is not Handwave: The RPG, where the PCs can do anything with little to no consequences. ;)
4e feels a bit weird .... personally I'm not sure why people hate so much on any edition, play what you want to play ... dont sulk simply because theres a new edition. Seems silly to me ....
That being said I wouldn't mind giving 4e a go .... I'm not sure about paragon paths though ... I think 4e would take me out of my comfort zone.... that being said, like any ed of D&D ... well anything in life ... you adapt and thrive, or you don't ... the hate that is poured is meaningless.
I didn't say it's not possible, just that "sandboxing" is discouraged in 4E, at least that's my impression based on DMG and what the devs have said in Design & Development articles (for example, the Epic Cave Slime and the use of level appropriate minions instead of 1st or 2nd level monsters). I feel this is why people are are discussing the "narrative role" of monsters (here and on EnWorld), i.e. that any deviation from the "norm" (caused by PC actions) should affect the numbers; if the PCs decide to storm a bastion of evil 5 levels before you planned it, you adjust the numbers so that they will have a fair, level appropriate adventure. Or, if they trigger several encounters simultaneously, some of the monsters suddenly become minions on the fly. I'll readily admit that 4E holds an edge over 3E in regard to overwhelming combats; namely that PCs are not easily "one-shotted" by higher level monsters or NPCs, so usually there's time to retreat from an impossible-to-win battle.
Everything you just said is not edition specific.
It's not something that 4e came up with, and after reading through the DMG, it's not something that the 4e DMG reccomends either. No, what you have there is a mental block.