I did, but it's not particularly relevant because your sole complaint was that I listed many of the same systems twice (actually nWoD and oWoD function differently in numerous ways, particularly in the differences in the new WoD supernaturals books to the old ones).
But again, you've done nothing to show you actually know what you are talking about.
Streamlined does not equal not rule heavy, so I'm afraid you're failing at basic definitions.
Or you're just wrong?
Again, how much 4th edition have you in fact played? Probably nothing I am imagining at this point.
People complained that 2E had few special attacks.
Ok, let's look at a specific special attack from 3rd edition, the Bull Rush, in which you try to push someone back.
In second edition, there's nothing to stop a player from doing that. They just have to actually think of it instead of reading a couple of words off some paper.
In 2E, the player goes "I try to ram into the guy with my full strength and push him back, doing that instead of injuring him"
In 3E, the player goes "I bull rush him."
More streamlined? Yes. But there's authomatically less imagination invovled due to the presence of the additional rule.
This is really getting to the point where you're crossing into ridiculously absurd. You can still do this in 4th edition or any edition of Pen and Paper. Just because there is a balanced rule for X maneuver does not make it require less roleplaying or similar nonsense. Which btw is the argument you are failing miserably to support.
Once the option's listed in the rules, people tend to just rely on it instead of resorting to coming up with any kind of tactic that isn't written down.
I'm criticising lack of imagination being encouraged by the system, rather than the lack of allowances for any specific situation.
So it's the PLAYERS YOU'VE PLAYED WITH and not the system.
Got it.
I know, you'd think I had said that a while ago or something.
Edit: 4th edition also has less rules than 3rd edition. 3rd edition became immensely complex with all the various feats that allowed you to do various maneuvers, the huge number of combinations of prestige classes etc. This also made 3rd edition horribly broken. 4th edition consolidates a great deal of powers and similar into several, simpler rules and generally makes all conditions a +2/-2 or similar. 4th edition has a detailed combat system, but ultimately less actual rules than 3rd edition (it's closer to 2nd edition in this regard than the complex behemoth that was 3rd). Yet you argue that more rules make the game less of a roleplaying game, while failing simultaneously to realise this applies more to 3rd than it does to 4th.
Truly, you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
If anyone doesn't know, you can get Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 1 & 2 off the GameTap service. Definitely made it worth it for me.
Octopus Melody on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I'd like to point out, to demonstrate the absurdities of Xargaraths arguments, that I ran a game of Delta Green (basically it's Call of Cthulhu, which meets X-Files and government conspiracies) called "Origins" that was easily mostly combat. It involved fighting the Karotechia, who are basically a NAZI occult group who were assembled by Hitler and Himmler during the dying years of the war to summon a greater Elder God to turn the tide against the allies. Effectively, the campaign was basically a high lethality war game, with the players having to fight off German soldiers, zombies raised by Karotechia and other things that they had summoned as well (like Deep Ones).
For a system denigrated as having "poor combat" everyone had great fun in a game that was entirely combat orientated in Call of Cthulhus system (insanity rules and grenades being available for most players being soldiers made it better again of course). Funny that, I guess the point is that it's the player and the DM that make the game (or the designer for a CRPG) not the system.
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED!?
Edit: This is my last response. Anyone who argues "lol X system isn't roleplaying" is talking pure crap and isn't worth arguing with. There are so many different roleplaying systems that have different strengths and weaknesses (Call of Cthulhu has a really deep skill system and a focus on the characters mortality for example), that saying any of them isn't "roleplaying" for tenuous and ridiculous reasons is just ignorant. Some people like hitting things a lot in their roleplaying games. Other people like the idea that one hit will instantly kill you and really like their combat bloody and realistic. Other people like really detailed rules systems (and there are rule systems far far and away more detailed than DnD, such as being able to sever specific fingers off a specific hand with unique disabling effects etc) etc etc. Saying any of these aren't "roleplaying" is just nonsense. It's the DM and players who make a "roleplaying" game in PnP, not the system.
This is really getting to the point where you're crossing into ridiculously absurd. You can still do this in 4th edition or any edition of Pen and Paper. Just because there is a balanced rule for X maneuver does not make it require less roleplaying or similar nonsense. Which btw is the argument you are failing miserably to support.
The problem here is that you're lacking a grasp of basic logical coherency, and instead spweing out rebuttals that aren't in fact addressing the argument I've actualy been making. If you'd stop being so outraged by attacks on your precious fourth edition that you could actually bother to read, we might begin to get somewhere.
One more try: If a rule is present that covers a possibility, it decreases the likelihood of players applying imagination in place of the rule. Individual anecdotes are utterly irrelevant to something talking about the general tendency of players rather than individual cases.
Edit: This is my last response. Anyone who argues "lol X system isn't roleplaying" is talking pure crap and isn't worth arguing with.
And you finally reinforce my growing suspicions that you can't actually read.
I said "worse for roleplaying." The phrase "isn't roleplaying" to describe an entire system never entered this argument until you yourself just used it.
Xagarath on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
See above.
If anyone doesn't know, you can get Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 1 & 2 off the GameTap service. Definitely made it worth it for me.
Actually, I found a really nice deal a while ago that had all of the above games in one package (an infinity engine collection or similar). It only cost me $30 NZ and I now have tons of backups of these games. I should play IWD 2 one day.
If anyone doesn't know, you can get Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 1 & 2 off the GameTap service. Definitely made it worth it for me.
Actually, I found a really nice deal a while ago that had all of the above games in one package (an infinity engine collection or similar). It only cost me $30 NZ and I now have tons of backups of these games. I should play IWD 2 one day.
Given that Gametap is kind of rubbish unless you don't want to own the games long-term, this is worth people noting.
Ultimate collection or something, isn't it?
New point: does anyone else agree it would be nice to have a D&D game in a setting that isn't the Forgotten Realms?
I'm not sure Ravenloft's ever had a decent game.
Maybe you should take that discussion over to Critical Failures?
It would be just as dumb, invalid and without merit there as it is here.
It might have had some merit if you'd adressed the arguments I was actually making, instead of imaginary ones you'd conjured up out of thin air.
Xagarath on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
Obsidian have already hinted they may already be doing a NWN3 or similar set in the Post-Spellplague realms (which is very different to the old realms that Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale is set in). For one thing, Neverwinter was destroyed during the Spell-plague, so a future game might be focused on what happened to it (which would be nice in itself) or in the rebuilding of the city. Hopefully they would go through with it, as the new realms are quite a delightfully nasty place.
Obsidian have already hinted they may already be doing a NWN3 or similar set in the Post-Spellplague realms (which is very different to the old realms that Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale is set in). For one thing, Neverwinter was destroyed during the Spell-plague, so a future game might be focused on what happened to it (which would be nice in itself) or in the rebuilding of the city. Hopefully they would go through with it, as the new realms are quite a delightfully nasty place.
Better than nothing, I guess.
It just seems a pity, given that D&D was meant to be such a broad system, to be limited to the one world all the time.
Man I got all excited. To me, Neverwinter Nights - especially combined with "old franchise" means this (Brotherhood of Pathfinders in the house). How are NWN or Baldur's Gate of those "old franchises"!? They've gone about what a week and four whole years since an update?
And guess what? Neither game was that great. Yeah I said it. Fallout - now that was a great old series. Planescape: Torment? Great old game, that would be worthy of a revival and excitement.
4e is most certainly not a rule heavy system. It generalizes everything in order to make any given action fit under a certain umbrella, without creating the needless bloat of the previous editions. It's designed to be a roleplaying lingua franca, much in the same way as D20, but this time it is actually rather successful.
If anything, it actively encourages improvisation, since you never, ever have to look anything up (other than your class abilities) as long as there's a gamemaster screen on the table.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
If anything, it actively encourages improvisation, since you never, ever have to look anything up (other than your class abilities) as long as there's a gamemaster screen on the table.
Last post on this subject, I think.
In a rules-light system, as far as I'd call it, you don't need a screen or rules to look up. Having to look up class abilities and tables is already in the realm of a lot of rules.
Personal definition, I'll grant you.
Maybe you should take that discussion over to Critical Failures?
It would be just as dumb, invalid and without merit there as it is here.
It might have had some merit if you'd adressed the arguments I was actually making, instead of imaginary ones you'd conjured up out of thin air.
No, it wouldn't, because you're BOTH talking over each other trying to make the other submit to your epeen.
Now. Let's talk about Atari reviving themselves some motherfucking Baldur's Gate.
Blackjack on
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
Planescape is a setting that will be done later down the track as well as Dark Sun. This is fitting more with the way campaigns in 4th edition are being done, with a players guide and a campaign guide (plus adventure). Then Dragon/Dungeon material to supplement it. But they are likely to stick with FR as it's the first one out and most familiar (not that the new realms is entirely similar to the older realms).
New point: does anyone else agree it would be nice to have a D&D game in a setting that isn't the Forgotten Realms?
I'm not sure Ravenloft's ever had a decent game.
Yes, very much so. But it depends entirely on Wizards' willingness to resurrect these brands. There have been several rumours from supposed insiders that the new 4th edition schedule will revolve around releasing three campaign books a year; campaign guide, player's guide and an adventure. Every year they would change the setting, and so far this has proven true with Forgotten Realms, as no other books are planned as far as I know.
Next year they're going to do Eberron and maybe Dragonlance. After that would be Spelljammer, Planescape and Dark Sun.
Man, I would kill for a new Dark Sun game. Best setting ever.
Edit: Beatd by Aegeri. I still don't think it's official, though.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Planescape is a setting that will be done later down the track as well as Dark Sun. This is fitting more with the way campaigns in 4th edition are being done, with a players guide and a campaign guide (plus adventure). Then Dragon/Dungeon material to supplement it. But they are likely to stick with FR as it's the first one out and most familiar (not that the new realms is entirely similar to the older realms).
I'd like to believe so, but they were kind of overlooked in third.
Hell, if 4E brings back Planescape and Dark Sun proper I'll forgive it for having terrible artwork and too much HP.
Not so convinced on Spelljammer, mind. That got kind of silly.
I'd like an Eberron game. One that focused on a more noir-detective-pulp adventure in ancient ruins style than the traditional fantasy. I played a little of the beta of that one D&D mmo set in Eberron, but I remember it not feeling very Eberron at all.
Xagarath, how you have managed to confuse 'comprehensive rule system' with 'removes illusion of choice and stamps out creative thought' I don't know, but it's still completely unrelated to the main complaint you made, which was that 2e was better for role play. You also compared it to WoD, which I think is also grossly unfair because all the White Wolf systems ARE designed for role play, they have in game methods of encouraging backstory development, etc. 2e has nothing like this. It is, in fact, exactly like 3rd and 4th edition in terms of encouraging role play, except for the combat rules are less fleshed out.
I would even say that 3rd is BETTER for role play, because it actually allows for character customization, AS you play. 2e, all of your character stats are set in stone at level 1 - 3e lets your character grow in response to the game as it plays.
Think back to fallout. Think of the perks you get for accomplishing certain in game tasks. You can do something similar to this in 3e. Not so in 2e.
Man, I really ought to do a playthrough of both BG 1&2 one of these days. I don't think I've ever played as a Bard so I might just try a Blade, just to show that little fag Haer'Daelis who's the boss.
Silpheed on
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
If you've already decided to hate something, chances are you will hate it.
I knew I was going to buy the 4e core books, and frankly I was pretty excited to see the new edition. But I was feeling dubious about the rules, for many of the reasons illustrated here. Nevertheless, I decided to give them a shot, played in a few one-shots and read the books pretty extensively.
I've been running a 4e game for three months now, and everyone is having a blast. Combats take about the same amount of time as they did in 3.5, but the important difference is that in 4e, more stuff happens. Instead of reading through massive text statblocks, I've got very handy monster references right at my finger tips, and many monsters have some very interesting features without absurd complexity. This game runs smooth.
The skill list is much smaller, but mostly in a good way. Where extraneous skills existed, they have instead been rolled into similar skills in order to give players a myriad of options with skills. There are some absenses which will irk people (Where's my Craft? Where's my Profession?), but for many of these skills I never saw their use in play, nor did I see a reason for a PC to spend valuable skill points on them. Want to ber a blacksmith? No problem, you're a blacksmith. This does not need to be linked to the mechanical creation of the character.
I am almost to the point where I will need no other books except the Monster Manual when I run games. Learn the rules, apply them in game, and never worry about looking up the specifics of absurdly stupid fringe situations. I have never, ever seen anyone do this with 2e ADnD or 3.5 (the two editions I played the most). Hell, I play in 3.5 games where everyone has a laptop, and it seems the only feasible way they can quickly reference rules and do the absurd calculations on their min/maxed power attack characters. 4e does not provide rules for everything, and this is actually good thing. Instead, the DM is given baseline DCs which he can use to determine the complexity of certain actions. The DM can then apply certain skills or ability checks to those situations. The rules provide a baseline and encourage the DM to use his brain, improv, and storytelling skills.
Lastly, I have seen no less roleplaying in 4e than I have in any previous edition I've played, hell in any roleplaying game I've played. This is, in my experience, more a factor to do with the DM and the players at the table than any particular system. I do everything I can to encourage my players to roleplay, rather than rely on anything in the system I play.
Honestly, it's a good system. If you don't like it, that's a-ok, but to say that it is horrible for tabletop roleplaying displays an ignorance of the edition, and PnP roleplaying in general. I've found that the main reasons people are pissed is because it is a) a large departure from the previous edition (which many, many people loved) and b) considered "too soon" after the release of 3.5, a feeling I have some empathy with, but consider it pretty consistant with the business model tabletop companies have adopted.
I find that when folks give 4th edition a fair shake, they find things to like about it even if it's not their cup of tea.
My biggest issue with 4E is that it seems to be catered towards the DRIZZT RULZ crowd. Personally, I'm a fan of Svirfneblin. Did they ever put Half-Orcs and Gnomes back into the game? Jesus christ, the fact they stuck Dragonborn in place of Half-Orcs just blows my mind.
My biggest issue with 4E is that it seems to be catered towards the DRIZZT RULZ crowd. Personally, I'm a fan of Svirfneblin. Did they ever put Half-Orcs and Gnomes back into the game? Jesus christ, the fact they stuck Dragonborn in place of Half-Orcs just blows my mind.
Okay, so why not tell us WHY it is bad for roleplaying, instead of going all XAGARATH SMASH PUNY CONTRARY OPINION
Sure.
People complained that 2E had few special attacks.
Ok, let's look at a specific special attack from 3rd edition, the Bull Rush, in which you try to push someone back.
In second edition, there's nothing to stop a player from doing that. They just have to actually think of it instead of reading a couple of words off some paper.
In 2E, the player goes "I try to ram into the guy with my full strength and push him back, doing that instead of injuring him"
In 3E, the player goes "I bull rush him."
More streamlined? Yes. But there's authomatically less imagination invovled due to the presence of the additional rule.
And I thought to myself, "self, why would anyone say this? this is super dumb. just because a new option is presented to players does not mean they have to think less. I should make a post telling everyone how dumb this is"
I'm amazed at how much nostalgia and nerdrage is blinding folks in this thread. Especially when folks say that AD&D 2E is a "rules-light" game?? It's one of the most rules-HEAVY games out there. Rules-light games, you don't even need to look at a book (like Castle Falkenstein and FUDGE, possibly the old WoD games). AD&D 2E had a separate XP table for every single class. It had classes and subclasses coming out the wazoo. You had to look at your race to figure out what multi/dual class you could have. Just because people are familiar with it doesn't mean its rules are conducive to roleplaying.
3rd edition did a lot to unify a bunch of disparate systems. Every class has the same XP table. Every race can multi-class (and dual class rules were tossed). The only fault that it also added was the tactical option of the Attack of Opportunity (which slows down combat by at least twice as long as it should), but that is forgivable.
The main problem with the new 4E is that the non-crunchy mechanics do not "feel" like DnD to a lot of folks at first glance. Honestly, I hate DnD when it comes to roleplaying systems (although I'll play the computer games), so any direction away from its roots is probably good for me and others who also didn't like DnD before. It's probably similar to the direction that the Wii is going, away from the hardcore crowd to the casual (i.e. more money) crowd. It's a bold move, but one hopes that it isn't a desperate one... after all, as much as I don't like the game, I can appreciate that the world's PnP RPG market pretty much depend on its sales. It keeps my corner games store in business.
Anyway, any new computer RPG franchise is likely to use 4th edition rules. The old RPG franchises, however, are up to speculation and dependent on the various licensing agreements (which have changed faster than the game systems in question).
In other news, I'm having a lot of fun in Baldur's Gate II. My main is a Level 10 Kensai, hoping to dual to a Mage at level 12. It's shit like this that makes me gag about the DnD system, but I'm not one to kick out overpowered characters in my cRPGs. *grin*
Hahnsoo1 on
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Did they ever put Half-Orcs and Gnomes back into the game? Jesus christ, the fact they stuck Dragonborn in place of Half-Orcs just blows my mind.
Orcs and Gnomes are in the game, with perfectly usable stats for PCs in the Monster Manual.
As to dragonborn, may I ask why that bothers you so much? People have wanted ways to play dragons for years; it's not a new concept at all. With a name like Dungeons & Dragons, I can't really blame them. Now as a DM I can say "here's your dragon option right here" without resorting to giving a player control over something that belongs only in the hands of the DM, or relenting and allowing some overblown splatbook nonsense into my games. Dragonborn are not nearly as retarded or kiddie-gamer as some would like us to believe.
I personally hate half races, but I know that's just me. I would've preferred we got full-blooded orcs in 3rd edition. Strangely, I think half-orcs have a much more appropriate place in 4e than the half-elves, who appear to serve no other purpose than "token half- race." Life likes throwing irony my way, as my current game is an entire party of only half-elves.
Man, I really ought to do a playthrough of both BG 1&2 one of these days. I don't think I've ever played as a Bard so I might just try a Blade, just to show that little fag Haer'Daelis who's the boss.
Blades are also arguably among the most powerful classes if built right, so it should serve you well.
I've soloed BG2 as one.
As to dragonborn, may I ask why that bothers you so much? People have wanted ways to play dragons for years; it's not a new concept at all. With a name like Dungeons & Dragons, I can't really blame them. Now as a DM I can say "here's your dragon option right here" without resorting to giving a player control over something that belongs only in the hands of the DM, or relenting and allowing some overblown splatbook nonsense into my games. Dragonborn are not nearly as retarded or kiddie-gamer as some would like us to believe.
It's essentially an entire race built around looking like a badass; just an overall weird addition. I don't think anyone would have complained if they hadn't been a core race, although I personally feel that Eladrin are a bigger offender on that front.
Normally this isn't a thing I would complain about, but the way these two races have been haphazardly shoehorned into the non-PHB campaigns, i.e. Forgotten Realms, annoys me. What's this shit about the Feywild and Dragonborn appearing out of nowhere? What is this semantics nonsense with Eladrin and high elves? Was this really necessary? Will they do the same thing to every other campaign setting?
I feel they could have handled it better than they did. Although I would've ultimately preferred Lizardmen as the beast race, but that's just me :P
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
The Feywild has always been there and Eladrin are the equivalent of High Elves, while Elves are roughly equivalent to the regular Elves found elsewhere. Dragonborn appeared from Returned Abeir which came from nowhere (Toril is a dual plane, with its sister plane in phase with it and the spellplague tore chunks of one interposing it onto the other etc). They have a fairly reasonable explanation, given what the Spellplague did in general to the realms so it's not particularly daft. So it's hardly "out of nowhere".
While I don't like Dragonborn personally, I'd rather things players want to use. I've never had a player play a gnome in 11 years of running DnD games, but they're in the second PhB anyway so it's not like they have been written out of existence.
Peoples DMs actually follow the rules? I just used my books so that people would have an expectation of outcome. If a fighter said, hey, I've been roleplaying my guy as more of a hammer master kind of character, I reckon he could throw his hammer at that dragons head then I'd say "sure, test dexterity and strength with+2 for the enchantment" or whatever.
Thats the point of having a DM, and not just a rule book. I wouldn't even let my players look at any rule books other than their character sheets and notes during the game.
Thats the point of having a DM, and not just a rule book. I wouldn't even let my players look at any rule books other than their character sheets and notes during the game.
I like that and am stealing it, though I've come close myself.
Posts
I did, but it's not particularly relevant because your sole complaint was that I listed many of the same systems twice (actually nWoD and oWoD function differently in numerous ways, particularly in the differences in the new WoD supernaturals books to the old ones).
But again, you've done nothing to show you actually know what you are talking about.
Or you're just wrong?
Again, how much 4th edition have you in fact played? Probably nothing I am imagining at this point.
This is really getting to the point where you're crossing into ridiculously absurd. You can still do this in 4th edition or any edition of Pen and Paper. Just because there is a balanced rule for X maneuver does not make it require less roleplaying or similar nonsense. Which btw is the argument you are failing miserably to support.
I know, you'd think I had said that a while ago or something.
Edit: 4th edition also has less rules than 3rd edition. 3rd edition became immensely complex with all the various feats that allowed you to do various maneuvers, the huge number of combinations of prestige classes etc. This also made 3rd edition horribly broken. 4th edition consolidates a great deal of powers and similar into several, simpler rules and generally makes all conditions a +2/-2 or similar. 4th edition has a detailed combat system, but ultimately less actual rules than 3rd edition (it's closer to 2nd edition in this regard than the complex behemoth that was 3rd). Yet you argue that more rules make the game less of a roleplaying game, while failing simultaneously to realise this applies more to 3rd than it does to 4th.
Truly, you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
For a system denigrated as having "poor combat" everyone had great fun in a game that was entirely combat orientated in Call of Cthulhus system (insanity rules and grenades being available for most players being soldiers made it better again of course). Funny that, I guess the point is that it's the player and the DM that make the game (or the designer for a CRPG) not the system.
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED!?
Edit: This is my last response. Anyone who argues "lol X system isn't roleplaying" is talking pure crap and isn't worth arguing with. There are so many different roleplaying systems that have different strengths and weaknesses (Call of Cthulhu has a really deep skill system and a focus on the characters mortality for example), that saying any of them isn't "roleplaying" for tenuous and ridiculous reasons is just ignorant. Some people like hitting things a lot in their roleplaying games. Other people like the idea that one hit will instantly kill you and really like their combat bloody and realistic. Other people like really detailed rules systems (and there are rule systems far far and away more detailed than DnD, such as being able to sever specific fingers off a specific hand with unique disabling effects etc) etc etc. Saying any of these aren't "roleplaying" is just nonsense. It's the DM and players who make a "roleplaying" game in PnP, not the system.
The problem here is that you're lacking a grasp of basic logical coherency, and instead spweing out rebuttals that aren't in fact addressing the argument I've actualy been making. If you'd stop being so outraged by attacks on your precious fourth edition that you could actually bother to read, we might begin to get somewhere.
One more try:
If a rule is present that covers a possibility, it decreases the likelihood of players applying imagination in place of the rule. Individual anecdotes are utterly irrelevant to something talking about the general tendency of players rather than individual cases.
And you finally reinforce my growing suspicions that you can't actually read.
I said "worse for roleplaying." The phrase "isn't roleplaying" to describe an entire system never entered this argument until you yourself just used it.
Actually, I found a really nice deal a while ago that had all of the above games in one package (an infinity engine collection or similar). It only cost me $30 NZ and I now have tons of backups of these games. I should play IWD 2 one day.
Ultimate collection or something, isn't it?
It would be just as dumb, invalid and without merit there as it is here.
I'm not sure Ravenloft's ever had a decent game.
It might have had some merit if you'd adressed the arguments I was actually making, instead of imaginary ones you'd conjured up out of thin air.
Better than nothing, I guess.
It just seems a pity, given that D&D was meant to be such a broad system, to be limited to the one world all the time.
And guess what? Neither game was that great. Yeah I said it. Fallout - now that was a great old series. Planescape: Torment? Great old game, that would be worthy of a revival and excitement.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If anything, it actively encourages improvisation, since you never, ever have to look anything up (other than your class abilities) as long as there's a gamemaster screen on the table.
Pity.
Last post on this subject, I think.
In a rules-light system, as far as I'd call it, you don't need a screen or rules to look up. Having to look up class abilities and tables is already in the realm of a lot of rules.
Personal definition, I'll grant you.
NSFMF
Sigil exists in 4e, so we can't rule it out. It just doesn't make sense for them not to revive it IMO
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Now. Let's talk about Atari reviving themselves some motherfucking Baldur's Gate.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Yes, very much so. But it depends entirely on Wizards' willingness to resurrect these brands. There have been several rumours from supposed insiders that the new 4th edition schedule will revolve around releasing three campaign books a year; campaign guide, player's guide and an adventure. Every year they would change the setting, and so far this has proven true with Forgotten Realms, as no other books are planned as far as I know.
Next year they're going to do Eberron and maybe Dragonlance. After that would be Spelljammer, Planescape and Dark Sun.
Man, I would kill for a new Dark Sun game. Best setting ever.
Edit: Beatd by Aegeri. I still don't think it's official, though.
I'd like to believe so, but they were kind of overlooked in third.
Hell, if 4E brings back Planescape and Dark Sun proper I'll forgive it for having terrible artwork and too much HP.
Not so convinced on Spelljammer, mind. That got kind of silly.
WTF thread is this.
heh
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I would even say that 3rd is BETTER for role play, because it actually allows for character customization, AS you play. 2e, all of your character stats are set in stone at level 1 - 3e lets your character grow in response to the game as it plays.
Think back to fallout. Think of the perks you get for accomplishing certain in game tasks. You can do something similar to this in 3e. Not so in 2e.
Although NWN3 by Obsidian would rock. Especially with NWN2's latest expansion having hints that the next game will be set in freaking SIGIL.
I knew I was going to buy the 4e core books, and frankly I was pretty excited to see the new edition. But I was feeling dubious about the rules, for many of the reasons illustrated here. Nevertheless, I decided to give them a shot, played in a few one-shots and read the books pretty extensively.
I've been running a 4e game for three months now, and everyone is having a blast. Combats take about the same amount of time as they did in 3.5, but the important difference is that in 4e, more stuff happens. Instead of reading through massive text statblocks, I've got very handy monster references right at my finger tips, and many monsters have some very interesting features without absurd complexity. This game runs smooth.
The skill list is much smaller, but mostly in a good way. Where extraneous skills existed, they have instead been rolled into similar skills in order to give players a myriad of options with skills. There are some absenses which will irk people (Where's my Craft? Where's my Profession?), but for many of these skills I never saw their use in play, nor did I see a reason for a PC to spend valuable skill points on them. Want to ber a blacksmith? No problem, you're a blacksmith. This does not need to be linked to the mechanical creation of the character.
I am almost to the point where I will need no other books except the Monster Manual when I run games. Learn the rules, apply them in game, and never worry about looking up the specifics of absurdly stupid fringe situations. I have never, ever seen anyone do this with 2e ADnD or 3.5 (the two editions I played the most). Hell, I play in 3.5 games where everyone has a laptop, and it seems the only feasible way they can quickly reference rules and do the absurd calculations on their min/maxed power attack characters. 4e does not provide rules for everything, and this is actually good thing. Instead, the DM is given baseline DCs which he can use to determine the complexity of certain actions. The DM can then apply certain skills or ability checks to those situations. The rules provide a baseline and encourage the DM to use his brain, improv, and storytelling skills.
Lastly, I have seen no less roleplaying in 4e than I have in any previous edition I've played, hell in any roleplaying game I've played. This is, in my experience, more a factor to do with the DM and the players at the table than any particular system. I do everything I can to encourage my players to roleplay, rather than rely on anything in the system I play.
Honestly, it's a good system. If you don't like it, that's a-ok, but to say that it is horrible for tabletop roleplaying displays an ignorance of the edition, and PnP roleplaying in general. I've found that the main reasons people are pissed is because it is a) a large departure from the previous edition (which many, many people loved) and b) considered "too soon" after the release of 3.5, a feeling I have some empathy with, but consider it pretty consistant with the business model tabletop companies have adopted.
I find that when folks give 4th edition a fair shake, they find things to like about it even if it's not their cup of tea.
And I thought to myself, "self, why would anyone say this? this is super dumb. just because a new option is presented to players does not mean they have to think less. I should make a post telling everyone how dumb this is"
And so I did
The end
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
3rd edition did a lot to unify a bunch of disparate systems. Every class has the same XP table. Every race can multi-class (and dual class rules were tossed). The only fault that it also added was the tactical option of the Attack of Opportunity (which slows down combat by at least twice as long as it should), but that is forgivable.
The main problem with the new 4E is that the non-crunchy mechanics do not "feel" like DnD to a lot of folks at first glance. Honestly, I hate DnD when it comes to roleplaying systems (although I'll play the computer games), so any direction away from its roots is probably good for me and others who also didn't like DnD before. It's probably similar to the direction that the Wii is going, away from the hardcore crowd to the casual (i.e. more money) crowd. It's a bold move, but one hopes that it isn't a desperate one... after all, as much as I don't like the game, I can appreciate that the world's PnP RPG market pretty much depend on its sales. It keeps my corner games store in business.
Anyway, any new computer RPG franchise is likely to use 4th edition rules. The old RPG franchises, however, are up to speculation and dependent on the various licensing agreements (which have changed faster than the game systems in question).
In other news, I'm having a lot of fun in Baldur's Gate II. My main is a Level 10 Kensai, hoping to dual to a Mage at level 12. It's shit like this that makes me gag about the DnD system, but I'm not one to kick out overpowered characters in my cRPGs. *grin*
Orcs and Gnomes are in the game, with perfectly usable stats for PCs in the Monster Manual.
As to dragonborn, may I ask why that bothers you so much? People have wanted ways to play dragons for years; it's not a new concept at all. With a name like Dungeons & Dragons, I can't really blame them. Now as a DM I can say "here's your dragon option right here" without resorting to giving a player control over something that belongs only in the hands of the DM, or relenting and allowing some overblown splatbook nonsense into my games. Dragonborn are not nearly as retarded or kiddie-gamer as some would like us to believe.
I personally hate half races, but I know that's just me. I would've preferred we got full-blooded orcs in 3rd edition. Strangely, I think half-orcs have a much more appropriate place in 4e than the half-elves, who appear to serve no other purpose than "token half- race." Life likes throwing irony my way, as my current game is an entire party of only half-elves.
Blades are also arguably among the most powerful classes if built right, so it should serve you well.
I've soloed BG2 as one.
It's essentially an entire race built around looking like a badass; just an overall weird addition. I don't think anyone would have complained if they hadn't been a core race, although I personally feel that Eladrin are a bigger offender on that front.
Normally this isn't a thing I would complain about, but the way these two races have been haphazardly shoehorned into the non-PHB campaigns, i.e. Forgotten Realms, annoys me. What's this shit about the Feywild and Dragonborn appearing out of nowhere? What is this semantics nonsense with Eladrin and high elves? Was this really necessary? Will they do the same thing to every other campaign setting?
I feel they could have handled it better than they did. Although I would've ultimately preferred Lizardmen as the beast race, but that's just me :P
While I don't like Dragonborn personally, I'd rather things players want to use. I've never had a player play a gnome in 11 years of running DnD games, but they're in the second PhB anyway so it's not like they have been written out of existence.
Thats the point of having a DM, and not just a rule book. I wouldn't even let my players look at any rule books other than their character sheets and notes during the game.
I like that and am stealing it, though I've come close myself.