3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. I was excited when 4E came out, thought powers were great, loved everything about it. Now...3.5 nostolgia. Anybody else feel like 4E just pulled too far away from what D&D is? I just really don't like 4E. I'm not trying to complain, I just want to discuss it and see what other people think.
Things I dislike the most:
-First of all, the books and the artwork. The art in general is too cartoony. It turns me off to the game.
-Defining simple team roles. Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller. Just feels wrong. This isn't WOW, you don't need a perfectly balanced group where everyone fits like puzzle peices. The focus should be on cool, creative characters. Sometimes conflicting characters could be fun. Obviously i'm not saying there shouldn't be team work, but the way they did classes...blah....
-Powers. Not that every class plays like a mage (some people said that about powers in the beginning) but the mage doesn't feel like a mage. Magic should work differently then other things. And whenever I ran a 4E game, the Wizard was the only one who ever used his powers anyway. WoTC said they wanted to give every character interesting things to do in a fight, and claimed that mages had all the fun choosing spells and doing cool things.
Looking back, I completely disagree. If you run boring fights in boring enviroments, of course fighters and rogues are going to be bored. I never had that problem. My PCs were creative and strategic, and interacted with the enviroments. To me, powers detract from the game. Like the team roles, it just feels wrong.
-Above all, the oversimplification and streamlining of the game. In 3.5, it had different levels of complication. It could be super simple, with only the starter set, or you could own every book and know every rule by heart, and craft your own settings from scratch. 4E is all made on the same basic starter kit level for eight year old kids who play it when the power goes out and they can't play WOW. There's no depth, and all the books are written like uninspiring expansion packs.
-They turned the Forgotten Realms into a cheap rip-off of Eberron.
None of it would bother me at all, except that now most hobby shops have switched to 4E along with RPGA. What do everyone here think? What don't you/do you like about 4E?
- 4E art is fine, I just wish they had the diversity of styles they had back in 3.5. There was Computer Rendered Images, Sketches, Paintings, drawings, etc. I like diversity more than any one style alone.
- Any group can have good flavor/characters but not every group has good mechanical dynamics. The roles are there to help people understand the underlying assumption of the game - that there are a diversity of characters that each have different ways to approach the game world. This is disheartening to some but, honestly, I played in a lot of groups in 3.5 that were basically all melee based characters fulfilling the role 4E would call Striker - its fun once in a while but not every time. Helping diversify the characters is a good thing.
Having said that, I think early 4E dropped the ball in this regard and made all of the powers feel too alike, regardless of role. Essentials really helped redefine role (and power source) but at the cost of mechanical options for classes like the Fighter (Slayer and Knight).
- One of the design principles with 4E was that Wizards DID have more fun in that they were able to choose spells that really defined their class every level, where as Fighters got feats and rogues got sneak attack. The latter two are fun but only if the DM allows them to be. By giving everyone power, it makes everyone feel special. The problem with it is that if everyone is special in the same way, then no one is special. The problem with the 4E power system is that it became a one size fits all box. I don't think Fighters and Wizards should approach their powers/spells in the same fashion, however I do feel Fighters deserve something special of their own. Now Essentials tried to fix this by giving Wizards lots of Dailies and Fighters lots of Stances. It fixed the feel but, ultimately, reverted to the 3.5 feeling of Wizards having more options (and therefore more diversity and fun) than a Fighter.
- I like the fact that 4E isn't as open to interpretation as 3.5 is (overall). I like the streamlined system because it cuts down on boring/needless rules debates, that really plagued 3.5.
- The Writers of FR wanted some kind of reboot to the setting so they wouldn't have to deal with continuity problems. In the process of doing so, they really gutted FR and killed the one thing that made the setting so special - 20 years of history and lore.
As an aside, all of 4E ripped off Eberron's feel.
I don't miss it because it hasn't gone anywhere. Just as people still played 2E and even ODnD when 3.x was the current edition, there's nothing to stop you just ignoring 4E and playing the version you are happiest with - personally, I haven't even looked at a 4E book, let alone thought about buying one.
I am stalwart in my refusal to convert to fourth edition and i cherish my valiance. I dunno, it's not the system that bugs me, it's just that i just got into rpg's right into the third or second year of the final run of 3.5 before wizards switched to 4e. I spent a lot of energy trying to hunt down books and earning money, and so far i have the three core books (only the dm guide is 3.5), two eberron books (core setting, and magic of), a Draconomicon (awesome art), and races of the dragon. I also got a couple of Dragonmech books. Then I got pathfinder corebook for Christmas, and that filled the gap that my outdated players handbook left nicely. That's pretty much it on the rpg side. Sadly though, as i've said before, i haven't had anybody to play with in a while, and i've kinda fallen out of it for the time, but the eberron books in of themselves are very interesting reads, so i don't feel like i've wasted anything. I still find it fun to world build so these are all great resources.
But there's also something about the business model that bugs me. I mean all i really needed to play a game of eberron, was the three core books, and an eberron core book. Now you probably need three players handbooks, i dunno how many DM guides there are, maybe one or two monster manuals, an eberron setting book, and an eberron players guide, all priced around thirty too forty bucks retail.
I don't get the "WoW" argument. I mean, why does balancing roles invoke WoW in everyone? You always had healers in D&D (except 4e's leaders are less healers than the 3.5e ones), and your fighters and other plate-armored people always were trying to pull enemy's attention from wizards and other people. All 4e did was institutionalise those roles, and gave potential to create a lot of new, interesting classes to fill out those missing roles (like divine controller).
Other than that, no, I don't miss 3.5e. It had way too many rules, and definitely more than I could ever remember. I always claimed to have used 3.5e as a base framework for my campaign, but in the end all I used was class names and then I scratched even that and just went with my own class system (which didn't really work out too well). With 4e I can at least start to remember most modifiers and markers because there isn't 10,000 of them on one person.
The other thing 4e did better is, as mentioned, making everyone have fun at the table. In 3.5, I would have never played a fighter, because all attacks he could do was "I hit it with my sword" or "I hit it harder than before" (or, if you're lucky, "I hit him and his friend too"). And then repeat that every turn. 4e actually succeeded at making fighters at least somewhat interesting.
The only thing I can grasp being really objectivly different is whole feeling of the game, what with all the reincarnating Devas and psionic crystal-people and sparkly vampires-but-not-really and gnomes that are really halflings... but I actually like it - I like the fact we have many differing and original races as the core playable species.
I don't like a lot of the art in 4E books but I like the uniform way the books are done, overall. At least pre-Essentials.
The biggest thing, and I think the root of a lot of what you don't like, is that 3E sort of included the flavor with the rules where 4E is more of just a game system and you have to add your own flavor to it. It's a pretty damn good system, mechanically.
I'll always miss 3.5 until I go back and attempt to DM something in it. Same with PF, for that matter. I love both of the systems very much, but the need to deck people with magic items, the blatant power that magic had over "mundane" classes (which I realize is considered a plus for some people, but to each their own), the reliance on stereotypes for classes that hamstrung players into certain, somewhat predefined roles as they played (this was sort of mitigated with prestige classes and, to greater effect, PF's archetypes), the amazingly abysmal balancing of certain feats, the over importance of some skills over others (ironically, PF worsened this by grouping crucial skills into things like Perception and Acrobatics), and the list goes on.
There wasn't anything really big that tipped the scales for me in 3.5/PF; it was just a lot of little things that eventually added up to too much, and I decided to stop. Mind you, I always DMed those games and rarely got to play, so if my players ever feel like stepping up to the plate, then by all means I'll gladly participate as a player.
At this point, 4E is just another step in the wrong direction for me. I want to get away from the D20 system in general. 4E, from what little I looked at, seemed fine, but not my cup of tea.
So yes, I do miss 3.5 and PF, but not for system reasons - I miss it for all the great times we had trudging through dungeons, climbing mountain peaks, building motley crews of characters and venturing out into vast worlds in the face of some great adversity that, in the end, you get to stick right in the face. But I don't need 3.5, PF, or 4E to have those memories - I just need some players, some dice, and several hours with whatever system we so stumble across.
Is this a thread about nostalgia for 3.5, or is this a thread for complaining about 4E? The way you're wording this makes it look like some sort of stealth-rant.
3.5 wasn't my first gaming experience of this type, but it was very close, and I spent a lot of time playing and running it. There's definitely a nostalgia factor in play, but I don't think that means I miss it. I had a lot of good times, but I wouldn't go back, because I've since found things I like better and have had good times with those.
There are times when I do miss 3.5/PF. There's something about the way the system works that is appealing, but I have to agree with the statements about finding superior systems to use since then, however. PF is still great for when you want to run a fantasy game and want to get it going relatively quickly, because of all of the generators and other things that come ready-to-go with it. 3.5/PF seems like the P&P equivalent of the English language in that almost everybody seems to know at least a few fair-sized chunks of it and it often serves as the common ground from which people branch out into different playstyles and systems.
You miss 3.5 like I miss OD&D and AD&D.
Good times. Easy to run. Hell, I created a whole simple d20 game (Accis) in homage to those.
But they are more like a girl I dated in High school; good memories...but I look for different things now.
You don't have to miss anything, either. You can still play it. You can find the books used online without a lot of trouble. For the ones you can't (some more obscure third party stuff), there are other sources.
Moderator note: Post edited to remove advocacy of an activity that the CBG does not advocate
Quote from: Ninja D!
You don't have to miss anything, either. You can still play it. You can find the books used online without a lot of trouble. For the ones you can't (some more obscure third party stuff), there are other sources.
Might be a little off-topic, but I actually did this with Alternity - found used copies of the core rulebooks online for cheap and bought 'em. Best $40-ish I ever spent. :)
Quote from: LordVreeg
You miss 3.5 like I miss OD&D and AD&D.
Good times. Easy to run. Hell, I created a whole simple d20 game (Accis) in homage to those.
But they are more like a girl I dated in High school; good memories...but I look for different things now.
Exactly, haha. I am quite fond of 2e as well and miss it a great deal... would love to see someone run it someday (perhaps myself).
If it's a thread about ranting about 4th edition then I'll jump on board that bandwagon. :D
At one point, I was actually fairly excited about 4e, as it seems to promote an ethos of "awesomeness" that I am pretty down with... but then I started looking deeper and imagining how I'd actually try playing (or DMing) it and a lot of that enthusiasm kind of drained away when I realized how much was really wrong with it. I agree with Weave's "step in the wrong direction" feeling about 4e.
For whatever flaws Forgotten Realms had before, it also had this deep lore to it that made it feel compelling. I'm not saying it was my favorite D&D setting, but it was the setting that really got me into RPGing in the first place, so I guess I do feel a certain nostalgia for it because of that. I haven't looked at the 4e version but that description doesn't sound promising.
Quote from: VreegBut they are more like a girl I dated in High school; good memories...but I look for different things now.
Hilarious analogy.
I have no problems with 4e - I don't play it, so no problem.
And nostalgia for 3x?! Really? There's this game called Pathfinder that is the inheritor of 3x, and improved I think even over 3x - I prefer it. Its as complicated, but in many ways makes more sense, more structured. I have no problems building classes, feats, spells, monsters and new abilities using the PF system. It's like 3x, yet more clear.
Besides, I don't want a new girl, my girl is just fine.
I haven't read this whole post, and I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but 4E justed seems like WoW to me, it focuses more on the Game than the Roleplaying.
To continue this girl analogy... Here's the Chorus from Mambo #5
A little bit of Pathfinder in my life
A little bit of Exalted by my side
A little bit of 4E is all I need
A little bit of Changeling is what I see
A little bit of GURPS in the sun
A little bit of Star Wars all night long
A little bit of Vampire here I am
A little bit of you makes me your man
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I haven't read this whole post, and I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but 4E justed seems like WoW to me, it focuses more on the Game than the Roleplaying.
WotC went that direction because everyone and their monkey's uncle derided WotC and how they shoved flavor down their throats. People wanted less flavor and more game from WotC because they (at least the vocal DM community) enjoyed creating their own flavor and backstory for classes, prestige classes, feats and spells. The end result was 4E's mentality of "here's the basics, make your own story." I find it quite ironic that a wholly different community of people complain about this change. :)
except with all these Powers and different, new Races, and, as far as I understand, tying in things like the Feywild and what-not seems like more flavor. I mean, I'm thinking about the 3E manuals, and about the only flavor they shoved was the super-generic Grayhawk gods and characters.
By the by, I'm not arguing with you, just raggin' on WotC. Heyo!
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: VreegBut they are more like a girl I dated in High school; good memories...but I look for different things now.
Hilarious analogy.
Accurate analogy. I love D20, and although I'm too young to have played ODnD the first time round, I am really getting into a lot of indie OSR stuff that is coming out at the moment . . . but really I'm only getting into it in terms of feel, in terms of aesthetic. For my mechanics, I'm looking elsewhere.
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I haven't read this whole post, and I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but 4E justed seems like WoW to me, it focuses more on the Game than the Roleplaying.
I think it's because they want to leave roleplaying to actual playing a role, as opposing to finding reasons for why you had a critical failure in Perform (Dance) or what does natural 20 on a climb mean. Sure it can lead to some funny or interesting results, but in the heart of it, that's not what roleplaying is about. It's about social interaction, and getting into the head of your character, as opposed to looking at numbers for another two hours.
Quote from: Kindling
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: VreegBut they are more like a girl I dated in High school; good memories...but I look for different things now.
Hilarious analogy.
Accurate analogy. I love D20, and although I'm too young to have played ODnD the first time round, I am really getting into a lot of indie OSR stuff that is coming out at the moment . . . but really I'm only getting into it in terms of feel, in terms of aesthetic. For my mechanics, I'm looking elsewhere.
I have had fun creating and running Accis. I can pretty much run it with an occasional look at the wiki; fast, fun, great for pure 'adventure' based play.
But I like other rules for the social heavy games I really enjoy.
Quote from: Kalontas
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I haven't read this whole post, and I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but 4E justed seems like WoW to me, it focuses more on the Game than the Roleplaying.
I think it's because they want to leave roleplaying to actual playing a role, as opposing to finding reasons for why you had a critical failure in Perform (Dance) or what does natural 20 on a climb mean. Sure it can lead to some funny or interesting results, but in the heart of it, that's not what roleplaying is about. It's about social interaction, and getting into the head of your character, as opposed to looking at numbers for another two hours.
that may be true, but I feel like 4E forced lots of "out of character" things "into character", like specializing roles. The great things about pre-4E is that classes only slightly define what your character does. A Fighter could be: a tough guy, a fast guy, an attacker, a defender. A wizard could be: fireball wizard, defensive wizards, handy but sort of useless spell wizard. But 4E sat us down like children and said "Here is a X Class, he is a Controller (or whatever they are called) and this is exactly what a Controller does, we made a nice chart in case you get confused." I'll do what I like with my character, thank you very much.
But you still had to make that choice with your character before - except now those choices have different names. Now the tough guy just isn't always described by "fighter", and you can still have martial strikers - with Essentials, you can have a slayer, who's pretty much a striker type of fighter. Those choices are still are there, except their names are changed - and now with less potential to gimp your character and make it useless, because all "tough guy" stuff is banded together.
Quote from: Kalontas
But you still had to make that choice with your character before - except now those choices have different names. Now the tough guy just isn't always described by "fighter", and you can still have martial strikers - with Essentials, you can have a slayer, who's pretty much a striker type of fighter. Those choices are still are there, except their names are changed - and now with less potential to gimp your character and make it useless, because all "tough guy" stuff is banded together.
but thats the thing, the names are terrible and completely "breaks character"! In 3E, you could use the word fighter in character, you could use skill names and feats and it would be fine, but bringing things like Striker and Controller and all that goobley guck just seem terrible.
meh, maybe I'm old fashion.
EDIT: So yes, I do miss 3E.
QuoteIn 3E, you could use the word fighter in character
and it would apply to
everyone
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteIn 3E, you could use the word fighter in character
and it would apply to everyone
That's one of the things I never understood about D&D - having a class named "fighter". I mean, even in the original roster (fighter, wizard, rogue, IIRC), everybody was doing some fighting.
Quote from: Kalontas
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteIn 3E, you could use the word fighter in character
and it would apply to everyone
That's one of the things I never understood about D&D - having a class named "fighter". I mean, even in the original roster (fighter, wizard, rogue, IIRC), everybody was doing some fighting.
yeah, but the balance was different. The rules were balanced on the plane of exploration...
the fighter was the best guy in combat, or for an encounter. The thief was the best guy for traps or sneaking or going ahead. The cleric was the healing guy... and the mage was the jack of all trades (please read the old level 1 and 2 spells, like read lang, detect magic, hold portal, etc).
My issue was that 4e changed the roles to make everyone equal in combat, making the encounter the central part of the game...since it ws the level that the classes were balanced, as compared to 0D&D, which was balanced for the adventure, or AD&D, which was more balanced for the campaign (see what levels they can build keeps and such and how they attract followers).
>>In 3E, you could use the word fighter in character
and it would apply to everyone
I agree with LC's statement here... that's one thing that really annoys me about 4E- every class is balanced to do the same amount of damage. It's fair, and it's good for a wargame, but it makes it a bit difficult to focus on the roleplaying when everyone is just as good at everything as everyone else- people don't really have niches.
>>A wizard could be: fireball wizard, defensive wizards, handy but sort of useless spell wizard. But 4E sat us down like children and said "Here is a X Class, he is a Controller (or whatever they are called) and this is exactly what a Controller does, we made a nice chart in case you get confused." I'll do what I like with my character, thank you very much.
Although I agree with you Leetz, to speak for the other side of the argument for a minute- in 4E you can do what you want if you're willing to make a suboptimal character. I run a Warlord who has very low constitution. I spent all his points in CHA, INT, and STR and went into the negatives on everything else. Yet, I CHARGE into every encounter (literally). It barely works for me because I can also usually charge away and most of my allies can heal me a lot (as I can heal myself) but it is possible to experiment a bit.
Quote from: LordVreegyeah, but the balance was different. The rules were balanced on the plane of exploration...the fighter was the best guy in combat, or for an encounter. The thief was the best guy for traps or sneaking or going ahead. The cleric was the healing guy... and the mage was the jack of all trades (please read the old level 1 and 2 spells, like read lang, detect magic, hold portal, etc).
My issue was that 4e changed the roles to make everyone equal in combat, making the encounter the central part of the game...since it ws the level that the classes were balanced, as compared to 0D&D, which was balanced for the adventure, or AD&D, which was more balanced for the campaign (see what levels they can build keeps and such and how they attract followers).
As I mentioned before, I like that part of 4e, and think it was part of the point of changes. Have the rules define only combat, and have the actual roleplaying and utility not bound by spell names and numbers, leaving it to actually playing a role.
Then again, some people just took what is in the books (only combat) and run with ONLY it, but it's not the fault in the system, but its users, IMO.
Switching to the "what's wrong with 4E" side of this, rather than the "aren't old editions of DnD nice" side, can anyone who has actually played 4E tell me a bit about the way skills work? From what little I've read about 4E the only real negative, as opposed to just whether or not something suits my personal preference, seems to be this idea of skill challenges, which I only vaguely understand, but seems a bit weird, at least from what I've read about it.
Quote from: Kindling
Switching to the "what's wrong with 4E" side of this, rather than the "aren't old editions of DnD nice" side, can anyone who has actually played 4E tell me a bit about the way skills work? From what little I've read about 4E the only real negative, as opposed to just whether or not something suits my personal preference, seems to be this idea of skill challenges, which I only vaguely understand, but seems a bit weird, at least from what I've read about it.
Skill challenges are unusual, but I think they're one of the things 4E did quite well. What specifically do you want to know about them?
Well, I've heard (in very vague terms) that they're kind of inflexible and hard to improvise or alter. Is there any basis to this?
That is basically the opposite of how they are. (Especially if you're considering them in contrast to the sorts of mechanics from previous editions that they replace.)
The thing about skill challenges is that they are group encounters that replace things that otherwise would have been "one person rolls one skill" types of things. So when you set a situation up as a skill challenge, everybody gets to participate (i.e., we all strive against the trap, instead of standing by and watching one character roll a yes-or-no trap check, or we all contribute to surviving and finding our way through the forest rather than just derping along behind the ranger who is doing all the work). Since stuff doesn't just hinge on one roll, you can also create a sense of escalating tension.
There are typically a lot of skills that are applicable and players can improvise more if they have something that looks like it might be useful in the moment. And you have a lot of flexibility to alter their length, complexity, and difficulty by adjusting difficulties for checks, and the number of successful checks required to succeed.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
That is basically the opposite of how they are. (Especially if you're considering them in contrast to the sorts of mechanics from previous editions that they replace.)
The thing about skill challenges is that they are group encounters that replace things that otherwise would have been "one person rolls one skill" types of things. So when you set a situation up as a skill challenge, everybody gets to participate (i.e., we all strive against the trap, instead of standing by and watching one character roll a yes-or-no trap check, or we all contribute to surviving and finding our way through the forest rather than just derping along behind the ranger who is doing all the work). Since stuff doesn't just hinge on one roll, you can also create a sense of escalating tension.
There are typically a lot of skills that are applicable and players can improvise more if they have something that looks like it might be useful in the moment. And you have a lot of flexibility to alter their length, complexity, and difficulty by adjusting difficulties for checks, and the number of successful checks required to succeed.
I really liked the idea of skill challenges in D&D. It was a way to award experience without just tying it into combat AND giving all the players a way to contribute. I'm sure the work much more smoothly in 4E, but when I tried adapting it to PF it strongly favored classes with more skill points, and we struggled to make the unrelated skills of our group's fighter actively relevant in most of the challenges, which kinda sucked the immersion away from it all and made it laughable at times. With 4E's consolidated skill list and bump in skill points for each class, I think it'd be a good time.
Skill challenges were actually introduced in 3.5, though they were called by a different name (which eludes me at the time). Originally, they were about making more complex skill checks instead of just one that meant "success or failure," and made a small effort to tie in other players who want to help.
Skill challenges as written in 4e are pretty bad from what I've heard. First, the goal is to get everybody involved, but the optimal strategy is to find the guy with the best relevant skill and have him roll over and over. The fact that failures brings you closer to losing means that characters with bad skills actively hurt the party's chances of success. Setting a fixed time/round limit and not penalizing failed checks would actually encourage group participation (because at worst, participation can't hurt). Plus I've heard the math in most published versions is messed up in some way or another.
I never ended up playing 4e. Fighter dailies break it for me, powers (at least in the core, where they lost me) were too samey, self-healing and marking were badly implemented, and (as a subset of powers being "samey") summoning, illusion, necromancy, and pretty much any kind of magic I liked was nixed with the release. Likewise for some of my favorite classes (bard, barbarian, monk, necro/illusion/enchantment are my favorite character concepts) and races (mostly just gnomes).
That said, I think some of their design goals were laudable. I like the idea of making combat tactical instead of strategic*, and if anything they didn't take that far enough (there are still too many daily-based resources for it to be 100% what it could have been). I like the idea of making prep easier (3x was a nightmare). I like the idea of streamlining character generation and only using bonuses, though again there were places where things could have gone further.
And 4e's attitude towards races and such was a good fit for settings where races were actually interesting (Eberron, Dark Sun), if not for the standard fare as much. Maybe one of these days I'll do something heavily houseruled with only the unique races from each of those settings in a mashup world. Maybe it'll use some variation on some of 4e's rules.
3x has its own problems. Save and BAB progression charts were a pain (there was no easy formula or memorization, so on-the-fly stats were a no). Point-buy skills are sort of fiddly. Characters are built of many units (race and class and skills and feats and class features and prestige classes and equipment and so on).
Still, the core mechanic was a great way to BS new rules on the fly, and the feat is great as a smaller unit of customization.
*I like tactical over strategic combat because that way you don't have mages (or whole parties) going nova in the one-combat sessions I tend to run. Strategy (of the D&D variety) balances days assuming a specific number of encounters. Tactics balance encounters within themselves.
...Anyway, my solution to my issues with both systems is to continue work on my own system, where levels, Star Wars Saga-style skills, and Fallout 3 style perks are pretty much all there is, and nothing is ever daily. So far, more flexible than 3.5, more tactical than 4e, and with fun add-ons (dismemberment, political power, arcane research, etc). And I'm still building. Need to update the link in my sig and post some of my work though.
Meanwhile I still play 3.5. Until I'm done with the homebrew.
Like so much else in 4th edition, skill challenges are a good idea that promotes awesomeness at the table... that is utterly broken in actual execution.
Quote from: beejazzFirst, the goal is to get everybody involved, but the optimal strategy is to find the guy with the best relevant skill and have him roll over and over. The fact that failures brings you closer to losing means that characters with bad skills actively hurt the party's chances of success.
This.
To elaborate, when the goal is "As a group, roll N successes before you roll X failures," it means it is not optimal to even pick up the dice unless your chances of success are equal or more than (N/X) times the chances of failure. For example, if N = 2X (which is pretty standard), you shouldn't even bother rolling the dice unless your chances of success are double your chances of failure. On a d20, that means succeeding on 14/20 or more possible rolls, and failing on 6/20. If your odds are worse than this, you are hurting the group by even picking up the dice. So much for being inclusive.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Quote from: Kindling
Switching to the "what's wrong with 4E" side of this, rather than the "aren't old editions of DnD nice" side, can anyone who has actually played 4E tell me a bit about the way skills work? From what little I've read about 4E the only real negative, as opposed to just whether or not something suits my personal preference, seems to be this idea of skill challenges, which I only vaguely understand, but seems a bit weird, at least from what I've read about it.
Skill challenges are unusual, but I think they're one of the things 4E did quite well. What specifically do you want to know about them?
And I think skill challenges are among the things 4e did poorly. A skill challenge is an attempt to be formulaic about a non-combat encounter. A skill challenge might suggest I need 3 successful skill checks to accomplish a given goal. Let's say, I want to enter a secured tower and I need 3 successful skill checks to get inside. So first I visit the local inn and attempt to gain information about secret entries into the tower with a successful Gather Info check (Search), and I succeed to discover there are no known secret entrances. Next I decide to sneak up to the tower walls, while avoiding detection from the guards at the gate and top of the walls. I succeed on Stealth (that's 2 successful checks out of 3). Now I decide to attempt to climb the walls to succeed. The walls to the tower are 60' tall, and the GM determines that I need 3 successful climb checks to get there. I roll, and lo and behold, I made it up 20' - I'm not in the tower. However, I have made 3 successful checks according to the skill challenge requirements of getting in the tower (except as stated, I am not yet in the tower.)
Skill challenges as a formula is unnecessary and as shown above completely misses the mark for what it's supposed to do.
When I say, I don't play 4e, I have to qualify myself in saying that one of my players bought the 4e Gift set. So I have rolled up characters, went exploring through the books, attempted 3 different encounters with my gaming group. At the end, all of us decided - no, 4e is not for us. Nothing wrong with the game specifically, but just tries too hard to be something new, and IMO mostly falls on its face. So I have played 4e if only a short go of it, but actuation proved it isn't the game I will ever choose to play.
I'm in love with 4E, but I can also recognize that something feels distinctly different. The whole power thing really changed the feel of the game, and did make it feel like something other than D&D. Which is a shame really, because the power system was far more balanced across the board. But the biggest change of feeling was the switch from the simulationist style of 3E and the cinematic style of 4E.
Going off of Gamer Printshop's skill challenge example, that fault in your skill challenge wasn't in the challenge itself, but the way it is presented. You don't call for 3 successful climb checks to climb all 60 feet; you'd call for one if it were the final check between success and failure. Skill challenges are about abstracting portions of the game so that one failed skill doesn't derail an entire scene; they're also about codifying exploration and social encounters so that they are as involved as combat. The X before Y element, though, is bad because it discourages people from helping. It works within a combat (such as a trap in a fight) because the fight has its own timer. Outside of a fight, it should be X successes before Y rounds, so that everyone tries. Failures should be penalized (healing surges are my favorite, because they drain a resource that affects all encounters at that point), but it should be about time.
But I'm also a homebrewer and can never let a system be. I've made a host of house rules for 4E, just like I did for 3E. I couldn't ever even consider going back to 3E's lack of balance (fractional save bonuses that differ between saves? So my level 20 Fighter has no chance of succeeding a will save from a level 20 Mage ...), but I do want to tweek 4E so it feels more like D&D.
QuoteAnd I think skill challenges are among the things 4e did poorly. A skill challenge is an attempt to be formulaic about a non-combat encounter. A skill challenge might suggest I need 3 successful skill checks to accomplish a given goal. Let's say, I want to enter a secured tower and I need 3 successful skill checks to get inside. So first I visit the local inn and attempt to gain information about secret entries into the tower with a successful Gather Info check (Search), and I succeed to discover there are no known secret entrances. Next I decide to sneak up to the tower walls, while avoiding detection from the guards at the gate and top of the walls. I succeed on Stealth (that's 2 successful checks out of 3). Now I decide to attempt to climb the walls to succeed. The walls to the tower are 60' tall, and the GM determines that I need 3 successful climb checks to get there. I roll, and lo and behold, I made it up 20' - I'm not in the tower. However, I have made 3 successful checks according to the skill challenge requirements of getting in the tower (except as stated, I am not yet in the tower.)
Skill challenges as a formula is unnecessary and as shown above completely misses the mark for what it's supposed to do.
That's a pretty poor example of a skill challenge (not to mention that your example's "GM" is giving negative results for alleged die roll successes, and apparently making up new requirements on the spot). I dunno if you're deliberately choosing subpar examples to build a strawman out of or what, but I think it's weird and illogical to condemn an entire mechanic based on one example you don't like, and which you also made up.
I mean, I almost don't know why I bother with these threads anymore. Some of you guys (not you specifically, Ghostman) make it real tough to post a dissenting opinion here, which I think is quite unfortunate.
I hate that this is pretty much edition wars. I had a lot of fun with D&D 3e. I have a lot of fun with D&D 4e. I'd play 3e again, or even Pathfinder. I have a lot of fun with GURPS. I have a lot of fun with GuildSchool, too. They're all fun games and they're very different, which makes them even better.
Build your settings without the rule system (unless that's the point, like Ptolus) and run the game you want to run using the best system for what you want to accomplish. That's one of the big things I want to do with Trigalactic. Most games will use GURPS until I have fully worked out my own system for the exact complex, space opera feel that I want. For cinematic military games, I'd go with something like Star Wars Saga or D20 Modern. For games about the space marine like Loyalist Corps, I have the TriEpic system. I think that's the way it should be done.
I miss D&D 2e and I never even really played that. It just seems awesome. If anything, 3e seems like the awkward step in between 2e and 4e.
You may be happier soon, though. WotC has hired back Monte Cook, who was one of the main designers for 3e. At the same time, D&DI articles seem to be mentioning 3e in a positive way a lot lately. As always, there are rumors of 5e on the horrizon.
I think this thread could use a little bit of refocusing. I enjoy the discussion and all, but let's not let it jump rails onto why we think one edition is superior of another (I am not exempt from this, either). I say we leave it at this: to each their own! Different strokes for different folks and all that...
Anyways, back to missing 3E. In a way, yes, I do miss it. I miss flipping through the books for rules on an obscure gameplay element (I actually spent almost an hour debating how fast a person would fall with my players, and it was actually a lot of fun, oddly enough). I miss the level of complexity the rules went into... I'm tempted now to say it went a little too far, but at the time all we cared about was making sure our Fighter got that awesome artifact sword from the dread necromancer so we could cut through the dragon tyrant's invulnerability stone. I have so many fond memories in 3.0, 3.5, and PF. The faults I found in the system, even now, are almost endearing. 3E is familiar and fun - something I can pick up on the fly and run with my friends, something I can spend hours of time preparing for (which, call me a masochist, was pretty fun at times) and watch it all be gleefully dismantled by my players as they unintentionally create their own narrative (okay, I'm a masochist), and something where I can needlessly deck the players out with awesome items of my own design. It was a damn good time.
My point, and I said this earlier, is that you can really do this with any system, if you want. My fond memories certainly lie with 3E-PF, but they aren't limited to them. All it takes is some dedicated players, a good GM, and some time (preferably several hours loaded with mountain dew, beer [wine in my case], chips, snacks, and dice - call me specific).
This is actually a pretty good thread in many ways. Though as many do, it starts to meander.
Nothing comapred to the disasters I end up on in other boards. One of the reasons I love this place and call it home to all who ask.
Quote from: LCI mean, I almost don't know why I bother with these threads anymore. Some of you guys (not you specifically, Ghostman) make it real tough to post a dissenting opinion here, which I think is quite unfortunate.
The CBG is the creampuff of all RPG forums.If this place seems unfair, I don't know what to tell you. Everyone here has great affection for the words of the glowing crayola, myself high on that list. On the other hand, I an certainly as guilty as any for rough handling. As long as folks are having fun, and no one is being a hypocrite or stirring shit for the sake of stirring it, no harm. Every game system mentioned does some stuff well, and if the players are focusing their game there...then it is a win.
Looks like I'm being confused for GP here.
Out of curiosity, how is Ptolus built around its system? I never got the chance to look at Ptolus for long.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
Out of curiosity, how is Ptolus built around its system? I never got the chance to look at Ptolus for long.
I liked Ptolus. I thought it was interesting about how the entire setting was built using vanilla 3E as the scaffold, pulling the crunch into the fluff and actually doing a good job with it.
Quote from: Ghostman
Looks like I'm being confused for GP here.
Yeah, guilty. Sorry!
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteAnd I think skill challenges are among the things 4e did poorly. A skill challenge is an attempt to be formulaic about a non-combat encounter. A skill challenge might suggest I need 3 successful skill checks to accomplish a given goal. Let's say, I want to enter a secured tower and I need 3 successful skill checks to get inside. So first I visit the local inn and attempt to gain information about secret entries into the tower with a successful Gather Info check (Search), and I succeed to discover there are no known secret entrances. Next I decide to sneak up to the tower walls, while avoiding detection from the guards at the gate and top of the walls. I succeed on Stealth (that's 2 successful checks out of 3). Now I decide to attempt to climb the walls to succeed. The walls to the tower are 60' tall, and the GM determines that I need 3 successful climb checks to get there. I roll, and lo and behold, I made it up 20' - I'm not in the tower. However, I have made 3 successful checks according to the skill challenge requirements of getting in the tower (except as stated, I am not yet in the tower.)
Skill challenges as a formula is unnecessary and as shown above completely misses the mark for what it's supposed to do.
That's a pretty poor example of a skill challenge (not to mention that your example's "GM" is giving negative results for alleged die roll successes, and apparently making up new requirements on the spot). I dunno if you're deliberately choosing subpar examples to build a strawman out of or what, but I think it's weird and illogical to condemn an entire mechanic based on one example you don't like, and which you also made up.
I mean, I almost don't know why I bother with these threads anymore. Some of you guys (not you specifically, Ghostman) make it real tough to post a dissenting opinion here, which I think is quite unfortunate.
You could also just assume it's a good faith misunderstanding on the part of a guy who hasn't played the system much. As in yeah, the hypothetical is pretty wrong, but if you're used to each check corresponding to something concrete, you can see where skill challenges could confuse (in that each part does not correspond to a concrete thing... at least not to the extent of determining how far you've climbed).
I'm curious who is making it tough to post a dissenting opinion, and how. I've seen neither personal attacks nor anything particularly heated towards 4e, but that might just be that I'm used to other boards' more dramatic 100-page flamewars on he subject.
Me, I'm just picking system nits mostly, and I do the same with my favorite games too. I'm into the crunch, and like tinkering with the engines of games.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
QuoteAnd I think skill challenges are among the things 4e did poorly. A skill challenge is an attempt to be formulaic about a non-combat encounter. A skill challenge might suggest I need 3 successful skill checks to accomplish a given goal. Let's say, I want to enter a secured tower and I need 3 successful skill checks to get inside. So first I visit the local inn and attempt to gain information about secret entries into the tower with a successful Gather Info check (Search), and I succeed to discover there are no known secret entrances. Next I decide to sneak up to the tower walls, while avoiding detection from the guards at the gate and top of the walls. I succeed on Stealth (that's 2 successful checks out of 3). Now I decide to attempt to climb the walls to succeed. The walls to the tower are 60' tall, and the GM determines that I need 3 successful climb checks to get there. I roll, and lo and behold, I made it up 20' - I'm not in the tower. However, I have made 3 successful checks according to the skill challenge requirements of getting in the tower (except as stated, I am not yet in the tower.)
Skill challenges as a formula is unnecessary and as shown above completely misses the mark for what it's supposed to do.
That's a pretty poor example of a skill challenge (not to mention that your example's "GM" is giving negative results for alleged die roll successes, and apparently making up new requirements on the spot). I dunno if you're deliberately choosing subpar examples to build a strawman out of or what, but I think it's weird and illogical to condemn an entire mechanic based on one example you don't like, and which you also made up.
I mean, I almost don't know why I bother with these threads anymore. Some of you guys (not you specifically, Ghostman) make it real tough to post a dissenting opinion here, which I think is quite unfortunate.
Perhaps its a bad example, but I've seen something pretty similar to this at my LGS, that a 4e group was running and I watched. My point was being formulaic with x number of successful checks to defeat a non-combat encounter doesn't seem work within the creativity of a given adventuring party. With creative thinking, a single success or a dozen checks may be what's needed, because an adventuring party is never consistent in figuring out a problem. Sometimes they don't get it at all, but sometimes they see an opportunity, I as the GM never thought of and they figure it out right away.
Defeating a non-combat encounter, IMO, can't fit within a single formula for success. Its completely up to the creativity of the group, with what skills they have and what ideas they come up with. Not an x number of checks to win - that doesn't work at all with our group, so I can't see the practicality of the mechanic.
And regarding the negative results off a positive check, occurred because according to the GM of that encounter, there were no secret doors and that is what the player was trying to discover with his skill check. Again, I wasn't running this game, I was just observing. I was trying to give 4e a chance, and from what I've seen and played with - I didn't care for the game at all. Perhaps I watched a poor GM and poor 4e group, I can't say - it's what I saw. This wasn't a hypothetical example - this was my memory of an actual skill challenge in play.
In the end, I have nothing against the game system 4e, and believe that many can find this game the perfect fit for their needs. It doesn't fit what I need, but that's OK, because I have Pathfinder RPG which fills my need substantially. I don't need nor want balanced classes across the board - and it never seemed a problem, our group of six players only ever has 1 arcane spellcaster on average, so the recognized over-powered-ness of the wizard hasn't compelled all our players to want to be one. I prefer martial class characters almost exclusively - it's the niche I like best. Right now, in our PF game, I am not the GM, and am running a Magus. And even though arcane spell casting is a part of that class's capability, it's rather weak. I am 6th level and only have access to 1st level spells. I won't get access to any 2nd level spells until I'm 7th level.
I didn't mean to come off as a 4e basher, I was only bringing my experience of 4e as I've seen it, to this thread.
I think I need to look into Pathfinder...
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I think I need to look into Pathfinder...
Well then look at
d20pfsrd.com (http://www.d20pfsrd.com) - it's most of the PF rules online (missing are stuff from Ultimate Combat like Ninja, Gunslinger, Samurai, some feats and weapons and vehicle rules). Otherwise look at the PRD on Paizo.com
This way you can try it out, play around, before having to spend any money on PF books. When you do (if you do), you'll want the PF Core and the Advanced Players Guide, but the two ultimate books: Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are worth looking at, though UC less so. Bestiary 1 for sure, and other Bestiaries as may fit your needs. There's tons of adventures and AP's (adventure paths - kind of like campaigns), but more likely those will be unnecessary - since we here create our own worlds, published adventures are less than necessary for us. The Bestiary teaches you how PF allows you to create custom monsters better than 3x did.
Dude, that's the an awesome link. 1,000,000 points to you.
Quote from: Superfluous CrowOut of curiosity, how is Ptolus built around its system? I never got the chance to look at Ptolus for long.
3e had a lot of rules for cities of a certain size should have x mages and y clerics and you should be able to easily get access to magic items of level z. These rules, when closely examined, called for a world with an obscene amount of magic and people didn't actually follow them all that much. Well, Ptolus does. The design philosophy of Ptolus is that those rules were canon and the story was built around them. Since the guy who designed it - Monte Cook - also helped write those rules, it was amusing and seems to have worked fairly well.
From LC's description skill challenges look pretty cool, actually. Even with the negative opinions from others, I might try implementing something similar in my game - maybe not to resolve all non-combat challenges, but I can think of certain situations where it would be a great way of adding tension - the very thing others were complaining about, in that those with worse ranks in the relevant skill actually hurt the overall chance of success by trying, would do this perfectly, I think.
Imagine, for example, Our Heroes are travelling by ship across the ocean when their craft is assaulted by a magical storm conjured by their sorcerous nemesis. It's all hands on deck to try to get the ship to safety, but only two out of the five characters are veteran sailors. Can they score enough successes before the other three inevitably screw things up?
Tension! Excitement! Ahhh!
Obviously, as I said, I wouldn't use this for everything, but in that specific kind of situation, I think it would be a very fun mechanic.
Skill challenges are great to gloss over travel like that example or traveling across Athas or something. GP's example would be someone using it entirely wrong or just not understanding how it's meant to work. Personally, I wouldn't use one in that situation at all...of course, I wouldn't use them much at all.
I think they are good for "non-sequential" challenges; e.g. the castle example wouldn't really work because there is a particular order the things have to be done in. You can't look for information after you have already crossed the wall. On the other hand, looking for information would be a great skill challenge. The thief sneaks into the archive, the bard befriends the castle guard while he's off-duty, the wizard researches the history of the castle, etc.
If the skill challenge doesn't cover all avenues the players might take, it is either badly designed or the GM should be ready to adapt it on the spot. They weren't designed to be formulaic as much as they were designed to represent a multi-part problem in an abstract way.
(this is about the idea of skill challenges in general, not any specific rules incarnation of them)
That's not a bad one, either. They can be good for things where the PCs would otherwise split up like that.
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I haven't read this whole post, and I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but 4E justed seems like WoW to me, it focuses more on the Game than the Roleplaying.
There's a very good reason for this. Having created more than a few video game and MMO prototypes (which incidentally, are usually creations of cards paper and dice in the beginning) I can safely say that 4e plays EXACTLY like a prototype for a MMO. These prototypes are used to help the design team figure out which game mechanics work and which don't as well as help balance things out. It's far easier and less time consuming to write up a scenario, roll some dice, see how the powers work, and scribble in some changes or notes all in a tabletop setting than it is to program those mechanics, art, characters etc.
The old school D&D player in me is a little saddened that someone spilled MMO all over 4e, but it does give me some exciting ideas for things I want to start prototyping, and here WotC has created a system that works perfectly, all I need do is adapt my setting to it and I've got a good working prototype ready to work with.