CTaylor Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Man Kdansky really wants people to shut up if they have the slightest criticism of the 4th edition rules. You work at WOTC or something? This seems personal for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Man Kdansky really wants people to shut up if they have the slightest criticism of the 4th edition rules. You work at WOTC or something? This seems personal for you.Sometimes folks buy into an idea, product or whatever and take a personal stake in it. Not saying that is the case here, but it doesn't bother me that Kdansky feels strongly about it. Hell, even if he is a Wizards shill, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes it is nice to see people stand up for what is important to them. My problem comes when "standing up" means putting others down. So far, I haven't seen that. Seen some frustration and a tiny bit of dismissiveness, but nothing outright rude yet. Hope it stays that way. I personally see lots of room for discussion about D&D 4th. I just wonder if it should be moved out of Fantasy HERO and into General Role-Playing. There is an existing thread there already that we can use. In fact, the two threads seem to mirror each other a great deal. My $0.02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdansky Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Haha, no, I'm about as far from WTC as it can get (I hate the moneyprinting MTG-machine, I do not prefer any D&D game). And I'm always dismissive against anyone, that's just my very sarcastic/annoying/evil style of writing. I usually root for the underdog too (in this case, 4th). The things that keeps me going: The 3rd>4th crowd does not really have arguments. They have prejudice (lots of it), misconceptions (even more of it) and blatant belief (don't get me started). Yes, some things are totally true: The classes are very cookie-cutter, and there isn't much variation. But then, 3rd with only base php did not have much more. It's like comparing 5ER to the complete "Ultimate" series and argueing that 5ER lacks examples. True, but irrelevant. But most things I read about 4th could be dismissed with a single look at the rules: "Too simple"? Simple means easy to play, and rolling some dice, adding modifiers and comparing to a target number isn't that unusual. In fact, 4th adds the Any Stat vs Any Defense concept, something very clever. "Like a PC-Game"? 4th is still down to earth pen&paper. I can't click buttons. Wow is quite different (I play that too...). And about "Controller, Tank, Hitter" and however the NPC-archetypes are called: This is GREAT! Planning fights as a 3rd GM was horrible (prepared spell lists?), anything to make that easier! So to summarize: I argue against misinformed people. Please go read the rules (I'm sure there are scans online somewhere if you don't care about the paper, but let me tell you: the books look very good (a bit corny, a bit campy, but generally good art)) before you judge. Or rather: Go please read the rules, I would like to have a well-funded discussion and anlysis on what's good, what's bad, and what's ugly in 4th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTaylor Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Sometimes folks buy into an idea, product or whatever and take a personal stake in it. Yeah that seems to happen a lot on the internet. One of the cardinal rules of debate is don't take it personally when someone disagrees with you. The 3rd>4th crowd does not really have arguments. Other than the ones given by people all over the internet. I did read the rules, and the information given for free by WOTC, and the characters, and tinkered around with them. One more time: presuming ignorance in people you disagree with diminishes your argument and their respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th The things that keeps me going: The 3rd>4th crowd does not really have arguments. Certainly they do. For a particular kind of playstyle, 3rd is much much better than 4th. 4th is very gamist, and has roleplaying as a part of play, but not part of the rules. 3.x was very simulationist and had a vastly different approach to gaming. Neither on is better, they are just different. Someone quoted on some board (and I'm paraphrashing to boot): In 3rd the rules supported world building over gaming. If a rule and how the world worked came into conflict, the rule was houseruled or handwaved away. In 4th the rules support playing the game over world building. If a rule and how the world works comes into conflict, the world aspect is houserules or handwaved away. As for myself - I finally realized that there were two reasons I didn't want to play D&D 3.x. 1 - it too far too much time to prepare adventures and GM. And as I played the game, my wife didn't have the time necessary to build adventures specifically for me. We used published material. When that started not to work out, we stopped playing. 2 - I have a rules details intensive system that is great for simulation - HERO. I don't need D&D to be that rules set (although I have (and still am) incorporating a lot of stuff from D&D games in my Fantasy Hero. For playing D&D, 4th is much easier and much less time intensive to GM. The wife can pull out a modules, I can run some characters through the modules and have a blast. Both in the game, and in roleplaying. And in tinkering with characters and system. And as it has a clearly intended gamist approach what I take from the game is different than what I get from Hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Yeah that seems to happen a lot on the internet. One of the cardinal rules of debate is don't take it personally when someone disagrees with you. Absolutlye - and not just on the internet. Ford vs Chevy Xbox vs Playstation Harcore vs Casual Video GAmers Mac vs PC Sports Rivalries Gurps vs Hero M&M vs Champions It's a part of human nature. A bad part. Too many people put to much of their self definition over what products they buy or brands they follow. They keep having to justify "Hey the decision I made is the right one, so it mut be right for everyone" rather than thinking "Hey the decision I made was right, for Me." I'll get into discussion like these to give information, correct mis-information, or to explain why a particular decision works for me. Doesn't mean any of those reasons work for someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phookz Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Absolutlye - and not just on the internet. Ford vs Chevy Xbox vs Playstation Harcore vs Casual Video GAmers Mac vs PC Sports Rivalries Gurps vs Hero M&M vs Champions You forgot HP vs TI Emacs vs vi and the granddaddy of them all "Tastes Great" vs "Less Filling" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th You forgot HP vs TI Emacs vs vi and the granddaddy of them all "Tastes Great" vs "Less Filling" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susano Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Absolutlye - and not just on the internet. Ford vs Chevy Xbox vs Playstation Harcore vs Casual Video GAmers Mac vs PC Sports Rivalries Gurps vs Hero M&M vs Champions No, no, no, the real question is -- do you open a 4th Edition Campaign from the large end, or the small end of the egg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer Adamantium vs. Lightsaber Katana vs. Rapier (one martial art) vs. (any other martial art) PHP vs. Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java Console games vs. computer games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susano Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer Adamantium vs. Lightsaber Katana vs. Rapier (one martial art) vs. (any other martial art) PHP vs. Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java Console games vs. computer games Red versus Blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdansky Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Ford vs Chevy - Volkswagen Xbox vs Playstation - Wii Harcore vs Casual Video GAmers - Hardcore Mac vs PC - Mac (can run windows too, looks better) Sports Rivalries - Err.. sports... I guess Switzerland hurray? Gurps vs Hero - HERO M&M vs Champions - Champions HP vs TI - TI Emacs vs vi - Eclipse Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer - Executor all the way Adamantium vs. Lightsaber - Lightsaber Katana vs. Rapier - Katana (one martial art) vs. (any other martial art) - one martial art PHP vs. Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java - Python Console games vs. computer games - PC Games Pirates vs Ninja - Ninja Did I get all of them? Seriously though: I think 4th just is a good system. Sure, some things it does badly, but people dismiss it way too much. I never liked 3.5 much. HERO also has it's flaws (figureds, suppress vs drain, ...), but it's good things (the options! oh the options!) outclass them by far. Now, if anyone would really write down something deep about what 4th did wrong (No, "it feels like a PC game" is not deep, that is as unclear as it can get), I would like to read that. I might even agree, you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teh bunneh Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Certainly they do. For a particular kind of playstyle' date=' 3rd is much much better than 4th. 4th is very gamist, and has roleplaying as a part of play, but not part of the rules. 3.x was very simulationist and had a vastly different approach to gaming. Neither on is better, they are just different.[/quote'] I would quibble with that, to a certain degree. 4th is definitely Gamist, and I think they did that deliberately as a design choice. I think the whole system (read it, haven't played it, so take my analysis with a grain of salt) is built around that philosophy -- which is a strength IMHO. The game knows what it wants to be, and does what it wants to do. What it does is somewhat limited, but within those perimeters it seems like a very solid and playable system. 3.x suffered a bit too much from "trying to be all things" syndrome. They tried to make a Simulationist game, but they wedded it to a strictly Gamist engine. I think that's where 3.x fell down -- they didn't really know what kind of gaming experience they were shooting for, so they consistantly missed the mark. I hope that future developers keep these things in mind when they produce further supplements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th I hope that future developers keep these things in mind when they produce further supplements. Fair points, and agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayapuppies Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th 3.x suffered a bit too much from "trying to be all things" syndrome. They tried to make a Simulationist game' date=' but they wedded it to a strictly Gamist engine. I think that's where 3.x fell down -- they didn't really know what kind of gaming experience they were shooting for, so they consistantly missed the mark. [/quote'] This is what I've been telling the 3.x crowd around here for years. They just didn't "get it" and called me a hater. LOL Of course I worded it differently, which may have been the problem. "3.x is a lie, they say it's an RPG but they focus on combat only, they should just call it what it is and quit trying to pretend this is an RPG." Hmmm, yeah, come to think about it, perhaps it was my wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorDRod Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th "3.x is a lie, they say it's an RPG but they focus on combat only, they should just call it what it is and quit trying to pretend this is an RPG." Hmmm, yeah, come to think about it, perhaps it was my wording. Yeah, but now you can replace "3.x" with "4.0" and you're golden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTaylor Posted June 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Sure, I consider 3.x an inferior game to Hero, but it was a big upgrade to previous editions. And it still was a role playing game, as I see it. Some of the things they did with 4 are great ideas too, upgrades, but they abandoned too much of the good parts and focused far too much on combat at the almost entire expense of role playing. In essence, it was designed by people who think Legend of Zelda or Might and Magic are role playing games because you play character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayapuppies Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Wait, they're not? but on the package it says they are. You mean they lied!? Oh gods! Yeah, for a while there I had to ask people; "Wait, when you say you play RPG's do you mean Pen and Paper or computer? Cuz, they ain't remotely close to the same thing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdansky Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Actually 4th has this great thing called Skill Challenge, which the DMG fails at demonstrating how awesome it is. Basically, it's like Complementary Skill rolls with teamwork. So nothing new to us By the way: Chatty DM has some pretty good reviews on 4th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Archeville Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Anyone have any idea why the lamia was so radically changed? In all prior editions, lamias (lamiae? lamiai?) were centaur-esque lion-women whose touch drained Wisdom and had a few innate magical abilities (mostly illusionary). They were wholly chaotic and evil, living mostly in deserts and eating any hapless folk who got too near. In 4E, lamias are swarms of insects that devour people -- especially eladrin ("high elves") -- from the inside out and use their skin to disguise themselves as the devoured. They favor eladrin because (I believe) they can only reproduce inside one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Re: D&D 4th I know! I know! Because the authors loved the Mummy movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susano Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Re: D&D 4th I know! I know! Because the authors loved the Mummy movies. Either that or they didn't want their artists drawing hawt half-nekkid animal wimmenz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTaylor Posted July 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Re: D&D 4th Well its a cool concept for a creature, but it doesn't seem to simulate the original monster Lamia from legend very well. Lamia in the Greek myths (the original source) was half serpent, half beautiful woman (so the Lamia Noble in the Fiend Folio is closer to the mythology). The legend goes like this: Zeus was out looking for hot women and ran across Lamia, the daughter of Libya and Belus (or Poseidon, depending on who tells the story) and then queen of Libya. After a torrid affair, Hera found out and cursed Lamia so that she'd eat her young, principally because the young of these liasons usually ended up being heroic and beloved which didn't sit well with the jealous goddess. Lamia ate her children then went insane and horribly developed a taste for all children. She could not close her eyes according to some versions, and Zeus gave her the gift of prophecy to make up for her horrible existence, and through some process she became a monster with a serpent's tail in place of legs. Some legends connect her with Scylla (one of the ship destroying monsters with Charybdis), possibly one of her children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Re: D&D 4th You mean, read the classics? ARE YOU CRAZY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.