next »

[John Lee]

I think a lot of good point in this thread have been made, and I don't really have anything new to say about 3E or 4E, but my two cents is-

And that was as far as I got before the sensible part of my brain throttled my neurons and told me to shut the fuck up.

I WILL say, though, that I like 3E and 4E for different reasons.

Castle's point about commercialization and begging for more money would be a concern, but it was implied by WotC that the whole reason they're coming out with 5E is the vocal dislike of 4E, and they're asking for loud and clear player input on what 5E should be like. It's similar to the situation with Vista/Windows 7; "Will you people shut up already? Fine, we'll make a new one that you'll be happier with." I'm not certain how successful it will be, but we'll see.

I still play 3.5 and 4, along with GURPS. And numerous minor systems, like MAID RPG.

...What? I like the concept of a game made almost entirely of random tables.

Of course, anybody who's unhappy can just play Dungeons the Dragoning and be done with it.

[SirNiko]

It's scary because I've actually played Maid RPG. We made it halfway through the first adventure and all had to quit because it was getting really creepy.

Before I continue any further, though, I have to ask: Have you played Pathfinders?

Because Pathfinders is widely agreed upon by savvy nerds as the "best" version of D&D out there. It's somewhere between 3e and 4e without being either. It doesn't have the sameness of characters that 4e has because of the at-will, encounter, daily system and it bypasses a lot of the cluttered horse-shit that 3e has, which was a negative you touched upon in your post.

I've never played Pathfinder, but I have a couple of friends who swear by it. 4e is the most recent "rulesy" game I've gotten, since I generally dislike stat-heavy RPGs. Lately I've gotten into a folksy feeling where I've been playing games with a lot less mechanical character building, like The Window and Risus (And Mafia games where we make up characters before we divvy out roles). I've heard Pathfinder has broken the Spellcaster Shenanigans that was the major failing point of 3e, which is good. I don't think I'll be getting into it, though. I find myself running more games than I get to play because I'm just that kind of guy.

Well, I take that back. I've played a couple of Mutants and Masterminds games on forums lately, and that's a bit on the crunchy side.

Rather than "Fixing" 4e with 5e, WotC could always make 5e be a new game that just caters to the players who felt left out by 4e. Maybe de-emphasize the combat and instead make it much more about character building. The only dilemma I see with that is that fluffy games don't sell as many splatbooks as crunchy games. It also does risk alienating players who may find their favorite groups want to stick to 4e, or convert to 5e against their will.

If you get a good tabletop group, though, you can make any RPG fun. Then it's actually fun to get some obscure PNP games just to try them out.

[Castle]

I've never played 4e or WoW, but I understand enough to know it's silly when people decry 4e's biggest sin as being 'like WoW', and pointing to the class stratifications.  First off, WoW, like almost every MMO, took the idea of a class system from D&D.  

Second, you can't say "they made all the classes blur together because they all have special abilities in combat" and then also say "they made the classes each have dumb MMO-styled roles like DPS, tank, healer", and have them both be proof of the game being bad.  

As for 4e's non-focus on roleplay (arguably the most important thing), that comes down to the table you're at, and the GM you're with.

sigh okay I hate to do this but you're wrong about like

everything, pretty much

1) if you've never played WoW of 4e you can't say you understand. That's like saying oh I've never taken an economics course but let me argue with you about it because I have pedestrian knowledge on the subject. You're just gonna end up lookin' a fool. I won't bother going into detail WHY they're similar, I'll just mention that 4e was heavily influenced by trying to "beat WoW" and they both suffer from the same downfalls. If you really are interested in understanding why instead of being a naysayer for nays saying sake, you might want to play them, or at the very least, read up on forums and stuff and get views of actual players who actually understand what they're talking about.

2) I can, actually, because of the roles available, every class blurs into the next. It sucks a fat dick that a warlock and druid are functionally equivalent. Oh one has a push 3 spell one has a pull 3 spell how UNIQUE. (that was sarcasm). What I said wasn't two sides of the same argument, it was two separate factoids that, when combined, make up one whole argument. Again, I think if you actually had knowledge of 4e from playing it instead of blanket assumptions, you'd have been able to pick up on that.

A good RPG actually has differences between the Roles that the Players have in the Game. When two glasses of the same role are the same, it's boring and no one gives a shit.

3) Yeah, the table you're at is totally important for roleplay. That doesn't mean 4e is magically immune to criticism that it lessens roleplay potential. By having all the classes be generic and similar with no real distinctions (see #2), there's no real feel of importance for your character. In WoW, there is a similar problem, which has grown over the course of its history. All the tank classes play basically the same, all the DPS classes play basically the same, all the healers play basically the same. Your character has abso-fuckin-lutely no personality or uniqueness. Everyone is the same, so you don't immerse yourself and it's boring.

I hope I didn't come off as aggressive, since I can see you honestly care about what you're talking about. I just think that your lack of personal experience in the issue makes you unable to accurately make judgements on the system. You're entitled to your opinions, everyone is, but facts and evidence and experience are very important.

[Alevice]

class!=role
/pedantic

[Castle]

I dunno about you, but my identity as a player is defined by my class

if I wanna be a druid cause I like nature shit, but there's no functional difference between me and a lock who likes demonic arcane shit, then I derive no satisfaction out of being a druid

but yes class!=role. not directly

maybe class+flavor=role

or (class+flavor)*skill/player personality = role

it's still a factor

[Alevice]

Using your example, if there is a mob of trolls burning the forest, while the Druid might find this like a horrble tragedy, the Warlock would likely endorse it. And that's only going by the archetypes.

In a single party, a druid might be a rigid ass that believes every single living thing is maginificent and might ven get in the way of the party because he can't even endorse slaying a murderer or a wild beast, whereas another might be more goal oriented and belives the sacrifice of a few might be worth the salvation of an entire ecosystem, and even yet another is a fantasy hippy.

A role is not defined by a skillset/stat progression, but rather asto how such indvidual eacts to the world.

[The Monster King]

i like some parts of 3e and some parts of 4e but I agree that classes in 4e are all the same, the only ones that are vaguely different are the non-monk psionic (those that have psionic augments) and even then its pretty much the same thing

3e felt less
i dunno
less everything-is-the-same

but it also felt like some things were cool and some werent I guess (yes wizards are cool and fighters are boring okay i have the same argument as everyone)
surprisingly (this is sarcasm) I really liked the monsters in 3e

4e not so much because every monster had about 6 different versions for each tier of player characters

[agersant]

I didn't know D&D editions were such a big fuss. I played a lot of AD&D as a kid and a bit of D&D 3e when it came out but that's about it. I probably will not play 5e either, I'm having way too much fun with games that have less rules, less combat and more roleplaying.

I rarely hear about RPGs written in English that are not very rule intensive, do they exist ? In my country (France) most games consist of one single book which spends at least as many pages describing the game world as the game rules. And most start with "feel free to ignore/skip rules" disclaimers.

[The Monster King]

i have to point out that most RPG games I have DMed myself have been either very light on the rules or board game-y and self made. I hate using more than once die forever, checking how many successes you have in white wolf is tedious. fucking weird colored dice.

i did this thing where people had to choose some sort of RPS action with different stats and how much "stamina" they were betting on it. it was okay! NO DICE NO RANDOM RANDOM IS FOR WIMPS FUCK RANDOM (random RESULTS anyway, not situations, those are okay)

[Zest]

I didn't know D&D editions were such a big fuss. I played a lot of AD&D as a kid and a bit of D&D 3e when it came out but that's about it. I probably will not play 5e either, I'm having way too much fun with games that have less rules, less combat and more roleplaying.

I rarely hear about RPGs written in English that are not very rule intensive, do they exist ? In my country (France) most games consist of one single book which spends at least as many pages describing the game world as the game rules. And most start with "feel free to ignore/skip rules" disclaimers.

The editions of D&D do play a bit differently, at least to us American gamers. D&D grew out of the rules-heavy wargames, so that's part of the reason that the gamebooks are so elaborate. AS far as English rules-light games, I ran and completed an awesome campaign for Lady Blackbird. It's system is dead simple to learn, and heavily encourages roleplaying which makes the game way more fun. My group's actually going to be using a modified version of the system for a Legend of Zelda-themed RPG this semester, and there also hacks for the LB system for secret agents and even Jedi Knights.

[Alevice]

I wanna play Paranoia and Don't Rest Your Head one of these days.

[agersant]

@Alevice, @Theo > Thanks for your answers, it's good to know ! I'll look into Lady Blackbird too.

[The Monster King]

I wanna play Paranoia and Don't Rest Your Head one of these days.

If this wasnt the internet I'd DM the shit out of a Paranoia game for you and other cool peeps.

though i probably could anyway but BLEEH effort

[Alevice]

Do it motherfucker

[SirNiko]

I'm not following how people feel classes (Or roles) in WoW or 4e D&D are "The same". I do understand how you can feel they are superficially the same (Eg, everyone has inherent magical powers to summon flames) but mechanically they seem pretty varied.

In World of Warcraft, each class enjoys some unique mechanical design. For example, Warriors get a "Rage" meter that fills up during combat to fuel attacks. It drains over time, so the warrior not only has to refill it after using an attack, but has to keep up with the rate of loss to ensure they have enough rage to fuel situation attacks as they arise.

Warlocks have spells that rely on Soul Crystals they collect by using a specific spell on a wounded foe to "steal" its soul. In long dungeons, this requires the party to fight in a way to provide the warlock with a steady stream of wounded foes to fuel his deadliest attacks. The warlock also uses health in place of magic at high levels, meaning that unlike a wizard the warlock can kill himself by using too much magic too fast.

Paladin get a set of "Aura" skills that are permanent and passive, but only one is active at a time. During combat the paladin needs to pay attention and ensure he has the best aura up for the situation. He also applies seals to foes that give the foe a unique debuff. Stripping the seal before it expires yields a bonus effect, challenging the paladin to balance maintaining a seal for the base effect and stripping it for the bonus effects.

These are just some examples.

4e does suffer because it has far more classes, and therefore classes that fall in similar roles do have a lot of very nearly identical abilities (Although WotC seems to have put a lot of effort into making the powers slightly different).

Roles themselves are pretty varied. Defender types get Mark abilities that require them to pick out dangerous targets and try to force them to attack a preferred target (Usually the defender). In 4e this is especially challenging because unlike a computer game such as WoW, the targeted monster still has a choice - if the Defender becomes a much too unappealing target the DM may simply choose to attack somebody else anyway.

Controllers get a bevy of attacks to debuff or move targets to better suit the position of the party. Their goal in a combat is to limit the ability of dangerous foes to function, or move appealing targets into positions where their allies can deal maximum damage.

Leaders employ personal auras and have a number of buffs they can apply to allies. Their abilities make them ideal to decide the direction of combat, since other players will want to remain close and use their buffs wisely to take out the high danger targets.

The differences between classes with similar roles is a little weaker, I admit. Fighters (A defender class) have their Fighter's Challenge, which is close range and gives them attacks of opportunity against the foe, which is moderately different than the Paladin (Another defender class) who gets a ranged mark that doesn't offer opportunity attacks, but does deal damage if the foe tries to ignore the mark.

Wizards vary from Sorcerers in that a Wizard gets dual-purpose Daily spells that force the wizard to choose one daily or the other. Sorcerers have fewer spells but never have to sacrifice one spell to use another.

Everyone uses the same At-Will/Encounter/Daily system, but really that seems to me the same as complaining that all RPGs are the same because they all use the same seven dice.

And then this ignores things like Skill Trees in WoW, or Power Selection, Feats and Epic Destinies in D&D that allow you another level of personalization to your character.

What about 3.5 did you feel offered more class variety, or what would you do to 4e to try and introduce more variety to the classes?