Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e  (Read 26916 times)

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2010, 02:11:10 pm »

If I had to describe 4e in one word, in contrast with pre-4e, it would be: Streamlined. Not sure WHAT exactly it described, but pretty much sums it in my mind.

Yes, MMORPGs are streamlined too.

They don't leave much room for ambiguity. They also normally don't provide rules for roleplaying. They generally are real-time, which is where most of their simplicity comes from. Also, the computer does most things for you, you just have to check which attacks have "cooled down" or something. Not much strategy in them, in the boardgame sense - usually combat is reduced to "damage over time" and judicious hotkey pressing, and even if they allow for more tactics (like targeting AoE effects properly) this is somewhat restricted because of the real-timeness.

IMO, none of this applies to 4e. In fact, having several attacks for every class that you sort of have to figure out the best way to use them by attacking from behind, pushing baddies around, force them to attack the tank by PUNISHING them for not doing so (unlike computer NPCs which are simply "aggroed", which merely detracts from the game by pointing out their lack of free will) etc.

I don't actually play 4e, haven't even played 3.x, but I've read the rules. The only thing I see that differences them is that 3.5 and below are messy, lots of rules are afterthoughts (usually broken) tacked on to the hit-roll d20 mechanic.

I like systems that are streamlined.

There's also this strange sentiment amongst "true roleplayers" that having non-ambiguous, well written rules prevents them from ignoring them or making up house rules on the spot, unlike having bad, messy rules I guess which pretty much forces you to ignore them or make up house rules on the spot.

they changed the nice game into a bloody CRPG framework on paper. "abilities", mana(And yes, I know mana was in 3.5 too, as a variant rule)

Mana? That's odd. I was pretty sure 4e used "once per day" and "once per encounter" and "at-will" abilities. At least two of those were always the default method in pre-4. Even "encounter" abilities don't look similar to mana at all.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:18:25 pm by Sergius »
Logged

ductape

  • Bay Watcher
  • MAD BOMBER
    • View Profile
    • Alchemy WebDev
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2010, 02:18:59 pm »

I have always been the DM in my groups, though I really enjoy playing. I haven't played 4e yet but I have played all the rest of the versions back to the box set when I was a wee tyke. Heres what I have to say.

It's totally the group, not the rules. That being said, I don't make a lot of house rules either. What I do with every group is say, "I am the game master, I can override any roll whatsoever for any reason at any time. NO questioning my divine powers allowed. I only ask the you fully trust me, I am here to make the game fun for everyone. In return for your trust, I promise to tell good stories with you and do whatever I can to make these sessions worth our time and engaging."

I am also horrible with rules and I quickly break down players who like to look things up. Rules are good fr computer games. Tabletop I prefer free-form, it goes faster and we do more and have more fun.

Thats all it takes.

One house rule i make is sometimes i just find the most simple mechanic in the game and use it for almost every abstract action a player might think to use. Throw an orc over a bridge? roll to hit/grab. If success then you make opposed strength rolls to overpower. Whoever wins decides who gets to throw who. I tell whatever colorful story based on the rolls to make it fun.

Theres no right or wrong way to play an RPG, some groups like to pour over rules and be very combat/tactics oriented, other like story telling more. My groups are usually a mix, mostly clever gaming with combat being deadly (to be avoided when possible) and not too much IC "LARP" style chatter on the table.
Logged
I got nothing

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2010, 02:23:33 pm »

That's how the most recent edition of 4th ed has been described to me. Players require specific gear in order to advance up their class scheme. They make wishlists for the gear they want. The DM's guide (or its equivalent) recommends giving them x pieces of treasure off their wishlist per adventure. You can see it sort of like Badges of Justice (or whatever they're called now) in WoW.

It suggests something like that, but it's nowhere near necessary.  I'll admit when I read that the first time I made a >:/ face, but if you know that the book says one thing, why would you say something completely different?  The loot tokens thing only bears a passing resemblance to what it actually says, so why would you make that up as your complaint?
Logged
Shoes...

TwilightWalker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Oops.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2010, 02:27:45 pm »

That's how the most recent edition of 4th ed has been described to me. Players require specific gear in order to advance up their class scheme. They make wishlists for the gear they want. The DM's guide (or its equivalent) recommends giving them x pieces of treasure off their wishlist per adventure. You can see it sort of like Badges of Justice (or whatever they're called now) in WoW.

It suggests something like that, but it's nowhere near necessary.  I'll admit when I read that the first time I made a >:/ face, but if you know that the book says one thing, why would you say something completely different?  The loot tokens thing only bears a passing resemblance to what it actually says, so why would you make that up as your complaint?

That too, I believe is catered towards the LFR 'campaign' setting. Even as a player, I think it's rather gamey and silly. But it's just a recommendation, which is why I'm glad our DM doesn't use it. Makes everything more more exciting when we're waiting for what shinies he's gonna give us, wondering what they're gonna be, instead of just waiting for our rotation on the loot list.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2010, 02:34:09 pm »

For me, those well-codified systems are the reason we can free-style on a moment's notice now, because we found systems and gaming philosophies to structure the rules we came up with.

And like I said, if I'm playing a rule system that makes me want to re-work half of it to feel comfortable, I probably shouldn't be playing that system to begin with.

I play with a lot of "gamers." Not necessarily hardcore, likes to make 3 minute character speeches, roleplayers. They like having rules they understand and they can work through. Nothing makes that harder than when we all don't agree with the rule set and they have to constantly check with the DM for clarification. We actually do this already with a few homebrewed games, where the rules are....inconsistent. It's fun, as one type of gaming. But everyone likes a system they understand and can game to some degreer. So I believe in finding a rule system that mechanically agrees with what you like in most places, and then tweak it. There are very few things that work for me with 4th ed. The open-ended nature of the power scale, to me, is a big detractor. The overemphasis on combat mechanics. The exceedingly computer RPG way of viewing classes and class design. Half of the game is something I would change so....I go looking for other systems to adapt rather than having a binder addendum to the ruleset I wrote.

The argument of "it's the group not the rules" also asks "why do you play 4.5 instead of a rules-less system or one that you created?" I would guess it's because the rules frame the game in a way you enjoy. 

That's how the most recent edition of 4th ed has been described to me. Players require specific gear in order to advance up their class scheme. They make wishlists for the gear they want. The DM's guide (or its equivalent) recommends giving them x pieces of treasure off their wishlist per adventure. You can see it sort of like Badges of Justice (or whatever they're called now) in WoW.

It suggests something like that, but it's nowhere near necessary.  I'll admit when I read that the first time I made a >:/ face, but if you know that the book says one thing, why would you say something completely different?  The loot tokens thing only bears a passing resemblance to what it actually says, so why would you make that up as your complaint?

I'm just going on what my friends have said about it from reading through it. And since it basically suggests it, I don't think I'm making much up. You can, essentially, let players pick their loot and each fight is just a token gaining them access to the things they want, rather than presenting them with choices they don't have complete control over.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:41:27 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2010, 02:40:59 pm »

Role playing games is supposed to be about having fun. Saying that "house rules ruins game forever" makes no sense, because if house rules make YOUR game more fun, then it is a success! It may not be a success in the part of the publisher, but it definitely is a success in the part of the players.

Rules are there to provide common ground for everyone. They're supposed to allow to to know what to expect from a certain action. If a game gives me the option to raise a "hit with sword" skill and a "shoot with magic wand" skill, it's because it wants to allow me to define what my character is good at. If a DM rules on-the-spot "roll your sword skill to hit with wand!", I'm going to be upset, because I was tricked into thinking that I had to invest in the wrong skill.

But if a rule detracts from the fun and everyone can agree that it should go away, then what's the problem? Unless you're in a RPG tournament (whatever that means) with standarized rules (don't they ALSO have standarized HOUSE rules?), who exactly is harmed if you decide to, for example, do away with Skill Challenges as written in the 4e Manual, and roleplay the entire event, rolling once or twice to pass a skill check maybe if the DM thinks it's relevant?

MANY roleplaying games actually tell you to use this rule, or that other rule if you like it better (GURPS for magic, for example.) Or use the advanced rules, if you want extra detail. Or pick and choose WHICH advanced rules you want to use and which you don't.

If players complain because the DM decided to gut the entire Leadership (?) powers from the book, then that is their right (specially those who have rolled Clerics or wossname... warlords). If players are ok with the DM only allowed one extended rest per session, or unlimited uses per session of magic items, or decide to include wands with limited charges, what.exactly.is.the.problem? There doesn't even need to be a rule, just flavor text: this item will only work a few (x) times before it runs out for good.

Complaining that a game has rules that make it seem like a computer game, and then complaining that players are like computers because they follow rules blindly... I mean, seriously WTF? I thought that what made P&P roleplaying games BETTER than computer roleplaying games was that the computer can't do anything it hasn't been programmed for beforehand, but a DM can improvise?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:46:06 pm by Sergius »
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2010, 02:46:22 pm »

Quote
Saying that "house rules ruins game forever"

Where has anyone been saying this?

It's not about what's right or wrong. It's about whether or not it's worth the effort to make house rules for a system simply to stay faithful to the product. That, for me, stopped being true for D&D years ago. It's not true with a lot of World of Darkness products anymore either. Game systems have to have elements you like to make it worth your time to play them rather than cooking up your own "perfect" design. Which is hard, because every gamer has tried to make their own game at some point and failed.

I personally love house rules...I grew up on uniquely modded 2.5ed campaigns. But it wasn't to the degree the DM ever had to say "Ignore the entire combat section." "Ignore everything about the magic chapter except the spell lists." That's the degree to which I felt I would have had to change 3rd ed to make it playable for myself. That's way too much effort a product that's been dead to me for a while.

Quote
Complaining that a game has rules that make it seem like a computer game, and then complaining that players are like computers because they follow rules blindly... I mean, seriously WTF? I thought that what made P&P roleplaying games BETTER than computer roleplaying games was that the computer can't do anything it hasn't been programmed for beforehand, but a DM can improvise?

What do you pay for the rule book for? Inspiration? What if the inspiration you find there is totally uninspiring? Why should you pay for the rule book? Why should you pay for access to the ideas of designers who are thinking in directions you don't find fun? At $40+ dollars a pop for some books, this isn't just an academic question. It's a bizarre oddity with Pen and Paper games that people will tell you, book in hand, that the book doesn't matter.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 02:54:20 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2010, 03:00:56 pm »

They're not asking you to rewrite the book, man.  They're telling you that it's perfectly fine to pick and choose what you want to use.  3.5e requires extensive houseruling for the game to even work past level 10 or 11 because spellcasters outpace noncasters so quickly.
Logged
Shoes...

TwilightWalker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Oops.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2010, 03:08:06 pm »

My simple request, before anyone starts blathering about how bad 4e is, is to stop listening to hearsay from your friends and at least read the books before you pass judgment. Too many hairs I've lost because people say 4e is horrible compared to <Insert Edition Here> and they haven't even picked up the book, much less actually tried it.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2010, 03:11:03 pm »

They're not asking, but that's what I want to do when I read the rules. So I just choose to find a different rules system instead.

I'm sure had I not ever been into sword and sorcery games until now, and 4.5e was the defining P&P experience there for me, I'd be more faithful. But older versions just seemed.....I dunno. Like it encouraged players and GMs in totally different ways. I haven't read enough 3rd ed+ material to say for sure, but there were tracts of advice on how to run games in 2.5 and design plot lines that had nothing to do with combat, nothing to do with stats, and were really focused on player psychology. How to make the game fun without just handing stuff to players. That was all in the standard books. I find a lot of that missing in the later editions.

I'll admit I've got rose-tinted glasses, but I've tried to play 3e a few times and it's just never clicked. And that was 1.5 editions ago.

Quote
My simple request, before anyone starts blathering about how bad 4e is, is to stop listening to hearsay from your friends and at least read the books before you pass judgment. Too many hairs I've lost because people say 4e is horrible compared to <Insert Edition Here> and they haven't even picked up the book, much less actually tried it.

I've read through teh 3.5 book, because I had to. I own close to 20 years worth of D&D editions.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 03:12:37 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2010, 03:16:00 pm »

I'm sure had I not ever been into sword and sorcery games until now, and 4.5e was the defining P&P experience there for me, I'd be more faithful.

This is basically the crux of the argument, and of every such argument on the internet.  Like Mac/PC, Zune/iPod, XBox/Playstation, 4e/3.5e, foreskin/no foreskin, whatever you started out on is the best and everyone rapidly defends what they started out with, aside from a few apostates like me, who started out on 3.5 and switched over.
Logged
Shoes...

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2010, 03:21:46 pm »

Hey, I'm trying to admit there's at least a degree of that. Then again, I know 50 year olds who started with Chainmail but still swear by 2.5 ed. 
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2010, 03:23:11 pm »

The problem, nenjin, is that you make the following question:

Quote
Who buys a game series just to retcon 50% of the rules and right a small novel worth of house rules?.

Then you give your own, biased and flawed answer as if it is universal:

Quote
No one

Where, the objective answer would be:

"Those who like the remaining 50% of the rules."
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 03:28:56 pm by Sergius »
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2010, 03:31:02 pm »

So how's the novel coming?
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: D&D: 4e vs 3.5e
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2010, 03:32:52 pm »

So how's the novel coming?

Pretty good, I'm at the chapter where they recruit Detritus for the city watch. Thanks for asking.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10