| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Razz |
Posted - 23 Apr 2008 : 23:42:46
I read some news on ENWorld that was just so damn ridiculous, I could only laugh. I've lost all other emotions, practically, at this point.
So, each year one campaign setting is coming and only 3 books per setting. Done. Sure, DDI updates will happen, but that's not really enough. So, once 2008 is over, kiss your Realms goodbye until 5th Edition.
That is just very sad. I really hope 4E tanks and WotC someday, somehow, sells it off to someone who really cares about D&D and the Realms.
I miss the days of TSR. Glossing over 2E Forgotten Realms products I sit and wonder,"Why can't it ever go back to this again? This was what made it so fascinating and rich..."
I'm going to sulk now. Not that I cared about 4E Realms, but to hear those who are interested in 4E Realms is going to get hosed big time. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 06:17:22
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Well, I sure hope you like it then, though I think it is silly to vote without having seen the final product. Not even I, who admittedly hate almost everything that they have done, am voting blindly on this.
Who says I'm voting blindly?
Granted, I don't have the FR Campaign Guide in my hands yet.
But I am playing in the 4E Realms already. You don't need the FR Campaign Guide to do that (though it will surely help  ).
I'm running my game in Cormyr and now I've got Brian's superb Cormyr article to reference. That plus Volo's guide and I'm set. I can only see the FR Campaign Guide and Player's Guide adding to the fun.
Again, I'm using the 4E rules in the Realms. They've passed muster at our gaming table and we're having fun.
That's what it's all about. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 22:37:08
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
the GM and not the rules system is the true arbiter of lethality.
Spot on, whether you have 2 HP or 22 hp's at 1st level doesn't matter, as a DM I would encourage new players into the game and give them a 'nearly' deathly encounter in their first game but let them win through and survive by the skin of their teeth. You want them to remember it and come back for more. They will soon figure out that the game can be deadly and make appropriate choices, but they (or indeed any player) should not just be killed because the dice says so.....
Cheers
Damian |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 22:25:00
I've now played 4e, so I can offer some vague semblance of an informed opinion. And it seems to me that in 4e, like in every other RPG I've ever played, the GM and not the rules system is the true arbiter of lethality. If the GM wants the deaths of PCs of whatever level to happen on a regular basis, he can easily create encounters or adjust canned encounters to make this happen. And if he wants to make PC deaths rare, he can easily do that, too. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 18:23:45
We don't need hardier PCs, we need sissier monsters |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:11:07
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Isn't it arguably easier to let go of a character you haven't had the opportunity to "bond" with?
That's a good point.
I think it does come down to giving people (especially new players) a chance to at least run their characters without dying in the very first hit they ever get (which is certainly possible in the older editions). I think it is partly about not frustrating newer players.
In any case, as was mentioned before 4E doesn't make it impossible for PCs to die, it just makes them a bit hardier. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:02:47
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
We both agree that the most important function of the game is to have fun and having your 1st level character die in their first battle is unfortunate however that is the nature of the beast. If you don't like taking risks, then don't get into situations that may prove fatal. I would go further as to say that those sort of people remain zero level NPC's and not become a heroic adventurer.
Here, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't think 4E "coddles" PCs or makes it so they don't have to worry about death. It just makes it so they don't die in one hit at level one. As for character-building--my opinion is that this game is mainly about fantasy (that is, escapism) and having fun, not a crash course about real life's setbacks. In real life, you can die suddenly at any time for "no good reason". That doesn't mean we need that simulated in a game. I can understand that you like the way things were in previous systems and that's fine, but my opinion is that this is a step forward. For me, it's not about being a "powergamer", it's about building a fun story with the PCs, and surviving long enough to at least get started with that. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 11:57:24
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Please only buy the 4e Realms products if you actually like what is there.
I already pre-ordered my copy (though I'll probably end up with two if I can snag a copy at GenCon).
You know......I'm not too worried about it. It's the Realms to me.
Well, I sure hope you like it then, though I think it is silly to vote without having seen the final product. Not even I, who admittedly hate almost everything that they have done, am voting blindly on this. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 07:22:47
Having actually run the new system, I wouldn't describe it as one that gives players a smooth and easy path "to the top."
Far from it.
If the players in a Fourth Edition D&D game do not at least try to run their characters according to what roles they are supposed to fill, those characters will get dropped in combat.
I've seen it happen twice and nearly a third time. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 05:02:03
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The best way to describe it is reaching the summit of Everest. You can climb the mountain, or you can just take a helicopter to the top. The second one is whole lot easier, but it kind of loses all its meaning.
That is just right on the money and it's what I've been trying to say.
Thank you Markustay for expessing it so succinctly!  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 04:47:24
Especially when we have to run all the way back to get our body and Res....
4e does have Res points. right?
I've been adding an extra layer of HP since 1e, and 3e did just that, and Pathfinder takes it a step further. If you have problems with low-levs dying, then start everyone at a lev 2 or 3 equvalent. I always found lev 1's boring (especially 1e Wizards!), so it's best to just 'skip over' that awkward period.
On Topic:
Strangely, the rules are everything I'd hoped they be... and I'm disappointed anyway. They managed to 'clean-up' the rules so gosh-darn well, it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. I'm starting to think tons of incompatible rules spread across dozens of books is what makes Dungeons & Dragons D&D. I now realize that it is possible to over-simplify something, to the point where it begins to loose it's original meaning.
And I'm not saying the rules are bad (not by any stretch). In fact, they might be TOO GOOD, as weird as that sounds.
The best way to describe it is reaching the summit of Everest. You can climb the mountain, or you can just take a helicopter to the top. The second one is whole lot easier, but it kind of loses all its meaning. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 04:44:18
Ok, so 1 hit death is poor game design. If we use that logic then a 2 hit death is below average game design, a 3 hit death is average game design, a 4 hit death is above average and 5 hits for death is probably Ok. 
I too have been playing since the early 1980's and started with 1st Ed D&D, specifically the basic system. Sorry to point it out but that system sold well, people enjoyed it despite the fact that a lv1 character could die with one hit. Also note the word "could" here. A short sword weilded by a goblin would do 1 to 6 points of damage and your average fighter would have at least 8 or more hit points. Thus they'd have a good chance of surviving a hit. If they came across a gnoll lets say uses a 2H sword, [1d10 dam] then there's a possibility that the gnoll may kill a 10 HP lv1 with one swipe, but that is a 1 in ten chance!
We both agree that the most important function of the game is to have fun and having your 1st level character die in their first battle is unfortunate however that is the nature of the beast. If you don't like taking risks, then don't get into situations that may prove fatal. I would go further as to say that those sort of people remain zero level NPC's and not become a heroic adventurer.
My point about risk is this: if you have nothing to fear about a battle or confrontation, then where is the reward for surviving the encounter for both the player and the character? I put it to you that there is little reward because the PC/player has had to risk little, learns nothing and instead gets a skewd view of the world [both gaming and real] which does not help them grow as a person.
My own feeling on making a 1st level character more robust in $E has more to do with what was said in the film "The Incredibles" - "if everybody is special then nobody is". This trend towards bolstering a 1st level PC is like that, it cheapens the achievement of the players and in a way lessens the appeal of the game, for me and my friends at least.
We obviously have differing styles in our approach to the game.
When I DM, I like to set my players achievable challenges that entail them taking sometimes dangerous chances. My players enjoy it because there sense of danger is heightened and when they make it through the adventure, the thrill is just so much more.
Another point, in any story, be it book, film game etc, the whole premise of drama comes from the fact that the protagonists are in peril/jepordy. You take that away by making them much more less likely to die and you're left with a story which becomes stale and boring, much like playing a computer game in god mode.
Finally I do realise that first time gamers being introduced to D&D may find having their PC die an experience that may deter them from playing again. What I ask new players is are they someone who if confronted with a set back is the first to throw in the towel and walk away or will they learn from the experience and grow as a player and learn to embrace character death as part of the game?
edit: having a system that coddles players from death only serves to promote Muchikinism, not good gaming.
|
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 04:10:07
I stand by my comment Talwyn. A one hit death is just poor game design.
I've been playing D&D since the early 80s so no need to remind me about the game's legacy; A legacy of rules evolution and change mind you. But one fact hasn't changed--the desire to have fun.
You keep repeating that risk of death "is what makes low level gaming fun", and I have no doubt that you believe this to be true. But everyone has their own opinion and I expressed my own.
Death at 1st level is simply not fun (especially so for new gamers), and this type of barrier to entry has too long been a detriment to our hobby. Thankfully, this design flaw has been mitigated in 4E. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 02:49:29
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
If your PC's can survive a hit at lv1 then where is the sense of danger and excitement in going into combat?
Well, I'd hope the PCs would be able to survive a hit at least some of the time.
Well of course 
I employ a "house rule" in regards to hit points. Divide a players Con in half and that's how many rounds they can last when reaching zero HP's before death. If a PC HP's hit zero then they're down and out, critically wounded and can play no further part in the melee. This doesn't make the PC's more robust, they are still vulnerable to death but it gives them a chance of survival.
And as said before, the use of armour, intelligent usages of spells and items/weapons mean the difference between life and death for level one players or any level for that matter!
Good team-work, co-ordination and planning make for a successful battle at level one. If anything, the first combat which the party faces is the real test of players ingenuity and resorcefulness. If they employ the "run at them shouting and waving swords" tactics then they will no doubt earn their deaths. Yet if they carefully plan what they will do and follow through with the plan, then THAT desrves the experience points, not simply killing the monsters.
In a prior 2ndEd campaign I ran with a bunch of young adults, they were all lv1 and were faced with 12 kobolds who had attacked the village and were coming back to finish it off. The PC's set about errecting barricades and pit traps [theif improvising traps] and created a killing zone where they would funell the attacking kobolds. They also used their lamp oil as molotov cocktails and prepared missle weaposn, used cover and co-opted a few of the villages to throw rocks! The mage memorised colour spray and the priest had a Bless and 2 cure light wounds ready.
Result = one fighter near death but survived thanks to a timely cure light wounds but all 12 kobolds were killed and the village was saved.
Net result = probably one of the best battles and gaming sessions I've had with a bunch of newish players. The sense of victory and achievement was visable on their faces and they received a bonus 1000 exp each for defeating the kobolds due to their use of tactics, not wading into the kobolds in a stand up fight.
That is what makes low level gaming fun. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 02:24:09
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
If your PC's can survive a hit at lv1 then where is the sense of danger and excitement in going into combat?
Well, I'd hope the PCs would be able to survive a hit at least some of the time. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 02:18:11
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
In my experience, permanent death at 1st level is simply not fun. And if the player is new to D&D, you'll likely never see them at the game table again. Overcoming a challenge is one thing. A one hit death is just poor game design.
Poor game design?
I think Gary Gygax is starting to turn in his grave after that remark sir. 
After all, it was his idea that created D&D and it has spawn a number of generations of gamers who learned to take their licks and roll with the punches that a run of bad luck and death can give.
I beg to differ in your assement.
Death should be real for PC's & players at any level otherwise where is the sense of risk? If your PC's can survive a hit at lv1 then where is the sense of danger and excitement in going into combat?
If your players know they are semi "bullet proof" then they won't feel as vulnerable and will act in a cocky fashion.
And when a new player rocks up and dies in their very first session, that is is unfortunate however it needs to be explained to them that the game is about taking chances, randomness and the chaos of battle which is represented through the dice. If they throw a hissy fit when their newly minted lv1 character dies then that is an indication on their level of maturity, not a function of bad game design.
And on a final note, if the DM of the game makes the challanges to the PC's too hard which results in a high PC body count then is that a function of bad game design?
No.
Making the game easier and more friendly is one thing but wrapping the PC's in bubble wrap and boosting their robustness is a sign of pandering to the feel good factor. Players need to learn that taking risks and entering into combat is dangerous, that it's not about wading into a horde of goblins at level 1 and going hack & slash and coming out reletively unscathed in the end.
If anything, learning that your 1st level fighter can be killed in a way prepares you for dealing with the setbacks that real life will throw at you. Making the game easier doesn't build character in a person at all.
|
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 01:19:22
In my experience, permanent death at 1st level is simply not fun. And if the player is new to D&D, you'll likely never see them at the game table again. Overcoming a challenge is one thing. A one hit death is just poor game design. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 00:26:39
Being killed in one hit at level 1 really was the thrill of low level gaming 
I suppose if 4E makes the PC's more robust I an see why.
PC's have undergone training to become fighters, wizards, clerics etc. Now of course they are freshly minted adventurers but they should know a thing or two about survival and thus should, theoretically, be able to survive combat with low level monsters like your average kobold or goblin. The devils advocate side of this argument is that the PC's have weapoons, armour, spells etc which is their advantage over the goblin and thus making them vunerable to that single sword thrust makes the game so much more intense.
i can honestly say there is no greater sense of achievement than starting up a 1st level PC and making it to high levels and retirement! That climb just to level 2 is often nerve wracking, palpable terror when a bunch of goblins appear as your random encounter. There is nothing more immersive than getting right into your character and feeling the desperation & sheer will to live and survive to level 2. That, to me at least, is the essense of great D&D. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 18:47:37
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
hmm...one of the things I liked about low level campaigns, especially starting out with level 1 chgaracters was that they were fragile. Every choice made by the player had consequences and because they are so easy to kill, ie a goblin is a match for a level 1 character, it made players much more cautious and inventive when it came to combat. My own prefernce is for low level campaigns with the PC's hitting a level cap in exp. after level 12.They can still adventure on however it take more & more exp. to attain the next levels.
I've never liked over powered characters who can just waltz around the countryside acting like minor gods laying waste to all the come across & too much magic and too many items trend towards a Monty Haul campaign. Not my tankard of mead at all.
Well, there is middle ground between being very fragile at level one and being very overpowered. I think that's what 4E is trying to do--make the PCs robust enough that they won't die in just one hit, but not so powerful that they are guaranteed to survive an encounter. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 01:51:45
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
My friends are playing 1st level characters so the power dynamic has been reset. Fourth Edition characters are more robust, but you can still kill them if players don’t play smart and work together during combat.
hmm...one of the things I liked about low level campaigns, especially starting out with level 1 chgaracters was that they were fragile. Every choice made by the player had consequences and because they are so easy to kill, ie a goblin is a match for a level 1 character, it made players much more cautious and inventive when it came to combat. My own prefernce is for low level campaigns with the PC's hitting a level cap in exp. after level 12.They can still adventure on however it take more & more exp. to attain the next levels.
I've never liked over powered characters who can just waltz around the countryside acting like minor gods laying waste to all the come across & too much magic and too many items trend towards a Monty Haul campaign. Not my tankard of mead at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Kinda wish we had more time to play.
:)
Oh how I completely agree with that! |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 16 Jul 2008 : 18:16:39
quote:
Originally posted by Talwyn
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Talwyn, I appreciate your sentiment regarding the 4E FR setting, but not necessarily regarding the 4E ruleset. I actually like the new rules.
I hope it works out for you milady and that 4E provides you and your friends,fun and enjoyment
Thank you--I appreciate that.
quote:
For my part though, and as demonstrated by my harsh critque, 4E offers nothing to me that I am intersted in and since the new system has precipitated the decimation of FR, I am against it wholeheartedly.
Hey, I understand. I liked Eilistraee too. And Mystra. And Helm...I should probably stop now. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 16 Jul 2008 : 08:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Please only buy the 4e Realms products if you actually like what is there.
I already pre-ordered my copy (though I'll probably end up with two if I can snag a copy at GenCon).
You know......I'm not too worried about it. It's the Realms to me.
I don’t care for the Spellscarred rules; way too much like Eberron Dragonmarks for my taste.
So I think I will exclude that from my Realms game.
But beyond that.....playing in the Fourth Edition Realms is pretty much like playing in the Third Edition Realms or older.
You’ve got your characters, your NPCs, monsters, treasure, traps, game dice (d20, d12, d10, d8, d6, d4), roleplaying, Cormyr, Sembia, the Dalelands, Waterdeep, Thay, deities, the planes and the most gigantic excuse ever for a DM to write as much of the last 100 years of history as they feel like doing to fill in the gaps.
I’ve tried it and I like it. The Fourth Edition rules are a refreshing change after several years of Third Edition.
My friends are playing 1st level characters so the power dynamic has been reset. Fourth Edition characters are more robust, but you can still kill them if players don’t play smart and work together during combat.
I don’t feel rushed or hurried to figure out the game rules, rules discussions at the table have been minimal and the mechanics run pretty smoothly overall. I find I’ve got the necessary time I need to think about the bigger picture as a Dungeon Master while the game is running.
Kinda wish we had more time to play.
:) |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 16 Jul 2008 : 00:56:00
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Talwyn, I appreciate your sentiment regarding the 4E FR setting, but not necessarily regarding the 4E ruleset. I actually like the new rules.
I hope it works out for you milady and that 4E provides you and your friends,fun and enjoyment
For my part though, and as demonstrated by my harsh critque, 4E offers nothing to me that I am intersted in and since the new system has precipitated the decimation of FR, I am against it wholeheartedly.
I'm not a happy gamer right now as I see a world that I love to use effectively nerfed by the company that controls the rights to the game.
[sigh]
Plus one of my favourite deities, Eilistraee, is gone from the setting is the other reason why I will no longer be buying anything that has a WoTC trademark on.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 15 Jul 2008 : 19:28:05
Talwyn, I appreciate your sentiment regarding the 4E FR setting, but not necessarily regarding the 4E ruleset. I actually like the new rules. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jul 2008 : 15:04:20
While I appreciate the sentiment of the last post, I don't think we need quite so much vitriol. |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 15 Jul 2008 : 14:23:17
*warning, strong opinions ahead*
I've been browsing here at Candlekeep for the past few hours, catching up on the unfolding trainwreck that is 4E FR
By all that is sacred! This is such a crappy decision that these WoTC people have made, it beggers belief.
FR was designed by Ed Greenwood to be this vast rolling place with a multitude of deities much like the ancient world. Now we get some rather dubious people who claim to have the game & setting of FR at heart but really all they are doing is corporatising the game, in other words downsizing the FR pantheon to make it "streamlined" and "more efficient" which is code for "we don't give a flying f*ck about what core fans of FR feel, we own the rights and we can do what we want, so screw you! and buy our new fancy game while you're at it". This is how accountants speak, not serious game designers and creative people. I get that WoTC is a business and change is inevitable but to brutally butcher a fantasy setting just for efficientcy is not going to endear the company to its core followers. This has been said by many people here at Candlekeep and on other sites I've been reading.
So, 4E eh? Is it really D&D as we know it? No, its a new game with D&D slapped onto the front in the hope that fanboys & girls will slavishly buy this load of drivel while they laugh all the way to the bank lighting up cigars with $100 notes while snorting coke off the breasts of some $1000 per hour call girl.
4E is not D&D.
It is a new game pure and simple.
WoTC have been subtly manueouvering to wipe out EG's creation as we know and love it, cutting down a mighty oak and hacking it back to a sickly bush that lacks imagination. Although I have yet to read the final Lady Penitant book [which has been pretty average fiction so far I must say!] it's painfully obvious that Lisa Smedman had been given a brief from those on high at WoTC to kill off Eilistraee in her canon "sanctioned" trilogy.
What a brilliant business decision that was! Kill off one of their great draw cards and stories that relate to the drow and specifically the dark lady Eilistraee. Outstanding!
Who ever made that brave and visionary call must be up there with the idiot TV exec who worked at Fox back in 2003 and said that Desperate Housewives wouldn't be a hit show and cancelled Firefly as well. [he got fired btw]
I know Ed Greenwood has come out and said wait & see, it'll be ok but that's because he has to say that sort of thing in order to have ANY hope of preserving what's left of his creation. I apologise here and now to you Ed via THO and know you want the realms to live on but I am so sad to see what it has become, watching this vibrant rich polytheistic world become less than what it was.
Quite frankly I hope WoTC crash and burn due to terrible sales and a fan base revolt. Those people deserve to go down for screwing over a perfectly viable fantasy setting because they wanted to improve their bottom line at the expense of creativity.
Mod edit: Let's watch the language, please. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 18:53:53
Well, one of the best ways to make money on the internet is with a subscription site. I know this from extensive research that I have done, and the reading of many articles on the subject of online marketing. So, providing that the DDi turns out to attract as much attention as they want it to, then it is a sound business practice. And, as I said above, if 4e and the 4e Realms was something I was going to invest in (which, with the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG, I have decided I will not, not even in the future as I had originally planned) then I would probably subscribe to it. However, considering that they have done an abysmal job of marketing 4e (this is agreed on even by many people who like and are intending to move on to 4e), I do not think that they will be getting all of the fresh blood for the rules set that they thought they would; this means there may be a problem getting as many subscribers as they thought they would. Time will tell. I would like to say I wish them luck, but I am still quite bitter about what they did to the Realms. I do however wish luck to those who do enjoy 4e and/or intend to convert to the 4e Realms. I hope the get what they are looking for, rather than some ^*$& that WotC shoves off on them. And, as I have stated many times before, out of respect for Ed, I will check out the 4e FRCG at Borders when it is released. |
| Caedwyr |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 16:19:25
Their money making would come from DDI subscriptions and splatbook sales. |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 15:47:20
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
So, each year one campaign setting is coming and only 3 books per setting. Done. Sure, DDI updates will happen, but that's not really enough. So, once 2008 is over, kiss your Realms goodbye until 5th Edition.
What kind of sense does this make? How do they intend to make most of their money if they won't support the settings?
Or is this some sort of punishment for all the times we grumbled about various things in the 3.5 FR boks? |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 23 May 2008 : 21:27:35
Never been much of a person to fall in line, and as for sheep... well my RL-name is norse for wolf... 'nuff said |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 23 May 2008 : 21:15:11
It is a relief to be on a site where the members are not all following in line like sheep. I am not necessarily opposed to 4th edition... I am annoyed about the realms changeover however.
|
|
|
