| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 27 Apr 2008 : 22:01:07
Okay, I'm not going to air my beefs, only a couple of observations. What I'd like to hear is some constructive replies, and peoples' opinions on some of the changes and recent developments in 4e.
The biggest change I've noticed so far is the move towards tiered experience levels, and tiered powers that go along with them. This is a fundamental change in the development of the game. It has associated pros and cons, and one obvious element, all of which are to follow. Regardless, these Tiers are: Heroic (levels 1-10), Paragon (levels 11-20), and Epic (levels 21-30).
Each palyer class has powers, and the number of powers and healing surges you receive is dependant upon your level. Each tier has its own bonus powers as well, and you gain these in addition to the regular class powers, though they are dependant upon having reached each milestone independantly. The "obvious element" of which I spoke earlier is that this very closely resembles the system in place in Everquest II.
In a way, I was deeply disappointed to see this; even as a long-time EQII player. However, once I got past the knee-jerk reaction, I started to see the pros and cons for their individual merits and to weigh the possible consequences for the course of the game. As I see it, there are some pros, and some cons, but the rammifications of this could very strongly influence the course of D&D; and not necessarily in a good way, per se.
Pros
Specialization: A tiered system of advancement eliminates a lot of the prerequisite-based trappings of some of the simpler and more common prestige classes, such as Purple Dragon, War Wizard, Thaumaturgist, etc. It provides a channel by which these specializations may be brought closer to the "core".
Progression: A tiered system starting with heroic makes sense. AD&D 2e had a page detailing how anyone with adventuring attributes was already exceptional in their endowment. Progression from heroic to paragon, or epic level makes sense when you're detailing the development and consequences for characters. If a legendary group of heroes walks into a small town, for example, their deeds will precede them. If the town also turns out to be led by a cabal of evil priests, and the adventurers massacre the town, those deeds will be far more difficult to escape if they are highly renowned. It may even involve the hiring of other adventuring groups to hunt them down, even if their actions were justifiable.
Ease: By the time many new players, or old players who've been out of the loop for a long time - both male and female - come into this game, many of them will have played an MMO. As many of them will probably have come to realize, MMOs are easy to get into, easy to learn, and fun. However, MMOs don't have the dynamism, immersive imaginative contributions, or interpersonal interractions that paper and pen play offers.
Sure, you can sit at home and play EQII or WOW and use Ventrillo to chat with your buddies and drink beer or pop when you play, but you're not getting 'into the game', nor is it the same as face to face. You can't throw popcorn or cheezies at someone over the computer when they get you ganked because they did something stupid. Having a tiered system similar to that of an MMO makes it easier for new players to get into, and that's attractive.
Cons
Specialization: This kind of tiered system could very easily reduce the flexibility, innovation, and creativity of play and new developments to a static skill tree of the like used by MMOs. This is unnacceptable in my mind.
Progression: Having six or seven starting classes, twice as many paragon classes, and then twice as many epic options, with only a very narrow career course available to each is insufficient, except where the plot allows for these developments. (i.e. If there were, for example, a "Guild Master" Epic Class; under the tiered system it may be justified that you can ONLY reach this point by being first a 'Hero' Wizard, and 'Paragon' Guild Wizard... Repeat for other classes, rinse, repeat, etc)
Ease: Part of Dungeons & Dragons' appeal has been that it is NOT an MMO, nor is it cast from the same 'cookie cutter' mould as the other forms of fantasy entertainment. D&D defined roleplay because it did not conform to conventional entertainment. Is innovation being replaced by conformity? Further, what is the appeal of playing make-believe with your friends when you can have access to a complete photo-realistic, spectral-mapped, 360o environment?
Have you seen the demo for D&D Insider's online RP tool? It looks like Ultima Online. Why would roleplayers play D&D through Insider's software when other game systems get FAR more support and development, and look brilliant? Could Hasbro invest in an easy-to-use DM creation tool (unlike those in place with NWN 1&2) that still provides Oblivion-esque graphics?
That's all I've got for now. Tell me what you think.
Stone |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 05:53:59
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
1. Rules the designers want us to focus on.
Well in the case of 4e this is totally like I described, eh? And in any case I dont think the designers should set the focus of the game, but rather the DM and the players. Thus a game should have rules for ALL situations and you simply pick those you want.
I strongly "believe" in well-designed focused games for many reasons. I'm not sure I want to discuss about it more here however.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
2. "Say yes".
Well you want to do things without rolling and for some it might be ok. For me it isnt, simply because the non-combat skillpoints also represent some of the focus you put on your "work". You could have a ranger who doesnt bother with knowledge of herbs, but instead goes to the forge a lot. If you dont have / use the rules for that how is the DM going to judge when he does either thing ... or rather one thing today and the other tomorrow? IMO there should be a limit to the things a character can do well enough and this is simply represented by the skills he has. If you dont have a system of points for this the whole workload is on the DMs shoulders to judge "small things" like this, but even if you dont roll stuff they shouldnt always work. Rolling just takes a lot of work from the DM and not "investing into skills" can be a big penalty later in the game, like having no character with a good diplomacy score in the group when you need that later in the game. Spending your skillpoints should have the same importance sometimes as choosing your known spells wisely / stupidly for a wizard for example, since the skills are part of the character and his ability to survive in the world.
Saying "yes" is one tool in the GM toolbox. I certainly don't want the DM always saying yes, because that woudln't be a gaming experience anymore. Using it when the group around the table don't want to focus on a situation is what I urge long-time D&D players/DM to do. If nobody cares about the details of the boat trip to reach the city X, don't start asking "sailor" skill checks. There's no need to go in details for every situation the PCs meet. (Of course, one player or the DM could do a narration of the trip without any resolution mechanism) Choose which situation will become challenges/thematic decision points/things to be explored in details.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
"Narrating games" do exist, but for me they arent really a good choice, because they tend to ignore the need to learn things if the main goal is "the storyline" ... even if you have a group of "the three stooges" attend a delicate diplomatic party to negotiate an important peace deal. Spending points in non-combat skills tells you what you are good at, but it also tells you where you have weak spots ... and this is as important. Not having skills was one of the main bad parts about 1st and 2nd edition for me and we had to come up with our own houserules for them to make up for the lack. In 3rd edition we have the whole bunch of skills and that is the good way to handle it (and a DM can always ignore a failed / successful roll as usual). The new edition removed a bunch of skills, so you dont have the choice anymore and that is a bad thing.
Again: If none of the players actually tried learning how to cook it is a bad thing to have them get a good (or even a decent) meal. The players may say "oh we will ask the cooks at our inns how to cook" and you could get a good storytelling version of learning to cook, but this has two problems:
1. How good are they really? Will they be able to cook only "decent" or eventually "excellent" meals which are good enough for the King?
2. How do you prevent the players from "learning everything"? Cooks spend years to fully learn their trade and the same is true for every profession. Should the PCs get it easy because they are supposed to be the heroes?
Burning Wheel is a narravist indie RPG where learning skills is one of the most exciting part of the game.
Why ? Because skills go up when practiced, but tests (skill uses) are only possible when the situation at hand is an important conflicting situation for the characters.
BW also has positive/negative traits, one can buy the "blinded" trait for example. Yeah, negative traits cost the same thing as positive ones, because both enable players to get the spotlight on their characters.
I don't think all these things are appropriate for D&D, but "saying yes" to let players have an input on which situations translate into challenges is certainly one of them I would want to be adopted. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 01:02:42
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?
So all your players always have and ever will have masterwork items? All tavern wenches will always be charmed by your guys? Every bit of diplomacy you ever do will always work? Finding an important herb to cure the king will always work on the first day ... even if your group never left the city before? Hunting for food will always work well enough to feed your group and cooking it will always result in a well tasting meal?
That wouldnt be fun for me.
You are confusing things over here. I never said I want to get rid of every non-combat rules. I'm saying each RPG should have rules covering the things the designers want the players (DM included) to focus on.
Burning Wheel (one of my favorite indie RPG) has specialized skills and I easily see how in this game a situation where cooking a very good meal could be part of the game.
That's not what I'm looking for when I play D&D, however that doesn't mean that you can't have a "between encounters" scene in D&D where a player or the DM narrates/act cooking a bad/good meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
The mundane doesnt really create tension, but we are living in a world which doesnt always do what we expect it to do and where things happen which we dont expect. So small things can go wrong like trying to find a herb in a forest ... you might get lucky on the first day or it could take weeks. "Say yes" to such small things makes this rather boring and you probably fast-forward to the next fight, but these interludes are important to become involved in a world.
Again, the gameworld doesn't know how the people around the table decided to add a fictional event to it. Saying "yes" means that the players (DM included) don't throw dices, use a resource or compare some numbers, that doesn't mean that the narration/acting that follows must be "You went to the forest and under 5 minutes, you got the herbs needed".
1. Rules the designers want us to focus on.
Well in the case of 4e this is totally like I described, eh? And in any case I dont think the designers should set the focus of the game, but rather the DM and the players. Thus a game should have rules for ALL situations and you simply pick those you want.
2. "Say yes".
Well you want to do things without rolling and for some it might be ok. For me it isnt, simply because the non-combat skillpoints also represent some of the focus you put on your "work". You could have a ranger who doesnt bother with knowledge of herbs, but instead goes to the forge a lot. If you dont have / use the rules for that how is the DM going to judge when he does either thing ... or rather one thing today and the other tomorrow? IMO there should be a limit to the things a character can do well enough and this is simply represented by the skills he has. If you dont have a system of points for this the whole workload is on the DMs shoulders to judge "small things" like this, but even if you dont roll stuff they shouldnt always work. Rolling just takes a lot of work from the DM and not "investing into skills" can be a big penalty later in the game, like having no character with a good diplomacy score in the group when you need that later in the game. Spending your skillpoints should have the same importance sometimes as choosing your known spells wisely / stupidly for a wizard for example, since the skills are part of the character and his ability to survive in the world.
"Narrating games" do exist, but for me they arent really a good choice, because they tend to ignore the need to learn things if the main goal is "the storyline" ... even if you have a group of "the three stooges" attend a delicate diplomatic party to negotiate an important peace deal. Spending points in non-combat skills tells you what you are good at, but it also tells you where you have weak spots ... and this is as important. Not having skills was one of the main bad parts about 1st and 2nd edition for me and we had to come up with our own houserules for them to make up for the lack. In 3rd edition we have the whole bunch of skills and that is the good way to handle it (and a DM can always ignore a failed / successful roll as usual). The new edition removed a bunch of skills, so you dont have the choice anymore and that is a bad thing.
Again: If none of the players actually tried learning how to cook it is a bad thing to have them get a good (or even a decent) meal. The players may say "oh we will ask the cooks at our inns how to cook" and you could get a good storytelling version of learning to cook, but this has two problems:
1. How good are they really? Will they be able to cook only "decent" or eventually "excellent" meals which are good enough for the King?
2. How do you prevent the players from "learning everything"? Cooks spend years to fully learn their trade and the same is true for every profession. Should the PCs get it easy because they are supposed to be the heroes? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 05:30:41
Coolie. I hadn't had a chance to look over the beta book yet since I'm still making my way through the campaign book. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Your not the only one. I, years ago, when I started DMin 3e, combinued the craft/profession into one skill. Made no sense to me that they were two skills.
Well, we've suggested (on the Paizo forums) that a skill called 'Trade' should replace Appraise, Craft and Profession in PF RPG... 
|
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 21:26:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Your not the only one. I, years ago, when I started DMin 3e, combinued the craft/profession into one skill. Made no sense to me that they were two skills.
Well, we've suggested (on the Paizo forums) that a skill called 'Trade' should replace Appraise, Craft and Profession in PF RPG... |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 19:41:04
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?
So all your players always have and ever will have masterwork items? All tavern wenches will always be charmed by your guys? Every bit of diplomacy you ever do will always work? Finding an important herb to cure the king will always work on the first day ... even if your group never left the city before? Hunting for food will always work well enough to feed your group and cooking it will always result in a well tasting meal?
That wouldnt be fun for me.
You are confusing things over here. I never said I want to get rid of every non-combat rules. I'm saying each RPG should have rules covering the things the designers want the players (DM included) to focus on.
Burning Wheel (one of my favorite indie RPG) has specialized skills and I easily see how in this game a situation where cooking a very good meal could be part of the game.
That's not what I'm looking for when I play D&D, however that doesn't mean that you can't have a "between encounters" scene in D&D where a player or the DM narrates/act cooking a bad/good meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
The mundane doesnt really create tension, but we are living in a world which doesnt always do what we expect it to do and where things happen which we dont expect. So small things can go wrong like trying to find a herb in a forest ... you might get lucky on the first day or it could take weeks. "Say yes" to such small things makes this rather boring and you probably fast-forward to the next fight, but these interludes are important to become involved in a world.
Again, the gameworld doesn't know how the people around the table decided to add a fictional event to it. Saying "yes" means that the players (DM included) don't throw dices, use a resource or compare some numbers, that doesn't mean that the narration/acting that follows must be "You went to the forest and under 5 minutes, you got the herbs needed". |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 19:32:45
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I think a ROLEPLAY game should have skills covering stuff outside of combat, like craft. Heck, even MORPGs have 'em.
When I used to play WoW, I was the finest cook in all the land, and people gathered from near and far to partake of my culinary delights.
Well... at least my guildies did... and thats 'cause they were free and gave nice buffs...
Emphasis mine 
A RPG should have rules to cover the stuff that they want the people playing the game focus on.
Two games (very different from D&D and each other) that I like (Burning Wheel and The Shadow of Yesterday*) have rules for "craft" skills and I don't have a problem with that.
As skills in D&D (3E/4E) can be traded for combat effectivness, it's better to keep the list short and make sure each one will come up often in play.
*Freely available on the web. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 17:20:46
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?
I see a dirty joke in there somewhere. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 15:50:05
While I can see the reasoning behind creating seperate skills for EVERYTHING (some people prefer a 'simulationist' style), I like the streamlined skill-set of Pathfinder overall. Perhaps still not perfect, but what system will be for everyone?
I think a ROLEPLAY game should have skills covering stuff outside of combat, like craft. Heck, even MORPGs have 'em.
When I used to play WoW, I was the finest cook in all the land, and people gathered from near and far to partake of my culinary delights.
Well... at least my guildies did... and thats 'cause they were free and gave nice buffs... |
| Pandora |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 15:33:06
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
What I'm saying here is that in D&D, there isn't much place for situations where the tension is based on the ability to craft some mundane stuff or sell some living stock.
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?
So all your players always have and ever will have masterwork items? All tavern wenches will always be charmed by your guys? Every bit of diplomacy you ever do will always work? Finding an important herb to cure the king will always work on the first day ... even if your group never left the city before? Hunting for food will always work well enough to feed your group and cooking it will always result in a well tasting meal?
That wouldnt be fun for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What kind of game are you playing where tension comes from trying to do something mundane? I've never -- in real life or in role-playing -- been in a situation where my life depended on someone's ability to weave a basket or sell a cow...
The mundane doesnt really create tension, but we are living in a world which doesnt always do what we expect it to do and where things happen which we dont expect. So small things can go wrong like trying to find a herb in a forest ... you might get lucky on the first day or it could take weeks. "Say yes" to such small things makes this rather boring and you probably fast-forward to the next fight, but these interludes are important to become involved in a world. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 23:16:06
Your not the only one. I, years ago, when I started DMin 3e, combinued the craft/profession into one skill. Made no sense to me that they were two skills.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How about when your character and party are destitute and they need to make some quick coin? Profession and Craft work pretty well in that situation.
That is why in my revisited skill system Craft is still around (someday I will get around to publishing it online). Profession, however, I have found to be a completely useless skill. Most of the things that it covers can be covered by a Craft or Knowledge skill.
|
| Fire Wraith |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 22:54:02
Keep in mind, too, that early editions of D&D/AD&D did not have these skills. They were added later on, due to demand for a system that resolved these things - first as an optional system in supplements to First Edition, as an optional (though effectively standard) rule in the 2nd Edition PHB, and fully integrated as Skills in 3rd. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 22:53:07
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
What I'm saying here is that in D&D, there isn't much place for situations where the tension is based on the ability to craft some mundane stuff or sell some living stock.
What kind of game are you playing where tension comes from trying to do something mundane? I've never -- in real life or in role-playing -- been in a situation where my life depended on someone's ability to weave a basket or sell a cow... |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 22:16:46
I alway envisioned Craft as the Blue-collar trades and Profession as white-collar. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 22:14:33
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
How about when your character and party are destitute and they need to make some quick coin? Profession and Craft work pretty well in that situation.
That is why in my revisited skill system Craft is still around (someday I will get around to publishing it online). Profession, however, I have found to be a completely useless skill. Most of the things that it covers can be covered by a Craft or Knowledge skill. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 21:36:12
How about when your character and party are destitute and they need to make some quick coin? Profession and Craft work pretty well in that situation. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 18:47:57
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
A DM can say "yes" to mundane stuff even if the skills exist, but if you want to create extraordinary stuff the DM has to invent a ruling if the skill isnt there. Have your players put enough effort into blacksmithing to create a complex waterclock? With a skill its easy and braindead to rule, without it it will turn too often into "players want to do it and DM says yes without thinking about it" results, which in turn leads to Monty Haul campaigns.
I'm glad to present "Say yes" friend, "Say no".
Both work better when a majority around the table approve them.
Also, don't misunderstand me, I could welcome craft/profession skills in another RPG than D&D.
What I'm saying here is that in D&D, there isn't much place for situations where the tension is based on the ability to craft some mundane stuff or sell some living stock. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 18:35:32
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
And I'm glad that Craft/Profession skills didn't make the cut, I prefer that the DM says yes for such mundane stuff.
A DM can say "yes" to mundane stuff even if the skills exist, but if you want to create extraordinary stuff the DM has to invent a ruling if the skill isnt there. Have your players put enough effort into blacksmithing to create a complex waterclock? With a skill its easy and braindead to rule, without it it will turn too often into "players want to do it and DM says yes without thinking about it" results, which in turn leads to Monty Haul campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Rustybeard
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.
That and I can't paint to save my life! I love having pre-made minis for use
Well I hate plastics with a passion, so the new minis are out of the question for me. I also studied material science - metals - as another reason why I prefer the metal versions. Painting miniatures is a matter of patience and practice ... my first few ones werent great, but now I am happy with most results. Painting your miniatures yourself gives you the choice to make different models through the coloring. The premade ones probably always look the same.
Oh and lets hope that none of the materials used for the plastic minis turns out to be toxic like some Barbie dolls ... |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 18:15:51
If you don't like to buy them blindly (and who does?), there are a number of eBay stores that sell the minis. You usually can get some of the common minis at great bulk rates as well (I got a nice army of about 40 dark creepers for about $5). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 17:26:53
I'm lucky to have a DM who has some really nice ones, included metal ones. I love the mini I get to use for my character. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 06:11:42
quote:
Originally posted by Rustybeard
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.
That and I can't paint to save my life! I love having pre-made minis for use
I can't paint, either, so pre-made minis is a great thing. However, I've not bought a single one, because I hate the concept of buying them blind. I sank (read: "wasted") way too much money buying CCGs, back in the day, to want to do it with something that takes up a lot more room.
However, I'll be the first to admit that minis can be very useful in any RPG.
That said, I have serious problems with them being made an integral part of the game. It is especially distasteful when the list of required materials for gaming includes -- specifically! -- D&D minis, rather than any other brand of minis, and yet doesn't include a character sheet!
Had they simply been recommended, I wouldn't have said a word. But making them required strikes the cynic in me as a blatant money-making scheme, as opposed to something that was a needed development in the game. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 03:34:27
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.
That and I can't paint to save my life! I love having pre-made minis for use |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 03:20:45
I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 15:25:03
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Hmmm ... no "skills for non-combat use" and the non-combat spells are reduced to "not many" encourages the non-combat play?
Skills are more open-ended in 4E than in 3E.
Rituals are non-combat spells, each new crunchy book will add more.
And I'm glad that Craft/Profession skills didn't make the cut, I prefer that the DM says yes for such mundane stuff. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 15:03:50
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Try to answer the following:
Okay.
quote:
Why did "D&D" and "D&D minis" have to be merged?
They did not have to be merged. And in fact, they aren't.
quote:
Cant there be two games with different focus in their gameplay?
Yes! There can be! Look, they even got 'em at amazon.de!
D&D Player's Handbook
D&D Miniatures Game Starter Set
|
| Pandora |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 10:02:10
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
May I ask why D&D *should* change from the role-playing game it has been for decades to a tabletop game?
That change of style is a major reason for the irritation which many of us feel, so some good justification would be appreciated and maybe you have a good reason why it should change.
Because D&D was built atop a wargame and kept from it many fundamental elements that drive it in the "tactical" camp : classes, levels, XP, HP for example.
4E embrace the basic nature of D&D instead of being ashamed of it.
BTW, I'm not saying that because 4E is a "tactical" RPG there is less "roleplaying" in a 4E game than any previous D&D edition.
Try to answer the following: Why did "D&D" and "D&D minis" have to be merged? Cant there be two games with different focus in their gameplay? |
| Pandora |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 09:58:18
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
However, I still like to run deep, Intrigue-ridden campaigns, and the new rules really don't lend themselves to that. Sure, you can do it, but they weren't designed with that in mind. Pathfinder as being touted (by its fans, mind you, not Paizo) as the TRUE successor of D&D, and I would have to agree. Whereas 4e has 'moved backwards' in design and concept, 3PF has extended the rules set, and given us more options.
Sorry, but I really don't see how any previous version of D&D or Pathfinder ( ) can be better at running "Intrigue-ridden" campaign than 4E.
Hmmm ... no "skills for non-combat use" and the non-combat spells are reduced to "not many" encourages the non-combat play? |
| Pandora |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 08:27:15
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I like the miniature use. I can't speak with any authority about design intentions circa 1974, but my perception of those intentions 2008 is that their use was elevated because the designers think they've figured out a way to make using them hella fun. I know me and my group are digging 'em, even though I personally never played with 'em back in the day, half of the group are new players, and half are 3.0/3.5 converts who used miniatures heavily under that system anyway.
Miniatures are fine - I like them too and have a lot of those which I painted myself - but they are just a playing aid and not the main goal of the game. With 4e pushing around your minis really is the main focus. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 05:07:04
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
However, I still like to run deep, Intrigue-ridden campaigns, and the new rules really don't lend themselves to that. Sure, you can do it, but they weren't designed with that in mind. Pathfinder as being touted (by its fans, mind you, not Paizo) as the TRUE successor of D&D, and I would have to agree. Whereas 4e has 'moved backwards' in design and concept, 3PF has extended the rules set, and given us more options.
Sorry, but I really don't see how any previous version of D&D or Pathfinder () can be better at running "Intrigue-ridden" campaign than 4E.
|
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 05:03:07
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I guess. The combat's pretty much set up along these "battlegrid" and square lines, but combat's just part of the game. You could run a combat with some graph paper and a pencil, or raid the boardgames closet for figures or something. I thought that the use of miniatures was strongly foregrounded in 3E, wasn't it?
Like in 3.x, in 4E I run my game using a home-made battlemap (where I can draw with a dry marker) and cardboard pieces bearing numbers or PC names.
I don't want my options limited by painted tiles, miniatures and other decorative pieces. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 04:23:39
I know that I can still run 3.x games with nothing but dice rolls and my own DM judgement calls on how the players describe where they are. The only time I really break out any minis is because I want to really impress the dire situation into the mind of the characters.
It's like in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,
[talking about how many men that are about to be ambushed]
Robin Hood: How many?
Azeem: 20.
Robin Hood: 20?
Bull: [further away] How many?
Robin Hood: 5.
Robin Hood: [to Azeem] He can't count anyway.
I break out the minis when their severely outnumbered, on in those special cases, to scare the crap out of them by putting their minis up against that gargantuan black or colossal red dragon. |
|
|
