| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 06:17:22
|
As to the OP's opening question:
If you want to have fun and try something that's both familiar and new, give the 4E Rules and the 4E Realms a spin.
If you don't have money to burn and aren't to keen on switching away from Third Edition, then wait on the 4E Realms and keep playing what you're playing.
The point is to have fun after all. |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
 |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 09:40:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Ah, but that's the experience that is entirely possible in any good story. And before you say "What story?", may I point out Bilbo and Smaug.
The protagonists didn't end up eaten.
Because the protagonist made a sensible choice, to run away.
The choices of the players should, in my opinion, affect the story. And if the choices they make are calculated to result in a fight with something they can't handle, well, then it would cheapen the value of those choices not to let the inevitable happen. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 12:53:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Yep, it's called running away. Something that video games have killed in the minds of adventurers.
Something the legendary mode in Halo II reintroduced. Play ... with your partner or you are both done for. (Horrible thing nonetheless!)
In 4E, it appears each character is everyone's equal. Something that goes against working together as a team of players and characters. No must, but that very much depends on the gamer. Given the modern day people 4E is aimed at, I can't see it though. Hunting kills will rule ... (*cynical mode off*) |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 17:10:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
In 4E, it appears each character is everyone's equal. Something that goes against working together as a team of players and characters. No must, but that very much depends on the gamer.
I've said it before, but that is simply false, if you don't work as a team in 4E, you end up killed easily. In 3.xE it was far more easy to all "play solo" in combat. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 28 Aug 2008 17:14:38 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 17:14:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
The choices of the players should, in my opinion, affect the story. And if the choices they make are calculated to result in a fight with something they can't handle, well, then it would cheapen the value of those choices not to let the inevitable happen.
The problem is that players often don't forsee the same consequences than the DM does, so what I say is that the DM and players must understand each other, even if "out-of-character" communication is needed.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 19:12:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Any game is a vehicle for social interaction, no ? <snip>
I didn't want to do one of those 'multi-quotey' things for each point, but your response was well thought-out, and I agree with several of the points you make.
Especially the ease-of-setup from the DMs perspective, which is one of the few things that I still find EXTREMELY tempting about the 4e rules.
Whereas I take about a month to put together a single adventure-arc for 3e, I can throw together a fun session in under an hour in 4e, and thats REALLY saying something. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Aug 2008 02:09:47 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 19:37:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
The choices of the players should, in my opinion, affect the story. And if the choices they make are calculated to result in a fight with something they can't handle, well, then it would cheapen the value of those choices not to let the inevitable happen.
The problem is that players often don't forsee the same consequences than the DM does, so what I say is that the DM and players must understand each other, even if "out-of-character" communication is needed.
Who says that the players must make their choices with perfect information?
In real life, a huge part of the difficulty inherent in making hard decisions is that we're never sure that we have the right data or that our information is complete. I understand that some people want a role-playing experience that owes little or nothing to reality, but I personally find such an experience impossible to enjoy or get into.
Real decisions have unpredictable consequences and being a sapient entity means meastering the art of predicting those consequences with incomplete information. In as much as role-playing means assuming the role of another sapient being, I'd think that this would still hold true in whatever fictional universe one roleplayed in. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 19:53:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Who says that the players must make their choices with perfect information?
In real life, a huge part of the difficulty inherent in making hard decisions is that we're never sure that we have the right data or that our information is complete. I understand that some people want a role-playing experience that owes little or nothing to reality, but I personally find such an experience impossible to enjoy or get into.
Real decisions have unpredictable consequences and being a sapient entity means meastering the art of predicting those consequences with incomplete information. In as much as role-playing means assuming the role of another sapient being, I'd think that this would still hold true in whatever fictional universe one roleplayed in.
If you want a truly "hardcore*" simulationist experience in play (which I don't think is really common) a situation where low-level PCs stumble unto the lair of a ancient evil dragon and end up being eaten can happen and nobody at the table should feel bad.
Instead, if you see encounters as challenges for the players to overcome or situations for them to make thematic choices, you need to have a meta-gaming communication between PCs and DMs.
For example, in D&D 4E if a let low-level PCs meet a ancient Dragon, I'll say them clearly that we'll do a Skill Challenge and probably announce the result for both success and failure (both moving the story in a different direction).
The most important thing in a game, IMHO, is for the players to make meaningful choices and often, to make those choices meaningful, you need to give to players some information the characters don't have.
Technical term is "purist for system" |
Edited by - Skeptic on 28 Aug 2008 20:10:26 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 20:06:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I simply do not like the "Powers" system and how the game is a dolled up version of clicktech.
Explain what you dislike about it.
I personally dislike it because more or less every class feels pretty much the same, and their powers revolve around a certain set of keywords and related mechanical effects. For example, what's the difference between rogue's 'Tricky Strike' and ranger's 'Hammer Shot'? It's in the flavour text, mostly, because both are attacks that "shift/slide" opponents while causing damage.
That's not the biggest "turn-off" for me, however. I find most of the powers hard to explain. To elaborate: what happens when the ranger uses his 'Hammer Shot' against, say, an Iron Golem? His arrows are charged with some kind of Ki, or kinetic energy? What about that Epic level Warlord power which allows him to suddenly shift *all* enemies i n a 60 ft. burst? They are hurled back as the Warlord (a martial class) uses some kind of "Avalanche of Force"? And so on.
It's not all bad for me, however. I like the Skill Challenges and the Rituals, although I would ban the latter from all "non-spellcasting" classes. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 20:12:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Instead, if you see encounters as challenges for the players to overcome or situations for them to make thematic choices, you need to have a meta-gaming communication between PCs and DMs.
We already have. In fact, it's the default position that I explain to any new player that comes in to my game that they're going to encounter things far above, far below, and everywhere in between their stations. There's no artificial creature encounter calculators in my games.
That said, I also do not get any kind of vicarious thrill from stomping the guts out of my player's characters, but TPKs happen, as my players experienced a few weeks ago. It's nobody's fault. Welcome to adventuring.
|
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 20:41:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
But, it's only up to the player creating the character. I for one have never been part of a group where my character's feats/skills/spells/etc. were up for "group approval". My character choices were always about the story I was telling of my character. Sometimes that story was different from the overall campaign story, but that's how it was.
If you want to tell your story about your character, write a novel.
When you play a RPG, other members of the group have their word to say (it may involve dice rolls, GMs can have a stronger voice) about anything happening in the game-world.
That's not a nice thing to say, Skeptic. First of all, I disagree -- if your DM approves of your character concept, and thinks your PC will fit into his campaign without too much work, that's it. You are clear to go -- no matter what the other players might think of your character.
Let me give you an example. Over a dozen years ago I wanted to create a nobleman fighter, which was pretty unusual in my group, since no other player had been allowed to do that before. And when I finally introduced my PC to the rest of the guys (after a couple of solo sessions), we (me and the DM) were met with bursts of outrage and disbelief ("WHAT? You let him create a *nobleman*? So unfair..."). Over time, however, they came to like him, and my PC brought a lot interesting story hooks into the campaign. I grew to like him above all my other characters. Now, if it had been a democratic vote back then, I would have never played that character. Yet me and the DM saw the benefits (storywise) of bringing a nobleman PC into that particular campaign (the PCs were deep into noble intrigue anyway). In the end, he became very central to the campaign's story.
You say that like it's an universally accepted principle that story is always PC-driven and players have "shared storytelling rights", while in fact a lot of games do not encourage this (D&D among them). A lot of the Indie RPGs do, but let's not bring them into this discussion. While I'm all for giving my players a chance at being creative and participating in the worldbuilding process, I can understand why some DMs are not so keen about it, and I *always* want to have the final say on things. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I've seen some really pathetic "anti-climaxes" and attempts at worldbuilding born out of player suggestions. Therefore I will not personally let players have any say about Race X or City Y or Deity Z in my setting -- it's my setting, after all, and their suggestions may clash with my own ideas. So while 4E encourages you to say "Yes" as much as only possible, I think it's not a very good principle, if you don't agree with what they're suggesting or what their characters are trying to accomplish. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 21:48:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
You say that like it's an universally accepted principle that story is always PC-driven and players have "shared storytelling rights", while in fact a lot of games do not encourage this (D&D among them). A lot of the Indie RPGs do, but let's not bring them into this discussion.
The good expression is "players-driven".
If one thing D&D players and DM should learn from indie RPG (aside from the basic "coherent game are more enjoyable"), is that GM = God is certainly not the only way to go.
I'm not asking D&D old-timers to enjoy GM-less games such as Universalis or Soap over night, I'm not even sure that I would appreciate it myself.
Here, I just want to be the little voice saying to the DMs to try to give up a bit of their almighty power to see how much that could improve the actual play experience.
I'll probably add something on your other point later. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 28 Aug 2008 21:52:43 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1871 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 22:22:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
If you want a truly "hardcore*" simulationist experience in play (which I don't think is really common) a situation where low-level PCs stumble unto the lair of a ancient evil dragon and end up being eaten can happen and nobody at the table should feel bad.
If I'm to be able to invest in the campaign world, the characters and the emerging story, it has to feel real in some way. And that means that the events have to be plausible according to the rules of the universe in question.
Yes, that means that the rules of the game have to be followed (except when they clearly violate good plausibility) and those rules have to be coherent and logical.
And I realise that it means I can't play D&D, yes. 
But I can play in the Realms nonetheless, so it's all good.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Instead, if you see encounters as challenges for the players to overcome or situations for them to make thematic choices, you need to have a meta-gaming communication between PCs and DMs.
To me, that's incomprehensible. That reduces the 'story' to a series of obviously artificial blocks in a game structure.
Like a movie where you can see the camera or a novel where people break the fourth wall, it ruins my suspension of disbelief utterly.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
For example, in D&D 4E if a let low-level PCs meet a ancient Dragon, I'll say them clearly that we'll do a Skill Challenge and probably announce the result for both success and failure (both moving the story in a different direction).
Whatever floats your boat, but like I said, I can't imagine how it's possible to enjoy a story where interal logic is ignored in favour of the direction the author wants to go.
To me, that is one of the worst sins I can find in writing of any sort. Or, I guess, storytelling of any sort.
If the ending is obviously justified by 'what made a better story' and not by 'what would happen, given the parameters we've established', then I'm not interested. If the author can hide it from me, then fine. But the moment I can see it, the suspension of disbelief is shattered and won't ever come back.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
The most important thing in a game, IMHO, is for the players to make meaningful choices and often, to make those choices meaningful, you need to give to players some information the characters don't have.
A choice is meaningful the moment you have any information that distinguises the options from each other. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
evildmguy
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 19:27:41
|
What I like about 4E:
This is probably specific to me but I will respond to the OP with what I like about 4E. I am not trying to sell it. I think everyone should play what they want! I am just talking about what I like.
Background: My group meets once a week. We are mostly older (mid to late 30s), married and half have kids. We all work the "normal" work week of 8-5, or so, Monday to Friday. We game because we enjoy it.
For myself, as the DM, 4E has been a real joy to DM. Prep time is very low. If a player can't make it, I can adjust things on the fly with a good idea how well it will work. The math lines up. This lets me spend more time on the adventure.
From a player perspective, having played and asked for feedback from my group, they have found it more fun. They think there are better rules to have cooperative play. All of them are involved most (95%+) of the time due to how the system works. There are few times when a *player* is left out. Again, given our background, that's important. We all came to have fun, not watch one or two people get to play because it was "their turn" or they were the ones who had chosen to play class X.
That is the ONLY way I have seen that 4E is like WoW. The designers looked at WoW, imo, and saw that each player was treated like a main character. It had to be fun at the individual level but also needed groups to do the really big things. So, they made the game about involving everyone, even if it's normally outside of their role, so that all are involved in the action. For a group like ours, that has made it a lot of fun.
Again, my opinion is to play whatever you like! All systems have good things going for them. I like what I have experienced with 4E and can't wait for more to come.
edg |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 19:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If the ending is obviously justified by 'what made a better story' and not by 'what would happen, given the parameters we've established', then I'm not interested. If the author can hide it from me, then fine. But the moment I can see it, the suspension of disbelief is shattered and won't ever come back.
You seems to think that for the story to "feel real", the rules of the game must be a reflection of the "game-world physics".
It is certainly one way to go, and games like GURPS exist, but it is not the only way to go.
When you read the transcript of a RPG aventure/campaign, you're certainly not be supposed to know what kind of "creative agenda" the group was engaged into, that would be like seeing a stunt actor or a camera in a movie.
When I say that encounters are setup as challenges or as thematic decision point, it is at the players-DM level, not in the game-world. Of course you need some kind of narration/acting to give it some sense as a fictional event.
For example, a player making a tactical choice in D&D may need to rationalize it "in character" for the story to make sense.
Again, what seems to be a problem, is to accept that the way the people around the table decided that a fictional element is added to the game-world doesn't make it more or less true.
|
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 11:31:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
In 4E, it appears each character is everyone's equal. Something that goes against working together as a team of players and characters. No must, but that very much depends on the gamer.
I've said it before, but that is simply false, if you don't work as a team in 4E, you end up killed easily. In 3.xE it was far more easy to all "play solo" in combat.
Let's not say it is false, shall we not. You've got your experiences, whereas I got mine. It all depends on the adventure at hand (and I'd doubt that there is that great an experience on 4E bashes about as yet) and the group mix. Of course, I was not speaking about specific adventures, but a PC groups' career. Some classes start weaker, others stronger. At certain stages, the "power" turns. Then a group needs to remind themselves of the earlier days ... and more often than not, this won't happen and a power-hunt starts and e.g. fighters desperately try to deal as much damage as possible to emulate that maximized-fireball or harm spell. When they e.g. should lay back and enjoy the show, thinking of the days when their 2d6+6 greatsword strikes kept the group's hedgehog wizard's 13 HP safe and dry. Hand on heart, did somesuch ever happened in your groups? |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
Edited by - Zanan on 30 Aug 2008 11:33:30 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 06:13:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Of course, I was not speaking about specific adventures, but a PC groups' career. Some classes start weaker, others stronger. At certain stages, the "power" turns. Then a group needs to remind themselves of the earlier days ... and more often than not, this won't happen and a power-hunt starts and e.g. fighters desperately try to deal as much damage as possible to emulate that maximized-fireball or harm spell. When they e.g. should lay back and enjoy the show, thinking of the days when their 2d6+6 greatsword strikes kept the group's hedgehog wizard's 13 HP safe and dry. Hand on heart, did somesuch ever happened in your groups?
I strongly prefer having all players playing at every turn in cooperation (4E) than having fights where one player shine while the others are watching (past editions).
|
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 11:28:29
|
To return to the original topic, it is impossible to give 'concrete, undebateable reasons to switch to 4th ed.'
Gaming is all about enjoyment, which is purely subjective. A 'concrete, undebateable reason' would be objective. The original question is, therefore, unanswerable.  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 15:04:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by arry
To return to the original topic, it is impossible to give 'concrete, undebateable reasons to switch to 4th ed.'
Gaming is all about enjoyment, which is purely subjective. A 'concrete, undebateable reason' would be objective. The original question is, therefore, unanswerable.
Indeed. The only undebatable thing about 4E is that it is the newest system. Everything else can be argued (and has been!). |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 16:29:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by arry
To return to the original topic, it is impossible to give 'concrete, undebateable reasons to switch to 4th ed.'
Gaming is all about enjoyment, which is purely subjective. A 'concrete, undebateable reason' would be objective. The original question is, therefore, unanswerable.
Indeed. The only undebatable thing about 4E is that it is the newest system. Everything else can be argued (and has been!).
I played some Living Forgotten Realms at Gencon UK, and 4e is very fun, for what it is - a tactical miniatures wargame. But the 4e Realms simply doesn't grab attention - the fun during the LFR events came from the other players and not the setting, which hardly intruded at all. |
|
|
|
Arion Elenim
Senior Scribe
933 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2008 : 14:15:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by evildmguy
What I like about 4E:
This is probably specific to me but I will respond to the OP with what I like about 4E. I am not trying to sell it. I think everyone should play what they want! I am just talking about what I like.
Background: My group meets once a week. We are mostly older (mid to late 30s), married and half have kids. We all work the "normal" work week of 8-5, or so, Monday to Friday. We game because we enjoy it.
For myself, as the DM, 4E has been a real joy to DM. Prep time is very low. If a player can't make it, I can adjust things on the fly with a good idea how well it will work. The math lines up. This lets me spend more time on the adventure.
From a player perspective, having played and asked for feedback from my group, they have found it more fun. They think there are better rules to have cooperative play. All of them are involved most (95%+) of the time due to how the system works. There are few times when a *player* is left out. Again, given our background, that's important. We all came to have fun, not watch one or two people get to play because it was "their turn" or they were the ones who had chosen to play class X.
That is the ONLY way I have seen that 4E is like WoW. The designers looked at WoW, imo, and saw that each player was treated like a main character. It had to be fun at the individual level but also needed groups to do the really big things. So, they made the game about involving everyone, even if it's normally outside of their role, so that all are involved in the action. For a group like ours, that has made it a lot of fun.
Again, my opinion is to play whatever you like! All systems have good things going for them. I like what I have experienced with 4E and can't wait for more to come.
edg
Thank you so much for your opinions! This actually helps a lot. This gives my a really good basis for comparison. |
My latest Realms-based short story, about a bard, a paladin of Lathander and the letter of the law, Debts Repaid. It takes place before the "shattering" and gives the bard Arion a last gasp before he plunges into the present.http://candlekeep.com/campaign/logs/log-debts.htm |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 18:36:02
|
I've got a lot of questions for you Sceptic.
First of all I would liek to say that I realy dont care what you play, as long as you dont drag my ass down the drain , which is $E.
Also I would like to say, that I'm very sorry if anyone feel offended by the words and questions that I'm going to ask!
First of all: How old are you and your "group"?
How long have you been playing D%D?
I also want to know, what fun is there in a world where PCs can change it to they liking.
PC: "I look behind this barrel, oh my I find a +5 tome of Inteligence". You as the DM might not have planned for this What do you do?
Also you tell about the priestess they meet:
DM: "ok in walkes a a woman in a white robe with a golden belt".
PC: "No i think it was a masturbating half-ork that is of no gender" What then do you do? If all the others agree with this "concensus"??
You can no longer create something of you own, make it scary or awesome for the players if they have a say in what happens. And if the stupid brats for players goes into a cave not knowing what they'll find... Well hell they might find Larloch, But then again they might not, if they dont want to. What a load of crap. **** it... im lvl 443 now.... just desided that and the DM, well its about comunication and Concensus. so if the rest of the party feels that way.. then fine by the DM.
Its about placing characters in the world, YOU CREATED, AS YOU DICTATE, and for then to try to survive. While having fun!! And if they can change the world, as I read from the last 5 pages of ranting, What possible fun could that be?
And to someone else who played once a week with his married friends: It takes me about oh I dont know... 1 hour to create something good and "On the fly", is a great part of D&D, because of the choices, the other dudes with achne around the table, make. Bad stupid or awe inspiering.
Lastly, what the hell can a stupid fighter resurrect... well that is about as stupid as telling me that a blind man can drive a car!
Ohh yeah... If I can choose my own ability scores when creating a char. Its gonna be 100 in str, 100 in dex, and so forht.. no wait. Make it a 1000000000000000000. And who the hell does the other players think they are trying to tell me what to create. I want the mons evil undead necromancer I can create and they just have to suck up to my awsome 100000000000 in every ability.
And if a spell kills you because you are evil well thats just to bad. The what about turning undead. No couse you dont want to discriminato the undead... What a croak of ****! SOmeone out there en the D&D univerce have created that spell long, a ****ing, go and it is still there.
DAMN im getting tired from hearing about how it is easyer... well are we playing in kindergarden... God DAMN!
Gotta have i smoke before I blow up
Mod Edit: Removed some obscene references and edited some inappropriate language. |
Edited by - The Sage on 04 Sep 2008 01:12:48 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 19:27:55
|
| I am confused as to where that came from. Mind giving us the quote from Sceptic that you are responding to? |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
StarBog
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
152 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 19:51:22
|
| You know, I don't have a lot of time for the new FRCS myself (for what I hope are constructive and reasonable reasons), but that post was utterly uncalled for. Totally unjustified. Nicolai, you should be ashamed of yourself. That sort of tone has no place on Candlekeep. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 20:28:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
First of all: How old are you and your "group"?
How long have you been playing D%D?
I'm 27, started at 12 with AD&D 2E. Been DM most of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
I also want to know, what fun is there in a world where PCs can change it to they liking.
PC: "I look behind this barrel, oh my I find a +5 tome of Inteligence". You as the DM might not have planned for this What do you do?
Also you tell about the priestess they meet:
DM: "ok in walkes a a woman in a white robe with a golden belt".
PC: "No i think it was a masturbating half-ork that is of no gender" What then do you do? If all the others agree with this "concensus"??
You can no longer create something of you own, make it scary or awesome for the players if they have a say in what happens. And if the stupid brats for players goes into a cave not knowing what they'll find... Well hell they might find Larloch, But then again they might not, if they dont want to. What a load of crap. **** it... im lvl 443 now.... just desided that and the DM, well its about comunication and Concensus. so if the rest of the party feels that way.. then fine by the DM.
Its about placing characters in the world, YOU CREATED, AS YOU DICTATE, and for then to try to survive. While having fun!! And if they can change the world, as I read from the last 5 pages of ranting, What possible fun could that be?
And to someone else who played once a week with his married friends: It takes me about oh I dont know... 1 hour to create something good and "On the fly", is a great part of D&D, because of the choices, the other dudes with achne around the table, make. Bad stupid or awe inspiering.
Lastly, what the hell can a stupid fighter resurrect... well that is about as stupid as telling me that a blind man can drive a car!
Ohh yeah... If I can choose my own ability scores when creating a char. Its gonna be 100 in str, 100 in dex, and so forht.. no wait. Make it a 1000000000000000000. And who the hell does the other players think they are trying to tell me what to create. I want the mons evil undead necromancer I can create and they just have to suck up to my awsome 100000000000 in every ability.
And if a spell kills you because you are evil well thats just to bad. The what about turning undead. No couse you dont want to discriminato the undead... What a croak of ****! SOmeone out there en the D&D univerce have created that spell long, a ****ing, go and it is still there.
DAMN im getting tired from hearing about how it is easyer... well are we playing in kindergarden... God DAMN!
You are confusing so many things here, I don't really know where to start.
In a RPG, people around a table use a system to interactively describe fictional events occuring in a shared imagined space.
This system is supposed to be an enjoyable way to create fiction that offers a very different experience than co-authoring writing.
Anything more than that is specific to one kind of RPG or another.
D&D has a competitive nature (that some editions try to hide under the carpet) and a very powerful DM. That is one specific configuration for a RPG, not something universal.
My suggestion for you is to take a look at the huge variety of RPG that is out there and see how some are very different from D&D. Some give more power to players and some even get rid of the GM.
One specific thing about your issues above: I never said that reaching a consensus should be use for every situation the PCs face; you do need situations where dices are thrown (or any other resolution mechanism).
I will also give you a real example from a game where player are more powerful than in D&D. The PC is in the backyard of a manor he has to get into to find secret documents. Player says: I want to get inside by using a secret door in the garden, he must have one ! I (as GM) have some idea about the manor, but no map. My response to the players: offer him to do a "skill test" for which a success would get him into the manor using the secret door that would then exist (failure had a different consequence, that was also spelled out).
That is similar than “I want to find a magical sword in the dumpster”, but I don’t think you are ready to see the differences.
Mod Edit: Removed some obscene references and edited some inappropriate language from the quoted portion of text. |
Edited by - The Sage on 04 Sep 2008 01:15:01 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 20:49:33
|
Im sorry it got out of hand, but I just could not fathom the fun it what you were talking about in many of your posts. To me it seemed as if Players have a saying in how the world you have desined and created. I would hate that as DM and player aswell. But as I also said I dont realy care. But there are some things of $E that I hate.
1: I dont like the fack that others that spellcasters can invoke spell like resurection. There should be a difference in classes.
I want to have a BIG difference in classes, that is what to me helps make individuels!
Thats MO. I will say this thou. I never sayd that is not good rules for some. I just hate most of them! |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2008 : 22:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Im sorry it got out of hand, but I just could not fathom the fun it what you were talking about in many of your posts. To me it seemed as if Players have a saying in how the world you have desined and created. I would hate that as DM and player aswell. But as I also said I dont realy care. But there are some things of $E that I hate.
I created my "test campaign" for 4E this way :
Each player must write for each character 2-3 sentences (no more) that describe a goal he/she wants to accomplish.
Finally, they must together come up with a common goal that made them form a party.
I took that stuff and a filled up some details, mainly naming a few places and having a very crude idea of the world around. Some of these details where shared with them and I kept others for later.
For example, the Eladrin Wizard PC had her father accused for a crime than imprisoned for life, she's following his path to find proofs he is innocent.
The groups is without human PCs, so they decided that they will start together as prisoners of a secret racist human group.
The campaign actually started when the PCs were freed of their captors by an attack on the caravan inflicted by an horde of kobolds led by a black dragon.
They found in the wreckage an halfling that asked them to rescue his fellows who where taken by the kobolds (the first quest offered, which they accepted).
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
1: I dont like the fack that others that spellcasters can invoke spell like resurection. There should be a difference in classes.
I want to have a BIG difference in classes, that is what to me helps make individuels!
As Rituals are not really part of the classes, they don't make the classes similar or different.
Each group can restrict which rituals can be used by each classes if they want, but taking the required feats (for example, Religion and Ritual Casting) include the appropriate "training/faith" for using the Raise Dead ritual.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 03 Sep 2008 22:21:47 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 03:05:05
|
Okay, I said it before, but I think it needs to be said again. Skeptic and his group play a different game. Just like most of us have things we do differently than what's listed in the rule books. His game works for his and his group. I know that it would not work for me or my group, just like what we do probably wouldn't work for him.
I've made it clear that 4th Edition is a good rules set for a tactical-based game, but in My Opinion, that is not what D&D is about, so I don't feel it's good for me. Skeptic feels differently.
Nicolai, you need to calm down a bit because as long as he enjoys the game, he's going to play it his way. He has never held a gun (literally or metaphorically) to anyone's head and said, "You HAVE to play this because it's D&D!" He has always only offered up what he likes (and even what he doesn't like) about the system to make sure everyone has a fair view of the game.
And as much as I and you, Nicolai, agree in that we don't like that 4th Edition has the means to allow Fighters the ability to Raise Dead, I recall disagreeing with you on your 9th level spell that grants you access to Mythallar energies for 24 hours. Everyone can have their own opinion as long as they aren't forcing it on someone else. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 03:59:23
|
| Folks, we are once more walking over some very familiar ground, here. Can we find something new to say about 4E? Or has this thread run its course? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 04:18:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Folks, we are once more walking over some very familiar ground, here. Can we find something new to say about 4E? Or has this thread run its course?
I do believe it's close to that point now. I'm not happy that I had to remove such profanities from some of the the more recent posts.
Please fellow scribes, do remember that we have some younglines amongst us keen to learn their way around the Realms. Keep that in mind when posting in the future.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 04 Sep 2008 04:20:14 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Concrete, undebatable reasons to switch to 4th ed.
Topic Locked
