Anybody Bothering with 4.0?

Ken B. wrote:

I haven't put on my robe and wizard hat in about fifteen years, and I'm probably not going to start now. So that's a "no."

Ken, I had no idea you were a LARPer.

--Mike L.

I might do the demo at the FLGS, but I really have no interest in the new system. I still think the main reason for the switch was because the business model used to make money off the 3rd edition had run out of steam and it was time to hit the "refresh" button on all the handbooks and supplements.

BillN

Seeing that I pretty much exclusively run Feng Shui games, that answer's firmly a "no". I'm branching out, and trying to get my players to do the same. In the near future, I might do a single run of Living Steel, just to show them that combat is not always the answer to everything. Or, I might run Mutant Chronicles, once I refresh my memory on the D20 system. Finally, I might get off my duff and D20ify Justifiers aka The Game That Furries Ruined For Me.

Ken B. wrote:

I haven't put on my robe and wizard hat in about fifteen years, and I'm probably not going to start now. So that's a "no."

I dunno Ken. I have been eying that 3 foot silver painted wooden broad sword in the closet(+5 Vorpal that is) And I am feeling a tinge to pulling out some Dee'an'Dee!

Rliyen wrote:

Seeing that I pretty much exclusively run Feng Shui games, that answer's firmly a "no". I'm branching out, and trying to get my players to do the same. In the near future, I might do a single run of Living Steel, just to show them that combat is not always the answer to everything. Or, I might run Mutant Chronicles, once I refresh my memory on the D20 system. Finally, I might get off my duff and D20ify Justifiers aka The Game That Furries Ruined For Me.

i've had this idea to run a D20 CTHULU campaign for the last few years. Seeing as how I coukld probably pull it off with gthe use of just one sourcebook I might actually gice it a try...

billyz wrote:

Rliyen wrote:

Seeing that I pretty much exclusively run Feng Shui games, that answer's firmly a "no". I'm branching out, and trying to get my players to do the same. In the near future, I might do a single run of Living Steel, just to show them that combat is not always the answer to everything. Or, I might run Mutant Chronicles, once I refresh my memory on the D20 system. Finally, I might get off my duff and D20ify Justifiers aka The Game That Furries Ruined For Me.

i've had this idea to run a D20 CTHULU campaign for the last few years. Seeing as how I coukld probably pull it off with gthe use of just one sourcebook I might actually gice it a try...

At the FLGS closest to me, one of the employees there is starting up a Call of Cthulu campaign. I've thought about joining in, but it's typically on Sundays and weekends with the kids are at a premium; especially during the summer. Back before kids, that wasn't much of an issue, but times change. I might have to wait until they're quite a bit older before I can think about gaming during the day on a weekend.

(Unless I run a campaign for them when they get older.)

--Mike L.

mikelawson wrote:

billyz wrote:

Rliyen wrote:

Seeing that I pretty much exclusively run Feng Shui games, that answer's firmly a "no". I'm branching out, and trying to get my players to do the same. In the near future, I might do a single run of Living Steel, just to show them that combat is not always the answer to everything. Or, I might run Mutant Chronicles, once I refresh my memory on the D20 system. Finally, I might get off my duff and D20ify Justifiers aka The Game That Furries Ruined For Me.

i've had this idea to run a D20 CTHULU campaign for the last few years. Seeing as how I coukld probably pull it off with gthe use of just one sourcebook I might actually gice it a try...

At the FLGS closest to me, one of the employees there is starting up a Call of Cthulu campaign. I've thought about joining in, but it's typically on Sundays and weekends with the kids are at a premium; especially during the summer. Back before kids, that wasn't much of an issue, but times change. I might have to wait until they're quite a bit older before I can think about gaming during the day on a weekend.

(Unless I run a campaign for them when they get older.)

--Mike L.

Note to self: posting while drunk and tired can be embarrassing.

I here ya Mike, as it stands now,I only Play D&D once every three weeks or so. Sometimes more, sometimes less. ANY QT I can spend with the wife and kid is at a premium considering my shite ass schedule.

I work nights:7:30Pm to 6AM, and I work on a six day cycle. So, if this week I'm off Saturday, Sunday that means that next week I'm off Friday, Saturday. It's a fucking nightmare with a familly.

Can't wait till I get on a schedule that somewhat emulates this "normal life" I keep hearing great things about .

SenorOcho wrote:

That's exactly what people said about 3.5 vs 3rd edition, though.
My biggest beef with 3rd edition was the fact that it heavily encouraged powergaming, but was insufficiently equipped to handle it - How often do you really have an 'epic' fight that lasts several rounds in 3.5? It has been my experience with any sort of optimized play that there is no middle ground of difficulty, but rather a "we're overkilling them or they're overkilling us" scenario. As far as I can tell, 4th edition goes a long way toward fixing that.

Yeah, this was how I felt about 3 and 3.5. They just didn't have the feeling of being immersed in a fantasy story. It became all about characters feats and special abilities. The changes to make 4th edition sound like they will take it even further away from classic roleplaying and make it more like a computer game. And it sounds like there will be no support for most of the settings and they won't let outside companies make material for them.

Citadel wrote:

SenorOcho wrote:

That's exactly what people said about 3.5 vs 3rd edition, though.
My biggest beef with 3rd edition was the fact that it heavily encouraged powergaming, but was insufficiently equipped to handle it - How often do you really have an 'epic' fight that lasts several rounds in 3.5? It has been my experience with any sort of optimized play that there is no middle ground of difficulty, but rather a "we're overkilling them or they're overkilling us" scenario. As far as I can tell, 4th edition goes a long way toward fixing that.

Yeah, this was how I felt about 3 and 3.5. They just didn't have the feeling of being immersed in a fantasy story. It became all about characters feats and special abilities. The changes to make 4th edition sound like they will take it even further away from classic roleplaying and make it more like a computer game. And it sounds like there will be no support for most of the settings and they won't let outside companies make material for them.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely understanding the powergaming aspects of 3.x. I've seen plenty of "how can I maximize X to get Y?" posts around on other forums.

That said, a lot of roleplaying itself has to come from the players, not the system. I can understand why some systems, such as GURPS, emphasize role playing, but if you're playing with a bunch of power gamers, they'll find a way to powerize GURPS.

It all comes down to what the users want to play and what they're used to. Look at the average teen today who plays RPGs; more often than not they got introduced to the genre via the computer game, which emphasizes power gaming (the backstory notwithstanding). That's what they know, so that's how they'll play. Actual roleplaying is a different animal, and they have to learn how to play that. It took me some growing up to do to get away from powergaming in old AD&D; probably what helped the most was reading more novels and realizing that the story was more important than how badass I could make my character (ooo.... +5 Holy Avenger, +5 Plate, +5 Shield).

--Mike L.

billyz wrote:
Note to self: posting while drunk and tired can be embarrassing.

I here ya Mike, as it stands now,I only Play D&D once every three weeks or so. Sometimes more, sometimes less. ANY QT I can spend with the wife and kid is at a premium considering my shite ass schedule.

I work nights:7:30Pm to 6AM, and I work on a six day cycle. So, if this week I'm off Saturday, Sunday that means that next week I'm off Friday, Saturday. It's a fucking nightmare with a familly.

Can't wait till I get on a schedule that somewhat emulates this "normal life" I keep hearing great things about .[/quote]

I'm still waiting, myself. I'd like a job that is more strictly 40 hours a week so I can have more time to spend around the house or out with the family, but that's more and more becoming a mirage, I suppose.

--Mike L.

4.0...what I've heard through the grapevine that it focuses even more on miniatures and combat and away from roleplaying...I'm not looking forward to it. I have no interest in buying a new set of books. However, my regular group is intrigued, so someone will probably pick up a Players Guide and we'll give it a shot.

I don't understand the comment of "4.0 getting back to what D&D originally was: a miniatures game". I've played the box sets, then 1st ed., 2nd, and so on and 3.0 was the only one with heavy miniatures rules. The earlier editions were all more paper and pencil with optional miniature rules.

I have a mixed feeling about miniatures...the combat is more exact and everything, but it slows the game way down. I have no interest in a game that brings D&D closer to a miniatures game.

I've been interested in trying another system for awhile, as Ive never been completely satisfied with 3rd edition. But its hard to tell whats really good out there.

I tried to play in a D&D campaign last year, but I really realized how the game depends on who is running and playing it for it to be fun. I don't think the mechanics are the important part for such a long-term commitment (although they certainly play a part) but it really goes with the group of people. If I was offered to try it, I'd give it a shot with a group, but I'm pretty tired of the endless struggle I had trying to put together a group when I first started College. I think the fun I had playing D&D in Junior High and High School was more fun with my friends than fun with the game.

I do understand from a marketing perspective why they make new editions, but it really sounds pretty intense on the miniatures. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad, as I've always enjoyed using the miniatures and tactical combat. I will agree with the previous poster who described 3.0 or 3.5 edition combat as all-out-slaughter or routing defeat. I was constantly struggling to try to keep the game challenging and yet not too hard that it wouldn't be fun.

I submit that most of you are idiots and would not know 'fun' if it bit you in the ass.

It would appear that most of you played 3/3.5 (and soon 4) the way D&D was meant to be played: as a mini combat game in which your figure gets more powerful over time, through experience & treasure. That same definition, I believe, if also used to describe RPG computer games. The fact that you get more powerful and there's a story tacked on makes the game an RPG. The closer it is to turn-based combat then the closer you are to the roots of the entire system: Chainmail and the origionl small box 1974 set. Those were miniature combat systems with leveling/"character development" and a story bolted on. "I move the Prussian private 1 inch forward and roll on the exit sewers table with a -1 modifier for my reflecting mirror." That's Chainmail, that's the first 3 box set, and that's going to be 4. I'm sure it doesn't take THAT much work to see 3.90 and 3.5 in there. Roll the dice, kill the creature, loot the treasure, level: THAT's D&D and all RPG's.

Modern systems, which claim to be RPG's, are actually more like exercises in cooperative storytelling. Once upon a Time, Baron Munch, Polaris, Matrix games, and Amber are all derivations of storytelling games.

I see folks as having three choices: Storytelling games (which is what I've been leaning towards in the last couple of years), mini combat (every version of D&D ever published) or some kind of hybrid. You can tack storytelling elements on to ANY game. If you wanted storytelling in your D&D game then you and your DM should have introduced it. If you didn't then it's your fault your game sucked.

When I was running I liked to throw impossible situations at the players (Vrock for 4 L1 players.) THAT gets their juices flowing. The game has to be exciting to have those memorable moments, and "4 goblins attack you on the road, roll for initiative" is a complete loss all around.

I've seen a lot of people get disenchanted with D&D of late and I feel sorry for them. It's clear they are not having fun and their DM isn't helping them to HAVE fun, or doesn't know how to help them have fun. It's excitement & imagination and the shared storytelling between the players & DM which make the game fun. Sure, the players may THINK the rules are adjudicating, but the it's up to the DM to make sure, whatever happens, people have fun.

In any combat the players can win or the creatures can win. What does 'win' mean? It doesn't have to mean 'die'. In fact 'die' is probably the most boring thing that can happen. Old foes come back bearing horrible wounds and seeking the Emerald rod of Al-azar having been looted from their not-quite-dead corpse and are bent on vengeance. Players are captured, maimed, and have scars and a challenging time navigating through the Vrock slave pits to freedom. The rules & dice decide which path to fun we go down, but both are still wins for the players in the long run because they are having fun, no matter what happens to their characters.

Oh, and all of this will cause Gygax to roll over. Those guys were hardcore tabletop mini players to the end, and did none of this storytelling stuff. They would have over Descent, except for the fact they invented a much more free-form version of it 30 years beforehand.

D&D is a mini game with mini rules. There's nothing wrong with that and you can add your storytelling elements to the top of it. Thus it appeals to both the hardcore min players and to the storytelling folks. Other systems (the new Indy games movement) may have mechanics more suited to storytelling, but ultimately storytelling depends on you and the other players, not on the system.

Don't like tabletop mini games? Then say something and strive for a more co-op environment with the DM & other players.

G - The bestest DM EVAR.



Kriz wrote:

I don't understand the comment of "4.0 getting back to what D&D originally was: a miniatures game".

BTW, for a more co-op environment between the DM and players, I absolutely love the Burning Wheel system.

But yeah, as the guide to every RPG I have ever read states: Its your damn game, if you want a certain aspect then go for that.

Kriz wrote:

I don't understand the comment of "4.0 getting back to what D&D originally was: a miniatures game". I've played the box sets, then 1st ed., 2nd, and so on and 3.0 was the only one with heavy miniatures rules. The earlier editions were all more paper and pencil with optional miniature rules.

Go even farther back in time, to Chainmail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_%28game%29

"Chainmail is a medieval miniatures wargame created by Jeff Perren and Gary Gygax. The 1971 edition includes a fantasy supplement and is one of the oldest sets of rules for fantasy miniature wargaming,[1] containing spells and monsters that would reappear in Dungeons and Dragons."

AD&D also tried to get back to the miniatures in the mid-'80s, when they published Battlesystem. And I used to have this old TSR pamphlet called Swords and Spells that tried to do some kinda bullshit diceless warfare using averaged stats for the combatants. I wanted to like it, but it was an ill-conceived mess.