Export thread

These games comprise most of what I think about whenever I'm driving. I have a lot to say about them. I'll probably update this from time to time with new thoughts. Feel free to debate me. Feel free to tell me my taste in games sucks. I enjoyed playing World of Synnibarr. You won't be telling me anything I don't already know.

Also, I hope you like text.

For now, what better topic to start with than:

Why I Don't Like Dungeons and Dragons: 4th Edition

If you care about my opinion of tabletop gaming at all, you might have noticed I don't enjoy 4e. Like many, I tried it out and later went right back to playing 3.5. I haven't touched the game in close to a year, and I still think about it. I love thinking about 4e. Why do I not like it?

1: It's easy to get into. Why is this bad? Am I some elitist nerd who needs his games to be complicated and inaccessible so those normal people, with their jobs and their haircuts and their grasp on what's mainstream and popular, won't touch it so tabletop games stay only my hobby? No. I want people playing these games. I love playing them, and I think other people will have fun with them too.

One of the biggest problems I've found with games that are simple to pick up is that it's just as easy to drop them. You very quickly get the necessary skills to be successful at the game. From there, if something about the game doesn't click on a very basic level, you aren't going to be hooked.

I could get into 4e very easily. It was so easy to just sit down and make a character that was powerful and jived with the rest of the party. If I could pick up a basketball and, with no practice, consistently shoot 3 pointers, where's the challenge? Why should I keep playing? I couldn't keep playing.

2: The game doesn't really evolve as you level up. Okay, that's a lie. You get more powers as you level up, so you can deal big damage more consistently as you gain bigger and bigger powers. So they gave the monsters more HP to make the fights last longer.

WotC say that you should expect every fight to last an hour. If the players are getting more and more powers to do 5[W] + Stat, then the monsters should be having more HP to keep combat to that length. So did combat really change? I'm getting more options so combat can go similarly as it did when I was low-level.

In 3.5, the game evolved as you leveled up. At level 1, it's a game of pure action economy. Just one good roll on the DM's part could spell doom for a character, so it paid to be conservative because you were so squishy. At level 3, you could survive more so you could afford to play a little more recklessly. However, you can't be stupid. A couple of good hits can kill you. At level 6, characters started to be able to access prestige classes, so their power could grow even more. They can afford to be more reckless with their power as they get higher in level. Around level 14, the characters are powerful enough that the game is rocket tag. It isn't about being conservative anymore. It's about killing the other guy as fast as possible. The game grows from being conservative to going nova.

3: Characters within each role are too interchangeable. Now, I think when people say that every class in 4e is the same, it's a gross oversimplification. A fighter is not a rogue, which is not a wizard, which is not a cleric.

The role system is a way to streamline party making. As long as each role is represented, the players will have a functioning party. Maybe the way each class goes about doing it's role is different, but in the end, a defender goes up to the monsters, hits them, marks them, and gets hit. Maybe one class tanks by having a ton of HP and it marks everyone around it as a free action while another class wears heavy armors, so they're harder to hit, and can mark one guy with one mark and have powers that give them more marks. In the end, the dynamic hasn't shifted. Both classes still walk up to a monster, hit it, mark it, and get hit.

In 3.5, even if classes had a similar function, they could be very different in how they were designed and how you can play them. The wizard, sorcerer, warmage, wu jen, and dread necromancer are all arcane full casters. The sorcerer is limited by spells known. The warmage focuses on spells that do damage. The dread necromancer is Exactly What It Says On the Tin. The wizard and the wu jen are probably the only two classes there that are interchangeable, which makes sense because the wu jen was made to be a wizard replacement for eastern-inspired games.

When I pick a class, I want it to be based more on what unique things it brings to the table. If I've picked a bard, I picked it because I want to do a lot of things that a cleric can't. I want the choice to be more than "well, this guy is less focused on healing and more focused on buffing while the other guy is less focused on buffing and more focused on healing." I want the choice to be more like "Well, this guy can give the party +6 to attack, +4 to damage, and an extra 6d6 on every successful attack they make, while this guy can grow to giant size, get super strong, hit harder because he knows what the enemy is, and turn into a troll."

and finally

4: 3.5 is two games. 4e is one.

What does that mean? 3.5 is broken up into two distinct phases. There's character creation and play.

Now 4e does have character creation, that's true. Just not to the extent that 3.5 does.

With feat choice, multi-classing, and prestige classes, in 3.5 I can make a wizard that plays nothing like another wizard that plays nothing like another. Illumian Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge/Dweomerkeeper involves a little bit of shenanigans, but it's workable. Wizard/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is a decent one. Wizard/Warblade/Jade Phoenix Mage/Abjurant Champion is good if I want to be a magic knight.

In 4e, well Flaming Burst is the best Wizard at-will that targets, so I'm going to want to take that so I can do my job of killing minions. Hm, need another at-will. Thunderwave places me a bit too close to the enemy to be useful and I'm going to want to a way to attack a single target at a range. Well, Ray of Frost has a status. Magic Missile has better range. So between Ray of Frost and Magic Missile, do I want to emphasize battlefield control or damage? Then, based off of which one I picked, I pick encounters and dailies that emphasize either control or damage. Then I can pick feats. They don't enhance my ability to control in any serious way. When that's finished, I'm ready to fulfill my destiny and do damage to an area.

In 3.5, you have choices. You have a significant number of options to choose from. In 4e, that number is reduced. It's reduced for the sake of balance. It's reduced so all classes can be viable. Character creation is so much less a game than in 3.5. There isn't as much of an opportunity to get creative, to find synergy, to say "I just made a character that uses wisdom for just about everything."

Sure, in 4e, power gaming isn't a big problem because of the lack of options. Even if some character is better than another, it isn't going to be as massive a gulf as it would be between a level 20 wizard slinging around Wish for free, 5 times a day and a level 20 Truenamer, who is maybe saying words of power to slow an enemy for 2 rounds.

But powergaming isn't necessarily a problem. The most important balance in a D&D game is intra-party balance. If the free-wish-slinging wizard is in a party with a samurai who can perfectly lockdown any creature not immune to fear, a psion immune to everything, and an artificer who rolls twice and takes the better result to do anything, then it's possible to challenge the party (okay, maybe not due to the high power of everything involved, work with me here) without anyone really overshadowing the other. Everyone is powergaming, but it's still a balanced party. If there's a party of a fighter, a rogue, a healing-focused cleric, and a warmage, then the DM can challenge the party without overshadowing anyone. Nobody is powergaming, and it's still a balanced party. If the samurai who can perfectly lockdown any creature not immune to fear joins the fighter, rogue, cleric, and warmage, the game breaks down. Only one person is powergaming, so it's not a balanced party. If the samurai isn't willing to play a weaker character or help bring people up to their level, then the problem isn't that they're a powergamer, it's that they're an asshole.

I can't let 4e go. I have to know why I don't like it. Even though I haven't played it for a while, I have to think about it. I have to analyze it. It's an elegant piece of game design. The designers at WotC did a fantastic job on it. I wrote this entire thing explaining my problems with it, but some of my complaints are design elements. It's like I'm complaining about Highlander because in the end, there could be only one. That was the entire point of Highlander. 4e is supposed to be easy to get into. Classes within roles are supposed to be basically interchangeable, since each has to do the same job. There are supposed to be less options for game balance. I wrote this entire thing when I could explain it all in five words, technically six because one is a contraction: it didn't click with me.

4E is exactly the same as 3.5.

How so?

They're both made by WotC?

So, when do you start talking about the role playing? If I were to find a group to play a tabletop RPG with, it sure wouldn't be to futz around with combat mechanics because I think that's fun. I'd join because I want to role play. I want to tell a fun story and act out a character. I understand that not everyone feels that way, and that there are people who get a kick out of powergaming as a group but I get my fill of that playing computer games. In the few experiences I've had playing pen & paper games, it's been far more about hanging around with friends and playing roles, than it was about dice and rules.

He said he was gonna talk about tabletop games.... not roleplaying....jeez.

2nd, 3.5 and 4th Ed D&D are re-inventions of game that are sold in the hopes of continued sales upon an existing brand name. Each release has been done to make a profit for it's publisher while hoping to increase the value of the D&D brand by extending it's life cycle. To discuss that there are differences between editions is to not recognize that each edition must be markedly different than its predecessor otherwise the brand as a whole suffers stagnation and death.

figmentPez said:

So, when do you start talking about the role playing? If I were to find a group to play a tabletop RPG with, it sure wouldn't be to futz around with combat mechanics because I think that's fun. I'd join because I want to role play. I want to tell a fun story and act out a character. I understand that not everyone feels that way, and that there are people who get a kick out of powergaming as a group but I get my fill of that playing computer games. In the few experiences I've had playing pen & paper games, it's been far more about hanging around with friends and playing roles, than it was about dice and rules.

Click to expand...

I start talking about roleplaying when it has a rules effect. This is all game design centric, since that's something tangible I can analyze and talk about.

Coincidentally, one of my greatest moments in an RPG didn't involve rolling. It involved me playing as a dwarf with low int, low wis. The way the story goes, the party thief, who was invisible at the time, is killing a mid-level cleric who is adventuring with us. Before he dies, he uses his magic to give the dwarf a divine quest to avenge the cleric's death by finding and killing the thief responsible. Since the dwarf didn't see the thief, and the thief he adventures with wouldn't betray any comrade like that, he goes on the hunt to find and kill the murderer.

---------- Post added at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

HCGLNS said:

2nd, 3.5 and 4th Ed D&D are re-inventions of game that are sold in the hopes of continued sales upon an existing brand name. Each release has been done to make a profit for it's publisher while hoping to increase the value of the D&D brand by extending it's life cycle. To discuss that there are differences between editions is to not recognize that each edition must be markedly different than its predecessor otherwise the brand as a whole suffers stagnation and death.

Click to expand...

I realize that there are differences. I realize that there need to be differences. I think comparing the differences between the two is a tired topic, with my post up there not helping matters .

4e is an evolution of the D&D concept in a very beautiful way. It's elegant and simple, a very welcome change from 3.5, which could be extremely complicated, with a decent character involving a decent investment of time.

I think the two are the same from a marketing perspective and from the design intent of getting away from the previous editions, but if 4e is designed to get away from 3.5, how can the two be the same from the game design standpoint?

Allen said:

I start talking about roleplaying when it has a rules effect. This is all game design centric, since that's something tangible I can analyze and talk about.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you should consider the effect of rules on roleplaying, as well as the other way around. I don't want to have to play a game before I can play the game. You see character creation as fun, while I disagree. Character creation, to me, should be about creating a personality, not about manipulating statistics. As much as possible I want to be able to choose my character based on how they fit in the story, not about how the numbers crunch. 4e sounds a lot more appealing than 3.5 in that respect.

figmentPez said:

Well, maybe you should consider the effect of rules on roleplaying, as well as the other way around. I don't want to have to play a game before I can play the game. You see character creation as fun, while I disagree. Character creation, to me, should be about creating a personality, not about manipulating statistics. As much as possible I want to be able to choose my character based on how they fit in the story, not about how the numbers crunch. 4e sounds a lot more appealing than 3.5 in that respect.

Click to expand...

There are games that definitely facilitate the rules having an effect on roleplaying. Dungeons & Dragons isn't one of them. A dwarf is not hard-coded into the system rules as being gruff, gold-loving, blunt-speaking, Scottish-accented, viking-helmed, elf-hating, ax-swinging, stout, long-bearded, stolid, unimaginative, and boastful. If I play a dwarf that way, that isn't a conscious design decision on the part of the designer. If you'd like to discuss a game where rules can have an effect on roleplay, I'd love to talk Exalted.

Character creation is about making personality and manipulating statistics. If you don't want to manipulate statistics when you make a character, you've gone into freeform, which I'm not going to discuss here because there are no rules or design for me to talk about. If I'm making a character who I want to be extremely competent at fighting, I manipulate numbers so he's likely to hit what he swings at. If I'm making a character who is a bit of a blowhard who only convinces people he's a great fighter, I'm investing more in social skills than in fighting skills. The numbers can't be completely divorced from the personality because then you have unlike parts. If I make a highly competent warrior and play him as a charismatic, manipulative, incompetent in a fight blowhard when, in gameplay terms, he breaks mirrors by looking at them, can't talk the pants off a person wearing pants 20 sizes too large for them, and could fence with a god and win, I have a bit of a problem.

Cool. Play 4e. Neither game has somebody holding a gun to your head telling you to worry about making numbers crunch, but in 4e, it's a lot harder to make a character who is completely useless when the dice get rolled.

You don't need rules to roleplay, you just do it.

You don't like 4th edition? We didn't Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. Obviously a thread was needed to announce this. Now let all create biased threads about how we feel about the 4th. Don't take this personal but your elaborations on why you don't like the 4th edition is short-sighted and quite frankly...pitiful. I won't go into details what I feel about 3.5 but kindly shut the fuck up already about the 4th. You don't like it. We get it. Move on.

1. Stop being elitist. Nothing is wrong about a game being easy to get into. We're not talking about women. The game doesn't lose value when they are easy to get to.
2. The game evolves quite well, don't let your one shot sessions and lack of play give you that conclusion. My LVL 8 cleric could have been playing in MANY ways and roleplay will always further that option.
3. Leaders can tank as well if they are built for it. So can specific builds who's strengths cater depending on what the situation brings. I'm sorry, nothing can tell me that they can "train" thievery and be better than a rogue. My +13 at LVL 1 states otherwise and if your DM leaves door DCs at 10 and a cleric can fumble the keys into the slot for success, let me tell you who's to blame for that.... not 4E.
4. Please be quiet. You have no idea what you're saying. Please stick to 3.5 and shut up. Don't give other forum posters the idea that you're remotely right.

Yes, I can be an asshole but seriously... this post is me HOLDING back. Please stop talking about the 4th, I know exactly what type of gamer you are and what bandwagon you're in.

Or even better, mods, please lock this thread. Nothing good will come out of this. I'm just warning you ahead of time now.

You don't like 4th edition? We didn't Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. Obviously a thread was needed to announce this. Now let all create biased threads about how we feel about the 4th. Don't take this personal but your elaborations on why you don't like the 4th edition is short-sighted and quite frankly...pitiful. I won't go into details what I feel about 3.5 but kindly shut the fuck up already about the 4th. You don't like it. We get it. Move on.

Click to expand...

I'm going to use this thread to talk about all kinds of tabletop games, not just 4e. You can go into details about what you feel about 3.5. Do it. Maybe it'll lead to a nice little discussion about the good things and bad things about the system.

Jay said:

1. Stop being elitist. Nothing is wrong about a game being easy to get into. We're not talking about women. Nothing loses value when they are easy to get to.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. One of the best things about 4e is that so many people can get into it. That's fantastic. Some of my favorite games are ones that are easy to get into.

2. The game evolves quite well, don't let your one shot sessions and lack of play give you that conclusion. My LVL 8 cleric could have been playing in MANY ways and roleplay will always further that option.

Click to expand...

Because I don't like the game that means I didn't play it?

3. Leaders can tank as well if they are built for it. So can specific builds who's strengths cater depending on what the situation brings. I'm sorry, nothing can tell me that they can "train" thievery and be better than a rogue. My +13 at LVL 1 states otherwise and if your DM leaves door DCs at 10 and a cleric can fumble the keys into the slot for success, let me tell you who's to blame for that.

Click to expand...

Right, one of the roles of the leader is to be an off-tank, right in the thick of it with the defenders.

What are the other builds that can do it? I'm curious.

I never said anyone can train thievery and be better than a rogue at it. In fact, I don't know where that came from. My understanding of a rogue in 4e is that it's something of a glass cannon that can deal large amounts of damage and yet can't take much.

4. Please be quiet. You have no idea what you're saying. Please stick to 3.5 and shut up. Don't give other forum posters the idea that you're remotely right.

Click to expand...

Why don't I have any idea what I'm saying?

And I apologize for my hubris to express my opinion on the internet about games.

Yes, I can be an asshole but seriously... this post is me HOLDING back. Please stop talking about the 4th.

Click to expand...

I will. I doubt I'll ever address it again.

Or even better, mods, please lock this thread.

Click to expand...

If you want it locked, report the first post and tell them that I'm trolling and doing flamebait and let them decide.

Nothing good will come out of this. I'm just warning you ahead of time now.

Click to expand...

So far, things have seemed quite civil. I think you're the first person to use the "fuck" word this entire thread.

If you feel that strongly about it, then why read it? Why not just enjoy 4th edition, and let him not enjoy it?

The part where I made a thread means that I can't just let somebody enjoy it. I have to tell them why I didn't enjoy it and therefore, why they can't enjoy it.

Gotcha. Then do Rolemaster next, cause I totally hated Rolemaster.

P.S. I did not hate Rolemaster.

I'd love to talk about Rolemaster, except I've never played it. Despite what some people think, I do have some experience with the games I'll talk about.

Allen said:

There are games that definitely facilitate the rules having an effect on roleplaying. Dungeons & Dragons isn't one of them

Click to expand...

I see you've missed my point. If I'm going to role play, I want a system that gets out of the way as much as possible. You make good points about a more complex system allowing for a character to be more accurately reflected in the mechanics, that's a fair assessment. For someone who wants to get into the complexity in order to tailor a character like that, I'm sure it's great. However, there is a flip side. Just as complexity and imbalance make it possible to make an incompetent character on purpose, that also allows someone to make an incompetent character on accident. It shouldn't take hours of study and mathematical formulas to put together a character that is a powerful, but not overpowered, hero.

You chose very simple examples of tailoring a characters stats to make the reflect a personality, but earlier when talking about mechanics you were talking about much more complex choices. It's one thing to decide to play a heroic ranger who's more than a bit stupid, and has some annoying personality traits, by giving him low INT and CHA, but still have him easily fit into the game because the class as a whole is mostly balanced. Role playing that's backed by matching stats. Great! It's another thing to decide to play awesome sounding but crappy class and find that you can't play the class the way it sounds because it's unbalanced compared to other classes. If certain classes can't play together and be balanced, why have them in the same game system at all?

Fig, that's a great post. I'll address it later, since I need to go now. I'm thinking you'd love the game Wushu

figmentPez;369183][QUOTE=Allen said:

There are games that definitely facilitate the rules having an effect on roleplaying. Dungeons & Dragons isn't one of them

Click to expand...

I see you've missed my point. If I'm going to role play, I want a system that gets out of the way as much as possible. You make good points about a more complex system allowing for a character to be more accurately reflected in the mechanics, that's a fair assessment. For someone who wants to get into the complexity in order to tailor a character like that, I'm sure it's great. However, there is a flip side. Just as complexity and imbalance make it possible to make an incompetent character on purpose, that also allows someone to make an incompetent character on accident. It shouldn't take hours of study and mathematical formulas to put together a character that is a powerful, but not overpowered, hero.

You chose very simple examples of tailoring a characters stats to make the reflect a personality, but earlier when talking about mechanics you were talking about much more complex choices. It's one thing to decide to play a heroic ranger who's more than a bit stupid, and has some annoying personality traits, by giving him low INT and CHA, but still have him easily fit into the game because the class as a whole is mostly balanced. Role playing that's backed by matching stats. Great! It's another thing to decide to play awesome sounding but crappy class and find that you can't play the class the way it sounds because it's unbalanced compared to other classes. If certain classes can't play together and be balanced, why have them in the same game system at all?[/QUOTE]

Your stats shouldn't reflect your personality, your actions in game should.

I say they both should.

I say horseshit! :angry:

figmentPez said:

I see you've missed my point. If I'm going to role play, I want a system that gets out of the way as much as possible. You make good points about a more complex system allowing for a character to be more accurately reflected in the mechanics, that's a fair assessment. For someone who wants to get into the complexity in order to tailor a character like that, I'm sure it's great. However, there is a flip side.

Click to expand...

Ah, you're referring to rules-lite systems. Yeah, those are a pretty different beast compared to the rules heavy systems.

Just as complexity and imbalance make it possible to make an incompetent character on purpose, that also allows someone to make an incompetent character on accident. It shouldn't take hours of study and mathematical formulas to put together a character that is a powerful, but not overpowered, hero.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is one of the biggest problems with a lot of the more complex games. Complex systems need playtesting to balance, and if the playtesting isn't there, something is very liable to be a trap.

Rules-lite systems definitely have that advantage where something probably isn't going to be too overpowered or underpowered since a lot of them just involve describing an action and seeing if it works. I think I'm going to think more about those kinds of systems later so I can get back to you on those systems.

And technically, a lot of the hours of study are to make an overpowered hero.

You chose very simple examples of tailoring a characters stats to make the reflect a personality, but earlier when talking about mechanics you were talking about much more complex choices. It's one thing to decide to play a heroic ranger who's more than a bit stupid, and has some annoying personality traits, by giving him low INT and CHA, but still have him easily fit into the game because the class as a whole is mostly balanced. Role playing that's backed by matching stats. Great!

Click to expand...

Those ones were a bit simple since they were being made up on the fly.

The way I see it, character creation can ultimately go one of two ways. The character concept influences the stats or the stats influence the character concept. Just depends on which one gets written down first. Even if the stats come first and are pretty complicated, odds are they were picked for a reason. All it takes is a little thought to justify how a person would have that kind of background.

It's another thing to decide to play awesome sounding but crappy class and find that you can't play the class the way it sounds because it's unbalanced compared to other classes. If certain classes can't play together and be balanced, why have them in the same game system at all?

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons.

1: Deadlines. No time to playtest, no time to edit. Some things get pushed out the door too quickly to be sure they even work.
2: Playtesting with expectations. When the game was being playtested, the testers weren't trying to break the game. They were making sure the system matched up with the assumptions that were made about the system.
3: Who is writing the material. For Exalted, some books have extremely overpowered charms because the writer decided that players should have power like that because they're playing as demigods.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

Shaw Coyote said:

I say horseshit! :angry:

Click to expand...

I think stats should just be some loose indication. There's no better indication of personality than actions, but the stats should at least make some sense.

Okay, I can jive with that. I usually don't play very "combative" characters. I tend to be more support, so the physical stats are normally my dump stats.

Allen, have you looked at Pathfinder?

Hm.

Stats and roleplay will always be tied together, but strictly it has to happen depends on the DM and the personality of the player. For example, I find it boring and sometimes aggravating to play a character with low Intelligence or Charisma. Not to say that I'm some sort of charming genius or anything, but I'm certainly higher than 10. While I enjoyed the mechanics of my 4e Warforged Fighter, it was difficult to reconcile enjoying those mechanics (ie. focusing heavily on Strength and Constitution) and reconciling the way I really like to roleplay (ie. giving up being an intelligent character, or one who is compelled to talk, ever) Because it's hard to balance out 4 stats and still be an effective character, I felt like the stats were fighting the way I like to play.

Conversely, I love my level 8 Halfling Wizard. I gave him a decent backstory and personality, and having a high Intelligence and Charisma suits the character very well AS WELL as the mechanics. I even went so far as to lower his combat stat in order to pum up his Charisma a bit because it made more sense for the character, and I believe it has served me well.

I dunno. I think that's just the problem with RPGs in general. Even if you like the mechanics of ALL the classes, you will enjoy playing a character who suits your roleplaying style much more. And if the two can match up, then excellent. I can't see myself playing a non-caster anytime soon.

Fuck

D&D sucks in general.

Talislanta 4 ever!

Seriously though, what other tabletop games are we talking about here, because I would like to discuss.....

WARHAMMER 40K! OMFG NOES SPACE NAZIS ARE THE ONLY "GOOD GUYS" LIFE IS TERRIBLE I WANT TO DIE BUT THEN MY SOUL IS ETERNALLY RAPED IN THE WARP!