What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?

[LilithsThrall]

Fllatscan, nobody here has argued that one way to play is better than another. This "elitism" you're talking about, doesn't exist in this thread.

 

[flatscan]

Fllatscan, nobody here has argued that one way to play is better than another. This "elitism" you're talking about, doesn't exist in this thread.

That's a bold statement. I recommend going back 5 pages or so and re-reading the conversation. There are quite a few appeals to elite authority fallacies floating about which got me re-involved in this discussion after ignoring it for months. **NOTE I am not saying you are one of them** <shrug>

Anyhow, play what you want and have fun doing it. Just know that there are a ton of people role-playing D&D 4e and enjoying the hell out of it. It's not going to go away, especially when you have people like Gabe from the Penny Arcade website posting his 4e campaign on Obsidian Portal. I played D&D 4e and would play it again, but never over Conan. :twisted:

 

[Sutek]

There's actually quite a lot more math (Bayesian inference, game theory, etc.) hiding behind all that addition and subtraction. In addition, doing a lot of addition and subtraction on the fly and under pressure is math-heavy.

Behind the rules? Possibly. That a player has to know to run with a character? Hardly.

Yeah, I gotta agree there. Math is a part of the underpinning of any game system, but underpinning doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make it to the table top. People who play characters aware of how mechanics function "behind the rules" are meta gaming and using player knowledge instead of role playing.

Have you actually played D&D 4e or are you just on the bandwagon because you want something to bitch about? They simplified the game that was 3.5 considerably. And no, the simplified rules don't get in the way of role-playing. You're right that there isn't a lot of "fluff" included in the the Player's Handbook. The reason being that the PHB's goal was to be a generic starting point to expand to different worlds like Forgotten Realms and later Eberron who all have their unique take on the different races (remember Dragonlance's halflings, called Kender?).

First off, reign in the tone, Flatscan. Let's keep this civil.

Second, I dont' see the rules in 4e as being simplified at all, they're just different. Plus, options are much more limited in character building because each class has a fixed list of choices, rather than the myriad of feats and skill options and combinations put forth under 3.X. SO it's really differnt rules for the sake of being different, and at the same time pulling the ability to make intersting and unique characters out of the game. I mean, look at Fighter exploits at any level and tell me that all are equally decent options, or are there really just one or two out of the four or five that are even worth picking? I think you'll find the latter true, and that leads to flat character builds. Hell, WotC has made a huge effort to try and explain over and over just how to do different character builds, and when 3.0 D&D came out...we just rolled up characters and started playing. Nobody had to show us how to do it "right" or whatever. It made sense and wasn't a morasse of inviable cul de sac options.

I'm considering getting the original D&D rules that you guys hail as so mighty (I started RPing with AD&D 2e), just so I can see how much/little "fluff" and "variety" of classes was in the main rulebook and how much of this BS argument is from rose-tinted goggles nailed into your head. :evil:

That's not what we are sating, You're deliberately being obtuse. Original D&D was succinct and very two-dimensional compared to 3.0, but there were still more answers to basic questions of "what can I do" than provided in 4e. Plus, you opnly needed the PHB. That's all. Seriously. There were three core books, and having the DMG and MM also was a definite boon. But even then, other books were total bonus and absolutely additional to the basic group of main books.

Were TSR out to make a buck? Absolutely. But they didn't deliberately spread core rules over 6+ books like WotC have done with 4e. The adventurer's hanbook will be needed because it has an actual full list of equipment (which 3.0 came with). The Martial, Arcane and Divine books will complete the character classes, and the PHB2 will finish bringing all of the core classes to 4e (which 3.0 came with). What WotC is doing it trying to somehow make a collectible RPG with fifteen core books, and they're marketting it that way. Original D&D was marketted as "get these three books, and play it" and 3.0 had the same approach, opening the door wider by applying the OGL to the rules. Now you didint'even have to count on the game company to provide adventures, which is where TSR drew longevity from.

By all means, find the old rules. You'll like them. But I don't think anyone one here is saying that they are fluff-erific by any means. I think we who harken back tothe 1st edition days have a sense of the 4e bloat on the horizon be cause they admit to the tactic up front.

I really think combat can be roleplayed.

Please, give an example of what this means. Just a quick one turn example of how you 'roleplay' combat.

Well, this is easy. I bplayed a Woodelf Barbarian/Ranger and a friend of mine played a Cleric. When we'd go into battle, I waded through enemies with little calculation, chooseing to enter the fight with abandon, playing up the idea that this guy was a pretty wild and crazy warrior, willing to take enormous risks. The Cleric player would choose always to go after the biggest critter/foe, believing it her just duty to face off against the leaders or most dangerous enemies as a matter of moral obligation and divine appointment. Tactics of both our characters differed because of the classes we chose, but it was also heavily influenced by the type of personalities we applied to out characters, influencing battle filed choices. There wew also many moments where things just felt wrong, that our character wouldn't do "X", even if it was safer, or would gain extra XP or made more logical sense in analysis, but instead we would go with what our character would do instead.

In combat, role playing should not stop or you're playing the game wrong.

 

[flatscan]

Yeah, I gotta agree there. Math is a part of the underpinning of any game system, but underpinning doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make it to the table top. People who play characters aware of how mechanics function "behind the rules" are meta gaming and using player knowledge instead of role playing.

Sure.

Second, I dont' see the rules in 4e as being simplified at all, they're just different. Plus, options are much more limited in character building because each class has a fixed list of choices, rather than the myriad of feats and skill options and combinations put forth under 3.X. SO it's really differnt rules for the sake of being different, and at the same time pulling the ability to make intersting and unique characters out of the game.

Limited options is another way of saying simpler. It's not different rules for the sake of being different. The game designers had specific goals...oh nevermind. :roll:

That's not what we are sating, You're deliberately being obtuse. Original D&D was succinct and very two-dimensional compared to 3.0, but there were still more answers to basic questions of "what can I do" than provided in 4e. Plus, you opnly needed the PHB. That's all. Seriously. There were three core books, and having the DMG and MM also was a definite boon. But even then, other books were total bonus and absolutely additional to the basic group of main books.

I played through the entire Keep on the Shadowfell with only the PHB as a player. The DM had the adventure module, the DMG and MM. That's it. What more are you saying is required exactly? Because we managed an entire adventure fine without it. In fact, that group is still playing (I bowed out due to other obligations) and if they have bought any additional books they did it for the same reason I keep buying Conan books, because we're into it. Also, your statement of "what can I do" has a lot provided for it in 4e. We tried to stretch the limits of the system in that first adventure, and it's pretty similar to what can be done with 3.5, just streamlined. I don't see this as a negative. Your mileage may vary.

Were TSR out to make a buck? Absolutely. But they didn't deliberately spread core rules over 6+ books like WotC have done with 4e. The adventurer's hanbook will be needed because it has an actual full list of equipment (which 3.0 came with). The Martial, Arcane and Divine books will complete the character classes, and the PHB2 will finish bringing all of the core classes to 4e (which 3.0 came with). What WotC is doing it trying to somehow make a collectible RPG with fifteen core books, and they're marketting it that way. Original D&D was marketted as "get these three books, and play it" and 3.0 had the same approach, opening the door wider by applying the OGL to the rules. Now you didint'even have to count on the game company to provide adventures, which is where TSR drew longevity from.

The core rules are in 3 books. Why do you think you need more for 4e? There are more options in the newer books, but they aren't required. The PHB has a ton of equipment, including magical equipment in it (have you read it?). If you want more class options then pick up the other books, if you're happy with what's there then don't. And you're trying to revise history if you believe TSR did not do the exact same thing by providing new and expanded classes and rules in supplements. There was a metric ton of supplements for 2nd edition AD&D that expanded rules and options of the game. Unearthed Arcana, volume after volume of the Monstrous Compendium, Tome of Magic, The Complete Book of Elves, Humanoids, Gnomes & Halflings, etc. ad nauseum.

By all means, find the old rules. You'll like them. But I don't think anyone one here is saying that they are fluff-erific by any means. I think we who harken back tothe 1st edition days have a sense of the 4e bloat on the horizon be cause they admit to the tactic up front.

Doubtful. Segmented combat is crap. So is THAC0. The closest I'll get is HackMaster, but only as a player. As for bloat, you better believe Wizards of the Coast is going to produce more books. That's the whole point of a publishing company. They're running with the business model that TSR started. Make the game in 3 books then just keep piling on as many books as gamers will buy. I don't think anybody should be surprised by this and honestly I can't fathom why it's offensive to you that they will. Is Mongoose so different? That Warrior's Companion is coming out soon.

In combat, role playing should not stop or you're playing the game wrong.

Your description of combat was no different than the combat that occurs in a D&D 4e game. I had a halfling rogue in that 4e game who filled the striker role and acted very similarly to your Barbarian/Ranger as the PHB describes halflings as fearless (some fluff for ya). He'd slide under enemies to get into a flank position, use his Acrobatics skill to swing from chandeliers to move about the field, striking hard and fast the whole time. My friend playing the Fey (boy did I give him hell about that race) Wizard played his character completely differently. Staying in the back of the group moving a flaming sphere around obliterating minions with a single attack. And as I said upthread we had an entire 6 hour session of no combat. Just straight role-play in D&D 4e.

I've experienced D&D 4e and had a lot of fun with it. You can role-play to your heart's content with the game if you're into that type of fantasy. Some people prefer other types of systems like BRP and that's fine, whatever gets you through the night. But don't try to tell me you can't role-play with 4e, because I have.

 

[Sutek]

They're running with the business model that TSR started. Make the game in 3 books then just keep piling on as many books as gamers will buy. I don't think anybody should be surprised by this and honestly I can't fathom why it's offensive to you that they will. Is Mongoose so different?

Yes.

1) They are using a better system.
2) The only book you need is the rule book. All others are supplements with fluff or ancilary material only. See, there's no need to buy the Warrior's book that's coming out unles one wants extra information and rules. The Martial book for 4e is like the missing 40% of the combat classes that they could have put into the main PHB except for the fact that the new 4ed system is so clunky in relying on the exploits lists that it couldn't have been done without making it a 1500 page book.

4e isn't simplified. It's desaturated. The richness is gone, and new players don't know any better. I don't know what vets like about it, and you seem unable to explain it without getting terse and petulant. Having a common list of feats and skills for all classes is simpler, yet 4e is being bought and sold as some sort of RPG epiphany or mana fromt he gods when it's really just a direct distillation of everything that mind-numb MMO potatoes have been drooling over since EQ stareted treading on the RPG mentality. The fact that the game dictates the roles you must fit into ought to be proof enough that the target audience isn't the gamer that knows how to play without being spoon-fed. Besides, who says a Rogue is a "striker"? Why can't he be a "leader"? Because 4e is too limited in rules scpoe and the designers too limited in actual understanding of what a well made book-based RPG really is, instead opting for a push for market share based on a huge advertising push and trying to wrest control of the market by yanking the OGL out from under all of the independant publishing companies that they suckered onto thier bandwagon the first time.

Thing is, 3.5 is continuing without them, and the fact that Conan/Mongoose, Pathfinder/Paizo and Necromancer games are still sticking with or continuing to support 3.X systems speaks volumes.

 

[rabindranath72]

1) They are using a better system.

That's a strictly personal opinion. Better for what you want, perhaps.

 

[rabindranath72]

Thing is, 3.5 is continuing without them, and the fact that Conan/Mongoose, Pathfinder/Paizo and Necromancer games are still sticking with or continuing to support 3.X systems speaks volumes.

There are also a ton of licensing reasons why these companies are keeping with 3.5 instead of changing. Again, it's not what a user might perceive as a "better system" which dictates what goes on the market. Companies simply follow the largest markets (that is, if they want to survive). The only company who could afford a thing like 4e (i.e. redefining a brand, essentially) and open a new market is WotC, and they did exactly that.
It also goes without saying that the target audience of 4e is quite different from the one of 10 years ago.
This said, I played/DMed 4e and I liked it, though I do not see myself using it for campaign play, as much as I did not like 3.x, and I won't DM it ever again. I am still with AD&D and C&C.

 

[warzen]

Sutek, the "role" (poorest wording ever in a RPG) in 4e is just "what you're good at when fighting starts". It's not related to your personality, or the fact that you're leading the group, even if you're the DPS or the CC (sorry, I prefer the MMO acronyms than the silly WoC names).

The biggest issue with 4e for guys like us is its name. Except for branding optimization, this game should not have been called Dungeons & Dragons. The mecanisms of the classes are different, the speciality of the classes are different, known powers (ie spells) have been too modified...etc

If you like tactical RPGs, 4e would be nice for Conan (after the usual class adaptation to the setting).

W.

 

[rabindranath72]

If you like tactical RPGs, 4e would be nice for Conan (after the usual class adaptation to the setting).

W.

Completely agreed. From my playing experience, I see very few differences between the AIMS of combat maneuvers in Conan and those in 4e. Both systems are designed for detailed tactical combat. If one loves the former, I do not see why the latter should be despised. If one roleplays with a Decapitating Slash, why not with a Tide of Steel?

 

[flatscan]

4e isn't simplified. It's desaturated. The richness is gone, and new players don't know any better. I don't know what vets like about it, and you seem unable to explain it without getting terse and petulant. Having a common list of feats and skills for all classes is simpler, yet 4e is being bought and sold as some sort of RPG epiphany or mana fromt he gods when it's really just a direct distillation of everything that mind-numb MMO potatoes have been drooling over since EQ stareted treading on the RPG mentality. The fact that the game dictates the roles you must fit into ought to be proof enough that the target audience isn't the gamer that knows how to play without being spoon-fed. Besides, who says a Rogue is a "striker"? Why can't he be a "leader"? Because 4e is too limited in rules scpoe and the designers too limited in actual understanding of what a well made book-based RPG really is, instead opting for a push for market share based on a huge advertising push and trying to wrest control of the market by yanking the OGL out from under all of the independant publishing companies that they suckered onto thier bandwagon the first time.

Thing is, 3.5 is continuing without them, and the fact that Conan/Mongoose, Pathfinder/Paizo and Necromancer games are still sticking with or continuing to support 3.X systems speaks volumes.

The creation of "roles" such as Striker, Leader, and such was to help new players create a character quicker and it only applies to tactics, not the role a character has outside of combat. So yes, the Rogue can be the party leader in determining strategy and dealing with nPeeps, even if the Warlord is the tactical Leader when the fighting starts. One of the things Matt Sprange bemoaned about Conan and 3.5 waaaaaay back in this thread is how confusing the races, classes, skills and feats are for RPG newbies. This is a common complaint about 3.5 and Wizards addressed it. Also, no company has to stop using the OGL unless they want to produce GSL material and even then only for the specific product line they're producing under GSL. I'm glad Conan is staying with 3.5 for the next year too (I never said I wasn't).

Alright man, there's no point to continuing this discussion with you as I'm tired of repeating myself for page after page. If you want to believe D&D 4e will eat your baby, tear out all the coupons in your phone book, and re-calibrate your fridge, be my guest, you won't be any different than the nay-sayers that came out when 3.0 was released. There is fun with 4e for those who want it. You don't and that's fine. But it's not going to die out because you want it to. People are role-playing with it, and not just doing combat like you and some others suggest. I know this from first hand experience. You can't take that away from me and no amount of badgering, cajoling, or name-calling can. Enjoy your games, that's what they're for. I'll be enjoying mine. Good day.

 

[treeplanter]

Yeah you sum it all flatscan

4e is for baby

LOL

Create your character faster? LOL, that crap. I can create a character in less than 5 min in d20. The fact my grand mother could create a character in less than 5min 4e just accentuate the fact this is not role-playing game, it's pick-up your role in a combat then connect to server and go-on playing munchkin.

If 4th is designed for newbie (and it is) then it is a disaster. I aggree than an experienced gamer can roleplay in 4th ed, but a novice roleplayer who begin his carrer with 4th ed will never learn to roleplay for the reason there is no emphase on roleplaying at all and THAT is the biggest turn in the RPG industry. Now the 12-years old kid will not say "look I've bough a new game it is call a role playing game" but "Look now we can play Final fantasy with this book! Roleplay? What that? I know you can buy ton of cool stuff at the merchant".

boring

 

[flatscan]

Create your character faster? LOL, that crap. I can create a character in less than 5 min in d20. The fact my grand mother could create a character in less than 5min 4e just accentuate the fact this is not role-playing game, it's pick-up your role in a combat then connect to server and go-on playing munchkin.

What does the length of time character creation takes have to do with role-playing? By your logic players of Savage Worlds aren't role-playing because chargen is quick and simple. :roll:

If 4th is designed for newbie (and it is) then it is a disaster. I aggree than an experienced gamer can roleplay in 4th ed, but a novice roleplayer who begin his carrer with 4th ed will never learn to roleplay for the reason there is no emphase on roleplaying at all and THAT is the biggest turn in the RPG industry. Now the 12-years old kid will not say "look I've bough a new game it is call a role playing game" but "Look now we can play Final fantasy with this book! Roleplay? What that? I know you can buy ton of cool stuff at the merchant".

Pray tell, what were the passages in the coveted original D&D (or even 3.5 or Conan) that so enshrined what role-playing is. Because the 4e DMG has quite a bit written about the subject with some tips on running a game that even a veteran player can learn from. Have you read it? Not to mention materials in the campaign books with more fluff and flavor for PCs and NPCs.

 

[Demetrio]

a novice roleplayer who begin his carrer with 4th ed will never learn to roleplay for the reason there is no emphase on roleplaying at all

That's a bold statement.

The original Runequest and Traveller rules had no emphasis on roleplaying. I guess that means I never learnt how to. And given the paucity of roleplaying emphasis in AD&D, I'm very puzzled as to how anyone learnt to roleplay in the late 70s/early80s given that the three biggest games of the time put very little emphasis on roleplaying in their rules... Even Call of Cthulhu said very little about 'how to roleplay' beyond 'try to make the players feel scared and hopeless...'

it's pick-up your role in a combat then connect to server and go-on playing munchkin

Right, I see. So just to be clear, if I ever play 4th ed D&D, I can't play a hugely fat, one-eyed, foul-mouthed, aging fighter whose first instinct is to charge into combat, distains the use of missile weapons as 'pansy' and looks out for himself first and others... well sometimes. Neither can I play a clean cut young lad, just starting as a fighter who has vowed never to wear or use iron because he is besotted by a faerie enchantress. And the game won't let me describe through play how the latter gradually became the former. All I can play is a munchkin.

 

[rabindranath72]

So just to be clear, if I ever play 4th ed D&D, I can't play a hugely fat, one-eyed, foul-mouthed, aging fighter whose first instinct is to charge into combat, distains the use of missile weapons as 'pansy' and looks out for himself first and others... well sometimes. Neither can I play a clean cut young lad, just starting as a fighter who has vowed never to wear or use iron because he is besotted by a faerie enchantress. And the game won't let me describe through play how the latter gradually became the former. All I can play is a munchkin.

But if you want you can play them with Hero Quest :lol: oops Hero Quest works with a board so it cannot be done :roll:

 

[Hervé]

It's really funny to see that most of the anti DD4 statements look so close of what I 've thought of D20 for years. It's even funnier to see these critics coming from hardcore D20 fans.
I'm having a great time... :lol:

 

[treeplanter]

Right, I see. So just to be clear, if I ever play 4th ed D&D, I can't play a hugely fat, one-eyed, foul-mouthed, aging fighter whose first instinct is to charge into combat, distains the use of missile weapons as 'pansy' and looks out for himself first and others... well sometimes. Neither can I play a clean cut young lad, just starting as a fighter who has vowed never to wear or use iron because he is besotted by a faerie enchantress. And the game won't let me describe through play how the latter gradually became the former. All I can play is a munchkin.

[/quote]

Yes you can. But you'll still be a f#$%@@#% tank. Both your fighter will be different but in the end they'll have the same power/skill. You can still describe how they look/act but the system won't help you flavor it. And THAT is boring.

Oh and in the second case your character will probably suck no iron lol

Look I understand in the end it is a question of preference. I've always been sick of elves and magic item and fairies with lucky charm wands. So for me it is clear that whatever the system standard DnD will never do the job of Conan and the savage world. However i can say without doubt that 4th ed is by far the worst and most boring RPG I've been playing. And i've tried a bunch, but never I was so unentousiastic about the system.

No matter what you say the way 4th ed's designed it's a pure copy of a MMORPG. You don't need a fifth grade to see it's EXACTLY the same thing. So personnally if I want to play a MMORPG i'll pay 15$ a month and i'll get graphic

 

[treeplanter]

It's really funny to see that most of the anti DD4 statements look so close of what I 've thought of D20 for years. It's even funnier to see these critics coming from hardcore D20 fans.
I'm having a great time... :lol:

That mean you're getting old lol

 

[Demetrio]

Both your fighter will be different but in the end they'll have the same power/skill.

In AD&D fighters with identical stats were identical apart from their personalities so I don't see 4th ed being any worse than that. I guess nobody ever role played using AD&D rules either?

Oh and in the second case your character will probably suck no iron lol

Speaks for itself.

 

[Spectator]

Both your fighter will be different but in the end they'll have the same power/skill.

In AD&D fighters with identical stats were identical apart from their personalities so I don't see 4th ed being any worse than that. I guess nobody ever role played using AD&D rules either?

Oh and in the second case your character will probably suck no iron lol

Speaks for itself.

#1 I don't own 4.0
#2 I played ADD back in the 80s, until I left it for Warhammer.
#3 What Demetrio says about ADD is absolutely correct, but the beauty of it was that you HAD to roleplay to differentiate your character from the other fighter in the party.
#4 The more skills/ feats available, IMHO the less roleplaying and more dice-rolling.

 

[flatscan]

It's really funny to see that most of the anti DD4 statements look so close of what I 've thought of D20 for years. It's even funnier to see these critics coming from hardcore D20 fans.
I'm having a great time... :lol:

Yeah, I'm starting to feel like a Cylon in the new Battlestar Galactica. "All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again..." :evil: