Why I love Conan (Conan vs 4th edition)

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

It was not WotC who made D&D so political correct. WotC were the ones who saved D&D, after TSR managed to go bankrupt. No, it was Hasbro, who bought WotC in order to gain the money WotC made with the Pokemon TGC.

Even if Conan RPG is better than 4e, I think that 4e can be saved, either by modifying the rules or by using an appropriate setting (like Masters of the Universe).

Another problem of 4e, is that not only during combat everyone is equal, but outside combat that equality is even greater. Every one can use every ritual (= the non-combat spells of the previous editions). It does not matter when to learn a skill, because skills are directly linked to your level.

 

[Clovenhoof]

FWIW, I played AD&D 2nd yonks ago, but didn't like the system very well (for instance, I just hate those confusing "roll below" dice systems, one word: THAC0). Then D&D 3.0 came out and I immediately liked it. So it's not like everyone who bitches about 4e now bitched about 3e back then.

Concerning the "political correctness" and "candyland", the previous posters have already given some views I share. For example about those classes balanced to be identical. Hell, I for one don't even think classes need to be balanced at all! But I digress.
What I mean by "candyland" is that, whatever happens in the game, nothing bad can happen to the player('s character). Races? Don't worry about disadvantages. Combat? Never mind critical hits. It doesn't matter if the setting is darker than Vampiric Cthulhu Underdark (and it is not) if all the bad sides don't apply to the players anyway.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

The changes 4e made to D&D disruptes the continuity of D&D, which existed from the beginning of the 0e to the end of 3.5e.
The setting may be darker than Conan but the gameplay is much lighter.

I liked 3.xe for many of the changes they made. The only thing I did not like was the end of the speciality priest and the changes they made to the minor races (Halflings, Gnomes, Aasimars, Tieflings & Genasi).

 

[Style]

Concerning the "political correctness" and "candyland", the previous posters have already given some views I share. For example about those classes balanced to be identical. Hell, I for one don't even think classes need to be balanced at all! But I digress.

Not defending any version of D&D here, but having balance among classes is not a bad thing.

 

[Vortigern]

Concerning the "political correctness" and "candyland", the previous posters have already given some views I share. For example about those classes balanced to be identical. Hell, I for one don't even think classes need to be balanced at all! But I digress.

Not defending any version of D&D here, but having balance among classes is not a bad thing.

Personally I think that very much depends on the setting and aimed at depiction of characters and story. High/Low Magic etc. I play, for example, Ars Magica as well as Conan. In Ars Magica Magi ( a clearly distinct type of character even in that game, which is classless. ) are astoundingly powerful and most non-magi regular human characters have very little chance of resisting a magical effect. Whereas in Conan it is rather obvious a different tone is sought with magic, providing at least in combat a more clear capability to the physical types.

Both are ok I think... they just seek to depict two very different things.

Which is why I don't think class balance is necessarily something that should be considered sacrosanct. If it starts to twist the mechanics and through that the setting away from what you really want it to be... then maybe 'class balance' isn't what you really should be seeking.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Yeah, that's roughly what I meant. For example, in Conan D20 the Barbarian is clearly more powerful than, say, the Nomad (or most other classes, for that matter). But that's not too bad because it fits with the theme and isn't such a world of difference anyway.

Complete character balance can even be bad for the game. Again, the bad example I can cite is, no wonder, The Dark Eye 4.x. You build a character with Generation Points that are used to buy all the stats. There is a plethora of "Professions" that are essentially feat and skill packages, and cost a varying amount of Generation Points. So to take one of the more expensive professsions you have to pay so many GP that your attributes (like Strength, Dex etc) begin to suffer.
So in the end, your fully trained professional Warrior will be _exactly_ as powerful as a Baker or a Beggar. They can even have the same skill level with their chosen primary weapon.

Alright, the difference to D&D etc. is that in D&D all classes are supposed to be heroic kickasses, whereas in games like TDE they mix all types of martial, wilderness, crafter, urban and other professions, even if they are by their very definition the opposite of adventuring classes.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Complete character balance can even be bad for the game. Again, the bad example I can cite is, no wonder, The Dark Eye 4.x. You build a character with Generation Points that are used to buy all the stats. There is a plethora of "Professions" that are essentially feat and skill packages, and cost a varying amount of Generation Points. So to take one of the more expensive professsions you have to pay so many GP that your attributes (like Strength, Dex etc) begin to suffer.
So in the end, your fully trained professional Warrior will be _exactly_ as powerful as a Baker or a Beggar. They can even have the same skill level with their chosen primary weapon.

That's not true! TDE has a diffrenet premise than D&D. Here the class (race, culture and profession) is only background. The further development of your character is not hindered by your class (with one exception). A fully trained warrior is always a much better fighter than a beggar or a baker, because he starts with better combat skills and more feats than the others and he can buy more feats for half the price than the others. This reflects the training the warrior started with.
In D&D the class defines not only the background but also your future.
IMO Conan's carrer is much better exemple for a character development in TDE than in D&D. He starts as a human (race) barbarian (profession) of cimmerian origin (culture). But later in life he learns to be a thief, a pirate, a mercenaries and at last a king. In TDE he would have bought the skills and feats he needed to be that, in D&D he had to change class and that was only possible during 3.xe. 4e does not allow such a colourful carrer.

Alright, the difference to D&D etc. is that in D&D all classes are supposed to be heroic kickasses, whereas in games like TDE they mix all types of martial, wilderness, crafter, urban and other professions, even if they are by their very definition the opposite of adventuring classes.

That's another example for the different premise of both RPGs. In D&D you begin with characters which could be compared with Strider or other more experienced characters for fantasy literature, while in TDE you start with characters like Frodo and friends, characters who differ from the common people in just one thing: their sense for adventure, that makes them (sometimes unwilling) heroes.

 

[flatscan]

I played D&D 4e for the first time last Friday. I have to say, it was fun. The rules mechanics worked well and the challenge of a 1st level encounter was much more satisfying than it was in previous editions of D&D. Hell, the end of the 1st session had us up against a young white dragon. I've read a ton of negative reviews on Amazon as well as RPG.net and I have to say, most of them were whining and pining for something that WotC had no intention of creating in the first place. I've read complaints by so-called "old-school" D&Ders who claim too much emphasis is put on miniatures and that is something which didn't previously exist in D&D, which is just bull. D&D came from Chainmail, a miniature war game. I guarantee Gygax and Arneson used minis in their games. But that's besides the point. 4e is a solid system. It's not 1e, 2e, or 3.xe. It is its own thing. And frankly, I prefer it to any previous edition (I hate 3.x D&D, but Conan fixed a TON of what I didn't like with it). YMMV, but don't discount it based on the reviews. Find a group, make a character, and throw some dice around before judging it.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

...But that's besides the point. 4e is a solid system. It's not 1e, 2e, or 3.xe. It is its own thing. ...

And that's the problem. While the first two editions were clearly expansions of the original D&D. 3.xe was also an expansion of the former editions. They've changed and simplyfied many rules, but the principles stayed the same. 4e however ignores the history of D&D and it is just a new RPG using the background and some of the ideas of D&D.

 

[Malcadon]

so-called "old-school" D&Ders

Fans of the older editions are called Grognards.

D&D came from Chainmail, a miniature war game. I guarantee Gygax and Arneson used minis in their games.

It was a funny thing about OD&D, it called itself "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures", yet no one ever bothered using miniatures in their games. Fantasy themed miniature did not come out until 76 (well onto OD&D), and by that time, players found that they never really needed them in the first place. And for a game that has no rules on how to role-play, everyone just did it.

It's not 1e, 2e, or 3.xe. It is its own thing.

That, it is! Each of the editions have their own pros and cons, and ways of doing things. The older editions (OD&D and 1e) where a loose frame work of rules that allowed for much freewheeling and fudging, but the newer editions (3.x and 4e) are more balanced and systematic, and places a lot of limitations on player's actions. I think Mike Mearls (a lead developer for 4E D&D and old school gamer) nailed it right on the head when he said:

mearls[/url]"]However, I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

The thing I like best about OD&D monsters is that they are simple to run and easy to improvise. It was nice to simply write down AC, damage, and hit dice. On the other hand, I missed the variety of weird effects and tactics that 4e monsters can use independent of any work I put into them as a DM. The two approaches are very different.

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised. I can write rules without worrying about strict interpretations or covering every possible case. The players, since they've agreed to sit down at an OD&D table, are probably more likely to accept random craziness and a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

To be honest, I think the games are different enough that I easily have space for both of them in my library. For me, they fill very different needs. OD&D is like jamming with a band. A lot of stuff gets made up on the fly, and when we find something interesting everyone just rides with it. D&D 4 is like playing a symphony. There's more structure and more pieces to work with, but everything comes together in this grand ensemble.

 

[Sir Hackalot]

They impose a Quality and Content Standards clause that states: no excessively graphic violence or gore; sexual situations, sexual abuse, pornography, gratuitous nudity of human or humanoid forms, genitalia, or sexual activity; or existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups or practices, political preferences, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities, as a group inferior to any other group or in a way that promotes disrespect for those groups or practices, or that endorses those groups or practices over another. You know, family-friendly sh!t! So any mature settings for 4e is out of the question.

Well that pretty much rules out anything by REH.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Uh, yeah, we had that about 2 pages ago.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Well that pretty much rules out anything by REH.

And not only that.
The Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance also do not follow these rules.
And Historical Campaigns are also not allowed.

I suspect that Hasbro never new that D&D was until after they bought WotC. With these new licence they try to enforce rules on RPGs which were never part of the game.

 

[Vortigern]

Well that pretty much rules out anything by REH.

And not only that.
The Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance also do not follow these rules.
And Historical Campaigns are also not allowed.

I suspect that Hasbro never new that D&D was until after they bought WotC. With these new licence they try to enforce rules on RPGs which were never part of the game.

If the license isn't retroactive to 3.Xe as someone said before... does that mean that companies can still produce 3.Xe products? That may be significant. If enough people don't like 4e and keep playing 3.Xe on supported lines by other companies... it may be a new situation in which grognards may have the freedom to actually resist change and still be getting new products. Which, I think, is something we haven't seen before?

 

[afro-slav]

And Historical Campaigns are also not allowed.

Are you saying that the License says this or are you stating that with all the taboos playing a historical game would be difficult?

 

[afro-slav]

After having the chance to go over the 4e PHB the things I never liked about dnd still hold true however, as I am a rules lite kinda player I do prefer the streamlined skill system.

 

[Malcadon]

If the license isn't retroactive to 3.Xe as someone said before... does that mean that companies can still produce 3.Xe products? That may be significant. If enough people don't like 4e and keep playing 3.Xe on supported lines by other companies... it may be a new situation in which grognards may have the freedom to actually resist change and still be getting new products. Which, I think, is something we haven't seen before?

Yes, folks can still produce 3.X products, as the new license covers only the 4e game.

You can still publish 3.x/d20 books with as much excessive violences, sexual situations, pornography, gratuitous nudity, real-world minorities, slavery, and socially inferior people as you what, but within reason. That is to say, you can produce d20 stuff with lots of sexual activity and full frontal nudity in it (like this guy), but if you are going to publish a d20 book with lots of sexual activity and full frontal nudity in it, Wizards would revoke your license, and force you to recall all your books and remove all of the d20 & 3rd Edition logos (this happened to the Book of Erotic Fantasy).

 

[Sutek]

...But that's besides the point. 4e is a solid system. It's not 1e, 2e, or 3.xe. It is its own thing. ...

And that's the problem. While the first two editions were clearly expansions of the original D&D. 3.xe was also an expansion of the former editions. They've changed and simplyfied many rules, but the principles stayed the same. 4e however ignores the history of D&D and it is just a new RPG using the background and some of the ideas of D&D.

I almost wouldn't go that far. It's a totally new game that still uses some of the same words that some game called D&D used to use once. Seriously, saves are 10+...always. The skills are geared towards being in a dungeaon...and that's about it. Suposedly having a pact or other connection with a demon isn't dark if there's no apprecieable background for the demon, where he's from, or the world he equally suposedly threatens. There's no context for anything anymore because it's all been stripped away.

Gnomes are the best example. They've been a PC race since day one (nearly) and have now been relegated to a back-burner critter race, not even NPC worthy, really. Why? Because 3.X got rid of Illusionist as a class, which is what Gnomes excelled at. It diminished them. Come 4e, everone looks at them like dwarf/halfling hybrids, for some reason, and tosses them in the bottom drawer instead of finding a place for them. They did it for Teiflings and Dragonborn, so why not Gnomes? I'll tell you why: Because they weren't in the slightest bit interested in making a new D&D. They wanted a book form of a MMO, full stop. Every race has a special power and no drawbacks, and every class has the same number of special abilities at each level. No more rolling for HP as you go up; it's a flat amount so nobody feels left out.

Lame. Pussified. Pacified. Politically correct banality.

Ballance is a sham. There isn't any such thing as ballance in an RPG, adn noone should expect it. You have a fighter who can fight and a thief who can steal. Is that ballanced? Heck no, but it gives each respective class a job to do and do well. Now classes are reduced to occupying esoteric "roles" that are more all-inclusive so that each class plays off the others is a fair way.

Boring.

In my opinion, there's nothing more fair that a party deciding to take on a pack of lions and end up getting most of thier group disembowled. Not fighting to near death, only to rest for eight hours and be fully healed. :roll:

I will stick with 3.5 if I play D&D, and I still contend that Mongoose did the best job at using the OGL and 3.0 rules for Conan. A close second is Stargate SG1 (AEG).

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

There were 4 different RPGs called D&D:
- The original D&D of which 6 editions were published ('74, '78, '81, '83, '91, '95)
- AD&D with 4 published editions ('78 (1st), '83 (rev. 1st), '89 (2nd), '95 (rev. 2nd))
- D&D3 with only 2 published editions ('00 (3e), '03 (3.5))
- D&D4 which has just been published ('08 (4e))

I think that we will see D&D5 in '12.

Gnomes are the best example. They've been a PC race since day one (nearly) and have now been relegated to a back-burner critter race, not even NPC worthy, really. Why? Because 3.X got rid of Illusionist as a class, which is what Gnomes excelled at. It diminished them.

Well, the Illusionist vanished in AD&D 2nd edition. He became a specialist mage. And those specialist mages still exist in 3e and 3.5. The mistake was, that they changed the favoured class of the gnome from wizard to bard.

The absolute equality of all races and classes is the major drawback of 4e, but I can understand, why they did that. They wanted to end those stupid discussions which race and class is the best.

 

[Malcadon]

There were 4 different RPGs called D&D:
- The original D&D of which 6 editions were published ('74, '78, '81, '83, '91, '95)
- AD&D with 4 published editions ('78 (1st), '83 (rev. 1st), '89 (2nd), '95 (rev. 2nd))
- D&D3 with only 2 published editions ('00 (3e), '03 (3.5))
- D&D4 which has just been published ('08 (4e))

I think that we will see D&D5 in '12.

- Original Dungeons & Dragons (white box set, 1974)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition (1977)
- Dungeons & Dragons 2nd version Basic Set (blue box set, 1977)
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd version Basic Set (magenta box set, 1981)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th version Basic Set (red box set, 1983)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989)
- Dungeons & Dragons 5th version Rules Cyclopedia (1991)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition revised (1996)
[bankrupted, now owned by Wizards of the Coast]
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition (2000)
- Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition revised (3.5) (2003)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (4.1) (2008)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.2) (2008)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.3) (2009)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.4) (2009)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.5) (2010)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.6) (2010)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.7) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.8 ) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition revised (4.9) (2011)
- Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition (2012)
- Dungeons & Dragons 6th edition (2012)
- Dungeons & Dragons 7th edition (2012)
[bankrupted, now owned by Microsoft]

Yep, that sounds about right! :roll: