Actually rebuilding a few classes was the biggest change. The Bard got a major overhaul between the two.
Printable View
Actually rebuilding a few classes was the biggest change. The Bard got a major overhaul between the two.
Well, I'm certainly late to this thread, but I've played 4E consistently for almost a year now (had a false start with a set of random socially awkward folks that imploded when 4E launched), and am having a blast. I played AD&D 2nd Edition back in high school and then a semester's worth of 3E in college, but it's nice to be back.
I spent the majority of my time as a half-orc sorcerer, but after a campaign restart two months ago, I'm now playing a human shaman MCed invoker and having a ball.
I've played in three 4e campaigns so far. They were good fun, but most of that was due to a good group and DMs. I'm not a fan of the system though, so I wouldn't want to run it or adapt it for my own world or something. Still, I had fun.
Played a Cleric when it first came out in a generic campaign, A Sorcerer (in another generic campaign) and a Swordmage (in FR). I liked my swordmage most. Despite my pretty big misgivings about the system, I wanna try a Dark Sun campaign.
On a side note, I think Keep on the Shadowfell is a really suck introductory module. Not mechanically, just the way it's designed. They need to get a good replacement out there.
My first D&D game was 4e and I started DMing a few months back now. I'm really enjoying it and I'm finding that I can take all sorts of ideas and apply them with relative ease (i.e. Snakes on a Plane and a RPG day Legends of the Five Rings Mod).
I wasn't going to labor this thread to much with posts but to date I have had a hard time qualifying why I don't like 4e rules as much as previous ones and I came across the following link with a very detailed description why this guy doesn't like them and I think this has nailed it for me too. When one guy in our group was down with low HP we post to the narrative thread and the battle had ended and he said that "my character will be sucking wind all the while.." and I thought that was pretty odd but I could not think of what this wind is all about either. I don't like these non magical daily powers either and the following link does touch on that too. Anyway I think this guy has done some good clear thinking on the subject so would be interested in comments. This explains for me why I don't think 4e rules are good for the role playing side of D&D and why its not just about you and the DM not doing enough narrative or descriptions.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creati...mechanics.html
I've read his pondering about 4e too - and I feel that he is straight to the point, and also that he is actually taking a neutral standpoint. I actually agree with most of his points, but I don't agree that they are very important, at least not in our game - maybe if we still were "young" and played a lot of D&D it would be different, I don't know, but being that we play once a month sometimes less, we just need some fun action - and 4e delivers! Yeah Yeah dissasosiation and all that jazz.. and you have to make hundreds of house rules to get it to work... no, only if your care deeply about dissasosiation - if you don't you just play *lol*. And I don't know about second wind in scientific ways, but the concept is way older than D&D ... and he himself argues (in another thread) that Hit Points are mostly exhaustion and bruising adding up...
What I like about the second wind (which still don't help that much) is that every player can get a little extra chance without having a cleric riding on his back. ;)
But as mentioned earlier, I loved playing 3.5 also.. and 1.0 too... and all those other games, some with sucky rules some with cool rules... just as long as you have fun :)
I see your point Tilt and I think it is an important one. A lot of players have very little time to play. Sessions are few and far between, so you want to get some bang for your buck. Perhaps 4e provides that.
For me, relationships are very important. Meeting NPCs and developing alliances and friendships is a big part of my campaign. All the players have dozens important contacts and acquaintances. Maintaining those relationships makes the game more personal and interesting. We often play out interactions with local guardsmen, stewards, merchants and shop keepers. The players enjoy feeling a part of the world. For those players who enjoy making skill checks...linguistics, appraisal, diplomacy, duping, seduction, region lore, streetwise etc can come into play. How well does 4E handle this aspect of the game? You could of course argue that you don't need any rules to 'role play' social interactions and on one level I agree. But I also think that having rules that give players the option to develop skills around which to build a interesting and memorable character is a big plus.
We have the hack-and-slash too, but we have time to do both.
If I was only playing 4hrs every month (rather than 50hrs) , I would definitely change from rolemaster to a different system.
With regard to disassociation to the real world...the concept of experience levels has always had me suspending disbelief. You know the whole concept of a guy getting better at climbing walls, and moving silently because he stabbed a few ogres. I like skills, but I don't really like the concept of levels. But players love to level up so I stick with level based RPGs. Sigh...no one plays runequest anymore.
Same Here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonKnight
I suppose what this blog has done for me personally is quantify and make concrete the exact gripes I've had with the system. I keep on rabbitting on about how it has "destroyed the storytelling game" or "destroyed the role" part of the game... In truth, The Alexandrian is probably right - they got divorced and WotC is taking the Alimony via the Minis.
Might be time to start getting into those White-Wolf games... or just finish off that system I've been building... or both.
I think it really depends on the DM. Perhaps if someone's first exposure to D&D is 4e, they wouldn't incorporate as much skill checks in, especially if they were learning from the books (like many people have had to do). I had a DM for 4e who worked in the need for passive and active skill checks all the time, and the campaign functioned much better because of it. Of course, the DM in question also had a lot of experience with past versions, and that probably influenced his campaign-building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aval Penworth
So, maybe if people are learning from only 4e on they might not do as many skill checks in the future, but I know for now I have plenty of DMs who still have lots of habits from 3.0 or 3.5 and love skill checks. They don't go anywhere even if there is a new version.
(Personally I don't mind what version I play as long as people are patient with me in learning rules for a version I'm not familiar with! :) )