The Gaming Den

Voss wrote:

Porrage wrote:
It seems to me that most of the arguments here are inspired by laziness on the dungeon master's part.

Nope. Laziness on the designers' part. They dropped half the game, and then disingenuously stated that people didn't want those parts anyway. Except with the other parts, which 'people' apparently did want, they didn't manage to improve either. So its pretty much an abject failure from any perspective you care to look at, except, unfortunately, sales.

Agreed. Saying things like "oh, the DM will be able to fix that" is both lazy and terrible game design. The point of releasing rules is to have a solid system to work with. If practically everyone has to homebrew the game, then you've made a setting, not a game.

FrankTrollman wrote: 3e is more conducive to stories on several levels. The most obvious one of course was the fact that the skill system does something. If you want to bully or sweet talk a goblin there are actual DCs involved for that and you can look them up.

Honestly I found the 3.5 skill system, especialyl the social system, as something that was very destructive to good storytelling. NPCs in 3.5 just didn't have any backbone. You could seriously convince anyone to do anything if your diplomacy was high enough. And that sucks from a story standpoint. Sometimes you want your villain to be a hardcore black hat who doesn't care that you happen to be reasoning with him. Unless you're making him a good offer, it shouldn't matter how high you roll.

Personally I'm not sure how such a system is supposed to improve the game at all.

4E does the only thing you can wtih a social system, and that's to set some basic DCs and then just say "The DM can raise it at his whim." because you can't tell stories if everyone has the same DC. Whatever problems you have with 4Es ability to tell good stories, that's just small arms fire compared to the atomic explosion a diplomancer can set off to a story. The moment that +50 diplomacy check hits the board, your NPCs all become instantly identical cardboard cutouts who mindlessly serve someone just because they whored a single skill. At this point it becomes impossible to tell any story beyond one where all the NPCs lick the boots of the diplomancer.

Seriously I don't even know how you can be advocating that the 3.5 social system was good.

The 4E system is entirely arbitrary, but at least it can actually run a campaign without the entire world falling apart to a broken mechanic based on static DCs.

Seriously, the 3.5 social system was downright unplayable.

But it's also on other levels. The 3rd edition Goblin is a template for making a character of any type. An while fully statting up a 3rd edition goblin is kind of a pain and more trouble than it's worth, filling in the stats up to the point you need them is pretty fast. If you want a Goblin Rogue of 7th level or a Goblin Cleric of 5th, that just happens. On the flip side, a 4th edition goblin is a completely arbitrary set of powers with no real guidelines at all. Every goblin has a special goblin tactics power, and you can dump that on, but all the numbers and all the powers are basically right out of your ass. So you're basically left from-scratching it unless you use the same cardboard cutouts of a half dozen goblins over and over again. And while that goblin selection is diverse enough and more to cover a single encounter or two with flying colors and some sweet variation in opponents, it's not enough to fill a world.

Honestly I always found this aspect to be a strength of 4E. The fact that you can give things arbitrary powers instead of just going wtih class powers makes them feel more diverse and interesting. In 3.5 you had basically Classed NPC as a monster. It seriously didn't matter muhc if it was a goblin or an elf. It was a classed NPC, and they all played exactly the same, depending on class. Race was meaningless when you got down to it.

A couple stat mods we don't care about and maybe darkvision instead of low light. But I mean, whatever. Goblin wizard, human wizard, ogre wizard. At the end of the day, it's just another wizard.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Seriously, the 3.5 social system was downright unplayable.

You've given an example of someone that deliberately tried to bend over the skill system. Yes, it's breakable. But it also works quite well otherwise. If you get into trying to break the system in half, you can still make a "bow to me" player in 4e with Intimidate. Just bloody the enemy and throw down your Feylock's +25 Intimidate check. It's not a matter of whether the system can be ganked or not, because it will be regardless of what you do.

RC wrote: A couple stat mods we don't care about and maybe darkvision instead of low light. But I mean, whatever. Goblin wizard, human wizard, ogre wizard. At the end of the day, it's just another wizard.

OK... but at that level of abstraction a 4e goblin wizard isn't even that. It's just another "thing" where "thing" is "whatever powers your DM came up with today, hopefully it's balanced." The goblin wizard has nothing that makes him especially goblin or especially wizard. It's just a label.

-Username17

Well, ultimately, the people here have invested a lot of effort in to fixing 3e. They don't want to then re-invest more effort in to re-fixing 4e.

FrankTrollman wrote: OK... but at that level of abstraction a 4e goblin wizard isn't even that. It's just another "thing" where "thing" is "whatever powers your DM came up with today, hopefully it's balanced." The goblin wizard has nothing that makes him especially goblin or especially wizard. It's just a label.

What makes 3e goblins so especially goblin?

Ravengm wrote:
You've given an example of someone that deliberately tried to bend over the skill system. Yes, it's breakable. But it also works quite well otherwise. If you get into trying to break the system in half, you can still make a "bow to me" player in 4e with Intimidate. Just bloody the enemy and throw down your Feylock's +25 Intimidate check. It's not a matter of whether the system can be ganked or not, because it will be regardless of what you do.

Only 4E has specific rules that let the DM raise the Dc based on circumstance to whatever he wants. Yeah, it's arbitrary, but at least it prevents your world from falling apart to such characters. In 3.5 you have no recourse but to rule 0 against a diplomancer. You really don't.

Frank wrote: OK... but at that level of abstraction a 4e goblin wizard isn't even that. It's just another "thing" where "thing" is "whatever powers your DM came up with today, hopefully it's balanced." The goblin wizard has nothing that makes him especially goblin or especially wizard. It's just a label.

Yeah that's true. A 4E monster has very little to help balance it. Though given that 3E was horribly balanced too, I don't find this to be much of a consolation. I mean, any 3E caster NPC is a damn god given that he's got the same "per day" casting system that the PCs have, only to him, "per day" means "per encounter". So he can just let loose on the PCs to his hearts content. Meanwhile NPC fighters don't get as much money so are horribly underequipped and generally suck.

But I guess that's all moot because the basic classe sthemselves even with proper equipment aren't balanced. So while 3.5 NPCs have more of a backbone and less arbitrarium, that doesn't mean you get something more balanced. In fact, it just means that you have more red tape to wade through.

So again, 4E is faster and allows you to throw on interesting abilities at your whim to add flavor to a battle. 3.5 is slow and produces NPCs that are very cookie cutter. Neither are particularly balanced.

Neither have any definite rules that make one race drastically different, but 4E has a better toolset for differentiating races. In truth, it has little to do with a monster's actual race and more to do with the DM infusing flavor to monsters, but that's unsurprising given that 4E monsters and NPCs are just statted up as obstacles. So if you wanted to make all your goblins crafty and slippery, you very well could give them all abilities that do that. The advantage of having all abilities be custom effectively lets you do that. Now nothing is forcing or encouraging you to do this, so it's up to the DM, but the DM is free to exercise his creativity if he wants to.

WIth 3.5 though, you're pretty much trapped in the box, and there's just no easy way to get out of it. You're never really facing a goblin fighter, you're just facing a fighter. You can't even create custom abilities for him without rule 0ing them in.

Ravengm wrote:
Agreed. Saying things like "oh, the DM will be able to fix that" is both lazy and terrible game design. The point of releasing rules is to have a solid system to work with. If practically everyone has to homebrew the game, then you've made a setting, not a game.

Do you think that the game designers intentionally said "The dm can fix that"?

The rules are solid and can work, just not for the style of play that 3e players are used to. Do you have any idea how many AD&D players revolted against 3e when it came out? I still know (and play) with groups who use AD&D rules. Technically, the game doesn't have problems. The rules technically aren't broken. It's only your opinion that they are.

And I'll say it again....

Anyone who is complaining on this forum about easily changeable 4e rules when they could spend less time actually making the game fit their play style, is a hypocrite. If you're complaining and arguing here... you are literally wasting time. WotC will never see this.

Don't like how often healing surges can be used? Make it so characters only have healing surges=to the base modifier of their Con score. Also, make it so healing surges can only be used as Encounter powers, and Heal checks don't boost HP as much.

There, that is one solution to healing surges. But that too may not suit your playing style, however it is something that works well in my campaign world. It took less time to make that rule change, than it did to finish this post.

Engaging in discussion about why 4e fails = WASTING UR TIME.

Engaging in discussion about how awesome 4e is = FUCK YEAH!1!!

More and more it seems that the 4etard response to "this is broken" is "just fix it yourself!"

If I buy a car, I want it in good condition when I buy it.

However, I do see where some of the anti-4e responses on these boards are a little...strong, let us say, and perhaps a tad reactionary.

Frank: Your main complaint about how the skill system in 4e is bad is because it doesn't have set DCs, but rather "whatever the DM decides is right," correct?

Psychic Robot wrote: If I buy a car, I want it in good condition when I buy it.

Not to be *too* literal, sometimes it's cheaper to buy it broken-down.

Well, it is if you've got nine levels in Automotive Necromancer like my dad does. He raises cars from the dead and keeps them running for years.

Mearls should take some hints from him.

Psychic Robot wrote:Engaging in discussion about why 4e fails = WASTING UR TIME.

This isn't engaging in a discussion about why 4e fails. Its a one sided argument where everyone just complains all at the same time using only their opinion rather than any factual information.

Psychic Robot wrote:Engaging in discussion about how awesome 4e is = FUCK YEAH!1!!

If you look up "porrage" on the WotC forums I don't have the "Its so awesome!" attitude there.

Psychic Robot wrote:More and more it seems that the 4etard response to "this is broken" is "just fix it yourself!"

It's funny that you say "4etard". If you're the same "psychic robot" that I saw on the WotC forums with the sig that says

"As it stands, we have very few pro-4ers, and it would be nice to get more opposing opinions into discussions."

You don't want any opposing opinions, you just want to tell more people that they're wrong. You're a biased child who only wants to bitch so other people can hear your voice. I've offered solutions to the broken rules, and no one wants to take them. If you have a problem with the rules, which is only your opinion, you have all the power in the world to change them. Oh, and don't ever call me a 4etard. The first thing I did when I bought this book was dissect the rules and reconstruct them to how I see fit. I'm not some fanboy who bought 20 3e books because they had the D&D logo on it. And I'm certainly not disappointed with my 4e purchase.

You mean to tell me that you had zero house rules for your previous D&D games? You mean to tell me that each of the previous editions were perfect, and didn't need any changes what so ever?

Psychic Robot wrote:If I buy a car, I want it in good condition when I buy it.

You're right, except you didn't buy a car.

You bought a different version of a game. This version has new rules, so technically none of them are broken. You just don't like them. There is nothing physically wrong with 4e, it is still playable.

Porrage wrote:It's funny that you say "4etard". If you're the same "psychic robot" that I saw on the WotC forums with the sig that says

"As it stands, we have very few pro-4ers, and it would be nice to get more opposing opinions into discussions."

You don't want any opposing opinions, you just want to tell more people that they're wrong. You're a biased child who only wants to bitch so other people can hear your voice. I've offered solutions to the broken rules, and no one wants to take them. If you have a problem with the rules, which is only your opinion, you have all the power in the world to change them.

First of all, you blithering twat, I am indeed in favor of more pro-4e people coming here so that we can have actual discussions about game mechanics. Also, having dissenting viewpoints prevents circlejerking.

Second of all, your solution is moronic. Your solution to something is "houserule it"? Fuck that. I want a product that isn't a steaming pile of shit when I buy it. I don't want to have to hose it off and wipe off the fecal stains so that it functions in a manner that doesn't make me want to retch.

It'd be one thing if I bought the product knowing that it was poop, knowing full well that I'd have to fix it up myself. It's another thing entirely when the product has been hyped to hell and back with shit about "class balance!" and "no magical item dependency!" and "sweet spot at all levels!" and whatever horseshit Mearls and Co. spoonfed to the player base.

You mean to tell me that you had zero house rules for your previous D&D games? You mean to tell me that each of the previous editions were perfect, and didn't need any changes what so ever?

Did I ever say that? Did I ever imply that?

You're right, except you didn't buy a car.

You bought a different version of a game. This version has new rules, so technically none of them are broken. You just don't like them. There is nothing physically wrong with 4e, it is still playable.

The new rules don't work; therefore, they are broken. Skill challenges were an epic failure when they were released, and they're still a goddamn failure now. It's a crying fucking shame, really.

Arguing about D&D is a waste of time.

Playing D&D is a waste of time.

Anything that doesn't result in you surviving another day and getting laid is a waste of time.

I don't see why you have an issue about people saying certain rules are a problem.

In conclusion:



This is the bug that crawled up your butt.

That thing can only be cured with fire, and lots of it.

Pshaw, it's only a pillbug. Except bigger, and underwater.

And probably bent on world domination.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Arguing about D&D is a waste of time.

Playing D&D is a waste of time.

Anything that doesn't result in you surviving another day and getting laid is a waste of time.

I always hate when people tell me I'm wasting time.

Seriously whoever said that is going to be rotting in the same ground I will be at the end of our lives and it's going to be an equally meaningless death.

Psychic Robot wrote: First of all, you blithering twat, I am indeed in favor of more pro-4e people coming here so that we can have actual discussions about game mechanics. Also, having dissenting viewpoints prevents circlejerking.


Second of all, your solutions moronic. Your solution to something is "houserule it"? Fuck that. I want a product that isn't a steaming pile of shit when I buy it. I don't want to have to hose it off and wipe off the fecal stains so that it functions in a manner that doesn't make me want to retch.

The game isn't a pile of shit, that is your opinion.

My solution? Houserule it, yes that is my solution. And guess what? I can now play an enjoyable 4th edition version. You don't want to houserule it? Cool, that means you wasted close to a 100 bucks on books whereas I salvaged what I could. You can try to sell them used on Amazon, but you won't get much back.

Psychic Robot wrote:
It'd be one thing if I bought the product knowing that it was poop, knowing full well that I'd have to fix it up myself. It's another thing entirely when the product has been hyped to hell and back with shit about "class balance!" and "no magical item dependency!" and "sweet spot at all levels!" and whatever horseshit Mearls and Co. spoonfed to the player base.

Join the club. I was under the impression that D&Di was gonna be cool, but it won't be out for what seems like eternity. Anyone who knows anything about WotC knows that they overhype everything, and knows that they lie.

Psychic Robot wrote:Did I ever say that? Did I ever imply that?

Nope, you never said that... But if you did house rules for 3e, why should 4e be different?

Psychic Robot wrote: The new rules don't work; therefore, they are broken. Skill challenges were an epic failure when they were released, and they're still a goddamn failure now. It's a crying fucking shame, really.

Yes, the rules work. You just don't like them.

Porrage wrote:I don't see what you're complaining about here. Sounds to me like you don't want to take fifteen minutes to make a monster. Making up powers isn't exactly hard.....

A few things wrong with your statement.

One: I didn't say this was hard, or that I wouldn't do it. I said there was no meter by which to tell that something belonged in the game system.

Two: You just made that ability up. You spent $40 on a book that told you to 'pull it out of your ass'.

Three: I can make stuff up, too. That doesn't make it balanced or 4e. In fact, it makes it not 4e, because I made it up and I don't work for Hasbro.

-Crissa

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Arguing about D&D is a waste of time.

Playing D&D is a waste of time.

Anything that doesn't result in you surviving another day and getting laid is a waste of time.

I don't see why you have an issue about people saying certain rules are a problem.

In conclusion:



This is the bug that crawled up your butt.

Technically D&D and any activity that is fun can keep your mind in a healthy psychological state....

And I don't have an issue about people saying that a certain rule is a problem. I have an issue with people who'd rather complain than fix the problem.

Crissa wrote:[q

A few things wrong with your statement.

One: I didn't say this was hard, or that I wouldn't do it. I said there was no meter by which to tell that something belonged in the game system.

Two: You just made that ability up. You spent $40 on a book that told you to 'pull it out of your ass'.

Three: I can make stuff up, too. That doesn't make it balanced or 4e. In fact, it makes it not 4e, because I made it up and I don't work for Hasbro.

-Crissa

I don't believe I was responding to you with the quote you used... but oh well.

Yes I made that ability up, and I only spent 20 bucks on the book that told me pull it out of my ass. The same way that since the beginning of D&D people have been buying books that say "pull an adventure out of your ass". I was doing it to make a point. I was showing the original poster that making up abilities wasn't necessarily hard. And who cares if a monster is unbalanced? Aren't they supposed to be unbalanced versus the player? Isn't that what makes the game challenging.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Arguing about D&D is a waste of time.

Playing D&D is a waste of time.

Anything that doesn't result in you surviving another day and getting laid is a waste of time.

I always hate when people tell me I'm wasting time.

Seriously whoever said that is going to be rotting in the same ground I will be at the end of our lives and it's going to be an equally meaningless death.

Speak for yourself, I'm not going to die.

Porrage wrote:The game isn't a pile of shit, that is your opinion.

It doesn't work. It is less fun because of the "padded sumo" syndrome.

My solution? Houserule it, yes that is my solution. And guess what? I can now play an enjoyable 4th edition version. You don't want to houserule it? Cool, that means you wasted close to a 100 bucks on books whereas I salvaged what I could. You can try to sell them used on Amazon, but you won't get much back.

El oh el.

1. You must be joking if you really think that I paid for my 4e books.
2. If I wanted to houserule something so it didn't suck, I could work within the confines of 3e. Which is something that I am doing, actually.

Join the club. I was under the impression that D&Di was gonna be cool, but it won't be out for what seems like eternity. Anyone who knows anything about WotC knows that they overhype everything, and knows that they lie.

Good. Then we agree on something.

Nope, you never said that... But if you did house rules for 3e, why should 4e be different?

The point is that I shouldn't have to. 3.0 was a joke in terms of balance. 3.5 was better, in a "we turned a compound fracture into a closed fracture" kind of way.

Yes, the rules work. You just don't like them.

Skill challenges = fail. Please, shut up unless you can prove the math wrong.

Psychic Robot wrote: It doesn't work. It is not less fun because of the "padded sumo" syndrome.

I don't catch what you're saying.

Psychic Robot wrote: El oh el.

1. You must be joking if you really think that I paid for my 4e books.
2. If I wanted to houserule something so it didn't suck, I could work within the confines of 3e. Which is something that I am doing, actually.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were upset that you bought them. I like 4e better than 3e, so I guess I'll be houseruling it instead of 3e. Plus the new players I've got enjoy 4th edition better than 3rd, so we're sticking with it.

Psychic Robot wrote: The point is that I shouldn't have to. 3.0 was a joke in terms of balance. 3.5 was better, in a "we turned a compound fracture into a closed fracture" kind of way.

That's just it, though. There are always going to be people who don't like the game. I know people who are perfectly fine with 4e the way it is. If WotC made the game how I see fit, then those people might not like it, or they have to houserule.

Psychic Robot wrote: Skill challenges = fail. Please, shut up unless you can prove the math wrong.

Skill challenges work, but I don't use them because I hate how they work.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and apologize, because I'm definitely being an asshole about this whole thing. This apology extends to everyone that I've spoken to in this topic. From here on I'm going to provide a constructive opinion to the topic at hand.

Sorry everyone.

Skill challenges work, but I don't use them because I hate how they work.

That's an interesting philosophical question: the fact that they were released with a specific set of design goals and advertised features and massivle failed to reach any of them... does that mean that they don't work or does that mean that they don't work the way they were supposed to?

-Username17