Nola RPG (Big Easy Table Top RPGs - New Orleans Roleplaying D&D D20 GURPS) | |
http://nolarpg.com/cgi-bin/NolaRPG/YaBB.pl
Table Top Game Systems >> Debate & Other >> Re: DnD 4th http://nolarpg.com/cgi-bin/NolaRPG/YaBB.pl?num=1205953378 Message started by Karloff on Mar 19th, 2008 at 8:02pm |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Karloff on Mar 19th, 2008 at 8:02pm Quote:
I agree, thats what made it funny, but still the rant from Metrolang has some truth about it. I personally have not seen the system, but I would certainly give it a detailed read when it comes available. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Bayou Halfling on Mar 24th, 2008 at 5:47pm Red Priest wrote on Mar 19th, 2008 at 5:35pm:
Agreed. D&D 3.0/3.5 is not D&D. Neither is 4.0. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Liam on Mar 24th, 2008 at 7:00pm
Not agreed.
The games are different and stress different aspects over others. Original D&D was very much like the D&D cartoon. You had very general roles that a person fell into and while a particular character can be different, characters could be identified as one of the standard classes. 2.0 is D&D on sterioids. Its bigger, its badder, and it should be illegal. It was just too much of the same. It added options for people who wanted more than the simple original D&D but you ended up with someone being more powerful simply because he spent more on the books. 3.5 is a more 'realistic' version of D&D. They tried to come up with a physics and stick too it. So monters are like characters and have feats and levels. Some would say it removes the mystery but it makes for a more realistic game. You don't end up with monsters who have powers that are unbalanced with the rest of its features. That would make them too predictable but 3.5 is big enough that you can't learn it all. And that's what I like most about 3.5. A player can make a character using a set of random books and it can be hard to guess what he is. At the same time, that character isn't unbalanced compared to other characters who didn't use that new or obscure book. The only advantage the unusual character has is in his mystery, for the most part. I am sure there are exceptions but I like the 'realism' of encountering a character and not being sure of all he can do because there are so many options while maintaining some sort of balance. It's a style preference. Its all D&D. It may not be your dad's D&D, but its still D&D. From what I have seen 4.0 will start off a lot more like old D&D so you might like it more. In the end though, it will move in the direction of 3.0 because the majority of players will demand it... that is, if it does well enough that people spend money on it and it keeps going. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Liam on Mar 24th, 2008 at 9:03pm
I think you just said the same thing I said except that you think 3.5 is not D&D because its a hybrid and not an archtype based game. I said 3.5 is D&D except its a hybrid and not archtype based. The question is, what is D&D? I think its the flavor. Its not just fantasy, its Dungeons, Dragons (sic), rolling d20s to hit and d6-d12 for damage, levels and hit points and mind flayers and other flavor elements. I don't think Spelljammer is D&D but Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are (were?). Its hard to pinpoint what D&D is vs. other fantasy games.
For a lot of people the archtype is an important part of that. Those are the people who don't like 3.5. I much prefer GURPS as a system. I think its rediculous that a first level thief can easily learn to pick pockets but it costs a fighter more, even a 10th level fighter, to learn the same skill. The lack of some sort of realism there just irks me. So, I think 3.5 is not only D&D its a much better D&D. Some will think any hybrid skill/class system is not D&D. Its a matter of personal preference and opinion and no amount of debate is going to change anyone's mind. 1.0 people like emacs and 3.5 people like vi. 1.0 people like Hillary and 3.5 people like Obama. Debate doesn't matter. But in the end my 3.5 says D&D on it so you may not like it but its D&D. That's the only objective standard. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by lechgame on Mar 24th, 2008 at 10:19pm
well, for my opinion, i look forward to the 4th edition described in the videos WotC put out a while back, describing the game as more streamlined and whatnot, and basically a new version of the same game-name (like the final fantasy series up to about ff9; they were all different, but still final fantasy). anyhow, the biggest plus i'm looking forward to is the included program for online play since i know folks in different parts of the US that can play online, but prefer tabletop to PBEM or PbP. i don't know how much i like it though yet as i haven't played it. there are demos and tests, etc., coming to the NOLA area in may, according to WotC website, and the books are to be released in june. i'll try to be there for the demos, see what it is all about, and then perhaps be there to get my copies of the core rules and rock on. there's my two coppers.
|
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Red Priest on Mar 24th, 2008 at 10:30pm Liam wrote on Mar 24th, 2008 at 9:03pm:
I'm not saying that any game is better or worse than another. I'm just saying that 3.5 is not the same type of game as OD&D. Monopoly is a board game and so is Chinese checkers, but just because they're both games played on a board doesn't make them the same game, and being different types of board games doesn't make one any better than the other. Just because games share dragons, elves, mind flayers and 10' corridors doesn't mean that they're the same game either. I can run any fantasy-based game with those tropes (and in fact, I have), but that's not going to make them D&D. Runequest certainly isn't D&D. I'd hold that for games to be related, they should share a certain rule set and philosophy, and frankly, OD&D and 3.5 share neither. Does it make one any better than the other? Nope, that's just personal taste. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by The DM on Mar 25th, 2008 at 12:18am Quote:
I am quite sure that this statement is fundamentally false. Looking back at playing all the games, and watching the progression and "improvement" within each addiction, I still see plenty of things that stay true in heart to the original extremely flawed editions. Seeing that you have this opinion, you might need me to explain my stance. I wish I had the time, all i can say is that I feel the classes, combat, gods, and sphere magics give me a strong feeling of a beautiful refinement and re-explanation of old and still predominate philosophies. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Karloff on Mar 25th, 2008 at 5:20am
Well regardless of opinion all gaming system share the same philosophy, not to mention all are flawed, the rules they create are guildlines, nothing more, and nothing less. Some systems are easy to work with and others are not. It is the DM's job to balance it for the players, for the sake of torture or fun. Whichever comes first.
All in all its for roleplaying and to escape into another world. Most of you know my stand on 3.5, I don't believe it was balanced enough for play, period. Everything they took into 3.5, the majority comes from 2nd edition AD&D, and I have the books to prove it. Another small point I'll make is the fact the gods in 3.5 wasn't easier or more streamline, because when wizards of the sword coast released neverwinter nights 2, 3.5 was out for more then 3 years, however they still reverted to used all AD&D gods. That in itself says that AD&D isn't dead. There is nothing ancient or unloved about it. I personally think that 4.0 is a ploy for people to spend more money, but hey I'm a trooper I'll give it a looksie over. However I make no promises. Karloff |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Red Priest on Mar 25th, 2008 at 8:39pm wrote on Mar 25th, 2008 at 12:18am:
Yes, I would need an explanation, because I've read all the rulebooks as well, and come to the conclusion that 3.5 has more in common with Rolemaster than it does with OD&D. That's not to say that 3.5 and OD&D don't share anything at all in common, because, of course they do. They're both fantasy games, they both possess classes and both systems demonstrate success by having characters progress in level. That doesn't make 3.5 a direct descendant of OD&D. Rolemaster does all these things as well, and it also adds skills and talents. 3.x, likely via Mr Cook, picked up this gaming paradigm of skills and feats (feats = talents). OD&D has no skills and no feats, only classes and levels. I've played OD&D, AD&D, 3.5 and Rolemaster (and many other games) and 3.5 gaming sessions play a lot more like Rolemaster than they do OD&D. Do OD&D and 3.5 have some things in common? Of course, but 3.5 has more in common with Rolemaster than OD&D. That relates 3.5 closer to Rolemaster than OD&D. That's my point. If someone can demonstrably disprove that, then I'm all ears. Umm .. make that eyes. ;) Unless of course you'll be at Coastcon, then we can discuss gaming philosophy, but only after we play a game of something together. :) One could take the stance that all fantasy RPGs are offspring of OD&D (maybe, maybe not), but I'd be hard to convince that they were built on the same gaming principles (other than the obvious point to have fun!). There's more than one way to skin a Weasel, Giant. |
Title: Re: DnD 4th Post by Admin account on Apr 7th, 2008 at 5:49am |
Nola RPG (Big Easy Table Top RPGs - New Orleans Roleplaying D&D D20 GURPS) » Powered by YaBB 2.4! YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved. |