Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Last I checked, there was no law stating it to be mandatory to jump to a new game.

On #92 I dont know. I think his first summary..Its almost unrecognizable maybe true.  His second point doesnt make any sense. Its not for beginners but its for beginners?

His point about  role-playing is exactly what leads to poor role-playing in my experience. While play-acting (no funny voices required) is a part of the DnD experience it is a skill that varies from player to player. If your focus is simply on the play acting you dont need character sheets...or any rules at all. You could play monopoly as a role playing game.

In the context of a fantasy game though some system to resolve non-combat encounters is essential. Uncharismatic non-diplomatic characters played by good rp'er become de-facto leaders of the group, players smarter than their characters (barbarian Im looking at you) solve the complex riddle, perceptive players who low wisdom thieves recall foreshadowing. Unless you construct some way to resolve non-combat actions these incongruous story events are common place. This doesnt supplant role-playing it adjudicates it. The well spoken player who plays an oaf might say the right things but his tone strikes the duke the wrong way.

Still much of the "copied" elements from online gaming (character balance, combat/encounter roles, "builds", resource management) have been prevalent throughout game systems since Odnd. Heck even 1st ed tried to balance by using differing experience charts. (At 1250 xp the thief was a better tank than the fighter.)

Its a decent game system at its core. Does it deserve to wear the mantle of "Dungeons and Dragons?" Guess thats largely up to each person. Its probably better balanced than previous editions and certainly easier to run. It is a marketing device (10 books in 2 years) but nearly everything either is or tries to be these days.

One thing I notice is you can be bad at combat in 4e. Tension though tactical combat plays a bigger role than in previous editions.  You can play 4ed without a robust story (it seems encouraged to the war-gamer crowd) But I'm not sure thats anything new. Heck anyone who played as a kid in the 70's...yes im that old..who says they didnt see if their decked out 18/00 3rd fighter couldnt take down an ogre solo is either a liar or played at least one wizard who got killed by a house-cat.

Player - "Can the Ogre see me?"

DM- "Yes, he's looking right at you!"

Player - (Disgruntled look) "But I rolled a 20 on my stealth check! I said I was hidding behind the boulder."

DM - "Sorry,  he must have seen your shadow from the moonlight, you should have asked 'can I sneak by him?' We still have 54 yeses to go."

Heh, all depends on your game's focus. Some groups focus on the "RULES." Some groups focus on trying to win. Its up to you. I know consistency is a big deal for some folks. Look at the diagonal movement threads for some idea about how seriously some folks take the simulationist vrs. story focus. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "That DM is out to get us." or saw someone get upset on an unfavorable die roll I'd..... buy pathfinder.

I guess its up to each player to decide if any group or play-style is right for them.  I know from experience that a less robustly balanced system can be ideal with some groups but all it takes is one power-gamer to munchkin-out and the game suffers for the entire group. Players start feeling like their characters are merely sidekicks to the munchkin. “Ahh Monk-Sorcerer –chosen one” I’m looking at you.

I guess my opinion on the new edition is that the combat system is far more balanced and focused than ever before. The Nuts & Bolts mechanics of it can appear similar to online games where radically different abilities have impacts on successful strategies.  The robustness of the combat resolution system could lead one to think that Role-playing is eschewed. I disagree, I feel it allows role-playing  and the tactical wargame (combat) to coexist and can be equally emphasized without sacrificing a character’s development in either.

I am more story orientated than simulation focused however. I can see how without detailed crafting rules some groups might have not enjoy the new edition.  For me I’d much rather have a cut scene watching the characters fletch arrows, skin the giant alligator, or built a raft rather than have a documentary that runs  20 + 3d4 hours – skill check result.

I want wizards to be slinging spells not aiming crossbows. I want Dwarves to be taking oaths, and rouges tumbling out of the shadows. I could use less of “What are all my bonuses oh I forgot to add that in.”  but for experienced gamers that’s more a matter of preparation and player skill than system limitations.

I’said it before I could run pretty much the same game I run with coinflips.  I might have a tough time getting players, but I could run it.

Adam wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 11:12pm:


true that

On the Halfling knocking a giant millipede prone...I say it can happen as it says both rules and storywise....here's WHY I say that it can work...the movement within the five feet is small but an amount of speed and power can be generated in such a small space and the creature, as big as it is was rising up and turned, just as the halfling attacked it, losing balance and it's own bulk, allow it to fall over and become prone.  Both aspects of the story and game just came together...what do you think Leigh?  It could happen...

The 4.0e forum was removed?