Things I would have done for 4E...

TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
MaxKaladin
Mist Elf
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am

Post by MaxKaladin »

Zebulon wrote:
In fact, the more I think about it, my strong rejection of 4e primarily comes from the marketing and way of selling us this new edition. It's like (or at least I perceive it that way) they want to force 4e down our throat and get the maximum money out of our pockets.
That's not my primary motivation for disliking 4e, but it's a strong one. It's become a running joke in one group that I'm in that WotC is going to send the gaming police around to confiscate "contraband" (non-4e gaming books) and force everyone to convert to 4e.
I couldn't find it back when I wanted to quote it, but I remember seeing something that really put me off right when they announced 4e last August. It was some WotC staffer at GenCon talking about how everyone should be making plans to wrap up their 3.x campaigns and preparing to start a 4e game in May (the release of the first book was initially set in May). What put me off was that it came off like a parent talking to a small child. It had this whole "if you clean your room and you're really good, you'll get a treat" air to it that was, frankly, insulting.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3723
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Post by Go0gleplex »

They better show up with a moving van if they want to get all of my 'non-4e' books.
I agree with a previous poster...C&C is MUCH more d&d than 4e is. 4e is more like D&WoW to me, both in appearance and play. Without the classes like Pally and Druid etc....it is also very much incomplete IMO.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

MaxKaladin wrote:
Another aspect of this that has surprised me was the number of people I've seen in the local gamestore who have still been playing 1e and 2e who are getting excited about 4e. I wouldn't have thought it would be a big hit with them, but it appears to be.

Yeah, my group is in this camp.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

MaxKaladin wrote:
It was some WotC staffer at GenCon talking about how everyone should be making plans to wrap up their 3.x campaigns and preparing to start a 4e game in May (the release of the first book was initially set in May). What put me off was that it came off like a parent talking to a small child. It had this whole "if you clean your room and you're really good, you'll get a treat" air to it that was, frankly, insulting.

Yeah, but that is every big gaming shift. 2nd Edition to d20 did the same thing. The Apocalypse Stone module was even published to do just that.

Foxroe
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Foxroe »

I think that when you choose to emblazon the cover of your shiny new product with the words "Dungeons & Dragons", there is a certain set of expectations that you evoke in your customer base. It better actually be D&D.

I kind of expected trouble when WoTC first announced the new edition, and a fair amount of the questions they were getting were along the lines of "Will I be able to convert my 3.x character/campaign/collection to 4th edition?", and the short answer was "Nope".

So I think Zebulon's marketing assessment is spot on. Wizards would have been better served by changing the name of the game entirely... maybe to something like "World of Dungeon-craft".
That being said, maybe if a group I was playing with wanted to try it out, or if my son perpetually insisted that we get it, then maybe I would give it a try. Maybe I'd even like it. But I have to agree with DangerDwarf; I would likely become unpleasant every time someone mentioned that it was D&D.

I suppose we should at least be thankful that the 4th edition hardbacks aren't being released wrapped in opaque black plastic or blind collectors boxes, with common/rare/very rare values assigned to them... "Hey! I'll trade you a Complete Warlord and a mint DMG III for that MM VII!"

-Fox

tylermo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 am

Post by tylermo »

I suppose we should at least be thankful that the 4th edition hardbacks aren't being released wrapped in opaque black plastic or blind collectors boxes, with common/rare/very rare values assigned to them... "Hey! I'll trade you a Complete Warlord and a mint DMG III for that MM VII!"

AMEN, BROTHER! Better yet, we could have had some plasmatic, tri-foil-covered chase variant books, or some such sh*t. Maybe the afore-mentioned rare, collectors tomes would have included the druid, bard, barbarian, monk, as well as the half-orc and the gnome. You'll have to pardon my sarcasm, I did at least purchase the phb. A friend or two plan on running the game, and I wanted to give it a fair chance. Even though Savage Worlds and C&C will be my primary games of choice.

User avatar
Indigo Rose
Red Cap
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Denton, The Home of Happiness

Post by Indigo Rose »

Julian Grimm wrote:
I have rethought my 4e interest and discovered that I can easily bring in what I like to C&C. More starting HP's. Done. A more 'at will' magic system. Done. Healing surges (which I do think are cool). Done. The only thing I really want a hardcopy of the material on is the new planar fluff which I liked. BUt I think I could snag one of the preview books and get that.

If I had more time to game I'd probably be more serious about looking at 4e. However I only have the time and now money for one game. And that is C&C.

That's one of the things which I think places C&C head and shoulders over the rest of the fantasy RPGs out there--it's so very "house rules" friendly, and you can tweak the game to incorporate whatever you like best without "breaking" the system. Now that's old-school feel in a nutshell!

Know what you mean about money, though--I barely have enough extra cash to keep gas in my car, let alone do anything else...
_________________
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.

MaxKaladin
Mist Elf
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am

Post by MaxKaladin »

DangerDwarf wrote:
Yeah, but that is every big gaming shift. 2nd Edition to d20 did the same thing. The Apocalypse Stone module was even published to do just that.
It's standard procedure to try to convince fans that the new version is going to be the best thing since sliced bread and they should convert immediately. What struck me as unusual was the patronizing tone of the particular statement.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

MaxKaladin wrote:
What struck me as unusual was the patronizing tone of the particular statement.

I've heard that alot on the web from various folks about WotC's marketing. I suppose I never paid it much heed, and having a strong dislike of 3e they could have poo-pooed the edition all day long and I prolly wouldn't have noticed.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

Indigo Rose wrote:
That's one of the things which I think places C&C head and shoulders over the rest of the fantasy RPGs out there--it's so very "house rules" friendly, and you can tweak the game to incorporate whatever you like best without "breaking" the system. Now that's old-school feel in a nutshell!

Know what you mean about money, though--I barely have enough extra cash to keep gas in my car, let alone do anything else...

Yeah, why convert to a new system when you have a system like C&C that makes it much easier, and cheaper, to just find the rules ideas you do like and house rule them into your C&C game?

I also "hear you" on the money issues too.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

Treebore wrote:
Yeah, why convert to a new system when you have a system like C&C that makes it much easier, and cheaper, to just find the rules ideas you do like and house rule them into your C&C game?

I played C&C for quite some time as-is, getting to learn the system before I started to make any modifications. When I did start house-ruling stuff in I found that I was adding enough house rules of 2nd Editionisms that it was simply easier to run a 2nd Edition game and house rule a few C&Cisms in.

I found absolutely nothing wrong with C&C, and think it is a great game, but think that heavily house-ruling it defeats the whole purpose of switching to a light system.

Of course, it is still easy enough to use C&C modules for 2nd Edition, and our occasional BECMI game. So, its all good.

User avatar
slimykuotoan
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Nine Hells

Post by slimykuotoan »

The colors and layout of the 4E books weren't to my taste, so I'd redo those.
For crying out loud, do what you can with the attributes the dice have given you. This is what separates the men from the boys... -Kayolan

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

Well it does depend on how much house ruling you end up doing. I mean if you do enough house rules to have 20 typed pages of them, then maybe "rules lite" isn't what your looking for.

My house rules document is 6 pages, typed. About a page of that is what I would do in pretty much any D&D game. About one page covers my Runemark Class write up, so I have about 4 pages of C&C house rules. Some of which rewrite certain rules (TWF, Grappling, Energy Drain, dying) into forms I like, while some of it applies to how I integrated the 3E feats concept into the SIEGE engine and the skill system I decided to adapt.

So I still consider my game to be "rules light".

Yeah, I was looking to steal a bunch of rules from 2E, and even a couple from 1E and OD&D. Then I realized I liked my skill system better than NWP's, kits were redundant, because Prime selection has much the same effect. Even more.

Do you realize to have the same effects on a PC with the Prime system in a 3E game you would need about 6 feats (likely more) and about 20 skills?

So kits and bundles, etc... don't even come close to having the same effect. Specialty Priests are a different story, though.

Anyways, after that I realized the biggest thing I wanted from 2E were the spell versions and some of the magic items. So I found it easier to just adapt them to C&C as I wanted them. Same with Specialty Priests.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

The only C&Cism that I applied to 2nd Edition (and it was a big one) was that I added Primes. Same 12/18 split using it for attribute checks and for NWPs. First NWP rank gives you +3 (or equivalent of half a prime) plus is a skill you can add your level to. There's a little more to it then that, but thats the quick run-down.

EDIT: Oh, and we made the switch back to 2nd Edition after we realized we kept more 2nd Edition books at the table than we did C&C.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

DangerDwarf wrote:
The only C&Cism that I applied to 2nd Edition (and it was a big one) was that I added Primes. Same 12/18 split using it for attribute checks and for NWPs. First NWP rank gives you +3 (or equivalent of half a prime) plus is a skill you can add your level to. There's a little more to it then that, but thats the quick run-down.

EDIT: Oh, and we made the switch back to 2nd Edition after we realized we kept more 2nd Edition books at the table than we did C&C.

Yeah, I looked at just inserting the SIEGE mechanic into 2E, including positive AC's and BtH instead of THACO, but since I wanted to keep my C&C as open to using stuff from any edition of D&D, including 4E, as possible I just stayed with C&C as my core and just add the rest as I need or want it. Which has been at a much slower rate than I anticipated.

As to having more 2E books on the table than C&C thats easy to do. 2E has how many books?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

adaen
Red Cap
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Bridgewater, NJ
Contact:

Post by adaen »

I played 1E for a LONG time after 2E came out (I wasn't going to switch)....To be fair, I also played a lot of Rolemaster too, but didn't switch to 2E until I joined a group in about '98 or '99. Then I just bought the CD versions of the rules. I never really liked 2E much.

I did (and do) like 3E. It is a very tactical game that is focused on rewarding skillful play. It focuses on player skill over character skill.

C&C and all light systems (IMO) are less focused on this aspect of play which is why I enjoy them....It lets my fighter win the fight because *he, the character* is good at fighting....not because *I, the player* was able to skillfully maneuver my way to a victory (i.e., taking advantage of every 5' step, avoiding AoO's, etc.). It focuses on character skill over player skill.

Caveat: Either system can actually be used for either style of play (or a nice middleground of course). My comments are to be applied to what the rules as written actually support.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

Some people like many different flavors of ice cream. Some people love chocolate a lot. They stick with chocolate, even when given other choices.

Those that stick with chocolate HATE when someone hands them vanilla and keeps insisting that its chocolate. Sure, they are both cold, and they both come in a cone sometimes, but vanilla sure as hell isn't chocolate. After a while, chocolate lovers are going to throw the vanilla cone right back! They probably wouldn't return there for ice cream, either.

Chocolate lovers want chocolate ice cream, and when they can't have it, they at least want those handing them something else to be honest about what it is.

Now we have been shown a strawberry cone, and we're told its still chocolate.

Thank heavens I don't go to that stand anymore.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

adaen wrote:
I did (and do) like 3E. It is a very tactical game that is focused on rewarding skillful play. It focuses on player skill over character skill.

I actually respectfully disagree here. While you're correct from one aspect, the tactical puzzle pieces, the rest of the game encourages players to rely on the numbers on their character sheets to succeed for them, rather than relying on clever ideas and sound reasoning.

For example, spot, listen, and search replaced the need for the player to describe the area of the search in detail. While variants of these skills existed in prior edition, they were for more specific pursuits - traps or listening at doors, for example. They weren't meant to replace the player's sense of awareness at the surroundings as presented by the DM. With 3E, a player could rely on a spot roll instead of making sure to tell the DM that his character was scanning the brush ahead. This isn't fostering player skill - it's replacing it.
Quote:
C&C and all light systems (IMO) are less focused on this aspect of play which is why I enjoy them....It lets my fighter win the fight because *he, the character* is good at fighting....not because *I, the player* was able to skillfully maneuver my way to a victory (i.e., taking advantage of every 5' step, avoiding AoO's, etc.). It focuses on character skill over player skill.

You're correct about C&C combat, but it has a clear advantage - players can try *anything*, not just what is on their sheet. 3E is restricting. A clever player can achieve greater success in C&C. I believe this definitely fosters "player skill" as a factor.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
csperkins1970
Ulthal
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Staten Island, NY
Contact:

Post by csperkins1970 »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Some people like many different flavors of ice cream. Some people love chocolate a lot. They stick with chocolate, even when given other choices.

Those that stick with chocolate HATE when someone hands them vanilla and keeps insisting that its chocolate. Sure, they are both cold, and they both come in a cone sometimes, but vanilla sure as hell isn't chocolate. After a while, chocolate lovers are going to throw the vanilla cone right back! They probably wouldn't return there for ice cream, either.

Chocolate lovers want chocolate ice cream, and when they can't have it, they at least want those handing them something else to be honest about what it is.

Now we have been shown a strawberry cone, and we're told its still chocolate.

Thank heavens I don't go to that stand anymore.

Strawberry IS the new chocolate. As a matter of fact, it's even MORE CHOCOLATEY than what you once thought was chocolate!

You must realign your tastebuds if they tell you otherwise.
I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am... a god.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

csperkins1970 wrote:
Strawberry IS the new chocolate. As a matter of fact, it's even MORE CHOCOLATEY than what you once thought was chocolate!

You must realign your tastebuds if they tell you otherwise.

Sure, you jest, and it is funny, but it's precisely this analogy that bothers me.

Enough people were told that vanilla was really chocolate, and now the meaning of "chocolate" is gone. Calling something new "chocolate" just further removes it from the original meaning.

Except for those of us eating twists at the new place down the street. Sure, it's not 100% chocolate, but it's pretty good.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
csperkins1970
Ulthal
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Staten Island, NY
Contact:

Post by csperkins1970 »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Sure, you jest, and it is funny, but it's precisely this analogy that bothers me.

Enough people were told that vanilla was really chocolate, and now the meaning of "chocolate" is gone. Calling something new "chocolate" just further removes it from the original meaning.

Except for those of us eating twists at the new place down the street. Sure, it's not 100% chocolate, but it's pretty good.

It bothers me that some D&D players (including some old-schoolers) look at 4th edition and say that it represents the future of D&D, that its changes were necessary for D&D's survival.

I agree that D&D needs to grow and change if it is going to remain a living, vibrant system but think that it needs to remain true to its roots. That's not what I see happening with 4th edition.

If it represents where D&D is headed, then I'm parting ways with the old girl... because I barely recognize her anymore.
I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am... a god.

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

I'm split on that. Then again I wouldn't degrade myself in calling myslef an oldschooler either.*

*For the record. The "Old School" movement has left a very bad taste in my mouth with the number members that have turned the game into a religion and attack anyone for not thinking that their version of the game is superior in all ways.

Besides I grauated from school over a decade ago, those that want to stay in school have more problems than I do.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
csperkins1970
Ulthal
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Staten Island, NY
Contact:

Post by csperkins1970 »

Julian Grimm wrote:
*For the record. The "Old School" movement has left a very bad taste in my mouth with the number members that have turned the game into a religion and attack anyone for not thinking that their version of the game is superior in all ways.

I think I get what you're saying about some self-proclaimed "old schoolers". I love classic D&D and AD&D materials and enjoy revisiting the old settings, rulebooks and adventures in the games I run and play (and have incorporated some of elements of older editons in my C&C houserules). At the same time, that doesn't stop me from appreciating games like C&C and 3rd Edition D&D.
I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am... a god.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

Julian Grimm wrote:
*For the record. The "Old School" movement has left a very bad taste in my mouth with the number members that have turned the game into a religion and attack anyone for not thinking that their version of the game is superior in all ways.

I agree, but I'll still identify myself as an "oldschooler."

Those folks don't speak for me, and there are plenty more like me that prefer the older ways of gaming that aren't part of that group. I'm sorry that a few radicals soured your experience. They've attacked me as well.

I can rationally dislike something based on my own experiences. I don't need anyone else to validate those experiences.

For the record, I do think my preferred way of gaming is superior, based on those experiences. I simply don't have as much fun or think the game has as much integrity unless it's played with certain principles in mind. Some might find those principles archaic. I simply think they worked well at the dawn of the game and they work better now than anything I've tried since.

My early Hammer & Anvil columns in Crusader describe my philosophy very well. I choose the rules based on supporting that philosophy during gameplay. I happen to think that older rules, and those capturing the flavor of those older rules, better achieve the goals I desire.

The difference between someone like me and the zealots is that I won't try to bully it onto someone else.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

That is why you need me.

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

I got to look at the books. I can say this, I don't hate it. It has concepts that are far from the D&D I knew. Some I like some I find questionable. I'd have to play it to really form a decision. As it stands now I'm happy with C&C and staying there and Pirating from Pathfinder and 4e.

Oh and I love the art.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

Fiffergrund wrote:
I can rationally dislike something based on my own experiences. I don't need anyone else to validate those experiences.

Exactly. I'll actually look at it. And then form an opinion.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2022
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Traveller »

I looked at it (as mentioned on another thread).

You know, I didn't really pay attention to this until now, but Hasbro is actually using similar methods that some Men use on their slaves in the BDSM world. Men tear down their women brick by brick and then rebuild them, molding the women into whatever the Men desire. The same thing has happened with Dungeons & Dragons. d20 was the first step in the tearing down process, and d20 Vista is the rebuilding phase. Hasbro has rebuilt the game into what they desire. In either case, the tearing down and rebuilding is done without regard to the target's state of being. The Men don't truly care about the women, and Hasbro doesn't truly care about the game.

That they don't care is the most disgusting thing of all.

_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

Great, now I'm picturing the designers in assless chaps placing nipple clamps on a ball-gagged gnome.

adaen
Red Cap
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Bridgewater, NJ
Contact:

Post by adaen »

Fiffergrund wrote:
I actually respectfully disagree here. While you're correct from one aspect, the tactical puzzle pieces, the rest of the game encourages players to rely on the numbers on their character sheets to succeed for them, rather than relying on clever ideas and sound reasoning.

For example, spot, listen, and search replaced the need for the player to describe the area of the search in detail. While variants of these skills existed in prior edition, they were for more specific pursuits - traps or listening at doors, for example. They weren't meant to replace the player's sense of awareness at the surroundings as presented by the DM. With 3E, a player could rely on a spot roll instead of making sure to tell the DM that his character was scanning the brush ahead. This isn't fostering player skill - it's replacing it.

...snip...

You're correct about C&C combat, but it has a clear advantage - players can try *anything*, not just what is on their sheet. 3E is restricting. A clever player can achieve greater success in C&C. I believe this definitely fosters "player skill" as a factor.

The argument can be made that D&D requires the players to "play the rules" (where the rules actually define the physics of the game world) whereas in C&C, they must "play the GM" (wherein, GM caveat determines the physics of the game world). There are pros and cons of both approaches.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

Post Reply