Missing the Forest For All The Trees???

[Luther]

I find it ironic that 4e is going for the MMO crowd but the core rules are so burdensome, it's much easier and less work to just play an MMO where the rules fade into the background.

C&C rules, on the other hand actually do fade into the background and could recreate the speed and ease of play WoW experience far better than 4e ever could and would add the infinite non-programmed choices of a TTRPG.

In other words, tons of rules are only a hindrance when trying to bring the MMO crowd to the table...

[Treebore]

I "like" a lot of 3E too. I just don't like its level of complication. Which is why I adapted the key elements I like from 3E. Plus any time I have a question on how I want to rule about something (like magic armor stacking) I default to 3E for guidance.

3E is probably the best written complex system ever done. However that complexity is the very thing that kills it for me.

Way too much work prepping the game, and at high levels keeping track of everything your character can do becomes more like a job then a game your playing.

So now I have enough simplicity with the right elements I want from 3E added in, so now I have my perfect game.
_________________
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

[Taranthyll]

TheFrost wrote:
In general, 3.x is a "player's game." The classes have lots of options and it can be really fun to "get under the hood" and make your character work... adding features via feats, classes, etc. As a GM, it can be a bit rough because every monster is more or less the same as PC (and therefore as equally complicated).

Yeah, I agree with this. I always thought of 3.X as a player's game. Certainly my players enjoyed the system while I was running it, and didn't entirely understand why I wanted to switch when I discovered C&C. I was really unhappy as a game master because of the amount of time that I needed to prepare for each game, which took away from the time I got to spend with my family. With C&C I can prepare an evening's adventure in just a few hours that afternoon instead of being locked in my study every night for a week.

[Taranthyll]

Luther wrote:
C&C rules, on the other hand actually do fade into the background and could recreate the speed and ease of play WoW experience far better than 4e ever could and would add the infinite non-programmed choices of a TTRPG.

While you're right about C&C rules fading into the background, I think the thing about 4E that would appeal to MMOG players is the array of kewl powerz with set "cool down" times (i.e. at-will, per encounter, and per day). C&C characters don't have a lot of readily defined powers - you have to use your imagination a lot more.

I've only ever played 4E once but it definitely felt hitting hotkeys linked to my power tray: "smite...smite...smite...knock-out-blow!!"

[Julian Grimm]

TheFrost wrote:
I think I'm in the minority on these boards, but I actually really enjoy both 3.x AND C&C. As I've said elsewhere, I find 3.x wonderfully intricate and C&C wonderfully simple.

I'm with you here, Frost. It took me awhile to see I liked and could run both. Right now C&C is 'on the shelf' for some 3e fun. But I'll go back to C&C soon enough. I'm still buying from TLG and only running 'core' 3.X right now but I plan on converting Dark Chateau for one night to see how it goes.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[serleran]

As a player, strictly from the pure rules-tinkering... C&C and d20 have a lot in common, really. One is open to manipulation, the other just has a lot to manipulate.

[gideon_thorne]

TheFrost wrote:
I think I'm in the minority on these boards, but I actually really enjoy both 3.x AND C&C. As I've said elsewhere, I find 3.x wonderfully intricate and C&C wonderfully simple.

I don't know that your in a minority so much on these boards. This is a pretty inclusive bunch, and folks borrow a lot from various systems and editions for their games.

There's no dislike on 3e or even 4e on my part. I just don't have the memory for either. Plus, too much math makes my brain melt. I'm more of an abstract thinker, so the less fiddly bits I have to keep track of, the happier I am.

Now, I've played some very crunchy intensive games like Champions which I had a lot of fun with.

But my preference is simplicity in the mechanics which allow me to add a comfortable level of fiddly bits if I want too.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Frost]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I don't know that your in a minority so much on these boards. This is a pretty inclusive bunch, and folks borrow a lot from various systems and editions for their games.

Well, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said I actually "play" 3.x, but judging from the posts above, so do a few folks around here. Also, I certainly agree that folks around here are welcoming and very quick to say "Welcome to the Crusade!"
On a side note, I find it interesting that a lot people play C&C because of the time involved. Or, rather, the lack of time needed to prepare it, etc. I find that a great feature as well. Ha, it's almost as if C&C is the "married with kids" RPG.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

[AslanC]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Now, I've played some very crunchy intensive games like Champions which I had a lot of fun with.

I think you hit an important nail on the head right there.

I am an old school Classic Marvel Super Heroes fan. I never got into Champions.

Oddly I have a bunch of friends who are game writers, or involved int he industry at some level or another and they were ALL Champions fans.

I bet if you were to take an industry wide polling you might find better than 60% of game designers or production design leads were Champions fans.

Now I have no problems with Champions, it is an excellent system that accomplices what it sets out to do magnifcantly. Same of M&M (or Champions d20 as I lovingly called it ). But I do have a problem with bookkeeping. I roleplay to lose myself, not look at Excel sheets and calculate out comparitive information. I like charts, charts lay it all out for me and that makes me happy
So in the end, C&C is more in keeping with what I want. Fast resolution, mostly jsut roll a die and beat number X and that's that. Once the rules start to get more complicated than that I start to snooze.

As for the losing my life to run a game, I ran a 3.5 campaign and it took hours to prep each session, and eventually the game and I parted way on what I wanted to do with my campaign.

C&C offers me a better supporting rules set for what I want to do. That means a lot to me as a GM/Narrator, as it allows me to focus more on the plot and substories than populating a dungeon or a village with stat blocks.
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Treebore]

I could probably still be talked into running 3E, as long as it was core books only, and only was going to 8th or 9th level.

Still, I would argue why? With my house rules you can do anything a 3E character can, and then some, and I even allow PrC's to be adapted after 9th level.

So basically they would have to be someone I want to game with, but they refuse to play C&C, to get me to do it. No one like that around this part of AZ.
_________________
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

[DangerDwarf]

TheFrost wrote:
I think I'm in the minority on these boards, but I actually really enjoy both 3.x AND C&C.

Nah. In fact, until the advent of 4e I had never seen so much support of 3e on these boards.

[Luther]

Taranthyll wrote:
While you're right about C&C rules fading into the background, I think the thing about 4E that would appeal to MMOG players is the array of kewl powerz with set "cool down" times (i.e. at-will, per encounter, and per day). C&C characters don't have a lot of readily defined powers - you have to use your imagination a lot more.

I've only ever played 4E once but it definitely felt hitting hotkeys linked to my power tray: "smite...smite...smite...knock-out-blow!!"

Yeah, 4e has set powers, but I was coming from the angle of how hard you have to work to play the game. Using the SEIGE Engine, the players can still use the Kewl Powerz by declaring them as actinos and the CK can determine what they do and what their cool down is on the fly much easier than trying to memorize/keep track of all the tiny little modifiers and so on in 4e. And best of all he can be even more flexible with them since there are no set rules.

For example, a player can say 'I want to mark that orc' and the CK can go 'You're a fighter, which is a tank character, so sure. If he attacks anyone but you, you get a free swing at him.' Common sense and a familiarity with the way an MMO works replaces a thick arsed rulebook and a couple of dozen power cards. The player can act as quickly as he could by pressing a hotkey.

And if they have to come up with these things on the fly themselves, eventually they'll start thinking more like a traditional PnP player and start to think outside the MMO box as well. That's when a true love of tabletop gaming will kick in...

[Taranthyll]

Luther wrote:
And if they have to come up with these things on the fly themselves, eventually they'll start thinking more like a traditional PnP player and start to think outside the MMO box as well. That's when a true love of tabletop gaming will kick in...

Quite right, you don't have to think about game mechanics when you're playing a computer game, just like C&C mechanics aren't front and centre in your mind while you're playing either.

Where C&C is very unlike a MMOG is the need to think creatively and come up with your own ideas and tactics. Thinking outside the box doesn't really play a role in computer games. In this respect - having a narrowly defined set of things you can do, such as 4E does, is familiar to the computer game player and might be more comfortable for them. I think this might have been behind the design philosophy of 4E - making the game comfortable for computer gamers.

An amusing situation developed in the one 4E game session I played in. Our party entered a chamber that had a pair of animated ballistae set on a high ledge at the end of the room. They loaded and fired automatically at anyone in the room and we were taking heavy damage trying to get to them. The party's rogue managed to make it to the far end and climb the platform so that he was next to the ballistae. The problem now was that he couldn't figure out what to do. He stared and stared at his character sheet trying to figure out which of his powers he could use.

"Cut the bowstrings with your dagger," I cried. He hemmed and hawed, still looking at his character sheet and replied that he didn't think he could do that.

"Push the ballistae off the platform," I suggested.

"No, I can't. I've already used my Shift power, and can't use it again this encounter."

"Forget about your powers, just push the damn things off with your hands." He hemmed and hawed, still looking at his character sheet and replied that he didn't think he could do that.

The whole nature of 4E seemed to inhibit the use of imagination, at least in our group. This struck me as very similar to computer games in that there is usually only one correct way to accomplish something - the programming can't allow for infinite possibilities. While 4E doesn't necessarily prevent players from using their imaginations and thinking outside the box, the heavy reliance on a narrow array of powers and rigidly defined mechanics did seem to focus our player's attentions on applying their powers to the tactical situation rather than immersing themselves in the scene and roleplaying. The whole session felt a lot like a computer game.

I did enjoy playing that 4E session. The tactical challenges of combat were interesting since the different classes powers are designed to interact well with each other. Coming up with ways to support each other and use teamwork was fun, but the whole thing felt more like a combat board game than a role playing game, so it isn't something I'll ever be interested in running.

[Joe]

Tis the same in 3E. If there is not a feat or a skill for it folks won't think of it.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Julian Grimm]

I can roleplay around the feat and skill 'limitations' in 3e. I guess it comes from years of not seeing 'rules as written' as the way to play or being imaginative enough to have some sense of the rules being guidelines. WOTCs biggest downside is their strong hints that every game must be played RAW or in a sanctioned tournament setting. Something I never did.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[imneuromancer]

AslanC wrote:
Now I have no problems with Champions, it is an excellent system that accomplices what it sets out to do magnifcantly.

Champions is the best RPG that you will never play.

Back to D&D 3.x, here's what I think are the goods and bads of the system:

Good

---------

* flexibility in character creation

* Feats allowed different characters of same class to be different

* Most everything is now plusses instead of THACO or other rules

* "states," "conditions," and other terms were codified

* more standardization of monsters, spells, etc.

* a massive cleanup of spells, turning, other rules

* more consistency in saves, other rules

Bad

---------

* AoO

* Feats

* stat bumps and "buff" plusses complicate things WAY too much

* power escalation was just absurd

* prestige classes (when done wrong)

* too many decisions at almost every level

* hard for low-experience players to understand

* some really, really bad combat rules that slowed combat

* some bad combat rules that made combats look like circus events

[Joe]

It seems as time goes by I have less and less in common with the so called D&D players. I say so called because I really don't consider todays game of the same name the same thing at all.

But every time games get mentioned folks refer to rules, battle mats and minis. i was just called a troll on the D&D yahoo group because i called it out to light on the table.

It is almost as if I am a heretic if I propose the DM is the final word, and that fantasy role playing is different from battle mats and tactical war gaming.

So what is it?

A fantasy role playing game when you play out pretend personalities, or a small scale tactical war game of rules, mins and maxes?

Is the GM, DM, CK the final word, or is he now just a s*hmu*k that is supposed to entertain and indulge the players?

I am left asking...What the heck happened to my favorite hobby?!?!?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Julian Grimm]

Time. Things change with time. 30 years ago there wasn't MMORPG's or CRPG's for influence. The target D&D audience then was reading fantasy books and legends of King Arthur. The target D&D audience today has experience with Mini-games, collectable games, MMO's and such. A generation gap has emerged and will continue to emerge as time goes on.

I've accepted this and decided that C&C and, on occasion, 3.X is where I draw the line. Unless something new comes out that plays like I want. Not all of this is bad, I enjoy some of the newer games out there. I like M:TG and Pirates of the Spanish Main and would probably like D&D mini's if they weren't so damn expensive.

I guess my point is that no matter what we want the game will change. Now we can accept that ( we don't have to like it) and continue on with C&C showing others the game. Or we can live in the past and resist it only to be blown over like the oak in a certain fable.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Morgrus]

Rpgs ultimately emulate & crystallize the forms of pretending we had as children. You had cops&robers/cowboys&ingins and Armymen toy play. 4e is really a armymen game. Casual players that might not like the RP in Rpg will be comfortable with it. I like to get lost in a game, whereas if I think back to the memory of the game, the fantasy images is all I see and not the minis on the table. I love that the memorys of a good game are as real as my true memorys.
_________________
Awww Craap.

[Joe]

Julian...your making me feel old.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Naleax]

Julian Grimm wrote:
I guess my point is that no matter what we want the game will change. Now we can accept that ( we don't have to like it) and continue on with C&C showing others the game. Or we can live in the past and resist it only to be blown over like the oak in a certain fable.

Well said Julian! I loved playing D&D in the late 70's and 80's but somewhere along the line i grew up and accepted that the hobby was changing, inevitably I changed with it and am still changing today. We as old school gamers have to get off our high horses and soap boxes and start accepting that the hobby and the trade are changing. I say play what ever rules system makes you happy, stick to your guns and try to introduce new players to the hobby through your game.

I do tire of old school gamers talking about how great the games of yesteryear were because of x and y reasons and how crappy the games of today are because of x and y reasons. I remember those games on the picnic bench at the YMCA or in the school cafeteria at lunch time. They were great, but the hobby has evolved over the years and the games today are even greater.

Any way i appreciate your comment Julian. So pull out whatever rpg rules you have, (new or old) introduce some new players to a role playing game, maybe C&C and start HAVING FUN!

[Julian Grimm]

I have found that the ones that say X game from X years ago is the holy writ of gaming is just as bad as the ones that say X game from this year is the holy writ of gaming because it's the kewl.

Both sides are best ignored.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[anonymous]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Nah. In fact, until the advent of 4e I had never seen so much support of 3e on these boards.

True enough. This is because 3E for all its faults was a roleplaying game, whereas 4E is not. If asked my opinion of 3E, I say that I don't like it. I liked the look of it until I actually tried to DM and found it nearly impossible to keep the game flowing. It would typically go like this:

"I'll cast Blur"

"Okay, but a Bugbear gets an AoO..."

"I've got Combat Casting - doesn't that negate the AoO?"

"I don't think it does..."

"No, I think what it does is let you keep your Dex bonus to AC while casting a spell... I think..."

"I'll look it up... hmm, no, it gives you +4 to your Concentration check if you are hit by the AoO."

"Right, right... okay... maybe I won't do that. I'll cast Burning Hands as a quickened spell."

"Does a quickened spell still give your opponent an AoO...?"

Now on the other hand, if someone asks me about 4E, I don't have an opinion. I'm not a miniatures wargamer and 4E is a miniatures wargame. It's rules are just numbers existing to balance the game. They have no context or justification within any setting. You can't sell armour or weapons, for instance, unless they're magic. No reason for this, you just can't, any more than a chess player can announce after losing his queen that the king has always quite liked that pawn on H5 and is going to remarry. In an RPG you can at least attempt anything: you could go into a town and try and convince an armourer to buy the two swords you took from the hobgoblin guards and he might turn you down or he might not. In 4E it's not even an option: it's the difference between playing Monopoly and deciding that my Call of Cthulhu investigator is a property developer.

Taranthyll wrote:
"Cut the bowstrings with your dagger," I cried. He hemmed and hawed, still looking at his character sheet and replied that he didn't think he could do that.

"Push the ballistae off the platform," I suggested.

"No, I can't. I've already used my Shift power, and can't use it again this encounter."

"Forget about your powers, just push the damn things off with your hands." He hemmed and hawed, still looking at his character sheet and replied that he didn't think he could do that.

Nothing better illustrates the point. If it's not on the list, you can't do it. Not a roleplayer, not a game for roleplayers.

[dunbruha]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
"I'll cast Blur"

"Okay, but a Bugbear gets an AoO..."

"I've got Combat Casting - doesn't that negate the AoO?"

"I don't think it does..."

"No, I think what it does is let you keep your Dex bonus to AC while casting a spell... I think..."

"I'll look it up... hmm, no, it gives you +4 to your Concentration check if you are hit by the AoO."

"Right, right... okay... maybe I won't do that. I'll cast Burning Hands as a quickened spell."

"Does a quickened spell still give your opponent an AoO...?"

"You forgot to say "Simon Says"!"

[Lord Dynel]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
True enough. This is because 3E for all its faults was a roleplaying game, whereas 4E is not. If asked my opinion of 3E, I say that I don't like it. I liked the look of it until I actually tried to DM and found it nearly impossible to keep the game flowing. It would typically go like this:

"I'll cast Blur"

"Okay, but a Bugbear gets an AoO..."

"I've got Combat Casting - doesn't that negate the AoO?"

"I don't think it does..."

"No, I think what it does is let you keep your Dex bonus to AC while casting a spell... I think..."

"I'll look it up... hmm, no, it gives you +4 to your Concentration check if you are hit by the AoO."

"Right, right... okay... maybe I won't do that. I'll cast Burning Hands as a quickened spell."

"Does a quickened spell still give your opponent an AoO...?"

Heh, heh. Come on Tenser, it was never that bad was it? Fortunately, I never had that problem. I was always of the opinion that a Core-only game (PHB, DMG, MM) was an easy, and fun, game.

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Now on the other hand, if someone asks me about 4E, I don't have an opinion. I'm not a miniatures wargamer and 4E is a miniatures wargame. It's rules are just numbers existing to balance the game. They have no context or justification within any setting. You can't sell armour or weapons, for instance, unless they're magic. No reason for this, you just can't, any more than a chess player can announce after losing his queen that the king has always quite liked that pawn on H5 and is going to remarry. In an RPG you can at least attempt anything: you could go into a town and try and convince an armourer to buy the two swords you took from the hobgoblin guards and he might turn you down or he might not. In 4E it's not even an option: it's the difference between playing Monopoly and deciding that my Call of Cthulhu investigator is a property developer.

Exactly...I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks 4e is not a role-playing game! It looks like a decent wargame, but as a role-playing game I find it lacking.

But something can be said about moving with the times (as others have said). I just can't do it...unless you consider C&C "moving on," or moving with the times. I don't know if it is or not. Games evolve, and so do gamers. Have I finally reached the point where I'm an old crumudgeon who wants the kids off my lawn and start complaining about the gavernmant? I don't know...maybe...I don't think I'm there yet. I changed with all the previous editions; I went from BD&D to 1e AD&D, to 2E AD&D, to 3e D&D, and then to 3.5 D&D. With each change, I did research on the new system, tested and prodded it, read every article I could get a hold of. But even from their initial announcements, I could see potential in each change. Not so much with 4e. But I tried to like it, I really did. I had to give up..which saddened me, really. I had evolved all those other times before. Part of me felt like I was giving up on D&D and another part of me felt like I wasn't sufficient enough to make the transition. Ultimately, I decided that it wasn't me that was sufficient, it was 4e. It wasn't good enough for me. And I had made a change - to C&C. A change for the better, I'd say.

[Taranthyll]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Exactly...I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks 4e is not a role-playing game! It looks like a decent wargame, but as a role-playing game I find it lacking.

This is my take on it too. After playing it, I think that it is a fun tactical combat game, but it isn't a roleplaying game.

I've read some discussions about the 4E adventures published by WotC and their instructions to authors regarding adventure submission. They apparently aren't interested in adventures with a lot of background information - if the players don't absolutely need to know it it shouldn't be in the adventure. Those who have played the 4E modules have said that the adventures are basically a bunch of encounters strung together without much plot or non-player character development. This supports the conclusion that 4E is shifting away from roleplaying and aiming more towards tactical combats.

[Luther]

Lord Dynel, don't feel like you're ready for the Old Gamer's Home just yet. I got hold of 'preview' copies about a week before the release and read through them and determined that, whatever it was, it wasn't D&D anymore. And a lot of folks agree. It's more like a table top copy of WoW, which is a computer copy of D&D. It's a copy of a copy of the original and far removed from the spirit of that original.

And I was really looking forward to a more streamlined version of the game from 3.5, expecting to be drawn back into it lke I was 3.0, but instead, I went and found C&C. The reason is because there is too much to keep track of in the silly game and the rules are so dense and balanced against each other that it is nigh impossible to modify them or go 'Old School Freestyle without an incredible amount of work. And I know DD says you can play it w/o minis, but I've read the rules and you've got two choices when it comes to that style of play: try and keep track of the bajillion shifting/buff/AoO/Marking etc. abilities based on your map position in your head, a daunting task considering keeping track of them with a map requires a ton of counters and other marking paraphenalia, or just ignoring those map-centric abilities which means that you're ignoring the central abilities of every class, which are almost entirely based on the position of your model on the map.

As for the adventures, they are, ironically, much more like the old D&D than the Core Rules could ever hope to be. The third in the series, Pyramid of Shadows is so reminiscent of the old AD&D Tournament modules, like Tomb of Horrors. In fact, with a few more levels, say taking it from levels 1-10 instead of 7-10, it might actually be the closest thing to an OD&D Megadungeon to be seen since the 70's.

[DangerDwarf]

Taranthyll wrote:
They apparently aren't interested in adventures with a lot of background information - if the players don't absolutely need to know it it shouldn't be in the adventure.

Because my old 1st edition and Classic D&D modules are just brimming with background material and fluff in comparison? Nah.

[DangerDwarf]

Luther wrote:
And I know DD says you can play it w/o minis, but I've read the rules and you've got two choices when it comes to that style of play: try and keep track of the bajillion shifting/buff/AoO/Marking etc. abilities based on your map position in your head, a daunting task considering keeping track of them with a map requires a ton of counters and other marking paraphenalia, or just ignoring those map-centric abilities which means that you're ignoring the central abilities of every class, which are almost entirely based on the position of your model on the map.

Yup, distrust the guy who's played it.
It isn't that daunting of a task. Unless your non-4e combats are simply two sides charging at each other, then stopping in the middle and hacking at each other like two opposing lumberjacks you can handle mapless 4e combat just fine.

[DangerDwarf]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
This is because 3E for all its faults was a roleplaying game, whereas 4E is not.

Oh shit! I've been playing it wrong!
Thanks for the heads up.