Re: [4E] Going Negative

decalod85 <decalod85@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just felt like ranting.

[old man hat on]

1. The online tools look stupid and pointless. If I am going to play
D&D, I play with friends at my house. It is a social activity.
Headsets and virtual dice are not fun.

I'm inclined to agree here. Though right now my actually play time *is*
done through IRC (which works moderately well, to be honest, especially
now that we're using Maptool to handle the battlemap).

2. This will never get the video game crowd. Even if they greatly
improve the graphics, no video gamer will want to sit still while
other people roll virtual dice. Those guys want constant action, big
explosions, and cool sound effects.

I expect this is true.

3. The actual changes to the game seem a little slim. I do like the
idea of your race providing incremental benefits, but I think this
will just pigeonhole certain races towards the classes they stack best
with.

Oh, so 'favored races' might actually *work*?

This is an approach I've been looking into for a few months now, and I
like the way it's shaping up. Yeah, the elf can tank up, but he likely
won't be as good at it as the dwarf, he might not be as effective doing
it this was as he would've been as a mobility fighter, but that's just
fine by me. It encourages (perhaps strongly) staying to the archetype,
without requiring you to be there.

And I like the idea of a raging half-orc wizard. Even if (or perhaps
because) he sucks at magic compared to wizards of other races.


Heh. My next campaign may well lend itself to stereotypes. I'm feeling
an urge to have an 'archetypal' game -- dwarves are tanked up (or magic
item-crafting wizards). Elves are fleet and agile, running through the
woods (or learned wizards with great flexibility in their casting).
Gnomes are either cunning tricksters or attuned to nature (bard or
druid, maybe?).

Give each race a couple of niches they fit into well, so you get at
least some variety in what they're good at. Don't prevent them from
pursuing other options, but let others be *better*.

4. The whole "monthly fee" thing really bothers me. It's not enough
that I pay 100 bucks for the books, now I gotta pay for the online
thing because my players want pretty 3d renderings of their
characters.

Ditto again.

5. They have destroyed the best source for 3.5 when they pulled
Paizo's license. Guess they got tired of looking like the 2nd raters
they are in comparison.

No comment here. I haven't been following Paizo (Dragon and Dungeon
mags) that closely for a while now.

6. They always say they are going to make the rules easier and more
fun. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are not.

Have to wait and see.

7. The idea of the game supporting more levels seems OK at first, but
makes me think there will be a lot more leveling in the same period of
time. This means more book-keeping BS. This probably comes straight
from the online games or Diablo type games, where you level pretty
much every game session.

I understand why they set things up the way they did. I actually don't
much like how fast things are *now* -- and that's as a player, let alone
as a DM. In a group I was playing with earlier this year, we went from
'starting sixth level' to seventh level in the course of about 48 hours
game time.

8. Changes to the EL/CR system to allow you to fight multiple
monsters. What? You can do this now with very little work.

Mmm. The math can be made easier. I actually like how 'CR $n' means
'level-appropriate encounter for someone of level $n'. Changing the
emphasis from 'single monster encounter' to 'multiple monster encounter'
makes it fit what I've been doing, too -- things work better when you
have multiple monsters, especially when there's a mix that complement
each other.

There, I feel much better. I hope they don't screw it up!

Same here. Again, have to wait and see.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxx "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjdavies.org/ "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Online vs, Live Poker (from BARGE list)
    ... Even some of us who AREN'T great all-around players need physical presence. ... The "ESP factor" is huge in my own game. ... in person (and hardly at all online) largely because of it. ... we don't play well enough to play online at the ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Play Want Bin (PWBE 9 Jan 2012)
    ... having already done an earlier install, and then as you play it installs ... CoD:MW3 (PS3) - some more online and survival. ... arcade game), I just think it's not quite for me somehow. ... doesn't bother you) which apparently emerge on longer races. ...
    (uk.games.video.misc)
  • Re: A final twist in the Hellgate: London story?
    ... buying the game. ... players can play alone. ... subscribe to their pay-to-play online mode. ... As for why have a single player - well not everyone wants to play ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
  • Re: I have given up on online poker
    ... It was so bad I really questioned if I had forgot how to play ... live to see if I still had my game. ... So looking back on my online results and history of bad beat after bad ... Yes I am even giving up online play based on winning streaks that are just ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Quality of play...Online vs. B&M ???
    ... > understanding of the game ... > quality of play ... > quality from online to B&M games. ... A lot of players can squeeze out a modest living by ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)