Fourth Edition D&D

[frob2900]

Better systems for what?
It entirely depends from what kind of experience you're after and I would have to stracth bit head to come out with names of some games as it's been a

For having a good time.

while I have been involved but you can find even some free roleplaying games from Internet that probably can kick D&D out of the table any day.

Yeah, whatever.

People are just accustomized to play D&D.
It's probably not the worst system I have encountered but in some cases close.

It's good because it has a fun reward system. XP points, treasure tables and random encounter are fun. Realism < Fun.

And I'm talking about the system, not about the background of the game world etc.

Me too.

Some systems of course like Middle-Earth and Rolemaster are very heavy but then again there are other systems that are lighter with bit of customizing for the use of specific group gets you much better going than D&D.

The GM needs about 10 years of training to be able to run Rolemaster at the same pace as a D&D game can be run. Very interesting systems, but unfortunately much too complicated for a casual gamer. (I used to play SpaceMaster a lot, but RoleMaster is too complicated for me)

It's of course just my opinion but while we're at it and so this wouldn't turn just you asking from me "Why you think D&D sucks".
What exactly makes D&D fun for you compared to other systems?

Well, I already answered it. It's kinda cheesy and fun. I don't have much time to play RPGs lately and when I do I prefer something light and fun (with a good reward system). It's not my favorite system, though. My favorite is 1st Edition WFRP.

Still, with only RoleMaster/MERP as a counter example, there's not much to contrast D&D with in your argument.

 

[Masquerouge]

D&D makes for great content, but is there a real need for a 4th edition besides the obvious marketing ploy at getting our money?

 

[bhsup]

What good D&D computer game used 1st edition rules?

That's a trick question. There is no such thing as a good D&D computer game. It's for sititng around with your little pewter characters in front of you and...man, that was sooo dorky. Okay, the only good D&D game is on computers, the real life stuff is idiotic.

 

[C~G]

It's good because it has a fun reward system. XP points, treasure tables and random encounter are fun.

Ewww.

We just seem to like different kind of roleplaying experiences then.

Rewarding system in sense that the way dices are handled really clicks with the results, no level XP systems (that's why we threw out those parts of RoleMaster-rules), getting involved with characters and the system supports it, open-games instead of dungeon trolling etc.

Realism < Fun.

Combination of them, most fun.

The GM needs about 10 years of training to be able to run Rolemaster at the same pace as a D&D game can be run. Very interesting systems, but unfortunately much too complicated for a casual gamer. (I used to play SpaceMaster a lot, but RoleMaster is too complicated for me)

Yeah, it has it flaws too.

Well, I already answered it. It's kinda cheesy and fun.

Yeah, that's the primary argument for and against D&D, cheesy and fun.

I don't have much time to play RPGs lately and when I do I prefer something light and fun (with a good reward system). It's not my favorite system, though. My favorite is 1st Edition WFRP.

Well, that isn't too bad system, If I can recall correctly.

And there have been some improvement in D&D rules. It isn't all bad in that sense but I think the core is simply rotten.

Still, with only RoleMaster/MERP as a counter example, there's not much to contrast D&D with in your argument.

You're taking this as some kind of argument about how bad D&D is?

I just pulled some examples but really I would have to look into the issue better to give more complete answer.
And this is just my personal opinion. People are free to like any trash they have fun with.

I did try play the game as I had friend who run group for long time years back but how hard I tried I never managed to like the game. Also when we introduced the game to other people we had played numerous other games, it was considered to be the worst of the worst and never even glimpsed again.

I usually just encourage people to look little bit elsewhere and possibly be ready to example modify some rules of existing system to fit their taste rather than just play D&D.

I'm still astounded by the fact that many bright people consider D&D being a good system and I wonder what has gone wrong with them...

But like said, that is just me and it's been few years since I played.
The truth, is that if you and your group enjoy, I guess it's ok then.

 

[frob2900]

Ewww.

We just seem to like different kind of roleplaying experiences then.

Rewarding system in sense that the way dices are handled really clicks with the results, no level XP systems (that's why we threw out those parts of RoleMaster-rules), getting involved with characters and the system supports it, open-games instead of dungeon trolling etc.

Oh, you're one of them "it's all about the story and the characters", "character development and interaction" types? That kind of stuff isn't really RPGs, because you're discarding the "G" at the end. Personally I think joining an improv class would be much more fun.

Back in the early 90's that kind of gaming was very popular among the semi-goth (almost goth but not) kids at my school, and it didn't seem like gaming.

I like my RPGs to have some game in them.

I'm still astounded by the fact that many bright people consider D&D being a good system and I wonder what has gone wrong with them...

If this is a serious statement then I really suggest you lighten up on taking RPG systems so seriously. I mean, I just don't understand what's worth getting worked up about and calling a system "trash" etc. To me that just seems like "My system is better than yours!!", which was a fun game back when I was 13.

 

[C~G]

Oh, you're one of them "it's all about the story and the characters", "character development and interaction" types? That kind of stuff isn't really RPGs, because you're discarding the "G" at the end. Personally I think joining an improv class would be much more fun.

Back in the early 90's that kind of gaming was very popular among the semi-goth (almost goth but not) kids at my school, and it didn't seem like gaming.

I like my RPGs to have some game in them.

Well it depends what you mean by "character development and interaction" types.

Sure it's nice to have some of that in roleplaying games or we could end up playing otherwise yathzee.

But I do like also "the game" part and that's actually the primary reason I hated the D&D system. It was very much about randomness and tighty fitted classes primary designed for brainless dungeon hacking. Sure, the rules have some what got better and with good group maybe the game could turn into playable one (even though it's a strecth).

Yeah, and I know those goth types too, but God no, not my kind of thing though. We used to play also with other settings than just fantasy example Cyberpunk and Shadowrun etc.

When you have been around the block you notice how crappy and limiting some game like D&D then finally ends up being.

But I guess that's all I got to say about D&D.

 

[frob2900]

But I do like also "the game" part and that's actually the primary reason I hated the D&D system. It was very much about randomness and tighty fitted classes primary designed for brainless dungeon hacking. Sure, the rules have some what got better and with good group maybe the game could turn into playable one (even though it's a strecth).

Well, I do actually agree with you that the "mage can't use a sword, ever" class system rules are kind of crap

 

[eyrei]

D&D makes for great content, but is there a real need for a 4th edition besides the obvious marketing ploy at getting our money?

They probably have to put out a new system every few years to keep the company afloat. Most people who are going to buy the 3.5 rules have already done so...

 

[eyrei]

It was very much about randomness and tighty fitted classes primary designed for brainless dungeon hacking. Sure, the rules have some what got better and with good group maybe the game could turn into playable one (even though it's a strecth).

Obviously you haven't played in awhile. The rules have changed drastically since 2nd edition, which is what I am guessing you are basing your opinion on. Each player can pretty much make whatever type of character they want (archetypal or not).

 

[frob2900]

Obviously you haven't played in awhile. The rules have changed drastically since 2nd edition, which is what I am guessing you are basing your opinion on. Each player can pretty much make whatever type of character they want (archetypal or not).

But that's an improvement that comes at a huge cost. (i.e. losing the rest of the 2ed rules, which are just so much fun)

I got the D&D 3rd ed rulebooks, but I never found that they were as much fun as the AD&D 2ed stuff. But maybe that's the nostalgia factor.

 

[eyrei]

But that's an improvement that comes at a huge cost. (i.e. losing the rest of the 2ed rules, which are just so much fun)

I got the D&D 3rd ed rulebooks, but I never found that they were as much fun as the AD&D 2ed stuff. But maybe that's the nostalgia factor.

It took us all awhile to get used to the new rules, but after we got used to them we started to make fun of the 2nd edition rules. THAC0 was needlessly complicated, for example. You now just add your attack bonuses, roll a d20 and try to get equal to or higher than the enemy's armor class. It is the same thing, without the headache.

 

[C~G]

Obviously you haven't played in awhile. The rules have changed drastically since 2nd edition, which is what I am guessing you are basing your opinion on. Each player can pretty much make whatever type of character they want (archetypal or not).

Yes it was back then like that but I do know about the changes which have improved the situation.

It took us all awhile to get used to the new rules, but after we got used to them we started to make fun of the 2nd edition rules. THAC0 was needlessly complicated, for example. You now just add your attack bonuses, roll a d20 and try to get equal to or higher than the enemy's armor class. It is the same thing, without the headache.

Armor class

And you probably meant, "it is the same thing, with the headache too".

Ok I stop now, sorry.

 

[frob2900]

It took us all awhile to get used to the new rules, but after we got used to them we started to make fun of the 2nd edition rules. THAC0 was needlessly complicated, for example. You now just add your attack bonuses, roll a d20 and try to get equal to or higher than the enemy's armor class. It is the same thing, without the headache.

Hmm.. Yeah, I suppose. But there's still that "special something" about 2ed AD&D. That special "magic" . Still, I guess I'd have to actually game a few more times with 3ed D&D to really be able to say.

Armor class

Yes, ok, I have to add that Armor class is a bit strange. Since I'm a DM/GM I have problems narrating what happens in AD&D when someone "doesn't hit". I mean, Plate Mail makes opponents fail their attack rolls, so do they "miss" or "hit and cause no damage"? But also, high dexterity and invisibility will lower armor class but in that case the opponents obviously are "missing".

What about an invisible, high-dex fighter with plate mail. What happens when an opponent fails their attack roll?

 

[JollyRoger]

You can always go into purist mode and declare that if this isn't the Dungeon Master guide in use, it's not AD&D anyway. It is what we used back in the day.

Only heretics use any other edition.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

ArmorClass was annoying. A minute it's "the more you have the better it is". Then there's "the less it is the better it is" which makes a lot of sense - the less armor you have on the more protected you are (obviously). Then it was back to the plus = good thing. There must be a bloody debate in the D&D comunity about a very important aspect such as this.

Anyway - here's some intresting stuff about D&D.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Well, house rules override everything, right?

Thats for damn sure!!!!
And i usually Veto all wizards "discriptive content" ie anything other than their rules. (vetoing everything from flavor text to eberron!)

@frob2900
I totally agree with you. AD&D was awesome and there many holes in 3.5 d20
but i got over AD&D when i quit playing for a year or so when Wizards of the Coast bought TSR Inc. (the company that used to own AD&D)

Wizards' bad Karma caused them to be eaten by a bigger fish later....Hasbro. So with my redemption there, and a total angry refusal of a Wizards second rate content, I feel i can get away with only using d20's very easy rules.
and out of curiosity i will buy the new edition

 

[Perfection]

I played D&D once, it was boring

 

[Perfection]

I played D&D once, it was boring

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I played D&D once, it was boring

I played D&D once, it was boring

Apparently, it traumatized you.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

LOL