Goodman Games

I'm not over looking the new blood aspect. 3E brought in a lot of new blood as well as a lot of old blood who had left D&D for "X" years.

I am definitely anxiously waiting to see how it all plays out over the next year, and I hope it ends with 3E still being very viable along with 4E.

I don't love 3E or 4E, but I would love for them both to be around and doing well a year from now.

I currently play in a group that has been playing 3.5 since it came out, and we switched to 4E when it came out. (Actually, about a week or two before with the leaked pdf's) From our standpoint, 4E is vastly more fun, and fun is what makes a game.

We only get together once or twice a week to game, maybe 3 times, (although that would count for D&D Minis games) there is absolutely time for us to play other games like Rifts or C&C or the clunky 3.5 Edition. If we are going to play, we want to maximize our fun and play experience, and we do that by playing the best there is out there.

We actually experimented by playing a short dungeon crawl using 3.5 and then 4.0 using kobolds and the 3.5 one just dragged on was was boring compared to the 4.0 one.

I'm not meaning to sound elitist, but I'm saying this from our groups experience and point of view. Why play Super Nintendo when you've got a PS3?

Play whatever you have the most fun playing,I know I am! But try actually playing 4E before you judge it.

I don't disagree with most everything you said in that post, but this I have to jump on...

...Super Nintendo gave me Final Fantasy VI, which I love more than many things, and many other cool games that aren't available for PS3. Why play SNES? Because there are some fun games for that system. Newer does not always equal better, and as you point out later...what's fun is what counts.

I will play one module before I pass final judgement on it. It has a lot to overcome though. I like my mages being mages, my clerics being clerics, my fighters being fighters, etc... I think 4E is going to make them all too much of the same thing. Plus I know 4E isn't nearly as simplified as claimed, if at all. So 4E will certainly be fighting an up hill climb with me.

With all the 4E game I've played, I can say that mages are still mages, fighters still fighters, and so on. But like the 3rd edition fighter is different from the ADD1 fighter, it is still a fighter.
I know how you love C&C from the TLG boards, and I love it too.
I have sometime trouble to understand why people can't like several different systems at the same time...



????? Inferior ?????
Who are you to judge what is better than something else? I can't believe people using such kind of words...
I play several times a week and I'm very happy that this is to different games. Diversity is the basic of an interesting life.

Hyb'

Uniracers, Super Mario World, Earthbound, and Secret of Evermore.

Lack of money?

I definitely like different systems, just a don't like using the same system for the same genre. So for my D&D fantasy I like playing only one game. I don't like using other systems, like HARN, HARP, Rolemaster, Paladium Fantasy, GURPS, Fantasy, etc... to play the same thing, the difference between the systems isn't great enough for me.

The L5R D10 system is the closest I will play, outside that I go to Shadowrun, Traveller, Mutants and MAsterminds, etc... I don't use another system for my medievel fantasy.

So even though I like other systems, like all the ones I have previously listed, I won't use them because my preference is for C&C. So unless 4E does my "D&D" better for me then my C&C, I may think 4E is a nice system, but the best system for me will likely still be C&C, because it gives me what I want and does things the way I like it to be done for my "D&D" fix.

To use anothetr system I would have to get interested in a fantasy game with a totally different "feel" to it for me to use a different system. The world setting differences of Paladium Fantasy, Runequest, HARN, etc... aren't different enough. Only L5R was different enough for me to prefer using a different system.

I have no doubt 4E is a good system, the answer I need is does it do "D&D" better for me than C&C does. I seriously doubt the answer will be yes.

I hear you on that. I have had more than my share of fun with 3.5, and I am in total agreement with the statement that newer isn't always better. Chrono Trigger is my favorite game of all time. But I can't spend the rest of my life playing it over and over again. Especially when there's Final Fantasy XII to be played.

That's all I'm saying. I dont look down on anyone who plays any game for whatever reason, only people who pre-judge and make false statements without playing it first (I've seen alot of that on Paizo and other forums) But for me and my group, 4E is much more fun and dynamic. So we play it instead of anything else.

I am only using the term inferior from the standpoint of me, myself and I. Play what you like, it's all good.

Treebore, you are lucky to have so much free time to play all those different games. I am not so fortunate. I work full time, take college courses almost full time and have other responsiblities. Like I said, my group meets a couple times a week, max. Our usual game night is Monday nights. I've been a fan of D&D for 15 years and to me, the new edition is the best one yet and I've never had so much fun playing a role-playing game in my life.

I am filled with excitement for the 4E DCC's and will begin running a campaign with them probably the week I get them in the mail.

Even with a wife, a house, 3 kids, a 7 AM to 4:30 PM job, etc... I still played 2 or 3 games per week. I still mowed my lawn, still fixed the kitchen sink, downstairs toilet, upstairs toilet, replaced window screens, vacuumed, dusted, washed dishes, cooked dinners, washed, dried, and folded laundry, and even put it into the dressers and closets. ITs all a matter of scheduling and sticking to it.

Now I am a farmer, with goats, chickens, a horse (two today, one showed up out of no where.), with stables, a huge garage, vehicle, and a house to maintain. Plus 3 teenagers a wife, and many pet dogs and birds. Still comes down to scheduling and sticking to it. I would say I succeed 95% of the time.

*Gb Searches for a bowing-down smilie*

*Seriously, really*

May I ask: what's the schedule for Forum postings?

And, can I have a copy of your schedule, so I can adapt it to my own life to achieve more gaming?

I ran a session for some friends, and this is exactly what I encountered. Combat didn't really feel much different to me as the DM, and it certainly didn't go faster like they advertise. Part of that was the learning curve, to be sure, but I really didn't feel like my job as the DM was simplified in any way by the new rules and new stat blocks.

To me it felt pretty much the same as as 3.5 except with 4th level or so characters right off the bat, stupider race choices, and a distinct lack of the "useless" skills I'm so fond of.

...ah, Appraise, Perform, and Craft. My characters always have some dabbling in at least the last two of those. No more, no more...

I used spend Proficiencies on that kind of stuff... Now I suspect I'll just assume they know it..."Look, it's right here in the write up I did..."

My posting is done when I sit down to drink a glass of water, eat lunch, dinner, etc... I live in AZ and am seriously susceptible to heat stress/stroke due to health issues, so I drink a LOT of water throughout the day. I am bout 3/4 of the way through my current glass.

Very interesting indeed as I (and my group) have had the exact opposite experience with 4th Edition.

Combat in our games has been going much much more faster than our 3.5 games, and this is with more enemies on the battlefield. Much more faster. We were laughing about that last night, how a necromancer in 4E could send waves of skeleton or zombie minions etc. against the party and we could have a blast mowing them down, and it would still be a challenge. Whereas in 3.5 the neromancer would say to the party: "Give up your lives to me or you will face the wrath of my undead in waves of 2! Waves of 2!" Lol! Let's face it, the Challenge Rating system in 3.5 just plain sucked.

If your job as a DM hasn't been simplified in any way by 4th Edition I take it you actually haven't read the DMG. The XP Budget System has made encounter building insanely more simplified, with more options to boot! (Ask any of the folks here at Goodman Games who are designing 4E DCC's) Plus they finally have monsters in the MM indexed by level in the back, plus they have recommended ecounter builds for every single monster on almost every page of the Monster Manual. Having various templates for pretty much every monster is an awesome feature too.

Ah, "stupider" race choices. I take it your the gnome bard type. Well, the first PHB only contains a fraction of the races that will be available in 4th Edition, so if you hate Dragonborn and Tieflings, just hold your horses, whatever race your looking for will be avalable in due time. I really dig Dragonborn, we have a Dragonborn Paladin in our party it it's a really cool addition.

Even if I had every hour of every day to spend on gaming, I could never go back to 3.5, there wouldn't be any point. Why play a version of the same game that isn't as good? If I was going to play a different type of rpg, I'd play Star Wars Saga Edition, or that Serenity rpg, but 3.5 or C&C etc., no way. They're history.

Heh, yep, that sums me up pretty well.

In all honesty, I've never cared that much for any edition of D&D simply because it doesn't allow me the level of character customization that I'm used to having in other games (as far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything is inferior to the HERO System). But 4e feels like it has even fewer customization options than 3.5 did, what with the trimmed down skills list and less interesting feats. All the classes seem basically the same to me...sure, they get cool powers and stuff, but many of the powers are all just variations on the same themes.

I've not played C&C; what specifically about it did you dislike?

Ummm...yeah...that's one of the things that I disliked about 4E - most of the powers revolved around combat. I would have loved to have seen more of the utility powers and more skills like appraise. We've only played one 4E session, but already we're talking about the house rules that we'll need (appraise is certainly on the list). We played a combat where I kept shoving PCs off a cliff with a bull's rush...it then came down to a 50-50 chance that the PC would be able to cling to the edge...so, yep, that is another one that will need to be house-ruled. I guess I'm not a fan of the 50-50 saves.

With that being said, we're still testing the game out, so my opinion is still in flux.

The couple of times I sat down to play it with some guys my brother knows, I was just bored most of the time. It's basically a watered down version of 3rd Edition with some old school tweaks to it. You have a lot of options for different types of characters, but not a lot of options once you've actually made those characters outside of (drawn out) normal combat and social rp'ing, since C&C pooped on feats, skills, and the like.

Maybe it was the group I played with, but I'm not interested in 3 or 4 straight hours of social rp'ing. D&D is a game, not community theatre.

I don't think it's terrible, and if your one of those nastalgic types for the old editions you may like it. But I don't know, it's just not for me. Especially after playing 4E for almost 2 months. I just can't take 2 steps backwards.

Unfortunately people just don't get how awesome the SIEGE engine is. "Feats", "skills", and "the like" are built into the system, but apparently so abstractly people don't get they are there.

Hopefully the 4th printing will do a better job of showing CK's how all of this is in the SIEGE engine.

That what a large part of my house rules document is. Using 3E terminology showing how rather than having defined feat lists, you roll a SIEGE check. IF your roll is good, you do it.
Skills can be handled in much the same way, but I went for more definition on that issue.

So feats are there, they just aren't defined lists. You can attempt anything, you just have to roll for it instead of have it on a list first. For skills I went with a list.

[quote="xredjasonx
Maybe it was the group I played with, but I'm not interested in 3 or 4 straight hours of social rp'ing. D&D is a game, not community theatre.

I don't think it's terrible, and if your one of those nastalgic types for the old editions you may like it. But I don't know, it's just not for me. Especially after playing 4E for almost 2 months. I just can't take 2 steps backwards.[/quote]

See, I disagree with you here. I think 4e DnD is thinly veiled step backwards. The game at its outset is simplier as there is a universal mechanic for everything. But in the long run, I think that simplicity will actually detract from the longevity of the product.

Why do I say that? To keep thinks simple they further abstracted the game to a point where what little sense of realisim that is left in the game went right out the door. The 'required' cinematic feel to the game (i.e. minions, characers = superheros) runs contrary to 30 years of DnD history. It is easier to list what DID NOT change from 3 to 4 than to list what changed.

Some people say that is a good thing since DnD sucked rotten eggs. But all of those things are what made the game what it is and it drew the millions of players to it. 4e is just another game system out there, but it does not look like, talk like, or act like any version of DnD that I know. It is not even an enhancement to the DnD game engine.

*shrugs*

You may like the game, but to me it is not DnD in anything except name. Goodman Games will get a final set of $$ from me as I pick up a few of the 3.5 modules, but 4e will not be a path that choose to follow.