D&D

[Kilsern]

I'm not familiar with the old D&D beyond 3rd edition. Is anyone here anticipating D&D Next? I'm not myself, but as I no longer follow the game at present, what is the big draw? Anyone play testing it? If so, impressions? I'm a bit of a grognard myself. I liked 3rd at first, but fell out of love. These days when I want some old fashioned dungeonering smash and grab, I turn to Tunnels and Trolls for light heartedness and if I want some D&D I use Basic Fantasy RPG because it is close to my favorite iteration (D&D Cyclopedia Rules) but has a much better price, free.

[David Russell]

Yes i am currently involved with the play test. I was completely into DND next about 3 play test versions ago, but since then each of there updates have been going in the wrong direction. the concept of what they intend to do is brilliant, take the mechanics that work from other editions and throw them together to form a old edition new edition hybrid. and the first couple of play tests they did were exactly that, but then they started add New stuff again, and at this point is unplayable for our group until a new play test version is revised (should be coming this month)

On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Kilsern <kils...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with the old D&D beyond 3rd edition. Is anyone here anticipating D&D Next? I'm not myself, but as I no longer follow the game at present, what is the big draw? Anyone play testing it? If so, impressions? I'm a bit of a grognard myself. I liked 3rd at first, but fell out of love. These days when I want some old fashioned dungeonering smash and grab, I turn to Tunnels and Trolls for light heartedness and if I want some D&D I use Basic Fantasy RPG because it is close to my favorite iteration (D&D Cyclopedia Rules) but has a much better price, free.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to wfrp3-vi...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wfrp3-virtual-rpg?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Josiah Leis]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but exactly what mechanics from Older D&D do people find so charming? I am quasi-familiar with 3.5 and 2E thanks to video games like Temple of Elemental Evil and Baldur's Gate. I am now in a PBF game of 1E and though I am having fun, the system seems so......well old and out dated.

So grognards among us, educate this young padawan :-). What is it that you find so excellent in older editions of D&D that is lacking from 3.5 or Pathfinder (4E is another matter altogether naturally)?

[kils...@gmail.com]

For myself AD&D 1 or 2 would be bad examples for what I enjoyed about older editions. OD&D was simple and had few set in stone rules. I would say for myself overall my choice not to buy into the game beyond 3rd was a financial decision.  I had numerous D&D products that I still liked and saw no reason to reinvest into a new edition. However, keep in mind that its all relative to what you're into. WFRP and myself for instance, I have probably 80% of the products released for first edition, 100% of those for second. Could I have played WFRP for years without ever buying another product first or second? Sure. But there I was with a pre-order on Amazon for third edition and now own 95% of the products released for third. 

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[kils...@gmail.com]

I was wondering what a one system to rule them all would be like. It sounded like a Frankenstein monster.

Sent from my iPhone

> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[kils...@gmail.com]

I do own Pathfinder. I will probably never play it, unless I do so online and it is a visually striking book, but I found my head swimming in Feats and Skills just as it did with 3rd edition. I know nothing of 4th. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Josiah Leis <josiah...@gmail.com> wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[Rob Heath]

yes i have been playing dndnext , its an ok game but a mishmash and nothing new and exciting , combats are quicker and more deadly but thats it  , it feels like 2nd ad&d but with other bits thrown in from the other versions  , i don't think i would buy into it unless everyone else does

as for 3.5/pathfinder well that is just plain too much in the way of skills , feats , and 4th  , well i stopped dming that because the games were all the same as you still had the same chance to defeat a low level monster as a high level one for the same level as everything was calculated to the last decimal point to make everything balanced across all characters and monsters

thats the main reason for me to play wfrp/sw:eoe , there is a however which is the fudge/fate system as i have been given a copy of "Legends of Anglerre" which i think might help in giving me some more ideas for the wfrp system

Rob

[kils...@gmail.com]

Fudge is a system I've always wanted to give a go to, but have not as of yet. 

Sent from my iPhone

[DevoutBadger]

D&D?!

RAWWWRRRGRGHLEGRARBLE!!!!!

[John Condon]

I'm waiting for my copy of new Fate from the Kickstarter to get shipped.

I've played a little bit of D&D next during the palytest and have to agree that it was showing promise and then th new stuff dragged a bit too much 4E feel into it for my liking.

At least they are still committed to their "modules" plan. Where you'll be able to pick and choose the rules style you want to play.. and somehow they're going to make that work across multiple players in the same game.. remains to be seen though.

[kils...@gmail.com]

I am curious how they approach appeasing 4E/Pathfinder/OSR fans all at the same time. Unless I hear some great reviews to the effect that people's socks rolled up and down of their own volition whilst playing it, I doubt if I will buy in. Mostly because I prefer my fantasy grim and perilous. When I am in the mood for dungeon bashing, I turn to either T&T or Basic Fantasy RPG. High Fantasy, I would probably use BFRPG or perhaps Pathfinder or go off the wall and Fudge it. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[John Condon]

Don't ask me how they mean to achieve it but in theory you could use the gritty combat module, perilous hit points system, lethal criticals module etc.

It's "this" that I am still waiting on to see how WOTC do it.

[Rob Heath]

i bet they dont do a proper job because their system is based on levels not skills so in order to sell more "stuff" to the players that want to fight higher level monsters and still like to feel challenged then the characters have to level and that is the main issue

Alot of the interesting rpg's are leaving the level system behind and going skill based , its only the die hards that are clinging to the level system like pathfinder/3.5/4e

Rob

On 5 Mar 2013, at 16:27, John Condon <johnec...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Don't ask me how they mean to achieve it but in theory you could use the gritty combat module, perilous hit points system, lethal criticals module etc.

It's "this" that I am still waiting on to see how WOTC do it.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[David Russell]

Thats not entirely accurate.  one of their succeffull accomplishments in the new system (so far) is they have dumbed down the math no more is being level 20 equal to +20something to your skills and your attacks. so a Monster is equally dangerous to a player no matter what level they are.  no longer are "kobolds" only challenging at level 1, and so on.  tho  as i mentioned before a lot of the good things they have picked up on they have dropped at the way-side as theses play tests been developing. so it is entirely possible that this  may not be the case when the final product comes out, or even in the next play test packet.

[kils...@gmail.com]

To be fair WFRP3 reinstated levels from 1st edition with Ranks. Truthfully, they are intended as a skills balancing system and it seems to work well so I take no umbrage with it. Even the Career system is level with another name. While there are those players that are willing to use the career system as a character/campaign development tool (for instance, a wizards apprentice that as a result of game play becomes an outlaw, so he switches to that path) there are cases of clear level 1 begats level 2, begats level 3, etc. wizards and priests being good examples. So in that regard, a level system was present during 2nd edition as well. 

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[DevoutBadger]

Except that aside from a few specific action cards you could remove the "levels" from WFRP3 and nothing would substantially change (the alternate spell rules in the GM toolkit makes this pretty clear) . Both it and the WH40k games are skill based systems with the "levels" as more of a side effect of the advancement.

D&D is fundamentally based on the levels and falls apart without them.

This is going to keep D&D, in my opinion, a "second class" system at best. Looking at everything they're doing with Next, they won't even get that close.

Piazo has proven that if you want to make and support quality product you can, and I say this as someone who does not like Pathfinder, in spite of 4e being potentially better set of mechanics, I give huge credit to Piazo for absolutely CRUSHING Wizards when it came to quality and support of their product when it came down to Pathfinder vs. 4e. 

At the end of the day though, Hasbro doesn't care about D&D, so has little interest in investing the time, effort or money into it like Piazo is in Pathfinder. So 4e floundered with dreadful support and not following through on its potential, and leaving little realistic hope for Next.

If you really like D&D-type games, Pathfinder is probably your best bet. Unless you are into storytelling more then go check out Dungeon World.

[kils...@gmail.com]

I agree with most of your assessment, other than Pathfinder being the best bet for D&D type games. For my money, and the price tag is free, Basic Fantasy RPG is the way to go. It has an old school feel with a splash of things that were good from 3.5

Sent from my iPhone

--

[DevoutBadger]

Most of Pathfinder is free too. Never head of Basic Fantasy RPG, going to take a look, not sure why though.

[DevoutBadger]

Oh dear lord...

[kils...@gmail.com]

Good or bad?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2013, at 5:40 PM, DevoutBadger <ronin....@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh dear lord...

[DevoutBadger]

I don't understand the draw of old style games.

[Philippe Boujon]

Nostalgia maybe. That would be why I would run a WFRP1 campaign. Purely nostalgia!

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM, DevoutBadger <ronin....@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand the draw of old style games.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[kils...@gmail.com]

Nostalgia and simplicity. 

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[David Russell II]

I been running a weekly basic d&d from the WotC  since its been reprinted via PDF on drivethrurpg.com. I do this with my kids. And tho I did it due to simpler mechanics, I am loving it because of how fast the combat is resolved.  I can run an entire module/ story in one 4 hour session instead of needing 4 nights to complete the same story in newer editions of RPGs. 

Dave R--

Sent from my iPad mini

[kils...@gmail.com]

Bingo. That is what I like about BFRPG. Old school style, but adds newer stuff that I like, for instance ascending AC vs descending. My players, at the time I ran BFRPG, started that campaign with Basic D&D and couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that if you're an elf, your class is elf. BFRPG solved this for them. 

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "WFRP3 Virtual RPG" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/wfrp3-virtual-rpg/zJvBF1vL5NU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to wfrp3-virtual-...@googlegroups.com.

[DevoutBadger]

I am a big fan of simplicity. I just like good rules more I think.

[kils...@gmail.com]

Fair. The difference in opinion is what is good. We both like WFRP, so clearly we both are men of good taste.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:15 PM, DevoutBadger <ronin....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am a big fan of simplicity. I just like good rules more I think.
>
>
>

[DevoutBadger]

Though speaking of it, it would be good to see a few more games take the path of simplicity.

Fudge/Fate is supposed to be good and simple, but I haven't played or even read it.

ApocalypseWorld/DungeonWorld is very simple and quite good from reading it, though I haven't had the chance to play yet. Best of all DungeonWorld is totally intended to be a D&D trope rip off.

That all being said, old school Box/Cyclopedia D&D is probably a bit better/more fun than 2nd or 3rd Edition.

[kils...@gmail.com]

Fudge is one of those systems I've always fiddled with but have not played. I can't speak to Fate, although the similarities are noted, but Fudge is a good design tool for doing your own thing. I, once upon a time, was a GURPS fan but fell out of love with it; however Steve Jackson Games make great resource books for GURPS (3E anyways, I can't speak to 4E GURPS) and are just begging to be Fudged.

Sent from my iPhone
>

[DevoutBadger]

GURPS has always held a place in my heart. One of my favorite groups I played with for several years just played GURPS exclusively and we converted everything to it and enjoyed it. It is a solid game and yes, the source books are fantastic, especially the historical ones.

[kils...@gmail.com]

Agreed on the source books. In college I played two systems D&D Rules Cyclopedia and GURPS. My only gripe with GURPS is DAMN can a munchkin ever build a tweaked out character. Too many munchkins killed it for me. 

Sent from my iPhone

--