Pen and Paper D&D

[Sand]

It doesn't use the term "tank" now either.

My apologies. Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller.
Same difference.

I dont remember anyone in our games (70's thru 90's) tanking or trying to hold agro. Maybe others used that term and play style but I never saw that until the advent of MMO's. YMMV.

[Fordel]

Fack, someone needs to come up with a decent way to do this shit online with Skype or something - I'm jonesing as I look at my nerd bag in my closet, which I know contain my books and dice! 

4E was SUPPOSED to have a virtual table top, part of the DnD insider subscription service. It theoretically, might still get one, maybe, there's apparently something in Beta now. 

[Polysorbate80]

If you're like us, "tanking" was generally fighters in the front or back of the party so that they'd be the first to run into the enemy (or fall into the pit of sharpened stakes, etc), or keep them from sneaking up behind you.   Also blocking access to the squishier types in the middle.  Stuff you can't do in an MMO that doesn't allow collisions.

[Ingmar]

If you're like us, "tanking" was generally fighters in the front or back of the party so that they'd be the first to run into the enemy (or fall into the pit of sharpened stakes, etc), or keep them from sneaking up behind you.   Also blocking access to the squishier types in the middle.  Stuff you can't do in an MMO that doesn't allow collisions.

And this is all 4e does really, it gives those characters ways to disicentivize monsters from going after other characters, there's no taunting or aggro in the sense of an MMO. It really isn't the same thing. Every edition has let fighters hit someone who tries to walk away from them after all.

[Rendakor]

I started playing 2e in the 90s; switched to 3.0 when it came out and liked it a lot once I got used to it. Now I run a game of 3.5, and don't plan on switching any time soon. 4e just rubbed me the wrong way (samey classes, MMO bullshit), plus I already have $300+ in books (this wasn't the case with 2e since I was young and only had PHB, DMB, MM). I might check out Pathfinder if we ever get bored, though.

[MahrinSkel]

It doesn't use the term "tank" now either.

My apologies. Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller.
Same difference.

I dont remember anyone in our games (70's thru 90's) tanking or trying to hold agro. Maybe others used that term and play style but I never saw that until the advent of MMO's. YMMV.

I remember referring to them as "meat shields".  Worked better with a DM that used miniatures for battles.

--Dave

[Samprimary]

4th edition is a very, very well designed game. It's also actually balanced, in terms of giving every member of the party an equally challenging and rewarding role, and the classes are actually roughly balanced, in comparison to its predecessors' complete imbalance and the comparative uselessness of many classes beyond level 8.

If it's not for you, it's not for you. But, mechanically, it's an entirely superior game to 3e in most every conceivable way. And, if you liked the way your 3e games were run, you can actually run 4e games in much the same way. It's pretty easy to work out. but ... seriously, 4e combat with maptools is a sight.

sad you have to hack the cb though.

[Slyfeind]

Oh shit! Let's argue whether or not 4e is like WoW because THAT HAS NEVER EVER FUCKING BEEN DONE BEFORE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET.

Okay so D&D 4e has some similarities to WoW because THE FUCKING DEVELOPERS ADMITTED THEY DREW INSPIRATION FROM IT. Same with how it has similarities to Final Fantasy Tactics, Magic the Gathering, AND GODDAMN CHESS. Anyone who says otherwise just wants to pick an Internet tardslap fight and drag on a forum thread for nineteen pages about whose D&D system is better and how you're WRONG for playing something other than what they're playing.

If only there was a 3.5 system still around and supported for people to play that. OH WAIT!!!!!

Anyone who read their blogs while they were developing 4e would know all this. If you didn't read them religiously while it was in development then you're clearly not a serious about D&D. DILETTANTES!

(Disclaimer: I am currently involved in a Pathfinder game, a 3.5 game, and two 4e games.)

[Quinton]

Is anybody manufacturing display/tables similar to the Microsoft Surface demo but for somewhat sane prices?

I think a fusion of computer assisted and miniature based tabletop gaming could be pretty slick.

[cironian]

Balance is overrated. 2e 4 life!

[Comstar]

You can always play Hackmaster. I got it cheap at a con, and while it's impressive to read, I can't see anyone in the world being able to...master it outside of a comic book super hero.

[Sheepherder]

Who needs fireballs when you can throw darts?

[Ghambit]

Is anybody manufacturing display/tables similar to the Microsoft Surface demo but for somewhat sane prices?

I think a fusion of computer assisted and miniature based tabletop gaming could be pretty slick.

There are DIY articles online for how you can fabricate your own.  Essentially you're taking old "broken" LCD TVs and using them as a gametable.  You can pick em up for free from recycling centers, random garage sales, or ebay even (though shipping is lawl).

The other type is overhead projection, wherein you mount a projector onto your ceiling facing downward.  Even fancier, you can integrate markers onto objects to add some augmented reality to it.. i.e. put markers on your fingers so you can manipulate the gametable, objects, etc.   I had a system I was devising that would basically be small cubes or chits with IR-markers on them that'd transorm into player characters; this way players would still have to physically move something as they would a mini, rather than pointing and clicking.

I've seen custom fabricators for both these types but forgive me for not having a link.  It's buried in my other rig right now and I'm moving.

[Bunk]

Well, this went about as well as expected. Slyfeind - take a breath, come off the ledge man, it's not worth it.

I am aware of the fact that they have changed and updated a *lot* since I tried 4th. Most of what I have heard was changed tends to justify my original criticisms, so I'm glad to hear they were willing to adjust.

There's nothing to really "get" about why some people prefer one game system over another...they just do.  Which unfortunately means you'll really have to try any given version to see whether it works for you personally.

That really sums it all up.

I like all the talk about different formats for laying out the game. For me personally, it's not the same without minis (the idea of 2d chits seems just wrong). We currently play on a home made table, where the host took a 3x5 sheet, covered the entire thing with 1" graph paper, and then ironed on a layer of MatTack. Then added a lip so it fits nicely over his old kitchen table. Essentially made it in to one big erasable map. We used to use the roll up erasbale maps, but they never tended to big big enough.

[Kail]

Didn't we used to have an F13 D&D game running a few years back, or am I confusing it with something else?  I vaguely remember having a special subforum for it or something.

[Samwise]

Yeah, I was running a CoC game over IRC until it became impossible to get everyone online at the same time.   

[Ingmar]

I've never heard of an online game really working. I kind of doubt WotC's virtual table (which is in closed beta right now) is going to improve the success rate.

[Slyfeind]

Well, this went about as well as expected. Slyfeind - take a breath, come off the ledge man, it's not worth it.

Whew, I feel much better now. ^_^

I like all the talk about different formats for laying out the game. For me personally, it's not the same without minis (the idea of 2d chits seems just wrong).

Chits are boring little discs. With minis, it becomes ThreeDee! Then you can make trees and roads and mountains and little paper buildings and boats. This is us on a frozen lake with FROZEN WAVES!!!

[Lantyssa]

I've never heard of an online game really working. I kind of doubt WotC's virtual table (which is in closed beta right now) is going to improve the success rate.

I'm playing in a couple of games on a forum.  The pace is slower, but it works pretty well up until the GM gets a life.  Players are a little easier to deal with if they disappear for a week or two.

[Ingmar]

I've never heard of an online game really working. I kind of doubt WotC's virtual table (which is in closed beta right now) is going to improve the success rate.

I'm playing in a couple of games on a forum.  The pace is slower, but it works pretty well up until the GM gets a life.  Players are a little easier to deal with if they disappear for a week or two.

Well right, they seem to get much more easily derailed by that sort of thing it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong and it is just down to the technology - after all some MMO guilds keep weekly raid groups together for years. I think, though, there's something about the online format that makes people just feel better about ducking out of it, or maybe the fact that it is an online event rather than an in-person one pushes it farther down the list for people in terms of social importance. "Oh, I can just schedule over this, it is just the internet game."

[Kail]

I think, though, there's something about the online format that makes people just feel better about ducking out of it, or maybe the fact that it is an online event rather than an in-person one pushes it farther down the list for people in terms of social importance. "Oh, I can just schedule over this, it is just the internet game."

That's one of the nice things about playing an asynchronous game (like forum games or play by e-mail games).  Getting ten people to log into MSN Messenger at 10:00 PM is a lot tougher than getting ten people to reply to a forum post or e-mail sometime in the next few days.

Though it does drop a lot of the social aspect to the game, in my experience.

[Goumindong]

seriously, 4e combat with maptools is a sight.

sad you have to hack the cb though.

CB?

I never had to hack anything to make it work

I've never heard of an online game really working. I kind of doubt WotC's virtual table (which is in closed beta right now) is going to improve the success rate.

Maptools from www.rptools.net

Seriously. Its better than anything that WotC will ever hope to make and its free.

That being said. I have DM'd a weekly online game for about 9 months. And played in one that went about a 2 years (for me, started around level 7, retired the characters at level 30 after beating the big baddie). Both were 4e.



Edit: link fixed. Hell, i linked it earlier in this thread correctly

[Ingmar]

Link goes to a domain squatter, I assume you mean http://rptools.net/

[Sjofn]

Ingmar and proudft have been gaming buddies since roughly the dawn of time.

And they let you join them in their tree fort?

"Sure, why wouldn't they?" she asked days later.

It's not like I'm not a giant dork myself. It's part of how I won my way into Ingmar's nerd heart. 

[Daeven]

I ran online game of 3.5 for about a year and a half using openRpg. It avoided the vagueness of a chat room thanks to the 'virtual tavletop'.

[proudft]

I never 'get' these online paper-RPG games.  If I wanted to play a game on the computer, I'd play a computer game, is how I've always felt.  It seems so slow and clunky and impersonal.

[Ingmar]

I think I would miss the actual physical act of rolling dice too much.

[Fordel]

I never 'get' these online paper-RPG games.  If I wanted to play a game on the computer, I'd play a computer game, is how I've always felt.  It seems so slow and clunky and impersonal.

Aren't you neck deep in BloodBowl?

[proudft]

Blood Bowl is two people and has no actual social interaction.

[Sheepherder]

"Sure, why wouldn't they?" she asked days later.

It's not like I'm not a giant dork myself. It's part of how I won my way into Ingmar's nerd heart. 

You obviously don't understand the sanctity of the tree fort.

Add in all the new fruity special races tiefling (ie night elves), dragon born, etc.

Not really?  Tiefling is 2e, and the obvious parallel is Dranei in WoW.

[Slyfeind]

Man, now I want to play 2e. 4th never quite got the Planes right. They're all weird and dumb now, with the elemental chaos and the astral sea.

[Sheepherder]

It's not that bad.

Three prime planes that reflect each other, one chaos plane, one lawful plane, the Far Realm, and Sigil.  The nine hells are still the nine hells, the Abyss is still the abyss, and demons and devils still don't really get along.  It's slightly better than needing a goddamn 3D diagram to figure out what the hell a negative material plane is.

[proudft]

Man, now I want to play 2e. 4th never quite got the Planes right. They're all weird and dumb now, with the elemental chaos and the astral sea.

I was not a fan of the names either, so I just sort of mapped them to the old ones, and consider the new names synonyms, perhaps from other parts of the world or whatever.

So the main planes become:

Ethereal Plane->Feywild
Limbo->Sea of Chaos
Plane of Shadow->Shadowfell
Astral Plane->Astral Sea

And all the random outer planes I wanted to keep (which was not all of them, I had already jettisoned several years ago) connect off whichever of the four main planes seems most appropriate.  So, yeah, the connections & arrangements are slightly different now, but it's not as totally world-shifting as I originally thought when 4E came out.  

Besides, who says that other planes always keep the same arrangement for eternity, anyway?      And making the Ethereal Plane the Feywild gives that place some flavor, finally.

[Ingmar]

It annoys me more due to the naming of (some of) the planes than due to the actual setup of it. 4e in general has way too much portmanteau naming. I kind of feel like Plane of Shadow was a fine name, calling it the SHADOWFELL is just fishing for something you can call your IP imo.

[Fordel]

I only kept track of Eberron's cosmology either way, so it isn't a huge deal to me.