|
I have a problem with any values system where it's okay to give 3.5e to an eleven year old.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
inklesspen posted:I have a problem with any values system where it's okay to give 3.5e to an eleven year old. That's how old I was when I got my 3e books ):
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I'd recommend to change groups or set up another meeting time for dungeonworld. You two clearly have different preferences. You'll continue not liking the game, and complaining during combat likely isn't helping anyone else's enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with someone enjoying 3.5, there is something wrong in showing up to complain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Len posted:True Believer in 3.5 and I made sure to voice my displeasure in the overly long combats very loudly and frequently during combat. Find a new gaming group, or make it clear that you refuse to play 3.5 but will run Dungeon World for the current group if they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Every time people talk about how D&D4E's combat times are a strike against it I always wonder what they're comparing it to, because plenty of 3.X fights took hours to resolve unless the GM simply threw their hands up in frustration and went "gently caress it, you win."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Every time people talk about how D&D4E's combat times are a strike against it I always wonder what they're comparing it to, because plenty of 3.X fights took hours to resolve unless the GM simply threw their hands up in frustration and went "gently caress it, you win." People played 3.5 and *didn't* do this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Every time people talk about how D&D4E's combat times are a strike against it I always wonder what they're comparing it to, because plenty of 3.X fights took hours to resolve unless the GM simply threw their hands up in frustration and went "gently caress it, you win." That was every fight I've ever run in D&D, across editions. The d20 is the worst die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Every time people talk about how D&D4E's combat times are a strike against it I always wonder what they're comparing it to, because plenty of 3.X fights took hours to resolve unless the GM simply threw their hands up in frustration and went "gently caress it, you win."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:People played 3.5 and *didn't* do this? Len posted:After four or five months without out weekly game of 3.5 we finally went back to it last night. All the Dungeon World I've been playing made me forget how terrible 3.5 combat is. It doesn't help our DM loves to have large groups of combatants. Last night we went up against 9ish thugs and two NPCs with character levels. One of which summoned a fog cloud and three elementals. I mean I'm sure that plenty of rose-colored memories of the 3.X days are entirely down to "so then we just sort of handwaved this stuff away" but I always found the specific complaint that 4E's combat simply takes too long (as opposed to the more valid earlier complaints when the monster math wasn't yet fixed that fights were too long and not as interesting) to be especially ridiculous. Maybe if you're comparing it to something that isn't 3.X sure, you can get through a fight in Savage Worlds in about 20-30 minutes but there's a lot less of interest going on there unless you're a big fan of stunlocking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
My group really doesn't have any issues with this sort of thing as combat is kinda the point of having a grid based overly fiddly RPG. Large combats take about as long as an xcom map if everyone knows what they're doing because it's the focus. Anyone who tries to use d20 or 4th edition for story games or who gets defensive about "power gamers" is dumb and using the wrong system. edit: 4th edition had very well designed skirmish combat rules but the first monster manual had issues with bad monster design. Most high level enemies couldn't do anything interesting and had huge amounts of defense, so they took forever to kill relative to how lethal they were to the players. This was remedied in later monster books. Terrible Opinions fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Having never played a game of Warhammer, which resolves faster: a Warhammer skirmish, a Mordenheim game or an "average" 3.5 combat at say level 4-8 with a party of about 4?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
In general for me mordenheim, warmahordes, and 3.5 take about the same time assuming you're encountering 8+ enemies. Warhammer is always long because holy gently caress that game has gotten stupid and has high model counts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
So there doesn't appear to be a time efficient solution. Combats that took longer than an hour for a party of four and 8 enemies were always a chore for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Your mordenheim games take over an hour?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Im going to break my self imposed exile to say that actually D&D 3.5 is moderately decent and introduced thousands of gamers to tabletop and is still popular today sorry y'all don't like it :P
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I've misunderstood. I've never played Mordenheim or Warhammer. How long do thoses combats take vs a comparable number of players and enemies (total models) in a 3.5 combat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Im going to break my self imposed exile to say that actually D&D 3.5 is moderately decent and introduced thousands of gamers to tabletop and is still popular today sorry y'all don't like it :P Okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
3.5 is a lot like dwarf fort. You can have fun with it but it requires absurd dissection of the rules boarding on autistic obsession. A 3.5 game with experienced players takes 20-30 minutes. Maybe an hour for really complicated encounters. For inexperienced players or a GM whose bad at running NPCs you end up with something that's a total mess and takes 2-3 hours. Mordenheim will always take about 20-40 minutes same with warmachine/hordes. Warhammer takes 1-3 hours depending on if someone has an army flatly better than another. If you're just getting into the hobby I'd recommend 4th edition for shorter but still tactical combats. If you find you want more rules fiddliness go to 3.5 or Pathfinder, but 4th edition is a much better presented and tightly designed tactical game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Im going to break my self imposed exile to say that actually D&D 3.5 is moderately decent and introduced thousands of gamers to tabletop and is still popular today sorry y'all don't like it :P Cool story
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Cool story
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I don't understand why someone who was more interested in complex rules would be interested in 3.5's broken mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
It's mainly the weird lego-like way they fit together. It makes you feel clever and unique for fitting something together that works better than the sum of its parts. Your ownership of the character is validated by diving through tons of books to make something relatively unique. Same basic reason people liked 2nd edition 40k, Palladium RPGs, dwarf fort, etc. Even then most people who enjoy that require houserules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Find a new gaming group, or make it clear that you refuse to play 3.5 but will run Dungeon World for the current group if they want. This seems a little premature if it's a good group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Possible though I can't imagine a gaming group being good while there is someone loudly complaining about system preferences throughout the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Possible though I can't imagine a gaming group being good while there is someone loudly complaining about system preferences throughout the game. if someone kept bitching about wanting to play dungeon world instead I'd just bitch slap him in the face. don't gently caress with the GM!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Possible though I can't imagine a gaming group being good while there is someone loudly complaining about system preferences throughout the game. I never mention other systems during the game and I limit my complaining about combat to once a session. But once the DM himself starts going "I need to leave soon" and then the combat goes on for another hour it's obvious that there was a problem. I would say the player who doesn't ever stop talking about how amazing Pathfinder is and argues with the DM about the lore of Eberron is more obnoxious than me getting bored of combat after the one hour point when there's no end in sight. I don't mind the combats but a frustrating amount end up with the DM going "and these random mooks run away."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Sounds like the problem is more that your group is bad, or more specifically that your GM is bad. edit: you also said that your complaints were loud and frequent, which is if accurate just you being a lovely friend. Having shittier friends doesn't absolve you of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Eye of Widesauron posted:This seems a little premature if it's a good group. Maybe, it depends. My last IRL gaming group was pretty cool but one of the people in it decided they wanted to run a Changeling: the Lost game and it just didn't click with me at all. The game wasn't bad, the GM was a cool person, but after a couple months of really trying to get into things it just wasn't clicking with me and it got to the point where game night felt more like an obligation than something fun to be excited about. So one night I talked to the GM and said hey, it's not you, it's me, I'm just not having fun and I'm not gonna be the guy who insists you change everything just for me, so I tell you what, I'm gonna take a break and you guys can keep playing, if you decide to play something else let me know. And it worked out fine, no huge drama or pass-agg poo poo. You don't have to stop being friends with people or never socialize with them again, but there's no real benefit to enduring activities you don't enjoy just to keep hanging out with a gaming group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Im going to break my self imposed exile to say that actually D&D 3.5 is moderately decent and introduced thousands of gamers to tabletop and is still popular today sorry y'all don't like it :P On a scale of 1-10, how much do you like steam tunnels?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Sounds like the problem is more that your group is bad, or more specifically that your GM is bad. I probably am a lovely friend but I've been playing with this guy for 13 years and there's usually some form of disappointment and bad DMing. "Oh the bad guys assaulting this keep full of holy men drains your Intelligence to 10. You can't do any psionics anymore Mr. Psion." "Ok I ask one of the clerics in here if they can heal me." "They heal your hit points but since you didn't RP how to ask for stat restoration you're out of luck there." The problem is that the majority of the time isn't complete bullshit like having to go into the big final battle armed with Nerf weapons and is actually enjoyable. Edit: And up until this last campaign his little brother who always powergamed acted as a DMPC who decided everything for the rest of the party whether we agreed or not. Oh and there was a time he went "we haven't played in six months. During that time you probably failed a will save and the demon in you ripped you apart from the inside roll up a new character."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Anyone playing anything other than Champions character creation with 3.5 combat and Amber trait resolution while dressed as live-action Vampire players is wasting their time
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Quarex posted:Anyone playing anything other than Champions character creation with 3.5 combat and Amber trait resolution while dressed as live-action Vampire players is wasting their time So...GURPS Shadowrun?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
The punchline is that GURPS could probably do a better job of Shadowrun than Shadowrun's own system (though I'd ditch the whole one second combat round thing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Len posted:I probably am a lovely friend but I've been playing with this guy for 13 years and there's usually some form of disappointment and bad DMing. Sounds like you need to internalize the mantra of No Gaming is Better Than Bad Gaming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Len posted:"Oh the bad guys assaulting this keep full of holy men drains your Intelligence to 10. You can't do any psionics anymore Mr. Psion." "...and then everyone laughed at the joke and the guy obviously got his INT back" is how that story ends in a reasonable group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The punchline is that GURPS could probably do a better job of Shadowrun than Shadowrun's own system (though I'd ditch the whole one second combat round thing). No, because it would be GURPS and GURPS is horrible except for sourcebooks. I like SR's combat system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
BrainParasite posted:On a scale of 1-10, how much do you like steam tunnels? Unlike you people I am err, a normal person
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Sounds like you need to internalize the mantra of No Gaming is Better Than Bad Gaming. Seriously, listen to this guy. Just walk away. I left an unsatisfying group and found a fun one. I'm still friends with people from the old group, but now I no longer engage in the activities I didn't enjoy with them. And I met new friends!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Every time people talk about how D&D4E's combat times are a strike against it I always wonder what they're comparing it to, because plenty of 3.X fights took hours to resolve unless the GM simply threw their hands up in frustration and went "gently caress it, you win." MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:No, because it would be GURPS and GURPS is horrible except for sourcebooks. I like SR's combat system. Legit question, what is it you like about Shadowrun's combat system? It's just a standard dice pool system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:54
|
|