I didn't mind 4.0 too much, it made it to where everyone had a part in the party aside from protecting the wizard so he can kill everything for us. That being said you could do a lot of bad ass things in 3.5 that you can't in 4.0

What I didn't get from the article though, Is the stuff they are working on gonna be an improvement on 4.0 like 4.5 or a whole new system (5.0)?

CrazyCurt: I don't see one mention of DDO.

Dungeons and Dragons Online.

It exists. Really. Free to play like Lord of the Rings. Same company.

/ yeah I didn't know either

Playing DDO since launch, but have been a bit of break for a while. What really let it hit its stride is that they finally got out from underneat the boot of Atari. The updates are very high quality and more often now. While it is based on 3.5, don't expect a ton of role playing (unless you join such a guild). It really is like most other CRPGs now, run in, smash it up, get loot, get xp, max the character, rinse, repeat. There are not real choices to make that impact your character.

It is however one MMO where you are not shuttled into a specific role based on class. Want to make a battle cleric and a support sorceror, no problem. Just tune it up, add some multi classing, and you're good. Obviously some builds work better than others at certain roles, but you are not restricted by some stupid skill tree. Its very open in that regard.

The thing I like the most is the combat system. It is more interactvie FPS than other MMO I have played that are the WoW style select target and wait for clickies to refresh. That is just not my thing.

Anyway, decent game IMO, but not for all. Try it, what have you to go lose?

MaddMango: Everyone complained that 1e and 2e were too complicated. I found the opposite to be true. 1e and 2e gave you freedom to play the way your group wanted to play. That freedom came from rules that were optional. The 1e and 2e books were just guidelines on how to play the game, but not the end all.

Pretty much this.

VonEvilstein: 3.x all the way. And the best thing about it, no more players asking me "Do I roll high or low to succeed on this?". Next best thing, the removal of arbitrary class restrictions. If a wizard wants to spend the time learning to use a sword, let him. It means he'll have to wait a little longer before he's able to create wands/cast spells silently/other cool shiat.

The high/low rolling thing was obnoxious, and too much of a pain to really convert everything to one way (like with AC/THAC0 it was relatively simple to switch to a 0 to 20 rather than -10 to 10 system mentally, not so with all the random checks/resists).

But with things like arbitrary class restrictions, that's entirely up to the DM. The book opens saying that the rules should be treated like guidelines and that the DM can change whatever he wants to. I always treated the arbitrary class restrictions as restrictions on arbitrary decisions. If you are rolling up a brand new warrior, you don't need an explanation as to how you know how to use swords, you just know them. For a wizard, that's not the case. It could be as simple as "I've been practicing in my spare time" (assuming you haven't filled up that spare time with other stuff) or "I was training to be in the city guard / a squire before they discovered I could use magic". If anything, finding interesting ways to get out of the arbitrary class restrictions was one of the more natural hook generators.

mongbiohazard: The only thing I don't like is the online subscription crap. It seems overpriced to pay that much each month for access to a character sheet generator. They should have an app or program you install instead, and in fact we found and use one that someone else made.

That's how it worked initially, actually. The character generator they had was pretty awesome. You installed it and used it, and the only time it wanted your username/password was when you wanted to update and get the newest content. They were even working on getting it to accept user-made content. Then, one day, the "new update" irreversibly stripped it of almost all of its material, and they announced the new online-only pay-to-use one. That's actually what convinced me that 4e was unsalvageable. I heard rumors that a hacked version of the old program (with updates) was floating around the internet, but obviously I didn't download it, because That Would Be Wrong.

Wow, people think AD&D2 was good? Actually that's OK; I liked it as well. But my how people forget. That edition was conceived by the nerd-hating biatch who spawned the concept of endless redundant splatbooks until the company was derisively called "T$R". I'd be open to playing AD&D2 again, but for the record, AD&D2 was even more of a cash grab than D&D4 ever was.

BurnShrike: You can't out-compete a computer game with dice and pencils.

If you try to be exactly like a video game, anyway, which is why WotC really needs to play up the distinction, not the similarity. Unfortunately, D&D has an upkeep and learning curve that would shock most people who cut their teeth on RPGs with WoW. RPGs are unlike any other game in that respect. Socially, it's more similar to a time-intensive and highly skilled hobby like restoring cars, with a lot of potential for error and a lot to learn before you can really do your thing. That squeezes out a lot of the brats, which I'm OK with, but if WotC was smart they'd do things to cultivate market demand beyond just regurgitating the wisdom of veteran DMs onto the pages of splatbooks. That's not a way to nurture future customers for such a labor-of-love hobby.

the opposite of charity is justice: Game-mechanically I *love* the 4e framework but it lost something along the way, its heart and soul.

Problem is that few people grasp that, and fewer are providing the proper feedback. D&D isn't a game that needs mechanical refinement. It's already too refined! The first-ed rules were atrocious and people fell in love with them anyway. People think AD&D was simple, but it's not. The rules were so convoluted you basically memorized them, or at least memorized what pages they're on. Veteran gamers just got comfortable with them over the course of 10+ years.

The problem is that 4E is too industrial. The rules are elegant, cohesive and simple, but at the expense of creativity. The 1st Ed books were rather clunky, but the defenders of 4E are confusing flavor with nostalgia. They confuse the inefficiencies as accidental flaws only made endearing by time. We didn't find them endearing because they were bad or old. That's ridiculous. People don't like shiat. So why do some people like AD&D so much, to this day?

Let me give an example: the Holy Avenger. It's "inefficient" in that it's completely superfluous to the core mechanics. This sword was created for one reason only -- for you to fall in love with it. This was not a typo or mistake or flaw. It's text in an old book that people remember seeing 20, 30 years later. If you were a paladin, this is the weapon you wanted, why you picked that class, why you endured the limitations. The game did NOT include instructions on how to make one for a reason -- they wanted you to find it, to possess it only with the DM's blessing. You had to earn it. It wasn't there for balance! The only balance, if any, was the price in time and blood you expected to pay before you were finally deemed worthy of wielding one.

The later editions of D&D4 are too incremental, too balanced. You can make an absurdly powerful character, but generally by studying the rules, not adventuring. This isn't romantic! The romance of gaming is to endure, and suffer, and grind, and then finally, maybe even inexplicably, find an item or gain a power that shapes your destiny in a single instant. The emotion is genuine; gamers can tell very detailed stories of their favorite gaming moments from years ago. There are numerous fairy tales based on just this sort of event; Aladdin without his ring was just a shmuck. Ditto for Bilbo; Tolkien didn't dedicate 200 pages writing about how Bilbo picked up his third encounter-level ability. He found Sauron's Ring for crissakes. There's such a thing as too much balance, and D&D4 took away all fun out of what was unbalanced in AD&D2. The only real difference between a lot of powers are a minor effect and some flavor text. Too much selection and yet not enough variety, it's like eating at a food court. Sure you can "break" D&D4 to make it fun again but n00bs don't know how to do it properly or why -- and hell, why bother when AD&D comes pre-broken? It's explicitly a game first and system second.

PacManDreaming: Lots of Bloodbowl stuff, too.

consider getting Blood Bowl Legendary Edition (available on Steam, or download from the studio). The Menu system sucks but it handles all the rules for you! Lotta Euro players, too, for random match-up games.

The beautiful thing about D&D is that, no matter how many editions they crank out, you can still play whatever set of rules you want. My husband has a group that still regularly plays using the AD&D system rules and he DMs another that uses 3.5. It's all good. That being said, we're still interested in seeing what they come up with and even signed up for play testing opportunities. Maybe they'll get it right this time.

Maybe.

dragonchild: Wow, people think AD&D2 was good? Actually that's OK; I liked it as well. But my how people forget. That edition was conceived by the nerd-hating biatch who spawned the concept of endless redundant splatbooks until the company was derisively called "T$R". I'd be open to playing AD&D2 again, but for the record, AD&D2 was even more of a cash grab than D&D4 ever was.

BurnShrike: You can't out-compete a computer game with dice and pencils.

If you try to be exactly like a video game, anyway, which is why WotC really needs to play up the distinction, not the similarity. Unfortunately, D&D has an upkeep and learning curve that would shock most people who cut their teeth on RPGs with WoW. RPGs are unlike any other game in that respect. Socially, it's more similar to a time-intensive and highly skilled hobby like restoring cars, with a lot of potential for error and a lot to learn before you can really do your thing. That squeezes out a lot of the brats, which I'm OK with, but if WotC was smart they'd do things to cultivate market demand beyond just regurgitating the wisdom of veteran DMs onto the pages of splatbooks. That's not a way to nurture future customers for such a labor-of-love hobby.

the opposite of charity is justice: Game-mechanically I *love* the 4e framework but it lost something along the way, its heart and soul.

Problem is that few people grasp that, and fewer are providing the proper feedback. D&D isn't a game that needs mechanical refinement. It's already too refined! The first-ed rules were atrocious and people fell in love with them anyway. People think AD&D was simple, but it's not. The rules were so convoluted you basically memorized them, or at least memorized what pages they're on. Veteran gamers just got comfortable with them over the course of 10+ years.

The problem is that 4E is too industrial. The rules are elegant, cohesive and simple, but at the expense of creativity. The 1st Ed books were rather clunky, but the defenders o ...

Part of it sounds like you're depending on the written word, the spirit of the game possibly, to make up for uninspiring GMs/DMs. The system might be uninspiring, but a good GM and a few house rules can change that easily.

lotofsnow: INeed

But I don't use the books at all. I work almost entirely from the online tools. I can only assume they will stop what sparse support they have received to date when they move on to a new system.

the opposite of charity is justice: I'd played every version of the game up to and including 4e, but something in the latest ruleset just left me cold. Game-mechanically I *love* the 4e framework but it lost something along the way, its heart and soul. The combat mechanics are great but thats all it is now, the more esoteric and *fun* mechanics I loved are either absent or swept into a corner.

This. 4e is a wonderful game on its own merits, and would make one hell of an MMO; but it just isn't D&D.

I think my single biggest gripe was reducing spellcasters to a handful of immediately-useful Utility abilities, and relegating most of the old not-overtly-damaging spells to slow-cast rituals. Classic D&D always had two kinds of player-run spellcasters: one that wrecks the big battle by chain-casting Fireball, and one that wrecks the big battle with Burning Hands, Spider Climb, Water Breathing and the assistance of the nearest dam. 4e has some very pretty fireballs, but it's all fireball.

Improvisation, both competitive and cooperative, is the only advantage that tabletop games have. Rules sets need to preserve improv at all costs.

Exception Collection: I would love to see an updated Birthright setting. Updated for 3.5, not 4. I haven't looked at Pathfinder much, but I keep hearing good things.

Have a look at the player driven version : birthright.net.

No idea if it has come along, seemed to take a long time to reproduce chapters from the original rulebooks.

INeedAName: lotofsnow: INeed

But I don't use the books at all. I work almost entirely from the online tools. I can only assume they will stop what sparse support they have received to date when they move on to a new system.

I think it's hilarious that a community of nerds can't make their own tools. Guess I'm spoiled because ICE went out of business before they could even attempt to make online tools. We made our own for Rolemaster, or found others that did.

INeedAName: lotofsnow: INeed

But I don't use the books at all. I work almost entirely from the online tools. I can only assume they will stop what sparse support they have received to date when they move on to a new system.

90% sure I read they will continue support for the online tools for the time being. This new edition won't be out until 2013 at the earliest anyway. But, yes, eventually the online support will fade away.

Wasteland: Improvisation, both competitive and cooperative, is the only advantage that tabletop games have. Rules sets need to preserve improv at all costs.

I think that quality GMs/DMs are as important, or more important, to improvisation as the ruleset itself

Maybe 5e will be a smoothed-over version of 1e with pretty color graphics. Win-win for all!

/long live the art of David A. Trampier
/he's still alive

bhcompy: Wasteland: Improvisation, both competitive and cooperative, is the only advantage that tabletop games have. Rules sets need to preserve improv at all costs.

I think that quality GMs/DMs are as important, or more important, to improvisation as the ruleset itself


Yeah, but it's not a factor that the game company has any control over. Hell, it's not one that the average gaming group has much real control over; the GM is usually the guy who has the time and is willing to put in the effort to take on the role, and you take the best you can get.

MDGeist: Rifts was, is, and shall always be better.

Palladium's rules were always a little too cumbersome for my tastes and the character creation rules were about the second worst for rules lawyers.



Time for another quote from my BINDER OF SHAME! (new window)


"If Ronnie James Dio and Piers Anthony wrote a role playing game it would be RIFTS."

Oh goody! Now I get to buy a whole bunch of new rule books! Again!

If they're seriously trying to fix the game, instead of milking the nerds for more cash, they need to address two major problems:

1. Stop trying to emulate an MMO. If I wanted to play WOW, I'd play WOW. Stop trying to make D&D be something it cannot be.

2. Focus on the core rules: Basic races and classes, simple combat and spell casting (if I wanted complex and realistic combat I'd use Arms Law). I'm not saying don't have supplementary rules: Supplementary rules and material have always been part of the game, but have always create conflict and can become unwieldy (eg. AD&D when they added the caviler, barbarian, archer, duelist, cloistered cleric, acrobat, witch, etc.). Make it so it's easy to exclude adjunct material, which other editions have done far better than 4th.

PacManDreaming:
I was speaking of the tabletop version with miniatures. I do have the first version of the computer game, but it's kinda meh. I have heard that the new versions are a lot better.

The new computer version is much better then the 1st computer game. It had a bunch of bugs but I think they're all fixed now. My only pet peeve with it now is the league system. It'd be very nice to create a small league for me and my friends, and populate it with AI of varying levels (we have an odd number of people, which makes it difficult to start up a league).

You Are All Sheep: I kind of loved the old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rulesets.

I like 3rd edition, if you replace all the chits with keeping track of stats on a traditional character sheet. The idea that you can have a success with bad side effects or vice versa (or any combo thereof) is very cool. And there's none of the "moving people around on a grid" overly detailed stuff that's been in the recent D&D editions. The only annoying thing is Fantasy Flight dribbling out content that should have been included in the base game (all the cults and magic schools,for instance). They should also make print on demand available for the various cards the game uses.

bhcompy: INeedAName: lotofsnow: INeed

But I don't use the books at all. I work almost entirely from the online tools. I can only assume they will stop what sparse support they have received to date when they move on to a new system.

I think it's hilarious that a community of nerds can't make their own tools. Guess I'm spoiled because ICE went out of business before they could even attempt to make online tools. We made our own for Rolemaster, or found others that did.

Sadly I'm an English nerd, not an IT/CS/CIS/CE nerd so I lack the necessary skills.

bhcompy: I never understood why it's such a big goddamned deal that 4th edition sucked. My roleplaying group has been using outdated editions that are superior to later releases(rolemaster 2nd edition) for decades. It's not difficult to find the older books in physical or digital formats, so what's the big goddamned deal?

Because it takes an awful lot of time to get comfortable with a new system from scratch, so by the time you realize these flaws it's too late. Because D&D through AD&D2 was, is and always will be, badly flawed. You don't even know what happens if a mage tries to hide (the stupid answer is "you can't", which a player can debunk in 3 words, "hide and seek"). This is such a simple thing, but ask 10 different AD&D DMs and you might get 10 different answers. I think people really are waiting for that "perfect" RPG. I think it's actually a paradox, but the right mix of elements can get close. Thing is, the newer editions have their own problems.

By the time D&D3 came out I had so many house rules for AD&D2 that I'd basically written my own splatbook. I was initially reluctant, but I really was ready for an overhaul. At first, D&D3 was refreshing. It fixed a lot of problems. A lot of "I have no idea how to resolve this" moments went away. The problem is that as they refine the mechanics, an inordinate amount of material is dedicated to deterministic balance. Sure, there's nothing stopping the DM from giving a 1st-level character a +3 sword, but for all the talk of Rule 0, there are several very explicit rules in the game that forbid it, which (at a social event like gaming) make invoking Rule 0 much tougher. Later editions fixed consistency problems, but at some point consistency became the be-all, end-all and now the game specifies down to the level when what happens. You can't pull the Rule 0 card out every time in D&D4 or the players think you're a despot. In AD&D, the Deck of Many Things is a pretty obvious clue that the rules aren't to be taken too seriously.

D&D has never hit the right balance between deterministic balance and creative destruction thereof. I think such a balance exists, but I'd say all the previous editions fall woefully short in their own ways. Unfortunately, I don't trust WotC to do any better as long as they own the game; 3.5 was basically their high-water mark.

INeedAName: bhcompy: INeedAName: lotofsnow: INeed

But I don't use the books at all. I work almost entirely from the online tools. I can only assume they will stop what sparse support they have received to date when they move on to a new system.

I think it's hilarious that a community of nerds can't make their own tools. Guess I'm spoiled because ICE went out of business before they could even attempt to make online tools. We made our own for Rolemaster, or found others that did.

Sadly I'm an English nerd, not an IT/CS/CIS/CE nerd so I lack the necessary skills.

If only we had something like the internet

/snarky, but there must be tons of tools out there for d&d as there's plenty of stuff for Rolemaster and it's much more obscure than d&d

bhcompy: I never understood why it's such a big goddamned deal that 4th edition sucked. My roleplaying group has been using outdated editions that are superior to later releases(rolemaster 2nd edition) for decades. It's not difficult to find the older books in physical or digital formats, so what's the big goddamned deal?

It's better for the entire hobby if the flagship brand is a good product that can be purchased in stores.

Mr_H: PacManDreaming:
I was speaking of the tabletop version with miniatures. I do have the first version of the computer game, but it's kinda meh. I have heard that the new versions are a lot better.

The new computer version is much better then the 1st computer game. It had a bunch of bugs but I think they're all fixed now. My only pet peeve with it now is the league system. It'd be very nice to create a small league for me and my friends, and populate it with AI of varying levels (we have an odd number of people, which makes it difficult to start up a league).

Anyone making a computer version of a boardgame should take notes from Cyanide. It's pretty much perfect. I'll echo the request for leagues with AI teams. You should be able to mix and match human and AI players in a single league.

dragonchild: I think people really are waiting for that "perfect" RPG.



Here you go.

No, seriously.

You talk about deterministic vs creativeness balance, I haven't found a better system for it. The number of skills and the skill descriptions(the degree of ambiguity or allowance in the description, plus the similar skill system) provide infinite variation while not allowing for complete anarchy, while the combat system provides you everything you could want except for targeted strikes(if you want an arrow to the knee you could with the right crit roll). And the character creation provides many laughs and allows for some unique characters(sorry, you rolled poorly, you're a hemophiliac lycanthrope, but do you're also nobility, so you have that).

With all of the money they've gotten from me for 3.0, 3.5 and 5000-6000 or so of magic cards I have, I'm all set with new versions of DnD.

/Played 2.0 once
//Really played a lot on 3.0 and 3.5 and have a bookshelf of books thats slowly bending under the weight
///Been playing magic since 4th edition
////God I need to stop spending so much money on this shiat.

bhcompy: Part of it sounds like you're depending on the written word, the spirit of the game possibly, to make up for uninspiring GMs/DMs. The system might be uninspiring, but a good GM and a few house rules can change that easily.

No. I know what you're getting at, but you're missing the point.

The point isn't that the DM can overrule D&D4 to make the game interesting. That's the assumption everyone makes for granted. Or even that the DM has to, because that goes for just about any system. The problem is that the D&D4 is so "pure", so cohesive, that it's difficult to do just that. Look, as a veteran DM I know exactly what I'd need to do to make D&D4 interesting. And I could convince novice and veteran gamers that it's for the good of the game. It's the intermediate players, the ones who have just gotten comfortable with the system, that are the problem. Well, they'll always be a problem, but these are problems that we all have to work through (or there'd be no veteran gamers) and in older editions they were manageable, because you needed to invoke Rule 0 to resolve all sorts of issues. That was bad enough, and had DMs pining for determinism. That was D&D3. Except now the game is micromanaged to the point that I have to invoke Rule 0 just as often for an entirely different reason -- to bring flavor back into the game.

It's one thing to say, "Look, there is no rule for this, so I'm ruling X." The players might lobby, but you get your way because otherwise there is no resolution. To be clear, this is not ideal. But if you say, "Look, I know the rulebook says X, but that's not interesting enough so I'm doing Y". . . do that enough times and it quickly starts to rankle. The DM's entrusted with the power of Rule 0 only with the players' trust that it will not be abused, so a game that needs it to be routinely abused, well, sucks. If I'm introducing fun in spite of the rulebook, as opposed to supplementing it. . . that's not an improvement.

I think they should release all of their rulesets for free. Every last rulebook and expansion set for free, in epub/kindle/text/pdf format. And stay with the current rulesets. 1st, 2nd, 3.5 and 4th. Only maintain those rulesets and don't expand them at all. Release them free, but maintain your copyright.

Then relicense the rulesets and the brand for a small fee to encourage book publishers (for fiction and modules), computer programmers and artists to use D & D themes and rulesets in their works.
Then sell derivative works using the brand. Official D&D dice, dice bags, bags, bookcovers, etc.

Right now they are loosing business to WoW and have lost a generation of players to WoW. It would be great if they could come up with an evolving WoW mmorpg universe using all the D&D themes and characters. Planescape, old Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc.

Fark rules. I don't need or want more rules. I want reasons to actually play and more rules are just plain stupid. I know 1st and 2nd edition in my sleep. 3.5 can EABOD.

dragonchild: Problem is that few people grasp that, and fewer are providing the proper feedback. D&D isn't a game that needs mechanical refinement. It's already too refined! The first-ed rules were atrocious and people fell in love with them anyway. People think AD&D was simple, but it's not. The rules were so convoluted you basically memorized them, or at least memorized what pages they're on. Veteran gamers just got comfortable with them over the course of 10+ years.

The problem is that 4E is too industrial. The rules are elegant, cohesive and simple, but at the expense of creativity.

Aha! I get it. Nice point.

PacManDreaming: I was speaking of the tabletop version with miniatures.

oh, I know. That's where we started, back in the early 90s. The desktop pic of my BBLE playing machine has wonderfully hand-moded Chaos "goat-men" minis for Blood Bowl (with shoulder pads made from plastic space ork parts. I didn't do the mod or painting, but that's what we used to do). I come from that lineage, but I live hours away from my friends. I find the online game to be a very nice re-tread.


Mr_H: My only pet peeve with it now is the league system. It'd be very nice to create a small league for me and my friends, and populate it with AI of varying levels (we have an odd number of people, which makes it difficult to start up a league).

This is a valid complaint. We grabbed a 6th player at random, and his machine broke, and the league has sat in a stall for 3+ months. I created new teams that were very similar to the old one (one for Nagg, one for Auld) just to get some practice in.

/yet, I always see that F***ker playing Football Manager 2011 on Steam...

They lost me as a customer when they did that article about an 'updated' Spelljammer that they had no plans to ever actually do, just as an example sort of, and tried to make it all grimdark high fantasy and joked about how 'stupid and embarrassing' the original was. fark you. I love Spelljammer.

SuperChuck: I'll echo the request for leagues with AI teams. You should be able to mix and match human and AI players in a single league.

The AIs kinda suck, sometimes. The requirement for my now-stalled league was "you need to be able to beat the AI everytime on hard." I actually couldn't do that when I started (shaking off the cobwebs and re-getting used to the rules) but I'm at the point now where an AI team would just be a PASS for whichever team played them.

That being said, If you have 3 people who will dutifully play according to schedule, and every team plays every other team, that certainly makes up for the "gimme" game.

LowbrowDeluxe: 'stupid and embarrassing' the original was.

I think when I was 13 (~when spell jammer came out) I thought it was stupid and embarrassing.

Now that I'm older and wiser, I can totally grok it and see how it would be cool.

From Basic to 4E, I've played them all. People bicker over the rules, but to me the epic storytelling is really what sunk 4E. The problem is that CRPGs appear to be grabbing a lot of good writers (I'm looking at you Bioware, up until last year).

The old-timers can follow along with me. T1-4, A1-4, and Q1-7. With a DM that could flesh out some of the sharp edges this became an amazing epic arc. S1-3 were also thrown in to mix things up. Massive body count. Amazing storytelling. I don't think I am just channeling my adolescence. Modern modules are just too formulaic and predictable. Whatever happened to the days when the adventurers actually got their butts kicked? The characters and environment nowadays are just so middle of the road. Everything is equivalent with parity being all important.

Oh, and house rules. I have always played with modified critical/fumble rules. A 1st level peon CAN kill a 20th level warlord with a single stroke. Likewise, that Holy Avenger can be shattered on the ground, dealing 5-50 damage to all those adjacent. Allowing unlikely events, both positive and negative, is a major driver of the unique story. Too much emphasis on balance and average/equivalent nowadays if you ask me.

madgonad: From Basic to 4E, I've played them all. People bicker over the rules, but to me the epic storytelling is really what sunk 4E. The problem is that CRPGs appear to be grabbing a lot of good writers (I'm looking at you Bioware, up until last year).

The old-timers can follow along with me. T1-4, A1-4, and Q1-7. With a DM that could flesh out some of the sharp edges this became an amazing epic arc. S1-3 were also thrown in to mix things up. Massive body count. Amazing storytelling. I don't think I am just channeling my adolescence. Modern modules are just too formulaic and predictable. Whatever happened to the days when the adventurers actually got their butts kicked? The characters and environment nowadays are just so middle of the road. Everything is equivalent with parity being all important.

Oh, and house rules. I have always played with modified critical/fumble rules. A 1st level peon CAN kill a 20th level warlord with a single stroke. Likewise, that Holy Avenger can be shattered on the ground, dealing 5-50 damage to all those adjacent. Allowing unlikely events, both positive and negative, is a major driver of the unique story. Too much emphasis on balance and average/equivalent nowadays if you ask me.

No love for I3-5? That was an absolutely fantastic series. It really helped break the monotony of a campaign up too.

Just go back to 2nd Edition and let all the whiners go play some other system.

I've played D&D, CoC, M&M, DitV, PARANOIA and just about everything in between, but I've now falled in love with Apocalypse World, so I'll leave this here:

Apocalypse World (new window)

And the work-in-progress fantasy version:

Dungeon World (new window)

These games taught me a new way to be a GM... one of the guiding principles: A GM should be a fan of the player's characters! Opened my eyes.

Thank me later!

I'm amazed so many of you are complaining about 4e rules being primarily about combat. DND was created by TSR, think about the name of the freaking company, the rules have always been about combat. Role-playing doesn't come from rules it comes from the players. You can play DND with as little as imagination and anything that will produce a random result (flipping a coin, a single die, which way the cat will flinch when you throw something at it, etc.)

Granted i'd probably be playing pathfinder if my players hadn't jumped the gun and bought the 4e core books as soon as they came out, but it is just as flexible as any other version of the game. You just need to know how the rules are supposed to work and why before you start breaking them or creating new house rules, just as with 3.x

If you need a rules system to tell you how to handle social interactions with your character, you probably don't need to be role-playing to begin with. 20+ years of D&D has proved me that the system not as important as people like to think. ADD2 was a munchkin's paradise, 3.0 was created to nerf that, but still needed refinement and that was the only reason for 4e - to cut down on player/DM arguments with those that would try to game the system to become combat juggernauts with the rest of the party under their heel.

ChromaticKid: I've now falled in love with Apocalypse World, so I'll leave this here:

Fallen in love... the one time I don't get an auto-correct... *sigh*

/three Apocalypse World campaigns currently on the go...
//Go go Gunlugger!