FAQ  FAQ   Search  Search   Memberlist  Memberlist   Usergroups  Usergroups
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages


Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
 4e Adventure Design: First Impressions « View previous topic :: View next topic » 
Author Message
Amy Carrier
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patron

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 588

tzu-theory wrote:
...I guess without writing an entire article on what I like, it would have to be the increased sense of teamwork and the spirit of working together. This plays both in combat and non-combat encounters...


Well, I for one wouldn't mind if you wrote an expanded post going into this aspect in more detail. You are the second person to mention the "increased teamwork" aspect, and I am itching with curiosity about just how this comes about under the 4E rules. I have read them, and haven't seen anything that looks like it would either increase or decrease teamwork. Inquiring minds want to know!

P.S. Just as a side-note: I've never seen any teamwork issues in my campaign (1E through 3.5E). If you do choose to write an expanded post, could you mention what the teamwork was like in your old campaigns? Thanks! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tzu-theory
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 3

Specifically, in 3.x I felt like the game revolved entirely around what I call the "Me" phenomenon. It was all about what could "I" do to maximize my potential in combat. I have found that in 4e my group(s) tend to coordinate more with interlocking abilities to maximize the potential of the group. As well, I do not feel someone could truly make a terrible character. At best everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the success of the group in each skill-challenge or combat situation. No longer are you inundated with finding feat combinations or with the realization that you (the DM) are required to limit which splat-books are allowed.

I personally loved 3.x for what it was, and I would gladly play a pick-up game here and there. But, I honestly feel 4e creates an environment conducive to team-play. The proof is in the pudding. If you ever ventured over to any of the numerous optimization boards for D&D, you could at any given time find builds that were focused on the “me” aspect of the game. Now, you are finding more and more combinations that involve others because it is so critical to how 4e runs. This in and of itself is why I prefer 4e. I am in no way condemning 3.x or even stating it is worse. It is simple different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zherog
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Contributor

Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 586
Location: Bensalem, PA

tzu-theory wrote:
Specifically, in 3.x I felt like the game revolved entirely around what I call the "Me" phenomenon. It was all about what could "I" do to maximize my potential in combat. I have found that in 4e my group(s) tend to coordinate more with interlocking abilities to maximize the potential of the group.


Hmmm... My 3.5 groups - even the ones populated with powergamers - tend to work together to build a group.

Quote:
As well, I do not feel someone could truly make a terrible character.


This is definitely a problem in 3.5, though. Especially if the group is of mixed powergaming "ability."

I can't comment on 4e, though. I've read the PHB, but I haven't had a chance to play it yet. In reading, there were things I liked and things I didn't - just like any other game. I don't actually have any experience with how it plays, though. And barring finding a play-by-post game, I'm probably not going to know what it's like for the foreseeable future.
_________________
John Ling
Freelance Writer
Kobold Fan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
tzu-theory
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 3

Well, I could just not be communicating it well enough. It's just my perspective on the edition as a whole. I feel 3.x is still viable and enjoyable to play, I just prefer 4e for now. I was hesitant to move to 3.x after AD&D and I assume there is always reservations when moving on to a new edition. Heck, there are still groups out there that refuse to move on from 2e Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zherog
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Contributor

Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 586
Location: Bensalem, PA

Nope, I think you're communicating your ideas just fine. I'm just saying that in my own personal experiences, groups in 3.5 work together to ensure the party has good synergy; your experience, it would seem, is different. That's OK - it's one of the things that makes gaming so cool. Smile
_________________
John Ling
Freelance Writer
Kobold Fan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Amy Carrier
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:44 am    Post subject: Armoury99, are you still out there? Reply with quote

Patron

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 588

Hey Armoury99, have you thought any about a follow-up to your original post? I really am quite interested in how your long-term experience with 4E compares with your initial impressions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


DAJ Glass (1.0.8) template by Dustin Baccetti
EQ graphic based off of a design from www.freeclipart.nu
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group