|
Post by reisah on Sept 22, 2010 15:04:03 GMT -4
in both tool set and client settings, I have tried both -1 and -2 settings with no luck so far. And I have found two differant notes for Vista users, one saying to change to -1, other saying there is a glitch and to use -2. I will research more as time permits.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Sept 23, 2010 9:40:02 GMT -4
Have you tried 0, 1, and 2?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Nov 18, 2010 22:17:15 GMT -4
I've found another server that's sort of interesting. I play on it when I get a chance and have sort of remade a character or two which had their origins here on Itropa there.
Toss me a pm if you're interested, it'd be nice to have some company. It's not a dead server, but a pretty quiet one lately.
(edit) Found another one that's even better, actually.
|
|
|
Post by reisah on Dec 4, 2010 2:43:26 GMT -4
I've found another server that's sort of interesting. I play on it when I get a chance and have sort of remade a character or two which had their origins here on Itropa there. Toss me a pm if you're interested, it'd be nice to have some company. It's not a dead server, but a pretty quiet one lately. (edit) Found another one that's even better, actually. Eeeeekkkk!!!!!!!!!!! It LIVES!!! *faints*
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Jan 25, 2011 12:22:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Jan 25, 2011 22:27:42 GMT -4
Cool that it's Itropa based, but eew: 4th edition. Eew, eew, eew. Wizards is already churning out 4.5.
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Jan 26, 2011 11:52:18 GMT -4
Yeah, I know 4e isn't real popular on this board, but my group loves it. Personally I like 3.5, but nobody else in my group does. And I have to admit 4e's powers system works great for the Itropa reflavoring.
I might have asked this before, but you have actually played 4e, right? I hated 4e too, when I first read the PHB, but it turns out it plays nothing like it reads. For example, a lot of people who've only read the PHB say it feels too similar to World of Warcraft (which would be fine with me in itself), but when you actually play it, the comparison doesn't hold up. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I just wanted to make sure.
Regarding "4.5", that's what some people were calling Essentials. However, the Essentials line was planned as a 10-book spin-off, with alternative rules designed for beginning players, and for players who desired a more classic D&D feel. After the 10 books, things would go back to normal. That was the plan anyway; now they might not even get through those 10 books.
WOTC is doing a lot of weird things right now. They keep changing their minds on things, and a lot of planned books are getting canceled. I think they're having issues with staying in business (they're owned by Hasbro, but that doesn't mean Hasbro won't eliminate their department if they don't turn a profit), and they've been making a long chain of unpopular decisions. Who knows what will happen, but it probably won't be anything good.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Jan 28, 2011 15:58:34 GMT -4
I totally understand how it's ideal for an itropan campaign. You can do whatever you want and call it whatever you want now. Before that took more effort. Only good aspect. DM Freedom to create.
Yes I've played it. Two different campaigns for a total of about 1-2 years. I don't much care for it. It's harder to do lots of things, easier to do some things. Optimization is boring as hell now. Also they hate their customers.
Yes they've been on a downward spiral. I stopped buying books and stuff from them long ago. Stopped buying their D&D miniatures when they ruined the rules (the first time, before the second time, then they scrapped that game altogether).
I own thousands of dollars of their products, I've played 2-4th edition. Still, 3.00 / 3.50 is the best in my eyes.
Serious balancing issues, serious role-playing issues, serious money-grabbing issues. The good old D20 system is ideal, though I hear Wayfinders is a better balanced version thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Jan 28, 2011 20:47:02 GMT -4
Agree: Optimization is boring. Though you should see our group's powergamer; he's still manages to build amazing things that make our DM weep. Still, I've all but given up trying to find interesting combinations myself; every time I do come across something interesting, WOTC finds out and erratas it.
Agree: They do appear to hate their customers. Sometimes I seriously wonder if they're intentionally trying to go out of business. Like maybe there's some sort of tax dodge involved, as in "The Producers".
Agree: Money-grabbing issues. Their most recent one - taking down the excellent Character Builder and replacing it with buggy, slow online version, simply because it's harder to pirate.
Disagree: Balancing issues. If balance is an issue in 4e, it's that they went overboard with it. I miss how 3.5 worked - Some classes were good at low levels, others were good at high levels. Some classes were more complicated than others: you could play a fighter without even looking through the PHB, but to play a wizard you had to learn the whole system of preparing spells, and making sure to use them sparingly lest you find yourself running out of spells early in the day. It wasn't the slightest bit fair or balanced, but that was part of the charm, you know? It let expert players play expert characters, so they don't get bored with the game.
But in 4e, the classes are all so similar. Your starting hit points are much closer together, your ACs are closer together, your hit points are closer together. You all get the same system of At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies. A wizard's Daily might hit more enemies, but the fighter's Daily does more damage, so in the end, they're about as effective as each other. So, yeah, 4e is uber-balanced; I'm just not sure that's the direction they should have gone.
Disagree: Roleplay issues. Sorry, I just don't see how the system affects roleplay. You're talking to someone who roleplays when playing Monopoly, so I really don't get why you need a specific "craft" skill on your character sheet in order to tell the group "I weave a basket." A good roleplayer shouldn't let stuff like that slow him down.
But I admit, I'm generally easy to please. I've yet to play a system or edition that I outright hated. There are a few things I wouldn't like to go back to (I can't imagine going back to a system where lower AC is better), but overall as long as I'm rolling a d20, I can make do.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Jan 28, 2011 23:27:02 GMT -4
Optimization can be boring, if taken too far. I like having powerful characters, but I also like making them interesting and playing them. Just ruining the game by killing everything in one round is boring (not that that ever happens in 4th edition, every fight takes forever because there's no 'quick' way to end combats, ever. Anytime [cheap skills don't count. Talk about imbalanced.] ) and hogging the limelight.
Maybe so. Still, they used to be a decent(er) company.
Haven't bought a book or minis in a long time. Probably won't again.
You misunderstand:
While they did make things incredibly boring and too close together, by mixing all the classes together in a 'balancing blender' of sorts: removing individuality most of the time and just giving similar attacks to different classes and different names. Even went so far as to assign roles very similar to (shocking I know) World of Warcraft. There are also severe mechanic imbalances. Requiring players to take certain feats in order to be able to effectively hit their enemy is just one example of this. Or stacking auras and low crs of the associated creatures. How about how multi-classing was useless garbage, then changed somewhat. Then changed again? There are others that don't come to mind off the top of my head.
Initially they had no information about role-play skills or associated gameplay information. They ravaged the settings so familiar in 3.0/3.5. Tools which were available were made useless, this may have changed recently but I haven't been keeping up since I am not actively playing a 4th edition campaign at this point.
While I may come off as a simple 4th edition basher, it's not mindless ravings. I am genuinely saddened by the state of D&D affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Jan 29, 2011 13:23:52 GMT -4
I agree with some of that, but at the same time my experience seems to differ from yours a bit. I can't help but wonder if I've just had some very good DMs.
I agree that combat takes longer (which is a plus for some people), but I do have a question. You say "there's no quick way to end combat" and go on to say "cheap skills don't count." I assume the cheap skill you're talking about is using Intimidate to make someone surrender (not that cheap, IMO), but I was wondering what ways you use to end combat early in 3.5, that you don't think is possible in 4e.
In any event, I'm not saying 4e is the perfect system, or even the one I'd most like to play. All systems have flaws, and sometimes it's just a matter of matching the right player to the system that's right for them.
The only part that really bothers me is the "eew" reaction any time someone even mentions 4e. I try not to judge what other people play, and I just don't see the purpose of bringing up the edition wars every time someone mentions what they're playing.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Jan 31, 2011 14:30:30 GMT -4
Two different dms both of which have run some great campaigns in the past suggest it's not just dm souring the experience.
It takes a lot longer. Because before 4th edition you could do more than 1/100th (1/10th if you're really lucky and burning a daily and buffed maybe) of the enemies hit points per turn. Or use death magic, or turn them into a shoe. Or a pillar of glass. Or many other things. Enemies have a ton more hitpoints, and every attack does way less damage. Especially at higher levels.
When we played, it'd go like this: Show up, fool around a while, 1, maybe 2 combats, game over. A bit of role--playing sprinkled before and after, but the combats took so long they ate up much of the time.
Yes it is the only 'good' combat skill, and so of course you knew what I meant. No-one can defeat a party of epic bards, because they just intimidate everything into submission.
At any rate, an Itropa campaign sounds cool. 4th edition is a good fit for the reasons I've listed before (Though any edition could be adopted really). Here's hoping it goes from a one-shot into a multi-year campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Feb 1, 2011 10:20:26 GMT -4
At any rate, an Itropa campaign sounds cool. 4th edition is a good fit for the reasons I've listed before (Though any edition could be adopted really). Here's hoping it goes from a one-shot into a multi-year campaign. Heh, thanks for good wishes, but I don't know if I could manage a full-blown campaign. When I try to run a campaign, it generally turns out more like a series of short stories. Besides, I'm in this hobby to play, not to DM. If my Itropa one-shot turns out to be a success, I might run a few more Itropa one-shots in the future, but that's as far as I go. Our current Forgotten Realms campaign is coming to an end, and we're a bit on the fence about what to play next. So for the next couple of months, we're going to do a series of one-shots using different RPG systems/settings/genres. Each of us will DM at least once. Some of the items on this sampler platter include Gamma World, Mutants & Masterminds, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Traveler, Savage Worlds, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Scarred Lands, and probably some other reflavorings of 4e. Btw, if you haven't tried it, the current version of Gamma World is a lot of fun. It takes some of the better elements of 4e but uses them in a more lighthearted way. Yeah, it still has some of the 4e elements some people don't like, but it's presented in a context that makes it more appropriate. I don't think I would want to play it for a long-term campaign, but for one-shots it's awesome. I almost considered using it for the Itropa one-shot, and I still think it would work well, but it just didn't do everything I needed it to do for the session I have planned.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Surge on Feb 1, 2011 10:40:59 GMT -4
It's amusing to me because one of our longest running campaigns involved starting off as a short-term 'joke' campaign. We all made non-serious characters because the fellow who was going to run things wanted to run the City of the Spider Queen adventure, due to every other game he's run ending low-mid level, we decided not to (immediately) invest in our characters.
Eventually we got a deck of many things, and damned if we didn't all level up past the appropriate level for the campaign that night. Since then he's stopped playing and that campaign has been going on for ~6 years, with several spin off groups within the same campaign world.
From level 1-40, and now ascending using the immortals handbook.
Some of the systems out there are pretty interesting, but I'm curious why GURPS and Warhammer aren't on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Hazmatt on Feb 2, 2011 1:22:38 GMT -4
I haven't played GURPS, but if I remember correctly, at least two members of our group have played it so much they're now sick of it. I don't think Warhammer has even been mentioned.
|
|