Greywulf's Games of the Year 2009

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Anything you could do in previous editions of D&D you can still do
    Henchmen? Strongholds?

    I quite enjoy playing 4e, but I get the feeling it’s something that’s more fun for GMs than players, particularly in comparison to the 3e era. Take, for example, the hackability you mention; yes, it’s quick and easy to chuck some new monster types together*, but try tinkering with the stuff on the other side (ie classes and races) and you start to get unstuck. Unlike with monsters and encounters, there’s no guidance on how to do this for the players’ side of things (there might be in DMG2, in which case, ignore me!)

    *So much so that it makes the “six types of orc and no fluff” format of the Monster Manual even more disappointing. The templates of 3e were a very good idea scuppered by a complicated system and would work even better in 4e, in my opinion.
    .-= thekelvingreen´s last blog ..Top Ten Comic Characters 2009 Edition =-.

  2. Greywulf says:

    @ thekelvingreen RE: Henchmen & Strongholds – agreed! Which is why I personally rate the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as being the best version of D&D ever made. Unfortunately, my current batch of players far prefer 4e so that’s the one we’ve played most this year.

    When it comes to player hackability I see your point. I’m hoping that’s something which the upcoming Strategy Guides will fix. We GMs have been rather spoiled in 4e when it comes to the DMGs.

  3. Pangalin says:

    “Henchmen? Strongholds?”


    Unless you’re one of those DMs that respond to any player request by furrowing your brow and turning them down because you can’t find a chart for it, in which case…

  4. drow says:

    wrt races and classes, what exactly do you want to tinker with? there are already a score of handles for defining your character in various ways. choosing powers alone can result in radically characters within the same class.

    i’ve found that creating new races isn’t paricularly hard. want a fire mage? no problem. pick your wizard powers, change all the damage type keywords to ‘fire’. a champion of the ice queen? pick your paladin powers, change all the damage type keywords to ‘cold’. multiclassing provides further avenues for character tweaking and diversification, if you need them.

  5. Neuroglyph says:

    I envy your group a bit – being able to try out alot of different games – my groups tend to latch onto one game system with the tenacity of a bulldog with lockjaw… so I can only say that I totally agree that 4e is amazing and I’m enjoying my leap from 3.5 ed to the new edition immensely!
    .-= Neuroglyph´s last blog ..News in Review for Dec 21 to Dec 27 2009 =-.

  6. Greywulf says:

    @drow When it comes to Races I’m a big fan of being able to create my own or tinker with existing ones to make them better fit the campaign concept. For example – in an upcoming game one of my players wants to run a Wulfen (Vargr-like wolfman from 3e). If he comes up with the 4e stats, I’m likely to approve it.

    Customizing an existing Class is, as you rightly say, very easy. The Powers especially lend themselves well enough to this and the rules are very keen to advocate changing the thematics of any Power.

    But creating a whole new class from scratch – a proper 4e Binder class, for example – is a very daunting prospect.

  7. drow says:

    edit; should read “choosing powers alone can result in radically DIFFERENT characters within the same class.”

    @greywulf; i never picked up the 3.5 tome of magic, so i’m not familiar with the binder specifically. i’ll agree that looking at a new class, and the ten pages of powers you need for it, looks daunting at first.

    but unless you’re exploring a fundamentally different power scheme (looking at the psion), established patterns of power progression makes things easier. its even easier if you can model some of your powers on those from another existing class. for example, the shaman class might be a good starting point for the binder. pick an appropriate build, strip out spirit companions and primal fluff, insert bound daemons/whatever and arcane fluff. add a couple of ‘signature’ powers at appropriate points.

  8. Zachary says:

    I’m definitely with you on Rules Cyclopedia being the best D&D iteration.
    .-= Zachary ´s last blog ..On Gnomes =-.

  9. Jon says:

    Savage Worlds… I keep hearing people talk about the game and really don’t know much about it. Lately I have been liking the idea of “playability with the least effort possible.”

    I agree 4e is a great game just like you say above, but for some reason after a year of playing my friends and I gave up on it. I also noticed this year some of the local cons have seen a rise in the diversity of RPGs being played besides 4e, which is odd.
    .-= Jon´s last blog ..Darra Home to Druids =-.

Leave a Reply