Again, I don't disagree with how it was written favored roll play vs roleplay. I think they just assumed everyone would roleplay naturally. I did feel later products were trying to add more roleplay. A lot of the issue is that D&D focuses on leveling up by defeating enemies so it encourages combat. Newer rpgs give xp for story and exploring the world, not killing everything you see and taking its stuff

I also liked 4e, and have been playing and DM'ing since 70's. It was mostly a tactical game, a good one, but we got some good RP out of it too. 4e's main problem for me was battle length, prep time, and the lack of a good way to use spells and powers in non-combat.

13th Age pretty much solves all these problems, but keeps the good/fun elements of 4e. I recommend it to any 4e fans.

And as for the topic, I'm loving EotE! We had a blast playing our first session, and everyone fell in love with the dice. In the end, I'm going to run a EotE and a 13th Age game alternating weeks.

I will check out 13th Age. I too have been playing D&D since the 70s, but I didn't find the battle lengths in 4E were taking that much longer than 3.x (but memory isn't to be trusted anymore so maybe I could be wrong). Granted we didn't really play above 10th level in any of our campaigns, but it seemed like we progressed the adventures at the same pace as we did with the 3.x stuff. As for prep time, I found it easier to prep than 3.x, but then I make too many notes for prep anyway. I have almost 20 pages for my upcoming EotE game, and it needs nowhere near that

Anyway, really shouldn't make this about other game systems and focus on the positives of this one.

EoE is one of the games that actively encourages it, I think. The narrative dice, the Obligation mechanic, the lack of tactical combat things like minis and maps...

I think that's the current movement in the industry. I think everyone has "rules fatigue" and now things are going back to more free form and narrative, until everyone gets tired of "GM's judgement" and the rules tighten up again so the rules do more judging for the GMs (that's mostly kidding, but I can believe it happening as I think that's how 3.x D&D came to be)

But we found 4E didn't encourage it at all, and in fact frequently discouraged it (with the emphasis on combat and powers, with absolutely no out-of-combat abilities, and with scenarios that were nothing but endless combat encounters).

You can role-play, or not, with any system, but games can actively encourage it or discourage it. Having decent adventures that contain non-combat situations and fun NPCs is a good start.

While I agree that 4e did not do a great job with adventure creation the statement about "absolutely no out-of-combat abilities" is just flat out wrong. Skills and Rituals are primarily for non-combat situations. It's true that the powers have very little out of combat use but the power system is the core of the combat system. I always wonder why people forget about Skills and Rituals in 4e.

On whether 4e is a board game or not, that just doesn't make any sense. A board game has a number of predetermined actions you can take in the game. RPGs (such as 4e) are open ended and you can attempt anything. 4e is as much an RPG as any other.

People talk about how 4e discourages roleplaying but I just don't see it. They probably mean interaction between PCs and NPCs but roleplaying is more than that. You roleplay anytime you make a decsion for the PC. For example, deciding to take out a stormtrooper squad or run from them is a roleplaying decision.

Combat in 4e definitely takes a large percentage of the play time (but that varies a lot from group to group). However, just because one RPG emphasizes one aspect of RP over another (e.g. Combat over interaction) doesn't make it any less of an RPG.

For the people that don't think 4e is a legitimate RPG I always ask one question and have yet to receive a legitimate answer: "what is 4e missing to make it a true RPG?"

What people usually mean by saying that 4e isn't a true or legitimate RPG is that it is an RPG that has a different emphasis then they want.

Okay, 4e rant over.

I was in love with this system (more or less) when it was WFRP3 and since then I have created a Fantasy skin of EotE that is working wonderfully. My fantasy group hasn't said a word about missing parts of D&D and my Star Wars group is skipping our annual Halloween Call of Cthulhu game to play more EotE (hopefully with a spooky twist).

From time to time, we discuss fantasy mods of this system over at the d20 radio forums.

You wouldn't care to share your fantasy skin would you? My friend is still running his fantasy campaign, and over the last 10 years it's morphed from C&S2 to D&D4 and was about to be nWoD+Mirrors, but now it's tangled mess of Basic Roleplaying (the heart of Call of Cthulhu and others) and some tweaks to make it less ridiculous. And all through this we still have the same characters... He really likes the idea of switching to EotE mechanics...

My fantasy mod is a combination of Google docs and xml files for my EotE Content and Character Builder that you can find over on the d20 Radio boards, here. Feel free to PM me (handle jasonjrr) and I will get you set up.

We just hit our 10th session last night and we're still having fun with it. It's one of the best role-playing games I've played in the past few years and I think the game's mechanics serve a Star Wars campaign well..

For the people that don't think 4e is a legitimate RPG I always ask one question and have yet to receive a legitimate answer: "what is 4e missing to make it a true RPG?"

At this risk of completely derailing the thread... or starting 'edition wars'...

- 'out of combat' abilities and powers. If you wanted to sail a ship, ride a horse, or craft something, it was just hand-waved. Prestige classes that suggested an out-of-combat focus like Cat-Burglar or Divine Oracle that gave NOTHING other than combat powers. 'Illusionists' who couldn't actually cast illusions, only damage spells that did 'psychic damage'.

Something better than the horrible 'Skill Challenges' which were simply combats by another name, with their disassociated mechanics and broken math.

- an adventure or scenario worthy of the name. Thirty pages of tactical minis fights don't make an RPG. Past editions had variety, you could have combat, stealth, diplomacy, etc. 4E modules were 100% fighting from start to finish, simply in more exotic locations than before.

- narrative that tied the PCs to the game, outside of the battle-mat. I don't mind 'disassociated mechanics' so much as 'disassociated characters'. Prestige classes like in BECMI where you character actually had to do something to join, not just declare you were a 'Demigod' at level 21.

If it worked for you, fine. But it didn't work for us, always felt I was fighting the system personally.

It is telling, I think, that it lasted such a brief time and they are taking a completely different approach with the new edition.

Anyway, my point was that EoE seems to make an attempt at bringing in non-combat elements and things like Obligation and Motivation help to ensure the characters are part of the world and do not exist purely on a battle-grid.

For the people that don't think 4e is a legitimate RPG I always ask one question and have yet to receive a legitimate answer: "what is 4e missing to make it a true RPG?"

Every argument I have ever had with a 4E fan has been circular:

4E fan: 'Oh, you can role-play in 4E.'

Me: 'So why isn't there a single scenario that isn't 100% combat? Why can't we play something that has some element of stealth or diplomacy or even an NPC to talk to?'

4E fan: 'Oh, you have to understand that 4E isn't that kind of game'.

Me: 'Yeah, this is where we came in, isn't it?'

What people usually mean by saying that 4e isn't a true or legitimate RPG is that it is an RPG that has a different emphasis then they want.

I have absolutely no problem with people saying they like 4E's tactical combat and enjoy the lack of role-playing that was a deliberate feature, not a bug. That's fine, that's exactly who it was aimed at, and that's fine.

Just understand that approach alienated a lot of long-standing D&D fans who liked other things in their games. And who have naturally moved away to other games now.

I am probably getting soft in my old age, but I would rather focus on the positives in life (or in this case the RPG we are discussing) without focusing on the negatives. Can we skip the bashing?

For the people that don't think 4e is a legitimate RPG I always ask one question and have yet to receive a legitimate answer: "what is 4e missing to make it a true RPG?"

Every argument I have ever had with a 4E fan has been circular:

4E fan: 'Oh, you can role-play in 4E.'

Me: 'So why isn't there a single scenario that isn't 100% combat? Why can't we play something that has some element of stealth or diplomacy or even an NPC to talk to?'

4E fan: 'Oh, you have to understand that 4E isn't that kind of game'.

Me: 'Yeah, this is where we came in, isn't it?'

What people usually mean by saying that 4e isn't a true or legitimate RPG is that it is an RPG that has a different emphasis then they want.

I have absolutely no problem with people saying they like 4E's tactical combat and enjoy the lack of role-playing that was a deliberate feature, not a bug. That's fine, that's exactly who it was aimed at, and that's fine.

Just understand that approach alienated a lot of long-standing D&D fans who liked other things in their games. And who have naturally moved away to other games now.

In all fairness, I created my own adventures rather than run the ones from WotC and they did have non-combat encounters.(I prefer to make my own rather than using canned adventures in all cases - I ran the beginner adventures for EotE to get to know the system but now that we have, it'll be homebrewed - with maybe some stuff stolen from published ones)

For the people that don't think 4e is a legitimate RPG I always ask one question and have yet to receive a legitimate answer: "what is 4e missing to make it a true RPG?"

Every argument I have ever had with a 4E fan has been circular:

4E fan: 'Oh, you can role-play in 4E.'

Me: 'So why isn't there a single scenario that isn't 100% combat? Why can't we play something that has some element of stealth or diplomacy or even an NPC to talk to?'

4E fan: 'Oh, you have to understand that 4E isn't that kind of game'.

Me: 'Yeah, this is where we came in, isn't it?'

Sounds to me like you have been talking to the wrong 4e players. Stealth and Diplomacy can be as much a part of a 4e game as you want. One of the themes of my current 4e game is trying to convince a clan of orcs to help fight the BBG.

What people usually mean by saying that 4e isn't a true or legitimate RPG is that it is an RPG that has a different emphasis then they want.

I have absolutely no problem with people saying they like 4E's tactical combat and enjoy the lack of role-playing that was a deliberate feature, not a bug. That's fine, that's exactly who it was aimed at, and that's fine.

Just understand that approach alienated a lot of long-standing D&D fans who liked other things in their games. And who have naturally moved away to other games now.

Yes I understand 4e is not everyone's cup of tea. There is no reason for it to be that way. Everyone has different tastes.

Yes I understand 4e is not everyone's cup of tea. There is no reason for it to be that way. Everyone has different tastes.

Yes, of course. And the old games are still there, just as 4E will still be there for its adherents when 5E or whatever comes out.

But I think as someone said further up the thread, the industry as a whole seems to be moving towards a 'rules lite' approach at the moment, as seen with 13th Age, EoE, etc.

But I'm sure that will also change - role-playing games are nothing if not cyclical.

I am probably getting soft in my old age, but I would rather focus on the positives in life (or in this case the RPG we are discussing) without focusing on the negatives. Can we skip the bashing?

Agreed, but fjw70 seems reasonable and polite and I think I am too.

This is probably the nicest 4E discussion I've ever had

But yeah, let's talk about EoE...

At this risk of completely derailing the thread... or starting 'edition wars'..

.- 'out of combat' abilities and powers. If you wanted to sail a ship, ride a horse, or craft something, it was just hand-waved.

Prestige classes that suggested an out-of-combat focus like Cat-Burglar or Divine Oracle that gave NOTHING other than combat powers.

'Illusionists' who couldn't actually cast illusions, only damage spells that did 'psychic damage'.

Something better than the horrible 'Skill Challenges' which were simply combats by another name, with their disassociated mechanics and broken math.

- an adventure or scenario worthy of the name. Thirty pages of tactical minis fights don't make an RPG. Past editions had variety, you could have combat, stealth, diplomacy, etc. 4E modules were 100% fighting from start to finish, simply in more exotic locations than before.- narrative that tied the PCs to the game, outside of the battle-mat. I don't mind 'disassociated mechanics' so much as 'disassociated characters'. Prestige classes like in BECMI where you character actually had to do something to join, not just declare you were a 'Demigod' at level 21.

If it worked for you, fine. But it didn't work for us, always felt I was fighting the system personally.It is telling, I think, that it lasted such a brief time and they are taking a completely different approach with the new edition.

Anyway, my point was that EoE seems to make an attempt at bringing in non-combat elements and things like Obligation and Motivation help to ensure the characters are part of the world and do not exist purely on a battle-grid.

With 4e I think WotC made a huge mistake by only supporting one possible play style. The 4e system is a lot more flexible than even WotC seems to understand. Just by varying things like when you can take short and extended rests or how XP is given you can completely change the way the game is played. But they seemed to have learned their lesson and are trying to write that flexibility into 5e.

I am probably getting soft in my old age, but I would rather focus on the positives in life (or in this case the RPG we are discussing) without focusing on the negatives. Can we skip the bashing?

Agreed, but fjw70 seems reasonable and polite and I think I am too.

This is probably the nicest 4E discussion I've ever

Why thank you. I do enjoy discussing different games and see no reason it can't be done politely.

I am probably getting soft in my old age, but I would rather focus on the positives in life (or in this case the RPG we are discussing) without focusing on the negatives. Can we skip the bashing?

Agreed, but fjw70 seems reasonable and polite and I think I am too.

This is probably the nicest 4E discussion I've ever

Why thank you. I do enjoy discussing different games and see no reason it can't be done politely.

Yes, but you two seem to be the exception I am just used to a few fairly polite exchanges and then BOOM! (it might be by some 3rd poster that starts it) Plus, the longer this conversation goes on, the further off topic it gets (I know, it's a matter of opinion since fjw70 is the starter of the thread, but instead of talking about EotE, we are talking about a dead system (that wasn't a knock against 4E - I own all of the products for it and played it extensively up until last year when life basically got in the way of playing anything). By dead, I just mean no more material for it, not that people can't keep playing it (I suspect they will, which will fracture the D&D community even more - I really hope 5E can bring everyone back together, but I honestly don't see how one system can be everything to everyone.

Why thank you. I do enjoy discussing different games and see no reason it can't be done politely.

Indeed. Thank you for the polite exchange of views, it's very welcome. Especially considering how emotive the 'edition wars' issue is on both sides.

The FFG boards do seem more 'grown up' than most, which in pleasant.

Even ErikB is merely hectoring and obtuse, rather than rude or hostile...

With 4e I think WotC made a huge mistake by only supporting one possible play style. The 4e system is a lot more flexible than even WotC seems to understand. Just by varying things like when you can take short and extended rests or how XP is given you can completely change the way the game is played. But they seemed to have learned their lesson and are trying to write that flexibility into 5e.

Agreed. In many ways, Essentials should have probably come out first... It seemed to be trying to address the out-of-combat issues to some degree. The skald rules had the character interacting with his environment for the first time in 4E. Charm spells and actual illusions were now possible.

Even one or two 'Pathfinder' style adventures would have helped, showing that the system was capable of being more than a minis game. The Neverwinter supplement and 'Gardmore Abbey' were actually as good as I'd expect from a D&D game - it's just by the time these came out, attitudes were already entrenched, the splits and divides had already done the damage, and those who wanted a different experience had moved on to other things.

Yes, as a 4e fan I was really disappointed the way WotC mismanaged 4e, including a botched initial roll out.

2007 called, they said everyone can just let the whole 4e debate go now

On topic though, I'm still very much enjoying EotE. Running it and WFRP 3E bi-weekly and plan to do so as long as my players are having a good time. Shadowrun, Fate Core, and D&D 4E are sitting on the shelf in the event that the group wants a breather but the narrative dice and abstract systems seem to be well received and everyone is still very enthusiastic and excited. There are a few minor quibbles I have with some of the Edge mechanics but they're so trivial they're practically not worth going into detail with.

Good gaming.

Just seeing how far we can stretch this off topic before people get angry.

And my problem is I'm just a puny god

My fantasy mod is a combination of Google docs and xml files for my EotE Content and Character Builder that you can find over on the d20 Radio boards, here. Feel free to PM me (handle jasonjrr) and I will get you set up.

Thanks, on a Mac though so it won't work for me.

I'm still very much loving this game after playing since the beta.

My fantasy mod is a combination of Google docs and xml files for my EotE Content and Character Builder that you can find over on the d20 Radio boards, here. Feel free to PM me (handle jasonjrr) and I will get you set up.

Thanks, on a Mac though so it won't work for me.

Well that's too bad. Shoot me a PM anyway and maybe I can show what sorts of things I did to help you get going.