# Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 26, 2010)

I was surfing Amazon today looking for a way to burn up a new gift card.  I haven't bought any new D&D books in a year or so, and figured there would be some great and intriguing new products out there.  Much to my disappointment, it seems like the majority of recent WotC publications -- Dark Sun aside -- are essentially repackagings of existing material.  Looking ahead, the only item in the next year's worth of projected publications that caught my eye as interesting/original is the _Neverwinter Campaign Setting_.

That may just be my perception, of course, but it did lead to this question: is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out?  We're three years into the current edition, and if we're already reaching the point where much of the official publication is repackaging/reimagining rather than truly original exciting material, I don't think it bodes well.  Particularly as it seems the cycle has accelerated compared to the flame out/reboot times of the prior couple of edition cycles. (Note: this is not intended to be and edition war comment as I'm not comparing the edition content but rather the publishing cycles).

Or have I just become an old(er) grognard?


----------



## Nebten (Dec 26, 2010)

Begun the Flame War has.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 26, 2010)

Let the madness begin!


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 26, 2010)

Interesting debate. I haven't heard this type of debate on ENWorld since before *mumbles*. 

WotC: D&D 3.0-3.5 - 3 years. 

TSR: AD&D 2.0-2.5 (Player's Option) - 6 years. AD&D1.0-1.5 (Uneartherd Arcana, etc) - 6 years. 

What can that mean for our dear hobby?!!? How does Pathfinder factor into the release of Essentials?!!?


----------



## JeffB (Dec 26, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> essentially repackagings of existing material. ?




TSR and WOTC have been regurgitating materials since the mid to late 1E days. every edition does- demon books, planes books, psionic books, setting books, magic items book,  splatbooks for PCs, high level/epic level boosk, etc etc.

In 3.x we got even got a few double doses of this stuff thanks to the rules changes.

EDIT- heck- regurgitation since BEFORE 1E- which was just a regurgitation of the LBBs & supps plus some added material from TSR & TD magazines.

It never ends- it was one reason I was glad to see *some* re-writing/re-imaginings of (stereo)typical D&D isms in the latest edition (e.g. the planes/cosmology)


----------



## Carbon (Dec 26, 2010)

Shhhh go to sleep.

In your dreams the world works exactly as you want it to work!

Unless your mental control is poor, that's when the nightmares take over.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 26, 2010)

JeffB said:


> In 3.x we got even got a few double doses of this stuff thanks to the rules changes.




Sword and Fist -> Complete Warrior
Tome and Blood -> Complete Arcane
Defenders of the Faith -> Complete Divine
Manual of the Planes -> Planar Handbook
Psionics Handbook -> Expanded Psionics Handbook


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 26, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Sword and Fist -> Complete Warrior
> Tome and Blood -> Complete Arcane
> Defenders of the Faith -> Complete Divine
> Manual of the Planes -> Planar Handbook
> Psionics Handbook -> Expanded Psionics Handbook




I'm also concerned about WotC's consistent reuse of product titles from the 1970's and 1980's. 

Rules Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Unearthed Arcana

heck .... 

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide 
all of the monster books 

Why not create rather than reuse. Even, *World of Warcraft* is more innovative then WotC!

Or worse still, they didn't put Dark Sun or Eberron through a Realms Shattering Event like they did for Forgotten Realms!

I mean why on earth would I want to play in a Dark Sun world that hasn't changed since the early 1990's?!?! 

There, Christmas is ruined.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 26, 2010)

The D&D design team at WotC split into two groups earlier in the year.  The fruits of that change should be evident late next year.

I think it's premature to say D&D as a whole is flaming out, but essentials re-imagining came out less than 2.5 years from the June 2008 release of 4E so it's certainly a shorter cycle than in the past. 

On the other hand, if they have truly created the evergreen D&D baseline with essentials, then the edition may pretty much already be all its intended to be.  In this case the new design teams may take the brand in directions it has never gone before - which may invigorate it.  I think 2011's Gen Con (if not D&D Experience) will go a long way towards showing D&D's future.

I think the D&D RPG model as we have known it is pretty much done (for WotC - not for Paizo).  I'll be interested to see what a new model brings for WotC.  I would not be surprised to see a re-imagining (or at least alternative) of the way to play the game.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 26, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> WotC: D&D 3.0-3.5 - 3 years.
> 
> TSR: AD&D 2.0-2.5 (Player's Option) - 6 years. AD&D1.0-1.5 (Unearthed Arcana, etc) - 6 years.




I've always sort of considered 3.0-3.5 to be essentially the same edition, repackaged, for an 8-year cycle total (5 years for 3.5 alone), but with a lot of re-use throughout internally. That repeat/reuse was frustrating then.

I don't take as much issue with cross-edition repackaging ... after all, you do want to bring core elements up to whatever the new mechanical baseline is.  4E had a lot of innovative changes, so it seems reasonable to expect to update/re-write a lot of prior mechanical material into the new mechanics.  But much of the Essentials line looks like a repackaging internal to 4E.  I suppose that's like a 3.5 without a 4.5 label.

Got it on all the business reasons to continue to sell products ... but where are the new innovative products?  Is the answer to shop Paizo for Pathfinder?


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 26, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I've always sort of considered 3.0-3.5 to be essentially the same edition, repackaged, for an 8-year cycle total (5 years for 3.5 alone), but with a lot of re-use throughout internally. That repeat/reuse was frustrating then.
> 
> I don't take as much issue with cross-edition repackaging ... after all, you do want to bring core elements up to whatever the new mechanical baseline is.  4E had a lot of innovative changes, so it seems reasonable to expect to update/re-write a lot of prior mechanical material into the new mechanics.  But much of the Essentials line looks like a repackaging internal to 4E.  I suppose that's like a 3.5 without a 4.5 label.
> 
> Got it on all the business reasons to continue to sell products ... but where are the new innovative products?  Is the answer to shop Paizo for Pathfinder?




I was being a little facetious in some of my earlier responses, but I respectfully disagree about the 3.0-3.5 transition. It felt much more drastic and annoying than the 4.0-Essentials transition. I felt that WotC forced me to buy the 3.5 books to stay current. The current model is much more seamless and has many more workarounds -- including free articles to help transition between the maths, explicit statements about their design philosophy, and their attempts to make Essentials and early 4e compatible. 

But above all, yes the cycle for change has dramatically shortened. 

I think one innovative step I'd like to see is WotC have a one more more products that also support miniature-less gaming. 

It would be a niche product possibly, but it would be a money-maker I have no doubt. It could probably be part of 4e's version of _*Unearthed Arcana*_.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 26, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> The D&D design team at WotC split into two groups earlier in the year.  The fruits of that change should be evident late next year.



Wow, really?  I didn't know this.  What two teams were they split into and are they focusing on totally different things?



DaveMage said:


> I think it's premature to say D&D as a whole is flaming out, but essentials re-imagining came out less than 2.5 years from the June 2008 release of 4E so it's certainly a shorter cycle than in the past.




Interestingly, I don't see essentials as a re-imagining of past material, since we use Essentials PCs and "traditional" 4e PCs in the same campaign, and our Essentials player has some non-essentials powers and one of our "traditional" PCs uses an Essentials power.

Isn't Essentials more a parallel design paradigm that works with the existing one?

Now... there were some rules changes for powers introduced with Essentials, but I don't think that merits it being a re-imagining of previous material to the extent that the OP is claiming.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 26, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Got it on all the business reasons to continue to sell products ... but where are the new innovative products?  Is the answer to shop Paizo for Pathfinder?




Paizo hasn't been deviating much from WotC in this regard, unless one considers cranking out two distinct Adventure Paths per year to be "innovative".


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 26, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wow, really?  I didn't know this.  What two teams were they split into and are they focusing on totally different things?




Hopefully someone can find the link to the threads that discussed it.  My search abilities are no more. 




catsclaw227 said:


> Interestingly, I don't see essentials as a re-imagining of past material, since we use Essentials PCs and "traditional" 4e PCs in the same campaign, and our Essentials player has some non-essentials powers and one of our "traditional" PCs uses an Essentials power.
> 
> Isn't Essentials more a parallel design paradigm that works with the existing one?
> 
> Now... there were some rules changes for powers introduced with Essentials, but I don't think that merits it being a re-imagining of previous material to the extent that the OP is claiming.




"Re-imagining" was probably too strong a term.  Let's go with "re-organizing".


----------



## Asmor (Dec 26, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I was surfing Amazon today looking for a way to burn up a new gift card.  I haven't bought any new D&D books in a year or so, and figured there would be some great and intriguing new products out there.  Much to my disappointment, it seems like the majority of recent WotC publications -- Dark Sun aside -- are essentially repackagings of existing material.  Looking ahead, the only item in the next year's worth of projected publications that caught my eye as interesting/original is the _Neverwinter Campaign Setting_.
> 
> That may just be my perception, of course, but it did lead to this question: is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out?  We're three years into the current edition, and if we're already reaching the point where much of the official publication is repackaging/reimagining rather than truly original exciting material, I don't think it bodes well.  Particularly as it seems the cycle has accelerated compared to the flame out/reboot times of the prior couple of edition cycles. (Note: this is not intended to be and edition war comment as I'm not comparing the edition content but rather the publishing cycles).
> 
> Or have I just become an old(er) grognard?




Haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if someone else brought this up...

While Essentials appears to be a repackaging, it's really more of a combination of a splat book and a rules clarification (I hesitate to use the word update, because very little of consequence has actually changed). While the classes in the player books have the same names as existing classes, they're actually entirely new builds and in most cases play radically different from how the original builds played (e.g. the martial classes tend to use mostly basic attacks, which are augmented by a variety of stances the character has access to).

That said, the DM stuff is pretty much all repackaging, and if you've got the DMG stay away from the DM kit. The Monster Vault is in many ways a redo of the Monster Manual, but with the "new math" (MM1 and MM2 era monsters were, in many cases, ridiculously underpowered). There's also a lot of flavor text added, though, and the tokens are nice too.

So in summation, Essentials may appear as a repackaging, but it's really more of an expansion of the same sort D&D's always thrived on.


----------



## ggroy (Dec 26, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wow, really?  I didn't know this.  What two teams were they split into and are they focusing on totally different things?




The team was rearranged back in May 2010, shortly after the WotC mid-year layoffs.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 26, 2010)

Well D&D (as well as most fantasy) is 90% redoing from edition to edition and 10% new stuff.

But then again, so are movies, books, most magazine articles. 

Blogs and most internet posts are more like 99% old and 1% new.  (including this one)

People always redo things, but the new stuff is what is interesting. So I have no problems with playing edition after edition of D&D. Each one is mostly the same, (dragons, elves, spells, etc) but the 10% is more than enough to keep my interest.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 26, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> "Re-imagining" was probably too strong a term.  Let's go with "re-organizing".



Fair 'nuff.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 26, 2010)

ggroy said:


> The team was rearranged back in May 2010, shortly after the WotC mid-year layoffs.



Very interesting.  I missed that.  I wonder if they filled those empty posts he mentioned in the article. Or I wonder if they are going with freelance writers as well.


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 26, 2010)

_Essentials_ seems to have a different focus than other D&D mid-edition revamps - it appears to be designed to grow the brand and clean things up a little rather than a major tweak to the rules.

On the setting note, Dark Sun was out-sourced for 3.0/3.5, and Eberron ended up not getting nuked because of the fan fall-out that happened from giving Forgotten Realms the Dragonlance treatment.

I suspect that WotC is more intereted in trying out new things with the brand in order to try and grow it instead of sticking to previous publishing cycles.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 26, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> That may just be my perception, of course, but it did lead to this question: is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out?




Yep, might as well stick a fork in it!


My real answer is this - its like Star Wars - even though everything after the first movie was at best OK, we all go see whatever new movie/show comes out. The same thing with D&D - when the new edition comes out, all you lemmings will buy the first set of books no matter if you are currently a 4er, 3er, Pathfinder, Savage Worlder, or Olde Skooler.*

* I actually have high hopes for 5e - I am a man of the odd numbered edition (1e, 3e), but not the evens (2e, 4e).


----------



## Crothian (Dec 26, 2010)

I have something to say.  It's better to burn out then to fade away!


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 26, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> _Essentials_ seems to have a different focus than other D&D mid-edition revamps - it appears to be designed to grow the brand and clean things up a little rather than a major tweak to the rules.
> 
> On the setting note, Dark Sun was out-sourced for 3.0/3.5, and Eberron ended up not getting nuked because of the fan fall-out that happened from giving Forgotten Realms the Dragonlance treatment.
> 
> I suspect that WotC is more intereted in trying out new things with the brand in order to try and grow it instead of sticking to previous publishing cycles.




I think you were referring to my post earlier. Re: Dark Sun and Eberron, I was actually just being sarcastic. I like how both turned out. Its nice that they stuck to their 'core values'.   As for FR, I personally love the RSE -- Spellplague. FR, more than all of TSR/WotC settings, was pretty bloated and needed some sort of pruning.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 26, 2010)

You know instead of having posts like this, i would like to see everyone that still goes for edition wars, to get in speedo's oil and wrestle it out. I would pay good money to see that.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 26, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> You know instead of having posts like this, i would like to see everyone that still goes for edition wars, to get in speedo's oil and wrestle it out. I would pay good money to see that.




Since gamers are typically the paragon of fitness......this doesn't sound that bad. Maybe it should be a GenCon staple and a half-time show for the ENies......

C.I.D.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 26, 2010)

To the OP.  Take a look at MerricB's post about the same thing.  I think it's titled something like "Will 2011 be the last year for WotC D&D?


----------



## carmachu (Dec 27, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> The D&D design team at WotC split into two groups earlier in the year. The fruits of that change should be evident late next year.
> 
> I think it's premature to say D&D as a whole is flaming out, but essentials re-imagining came out less than 2.5 years from the June 2008 release of 4E so it's certainly a shorter cycle than in the past.




One could already argue its started already before, with the new red box, the essentials. They're alreday moving slightly away from 4e with reimaging.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Dec 27, 2010)

The short answer is yes. WOTC D&D is flaming out. It's sad.

The good news is that RPGs are not dying. Shifting, as always, but doing just fine in their little niche. I have no doubt that D&D and tabletop RPGs will continue to be a perfectly playable hobby for the remainder of my lifetime, and I plan on being around for another half century at least.

Will WOTC be able to re-light the D&D engine, or will someone else buy the brand and do it? My guess is that WOTC holds on to D&D and makes a marginally better 5e. 4.5e/Essentials is already much better than 4e. Heinsoo and Collins are both gone. Mearls seems to have seen the light. The most important guy is Slaviscek at the moment; I'm not sure if he understands what went wrong with 4e or not. I never thought he would have made that mistake in the first place, so who knows. But my gut says how could he not have learned from the debacle, and that 4.5e/Essentials is evidence of that learning.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 27, 2010)

Maybe WotC "flamed out" long ago, if all people are interested in is regurgitation of D&D and Magic The Gathering.

Would you be interested in *Dream Craft*, *Everway* or *The Primal Order*?

How about *Diplomacy*, *Axis & Allies* and *Robo Rally*? *Heroscape*? *Alpha Blitz*, *Guillotine* or *Pivot*?

Can't sell you *Barbarossa* or *Wellington's Victory*? *Dawn Patrol*, *Star Probe* or *Divine Right*? No *Cavaliers & Roundheads*, *Chainmail*, *Tricolor*, *Tractics* or *Don't Give Up The Ship*? No *Awful Green Things From Outer Space*, *Snit's Revenge*, *Knights of Camelot* or *Dungeon!*? *They've Invaded Pleasantville* or *Revolt on Antares*?

How about *Steppe*, *Maxi Bour$e*, *4th Dimension*, *Chase* or *Elixir*?

You wouldn't even buy *Boot Hill*, *Gamma World*, *Top Secret*, *Gangbusters* or *Star Frontiers*?

These particular titles are not the point. The point is that a game company thrives on selling games to gamers. There is only so much innovation to wring out of a single franchise. TSR Hobbies, Inc., published many different games -- and, in the 1990s, Wizards of the Coast tried to branch out as well rather than get stuck as a "one trick pony".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 27, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Paizo hasn't been deviating much from WotC in this regard, unless one considers cranking out two distinct Adventure Paths per year to be "innovative".




It's innovative if you compare it to the adventure material WoTC has been putting out in Dungeon. Which to me is a sad thing. It seems, at least adventure wise, WoTC had a golden opportunity to learn from all Paizo did with Dungeon in print and with their Adventure Path material and decided that it was hard work, milk some old titles after the one adventure path they did do, and forsake higher level play and focus on adventurers that were almost entirely strung together encounters.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 27, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> You know instead of having posts like this, i would like to see everyone that still goes for edition wars, to get in speedo's oil and wrestle it out. I would pay good money to see that.




If you get that, then I'd like to see the ladies of the edition wars offer an interpretive dance of the saga thus far.


----------



## Ulrick (Dec 27, 2010)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> That may just be my perception, of course, but it did lead to this question: is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out? .....
> 
> Or have I just become an old(er) grognard?




A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. 

I, too, have noticed the acceleration of the production cycle: More splatbooks in less time, a new version ("essentials") released at a record speed, etc. 

But, I lean toward grognard. Let's face it: WotC did not target 4e toward older players. They want younger players who have not seen all of this stuff before to replenish the ranks. The Red Box is possibly an exception.

People who are 30+ are not WotC's target market. Heck, in 2004 Matthew Sarnett, Dragon Magazine Editor-in-Chief remarked in issue #320: "The age of the average D&D player is closer to thirty than thirteen, and the audience is aging."

That was a little over six years ago. In the same "Wyrm's Turn" he said how the game needed to change to attract younger players by catering to their tastes, tastes that have been exposed to fantasy before being exposed to D&D. 

I think WotC's product line has declined further with 4e. But then again, I've already made my investment in AD&D, both 1e and 2e, and 3.0/3.5e. I've seen everything before.

Perhaps the same has happened to you and many others.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 27, 2010)

In terms of marketing, Essentials is all up in the older players 'base' if you will. Even the carton ad they just did with the 30 second bunny theater isn't about some new 4e adventure, it's about a 30 year old adventure.

Much of the language of Essentials comes right from older editions including rogue having a thief option and a backstab power among other bits.

WoTC keeps trying to get the 40+ crowd to play a game they know and loved when they were kids but doesn't seem to get that the monstrous rules bloat is just sending them, if they choose to keep playing, into the arms of the various retro clones.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 27, 2010)

Well, I can't honestly say if D&D is flaming out since we don't get to see their financials and make any analytical projections. Obviously, their scaling back, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that they are getting ready for the deadbook. 

All business models go through peaks and troughs though and I guess we'll all have differing views as where WotC is in a peak or a trough. For some of us, D&D has been in it's downfall since they announced 2e and for others, many believe that we're climbing the slope to the peak for DDI and 4e is bringing a Golden Age.

As for me, I think WotC is in a bit of a trough due to the scaling back, but I think they will figure out something to reach their next peak. Time will tell.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 27, 2010)

D&D 4e IS flaming out. 

Matt Sprang, head of Mongoose, is a very clever RPG businessman. He apparently has a way of working out the actual sales figures of his competitors from various sources (I am referring to a cryptic reference he made in his book 'I am Mongoose, so can you').

Matt has recently stated in his annual 'State of Mongoose' 

see here Mongoose Publishing : For All Your Gaming Needs ...

that 4E sales are in the doldrums and that Pathfinder is doing very well. Hence why Mongoose is pulling out of 4E completely and going with Pathfinder (incidentally, No; this is about DATA and not about edition wars. I don't play Pathfinder).

And for those who think the hobby is healthy, Matt also has some warnings; he is looking to diversify because RPGs are no longer sellling as they once did. I believe that the 4E debacle has done serious damage to the hobby (and no, I am not a 4E hater; though I don't play it anymore).

I think 2011 could be challenging times indeed for this hobby.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2010)

There is a sense of the waves drawing out to sea just before it comes crashing back in...or is it the dragon's in-breath just before...???

It does seem that WotC is reformulating how they do D&D. A lot has been said of the Essentials line as being an "evergreen" product that gives them a baseline to fall back on. But what if it is a last hurrah, at least in terms of print versions of D&D? I would like to think that we will continue to see new and interesting takes (editions, sub-editions, new product lines, etc) of D&D every few years but in actuality what I believe is going on is a re-centralization of D&D around DDI, that--as I said some months ago--DDI is the new core game and thus always "in-print", infinitely update-able and with no need for awkward errata sheets crammed into the back of your _Player's Handbook.

_But the truth is, I like my books. I don't want my D&D library to be my computer. Call me a luddite. Call me old school, an old fogey, I don't care. To take a lick from Sting, albeit with a very different meaning, _I want my pen-and-paper RPGs! _

And I want them to be pen-and-paper.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2010)

> Would you be interested in Dream Craft, Everway or The Primal Order?
> 
> How about Diplomacy, Axis & Allies and Robo Rally? Heroscape? Alpha Blitz, Guillotine or Pivot?
> 
> ...




I have played and would play most of those again...


----------



## Derulbaskul (Dec 27, 2010)

While I have been incredibly critical about WotC's e-turds and the whole DDI mess (and the testicle-free zone which is WotC's leadership), I think 2010 has brought some real positives to the D&D brand.

Essentials worked well. 4.5E was much better handled than 3.5E, so much so that most people reject the idea of Essentials as 4.5E.

_Gamma World_ was also an important product. I really like it, feedback across the 'net seems positive and I can't wait to get the next two boxed sets and run a campaign from 1st to 10th. I'm really hoping the success of _Gamma World_ will result in some other 4E-based games in 2011: _Star Frontiers_ would be my first pick although I am not sure if it is a popular enough franchise to resurrect. I would also love to see a standalone steampunk/fantasy western game created in the same way (like FFG's _Spellslinger_ for 3E).


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 27, 2010)

If WoTC's DND was "flaming out" then WOTC would have various employees log onto ENWorld and make the following announcements:


For fun WOTC employees love printing out OGL statements, or gathering old DnD Books, for kindling.

4e WAS the one true edition.... 

5e IS HERE ALL YOUR BOOKS ARE OBSOLETE!!!!1111!!  LOL

TEH NEXT DND SETTING IS BASED ON AN ANIME VIDEO GAME AND WILL BE A COLLECTIBLE CARD GAME EXPANSION SET FOR MAGIC THE GATHERING AND WILL BE CALLED _MAGIC AND GATHERINGS_ !!!!  

HASBRO has ordered WoTC to sell off all DnD related IP to Keven Siembieda for 1 penny.  In return, WoTC has agreed to toss its entire collection of material related to the Dungeons and Dragon's brand into a blast furnace... and post the video onto YOUTUBE, HULU, and iTunes.

WoTC would post one message in which they would defaming every ENworld visiting celebrity and their accomplishments while espousing the virtues and superiority of the bad layout using "purple site".

There would be one message that also lists every writer who worked on a DnD related property/brand then proceed in calling each and every one of them a talentless hack. 

WoTC would announce that the reason they killed GLEEMax was because they Sold it to FACEBOOK.  Yes, that's right... FACEBOOK IS GLEEMAX!

WoTC's final message would be photograph of EGG's grave, DND Oe, and a Fire with a grandma inappropriate message that is aimed at the viewer.....


Unless WoTC does all (or any) of that, I doubt they will "flame out."  If anything they will vanish into nothing like many companies did during the 3.0e -> 3.5e bust.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 27, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> If you get that, then I'd like to see the ladies of the edition wars offer an interpretive dance of the saga thus far.




Now I've got an image in my head of D&D bohemians LARPing to a bongo accompaniment...


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 27, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> It's innovative if you compare it to the adventure material WoTC has been putting out in Dungeon. Which to me is a sad thing. It seems, at least adventure wise, WoTC had a golden opportunity to learn from all Paizo did with Dungeon in print and with their Adventure Path material and decided that it was hard work, milk some old titles after the one adventure path they did do, and forsake higher level play and focus on adventurers that were almost entirely strung together encounters.




The boardgame Kill Doctor Lucky is probably Paizo's most innovative product. 
Writing good adventures is hardly innovative. 
Adventure Paths are hardly innovative. 
Pathfinder is quite specifically not meant to be innovative.
Innovative is hard and risky; most innovations fail. People who follow on those innovations can identify the errors and make corrections, but the first time you try something it always has things wrong.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 27, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> The boardgame Kill Doctor Lucky is probably Paizo's most innovative product.




Funny since Kill Doctor Lucky is an "expensive" repackaging of the game designed by "Cheapass" Games.

Irony of ironies.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 27, 2010)

I have no idea if anything is flaming out but the 2011 release schedule keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Also, there has been no news of layoffs which is a good thing. 

If we combine the lack of layoffs with an ever shrinking production schedule then it points to efforts being devoted to unknown projects.


----------



## delericho (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm pretty sure the answer is "maybe".

No, because the plan for this year was always to focus on Essentials, which was a deliberate repackaging/clean-up of 4e (the same way 3.5e was for  4e, but without the same level of rule changes, and handled much better, IMO). Given its purpose, then, this year was always going to look like the creative well had run dry.

Yes, because RPGs don't sell all that well, and because vanilla ice cream sells best despite not being anybody's favourite. (It sells really well because although everyone prefers something else, they rarely agree. Vanilla is thus the acceptable compromise.) What this means is that WotC, in order to sell enough units to enough people, are forced to stick with the 'vanilla' path, deliberately avoiding more obscure variants. The problem is, we've long since reached the point where people have enough of that - how many people _don't_ have enough game material to last them until the day they die?

(It's maybe worth noting that WotC did "Dark Sun" and "Gamma World", two of the most 'out there' variants, in the same year that they reaped the sales boost from a new packaging of the core rules. I would be very surprised if either sold anywhere near as well as, say, Forgotten Realms, or if they did well enough to sell as _the_ setting in a 'normal' year.)


----------



## ggroy (Dec 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If we combine the lack of layoffs with an ever shrinking production schedule then it points to efforts being devoted to unknown projects.




A conspiracy theorist would say, it's to produce a 5E D&D.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 27, 2010)

Ahh, but a truly good vanilla ice cream - say, Ben & Jerry's or Haagen-Dazs or even better, my homemade gelato - is the most exquisite and subtly delicious of all ice cream flavors. Sometimes simple is not boring; if it is done well, with richly complex undertones, it is the most fulfilling of all flavors.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 27, 2010)

JeffB said:


> TSR and WOTC have been regurgitating materials since the mid to late 1E days. every edition does- demon books, planes books, psionic books, setting books, magic items book,  splatbooks for PCs, high level/epic level boosk, etc etc.
> 
> In 3.x we got even got a few double doses of this stuff thanks to the rules changes.
> 
> ...




THIS

I'm one of those who actually WAS happy that there was a major shakeup of the fluff for 4E.

I've been playing since 1e, (Dming since 2e) and I think I had simply gotten tired reading the same material over and over again.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 27, 2010)

I haven't read this entire thread, so take this with a grain of salt.  When I read the OP's first post, the thing that resonated with me wasn't disappointment with WotC or the impending doom of our hobby; it was a desire for newer and fresher ideas.  And I think everybody would like to see more of that.

I don't think anybody believes that WotC is running out of ideas.  Some of us might not like what we've seen lately, but that doesn't suggest the Wizards have stopped creating stuff.


----------



## delericho (Dec 27, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Ahh, but a truly good vanilla ice cream - say, Ben & Jerry's or Haagen-Dazs or even better, my homemade gelato - is the most exquisite and subtly delicious of all ice cream flavors. Sometimes simple is not boring; if it is done well, with richly complex undertones, it is the most fulfilling of all flavors.




Very true.

Innovation may be over-rated. Often, it's better just to give us something good!


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 27, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> I haven't read this entire thread, so take this with a grain of salt. When I read the OP's first post, the thing that resonated with me wasn't disappointment with WotC or the impending doom of our hobby; it was a desire for newer and fresher ideas. And I think everybody would like to see more of that.
> 
> I don't think anybody believes that WotC is running out of ideas. Some of us might not like what we've seen lately, but that doesn't suggest the Wizards have stopped creating stuff.




That's actually what puzzles me about this thread. The main issue with the WotC 2011 content, from what we've seen, is _too much_ innovation, isn't it? 

Instead of getting PHB4 and Divine Power 2, etc, we've got the Essentials line and Heroes of Shadow. Instead of getting the usual splatbooks, we've got Champions of the Heroic Tier with themes and more player options. Instead of MM4, we've got Monster Vault 1 and 2, which come with tokens, maps, adventures. Instead of more location books, we've got a Shadowfell boxed setting, and instead of another setting, we've got the Ravenloft RPG, which sounds like it will be both more D&_D and _something new. 

Honestly, most of the complaints I've heard have been over the differences - that we _aren't _seeing the same stuff we've had for the last few years. And those complaints may well be valid - I'd love to see more of a balance amidst all the products, myself - but focusing on the lack of innovation seems rather strange given how many experimental new products seem on the radar for the coming year.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 27, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> The boardgame Kill Doctor Lucky is probably Paizo's most innovative product.
> Writing good adventures is hardly innovative.
> Adventure Paths are hardly innovative.




Nor are they automatically good. Adventure Paths are railroad fests and sorry Dragonlance already did that and did it better.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 27, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Nor are they automatically good. Adventure Paths are railroad fests ...




Agreed- I'd like to see the modern "adventure path" (from any and all publishers) go the way of the do-do bird.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 27, 2010)

Never Mind...


----------



## Haltherrion (Dec 27, 2010)

Yeah, I had a similar experience. They aren't making books I really want to buy beyond the core and powers books. They tend to tie them too much to the standard setting or their published settings. Came close to buying the book on demons 'cuz I love the aesthetic of them but the write-up/reviews made it sound like most of the material was on the standard Abyss and other settings. I don't mind some of that because I have no problem retargetting but the books seemed to be mostly on the standard setting with a little bit of re-targettable stuff. So I got some books for my new kindle instead.


----------



## tvknight415 (Dec 28, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I have something to say.  It's better to burn out then to fade away!




I like what you've done with your hair Kurgan!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 28, 2010)

ggroy said:


> A conspiracy theorist would say, it's to produce a 5E D&D.



No, no.  2011 is the year of the Essentials D&D line.  After that we will get additional D&D lines as follows:

Fundamentals
Indispensible
Irrevocable
and finally when WotC gets D&D to become part of the national school curriculum: Obligatory


----------



## Diamond Cross (Dec 28, 2010)

Yep here's the thing we see:

We want new material please publish it!

New material appears:

They changed it now it sucks!

But you guys wanted new material and new ideas!

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Might as well not.


----------



## korjik (Dec 28, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Yep here's the thing we see:
> 
> We want new material please publish it!
> 
> ...




There are quite a few of us who have been saying all along that all we wanted was the old rules fixed. Getting another set of error prone rules that are not well thought out just dosent do anything for me.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Dec 28, 2010)

Except that if WotC actually did that it wouldn't be satisfactory to many of those people and they'd just find something wrong with those rules as well. No matter what WotC does there will always be a section of an unpleasable fan base.

So again, damned if they do and damned if they don't. Might as well not and do your own thing and forge on ahead.


----------



## delericho (Dec 28, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> No matter what WotC does there will always be a section of an unpleasable fan base.




There will always be a _small_ section of the fan base who are unpleasable. Those people should, indeed, be ignored.

There is a much larger segment who _could_ be pleased, but whom WotC are not pleasing. Simply ignoring that segment is a bad idea, especially if it's possible to please that group without also alienating the people who are currently pleased with the offering.

Very often, people are critical not because they _hate_ the game but because they _love_ the game and genuinely want to see it improved.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2010)

delericho said:


> There is a much larger segment who _could_ be pleased, but whom WotC are not pleasing. Simply ignoring that segment is a bad idea, especially if it's possible to please that group without also alienating the people who are currently pleased with the offering.




Ah, but those people who could be pleased will probably not be all pleased by the same thing.  And there lies the crux of the matter - no one product (or product line, or product strategy) is going to please everyone, or even most, any more than one novel will please most readers of fiction all at once.

Gamer tastes in games are kind of like their tastes in pizza - everyone has their favorite combination of things they want to see that would please them, but in order to really and truly please everyone, everyone would need their own individual pizza.  Otherwise, someone's putting up with something they feel is sub-optimal.

I am coming to the opinion that frequently it is our own inflexibility and unwillingness to accept the sub-optimal as still pretty good that's alienating us from things, more than what gets produced.  This goes beyond gaming, by the way, to culture in general.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 28, 2010)

All I know is that WotC isn't making products that interest me anymore, and I really do wish they did have a line of products that fit my tastes.  For now, my money is simply going to other companies, which certainly can't be helping their profit margin.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 28, 2010)

DocMoriartty said:


> Nor are they automatically good. Adventure Paths are railroad fests and sorry Dragonlance already did that and did it better.




The first sentence is true, the second one is absolutely false.   Look at Kingmaker AP from Paizo.  The new Slumbing Tsar from ex-Necromancer games' One Frog God Games. 

I abjectly deny that adventure paths are all railroads and are a bad thing.

I ran Age of Worms and had a great time sandoxing the side of the game.


----------



## Asmor (Dec 28, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> The first sentence is true, the second one is absolutely false.   Look at Kingmaker AP from Paizo.  The new Slumbing Tsar from ex-Necromancer games' One Frog God Games.
> 
> I abjectly deny that adventure paths are all railroads and are a bad thing.
> 
> I ran Age of Worms and had a great time sandoxing the side of the game.




Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a railroad. Perhaps one with lots of branches and tracks, but still a finite number. Adventure paths only exacerbate the issue by forcing assumptions as to the resolution of previous adventures.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 28, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> All I know is that WotC isn't making products that interest me anymore, and I really do wish they did have a line of products that fit my tastes.  For now, my money is simply going to other companies, which certainly can't be helping their profit margin.



That depends upon whether the cost of producing something that interests you would also interest enough other people to make those products profitable.  If not then ignoring you helps their profit margin more than catering to you.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 28, 2010)

Paizo's older AP's Shackled City and Age of Worms are IMO both A+++ campaigns and the perfect example of how a campaign should be. It is telling a great heroic story from start to finish with plenty of room for side quests and player determined material. 

The third one (Blood Drenched Tides?) I didn't find so good but it has proven invaluable for ideas, scenarios and plots for the current Pathfinder campaign I preparing for.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 28, 2010)

delericho said:


> I'm pretty sure the answer is "maybe".





I am 50% confident your answer is probable.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Dec 28, 2010)

I just know that deep in my heart the answer is possibly.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I am coming to the opinion that frequently it is our own inflexibility and unwillingness to accept the sub-optimal as still pretty good that's alienating us from things, more than what gets produced.  This goes beyond gaming, by the way, to culture in general.




I actually think that is a strength for pen and paper games, not a detriment.

When I play WOW, I'm getting pepperoni Dominos pizza. Its good pizza, but if I want pineapple Papa Johns I'm out of luck.

Its the fact that PnP games are so flexible and customizable that allows each group to "get its own pizza". While its a pain for the makers of PnP products, ultimately I think its what keeps their industry afloat.


----------



## rounser (Dec 28, 2010)

> Ah, but those people who could be pleased will probably not be all pleased by the same thing. And there lies the crux of the matter - no one product (or product line, or product strategy) is going to please everyone, or even most, any more than one novel will please most readers of fiction all at once.



But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.  

Would they have alienated less existing players and drawn more new players if they'd tried something more like a fix of 3E and the AD&Ds (as say 3e was to 2e, but with faster combats and prep as goals for instance) rather than rolling the dice on a new game wearing the D&D logo? In retrospect, I think that is highly likely.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 28, 2010)

rounser said:


> But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.
> 
> Would they have alienated less existing players and drawn more new players if they'd tried something more like a fix of 3E and the AD&Ds (as say 3e was to 2e, but with faster combats and prep as goals for instance) rather than rolling the dice on a new game wearing the D&D logo? In retrospect, I think that is highly likely.




I think so. If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X rather than completely overhaul the entire system (yet again in the history of D&D) then I think players of D&D would be both happier and be more unified than under two completely different systems.


----------



## rounser (Dec 28, 2010)

> If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X



Not "ever so slightly", IMO, that would be 3.5.  No, some degree of change of the order of 2e -> 3e.  4e is more of a brand new fantasy heartbreaker which borrows from D&D IP to me, and several bridges too far.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 28, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> It is telling a great heroic story from start to finish with plenty of room for side quests and player determined material.




Which is exactly what I hate about AP products. Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line? 

If not, you might as well just play Baldur's Gate- you've got plenty of little side quests and you can make things ever so slightly peronsalized by your actions, but from start to finish, it's already been written.

I'm not singling out any one person here, you just happened to say it DL.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 29, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> I think so. If they had just tinkered every so slightly with 3.X rather than completely overhaul the entire system (yet again in the history of D&D) then I think players of D&D would be both happier and be more unified than under two completely different systems.




I'm going to agree with you, and my rationale is Pathfinder. 

PF is really nothing more than spit-and-polish on the 3.X kernel and its selling damn well thankyouverymuch. I'm sure a D&D 4e that went a bit further (fixing the weird math wonkiness, esp in good/poor saves, simplifying elements, etc) would have created a D&D that would be a mix of 3e, PF, and Essentials elements all rolled into one. It probably would have done a lot better than the 4e we got for the first two years, to boot.

Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.




I'm not sure it's entirely a rules thing either. Ruleset matters less to me, but when you slaughter sacred cows willy nilly and redefine many of the game's concepts, including using classic names for very different creatures, that's where the fundamental disconnect is. I wouldn't discount the flavor and fluff changes as part of the reception, alongside the rules.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 29, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a railroad. Perhaps one with lots of branches and tracks, but still a finite number. Adventure paths only exacerbate the issue by forcing assumptions as to the resolution of previous adventures.




I guess this discussion is dependent upon the wildly different ideas of what a railroad is!   It's almost as hard as defining what a sandbox is and ultimately what D&D is.  

These arguements hurt my head...  So I will say, in my campaign a pre-published AP is not a railroad unless the DM runs it like one.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> Which is exactly what I hate about AP products. Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?




They can do, but I think that a lot of roleplayers like having a story to tell. You can make it up as you go along or have a sandbox and that's cool but I think thats a minority group within roleplayers.



> If not, you might as well just play Baldur's Gate- you've got plenty of little side quests and you can make things ever so slightly peronsalized by your actions, but from start to finish, it's already been written.
> 
> I'm not singling out any one person here, you just happened to say it DL.




Not singled out at all. It's all good discussion. 

The difference here is that playing an adventure path the group can still make decisions that move it from prewritten scenario. They can do side quests or talk to NPC's, come up with their own way of doing thins. You can't do that with a computer RPG such as Baldurs Gate. There you have a single path but it is a real railroaded one. An adventure path isn't.



Remathilis said:


> I'm going to agree with you, and my rationale is Pathfinder.
> 
> PF is really nothing more than spit-and-polish on the 3.X kernel and its selling damn well thankyouverymuch. I'm sure a D&D 4e that went a bit further (fixing the weird math wonkiness, esp in good/poor saves, simplifying elements, etc) would have created a D&D that would be a mix of 3e, PF, and Essentials elements all rolled into one. It probably would have done a lot better than the 4e we got for the first two years, to boot.
> 
> Hell, if the D&D we received in 2008 was more like Essentials, I think it would have been better accepted.




I can't disagree with any of that.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> ...Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?




No.

I've found that "should" and "shouldn't" are inapplicable as concerns game play, especially when it comes to the versatility of RPG's and the diversity of gamers.  Some desire or even need that plot.  Others don't want or need that plot.  If AP's were universally unwanted, they wouldn't exist.  Yet they do.  And more than just exist, they seem to be rather popular.  If they aren't your cup of tea, then Cool.

But "Shouldn't" doesn't apply.


----------



## Shazman (Dec 29, 2010)

rounser said:


> But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.
> 
> A thousand times this!  It seems that they realize this somewhat since Essentials seems to be an abrupt backpedaling to try and win back many that passed on 4E.  Unfortunately, it seems to be too little, too late.  They now have Pathfinder and retroclones to compete with.  It seems they were doomed once they decided to make a complete break with many traditions of the game. D&D has strong name recognition but not strong enough to sell a game that bears little resemblance to the D&D that many fans cut their RPG teeth on.


----------



## darjr (Dec 29, 2010)

Don't forget the GSL and the way 3rd party companies were 'introduced' to 4e. I think that now the defacto standard is Pathfinder for 3rd party developers. Or 3.5 with an eye towards Pathfinder compatibility.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 29, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> These arguements hurt my head...  So I will say, in my campaign a pre-published AP is not a railroad unless the DM runs it like one.




Absolutely. 

If you are incapable of running a published adventure without making it seem like a railroad? Then that goes to the DM's skill or lack therof. There are a few cases where it's the fault of a poorly written mod, but for the most part it's totally possible to run something like Curse of the Crimson throne (which I'm running right now) and have it be enjoyable and fun. 

Especially if your clear with your players at the outset that youre running something like that. Saying that AP's = Railroads = Bad is just another way of saying we're doing it wrong and it's badwrong fun.


----------



## korjik (Dec 29, 2010)

Shazman said:


> rounser said:
> 
> 
> > But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.
> ...




I think it is even worse than what you have here. Breaking with the prior editions did not fix any problems, it just created a whole new set of problems. Now after a couple years, instead of fixing the problems (like say dual-stat classes) they go and make another break, and we will see another set of problems.

That is half of what got me out of running D&D. Essentials, to me, is WOTC saying that they arent going to fix anything, just make new rules sets that are only partly compatable and call it better. 4e's only saving grace is its simplicity. Tossing that got me out.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Dec 29, 2010)

I think the internet community would be a lot more pleasant if somebody at WotC actually made an effort to engage us over the issues.

Look at Matthew Sprange: Mongoose has screwed up more times than most can count but he had the balls to come to ENWorld and other places, 'fess up and then detail how things were going to be fixed. And he's taken questions and handled criticism, even of the non-constructive kind, with good grace.

Compare and contrast with Bill "I know all about orchidectomies" Slavicsek. His only contribution to the poo-storm surrounding the latest e-turds cranked out by his DDi team is to include a sentence in his latest _Ampersand_ article suggesting that we check out the new Character Builder to see what all the fuss is about.

He just doesn't get it.

If I owned D&D I would be making sure that the internet community didn't reach a critical mass of anti-WotC sentiment and I would insisting that some of the most senior members of the team were responsible for this. Right now about the only commentary we see on the latest e-turd problems is from mudbunny, and he's an unpaid volunteer!


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 29, 2010)

Derulbaskul said:


> I think the internet community would be a lot more pleasant if somebody at WotC actually made an effort to engage us over the issues.
> 
> Look at Matthew Sprange: Mongoose has screwed up more times than most can count but he had the balls to come to ENWorld and other places, 'fess up and then detail how things were going to be fixed. And he's taken questions and handled criticism, even of the non-constructive kind, with good grace.
> 
> ...




I agree with that, i think all companies should. It is a reason I like Mongoose even if they don't make a lot of stuff I buy. It was a big reason i was a fan of World of Darkness back in the 90's and it is a big reason why I am a big paizo fan now. 

The people making the games come to the forums and talk to them and engage them. They come across like they listen to their fans and they care what the fans think. Weather they do or not I have no clue, but coming across that way, sure helps. 

PS this is not a knock on anyone or a attempt at saying game y is better than game x. I think it is sad i feel compelled to make this PS.


----------



## Squnk (Dec 29, 2010)

Why does it seem like a good number of people have a doomsday prediction for tabletop games in one way or another.  I understand that all good things will come to an end and this form of gaming at some point will come to an end.  But at this point in time it has a healthy supportive community and very many devoted players.  No matter what the market says and what a small percent of people observe, tabletop is going to be around for a good while, viva d&d.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 29, 2010)

Squnk said:


> Why does it seem like a good number of people have a doomsday prediction for tabletop games in one way or another.  I understand that all good things will come to an end and this form of gampoint at some point will come to an end.  But at this point in time it has a healthy supportive community and very many devoted players.  No matter what the market says and what a small percent of people observe, tabletop is going to be around for a good while, viva d&d.




I wonder about this too. The main effect of WOTC going digital will be me playing with what I already got.


----------



## delericho (Dec 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> Which is exactly what I hate about AP products. Shouldn't the DM and players/PCs be doing that without an overarching and pre-determined plot line?




Given the time I _don't_ have to prepare, I find these "campaigns-in-a-box" to be invaluable. By making appropriate use of one of these, I can run an excellent campaign, where I otherwise simply would not have the time.

Remember, if _you_ don't like them, then _you don't have to buy them_ - there's no need to call for the extinction of the product format!


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 29, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> The people making the games come to the forums and talk to them and engage them. They come across like they listen to their fans and they care what the fans think. Weather they do or not I have no clue, but coming across that way, sure helps.




Well ENWorld isn't the official WotC chatboard, but I remember quite a few times seeing WotC reps come on to the boards off and on. Has this changed?


----------



## delericho (Dec 29, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> Well ENWorld isn't the official WotC chatboard, but I remember quite a few times seeing WotC reps come on to the boards off and on. Has this changed?




Haven't seen any regular interaction from WotC since The Rouse left the company. Shame really. (Though, given some of the abuse given to WotC folk in the past, I'm not sure I can blame them.)


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 29, 2010)

Mudbunny, though not an official WOTC guy, is excellent.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 29, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> I'm not sure it's entirely a rules thing either. Ruleset matters less to me, but when you slaughter sacred cows willy nilly and redefine many of the game's concepts, including using classic names for very different creatures, that's where the fundamental disconnect is. I wouldn't discount the flavor and fluff changes as part of the reception, alongside the rules.




Are you actually claiming that altering too much of the flavour/fluff means the game doesn't qualify as D&D any more? Because I'm damn certain that half the D&D audience plays a homebrew setting, and they aren't doing that because they love the default fluff and setting(s). And I'm equally sure that they still think they're playing D&D. An awful lot of published settings have been making burger of sacred cows, as well. And they're still D&D. So if it's not a rules thing, then you're going to have to explain just what it's acceptable to change about the flavour.



Shazman said:


> rounser said:
> 
> 
> > But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.
> ...




I was 47 earlier this year. I've played D&D since the 1970s. And you're describing 3rd edition as well when you talk of a shoe that doesn't fit.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose; the key phrase in what you just said is 'about half of people who play D&D use a homebrew'. So about half don't; it is many of them who have left D&D both because of the slaughtering sacred cows and because of the changes to the crunch. 

I personally got off the D&D bandwagon at 4E because it feels like a glorified boardgame to me, but I recognise that the traditions of D&D have also been trashed by the new edition and what has happened to the realms is a travesty...........


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 29, 2010)

Ydars said:


> Bluenose; the key phrase in what you just said is 'about half of people who play D&D use a homebrew'. So about half don't; it is many of them who have left D&D both because of the slaughtering sacred cows and because of the changes to the crunch.
> 
> I personally got off the D&D bandwagon at 4E because it feels like a glorified boardgame to me, but I recognise that the traditions of D&D have also been trashed by the new edition and what has happened to the realms is a travesty...........




The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.




That is not at all true. Of course there were some changes but, from my perspective, 3e is a LOT more like 1e/2e than 4e is. So I don't think it's ridiculous at all. 
You also have to consider that not all change is weighed the same by individual gamers. You can't simply hold up 3e and 4e and say that both are different from 2e so any objections 3e fans have to 4e are invalid. You have to delve into the nature of the changes.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose; I am sure that AD&D to v3.0 was a big shift (I was out of the hobby at the time, and so missed most of it). 

However,  there is one fundamental difference between that shift and the v3.5 to v4.0 change; in both AD&D and v3.5, ALL playstyles were possible  (I am not saying 3.5 actively supported all playstyles, but it didn't prevent them either).

In 3.5 games you could start out as a lowly nobody, like in all the great books, and end up a world conquering group of heroes. Or you could start out very powerful and become godlike.

With 4.0e, it feels like Exalted all the time; everyone 'feels' like a superhero and for me there is a real disconnect, because my default playstyle has always been low magic, low power. 

I cannot find a way to play like that in 4E (and yes, I have read the thousands of threads here about how you can in fact play low magic and none of them work for me).


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.




Why couldn't you play 3rd the same as 1st or 2nd? My group did and it worked fine.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 29, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That is not at all true. Of course there were some changes but, from my perspective, 3e is a LOT more like 1e/2e than 4e is. So I don't think it's ridiculous at all.
> You also have to consider that not all change is weighed the same by individual gamers. You can't simply hold up 3e and 4e and say that both are different from 2e so any objections 3e fans have to 4e are invalid. You have to delve into the nature of the changes.




People have delved into the nature of the changes here and elsewhere. The biggest ones from my perspective include; massive hit point inflation, a huge change to the way saving throws work (they're no longer absolure, instead going against a target number), alterations to the initiative system, skills as opposed to NWPs/characteristic checks. They add up to making a game that doesn't give you the same results if you approach it the same way.



Ydars said:


> Bluenose; I am sure that AD&D to v3.0 was a big shift (I was out of the hobby at the time, and so missed most of it).
> 
> However,  there is one fundamental difference between that shift and the v3.5 to v4.0 change; in both AD&D and v3.5, ALL playstyles were possible  (I am not saying 3.5 actively supported all playstyles, but it didn't prevent them either).
> 
> ...




In 1st edition your level 1 Fighter had the name title Veteran. You weren't a lowly nobody then, or in BECMI, or in 2e. You weren't even one in 3e, if you started out with levels in a PC class, no matter what people claim. You're part of that very small percentage of people that the DMG claims have PC levels. You might not yet be Miyamoto Musashi, but you are a trained Samurai and not a peasant who picked up a sword. And I'm pretty certain no-one really thinks a 1st level Wizard or Cleric hasn't had lots of training.

Personally I don't find 3e supports all playstyles. It's actively bad at some, though to be honest I find the same trues of all editions of D&D.



DragonLancer said:


> Why couldn't you play 3rd the same as 1st or 2nd? My group did and it worked fine.




Because you get different results.

At least, that's what we observed when after a couple of months playing 3e we started to find things working strangely. We took some 2e characters, ran them through an old dungeon (one of the Slave Lords series), and recorded what characters did and what they rolled. Then we converted the characters and dungeon to 3e and used the same actions and rolls. The results were different, even more so when we experimented with higher level adventures.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> I was 47 earlier this year. I've played D&D since the 1970s. And you're describing 3rd edition as well when you talk of a shoe that doesn't fit.




Very true

But I think an important difference is that 3E gained a lot more than it lost.
That doesn't mean it did not lose some or that the difference is relevant to the individual.  But it is a difference.

I actually went TO 3E because it was a new shoe and fit me so much better than the prior editions.  And I DO think 4E is yet again a new shoe, closer to pre-3E than to 3E, but really a whole new thing.

But your opinion is one thing, and mine is another and neither are really here nor there.

The question is: does the shoe fit the market?


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 29, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Mudbunny, though not an official WOTC guy, is excellent.




*blush*

Thanks.

While the initial post of the thread seemed to take the thread in a direction which I have seen many, many times before, I think that it is a testament to EN World users that it hasn't gone there. I will be pointing this thread out to WotC and giving specific examples of the things that people have posted.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> Because you get different results.
> 
> At least, that's what we observed when after a couple of months playing 3e we started to find things working strangely. We took some 2e characters, ran them through an old dungeon (one of the Slave Lords series), and recorded what characters did and what they rolled. Then we converted the characters and dungeon to 3e and used the same actions and rolls. The results were different, even more so when we experimented with higher level adventures.




But you also get different results depending on play styles in just about any edition. 

In my experience, running the A series in 1e and in 3e, the way things played out was very similar. The extra structures in 3e added to some of the richness of the mechanics, but the games were quite similar to the point that I didn't even have to adjust most of the encounters. I was able to convert them pretty directly. Same basic character levels were supported as well once I stepped down the XPs awarded. And that's a minor concern.

I have also been able to convert the giant series fairly directly as well and it has been playing out fine, much like the play in 1e. The character levels happen to map a bit higher for giants but that was already the trend in 2e.

So, yes, you *can* achieve very similar results between 1e and 3e without radically changing the content of the original materials.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Dec 29, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> Well ENWorld isn't the official WotC chatboard, but I remember quite a few times seeing WotC reps come on to the boards off and on. Has this changed?




They have some yes, but the ones that did it the most are no longer with WotC. Even when they did, I didn't see them post anywhere near the level that some other companies do. Mongoose for example you fairly often see one of them posting. ICE you see the posting just about every day. White Wolf back in the hey day you seen just about everyone working their actively posting in the forums. Paizo is the same as White Wolf. I mean just about every person that works there has thousands and thousands of posts.

I think any company that does that on a regular bases and engages their fans that way is smart. I mean lets face it we are a niche product and most gamers tend to be fairly smart and passionate. Letting us feel like we get a say in the game and our concerns, opinions etc are heard is a good thing.

I am sure more companies do it, those are just the ones I have experience with that I see do it fairly often.


----------



## korjik (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> People have delved into the nature of the changes here and elsewhere. The biggest ones from my perspective include; massive hit point inflation, a huge change to the way saving throws work (they're no longer absolure, instead going against a target number), alterations to the initiative system, skills as opposed to NWPs/characteristic checks. They add up to making a game that doesn't give you the same results if you approach it the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think the point is that while 3e was very mechanically different from 2e, the base assumptions were still pretty much the same. While saving throws changed, there were still saving throws. While the AC progression inverted, and the to hit changed, they were still mostly the same progressions as 2e. Thieves were thieves, clerics were clerics, fighters were fighters, fighter/magic-users were.... well multiclassing was pretty different.

The break from 3e to 4e was much different. You could not see why changes were made (unlike the 2e to 3e change). Basic assumtions of the game changed. Fighters were defenders, rogues were strikers, spell were powers just like any the fighter had... and fighters have powers.

Like BryonD, I think that the changes from 2e to 3e made a better game, but one which was in the same spirit of the prior edition. 4e is to a large degree Warhammer Quest, and is a very diferent spirit to the prior editions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2010)

> So, yes, you can achieve very similar results between 1e and 3e without radically changing the content of the original materials.



Agreed.

As I've said several times on these boards, I'm part of a campaign that has been active since about 1985.

It started off as an AD&D game, and over time was converted to a 2Ed, 3Ed and eventually 3.5Ed game virtually seamlessly.  Sure, there were some houserules along the way, but the PCs remained quintessentially the same.

That campaign will never be a 4Ed campaign because the underpinnings are so different that huge sections of the campaign and PCs within it would have to be unrecognizably altered.  Some 75% of my own PCs in that campaign simply can't be built in 4Ed.  Another 10-15% would require such changes as to make them extremely dissimilar to their former incarnations.  Other players in the group experienced similar difficulties (albeit with different percentages).

That inability to do things the way we always did has been a significant barrier.  While I can enjoy 4Ed as a well designed FRPG, it simply doesn't scratch my D&D itch.

So yes, I know from experience that you can play 3.X substantially the same way as prior editions with similar results AND that in many substantive ways, 4Ed is far and away the most radical design change.


----------



## jbear (Dec 29, 2010)

Skipped here from page 1.

@ OP if your still even involved in the thread: 

For exciting products why don't you check out  The Monster Vault. It is fantastic, seriously.
Apart from the short adventure and poster map it comes with about 6 sheets of absolutely gourgeous thick card monster tokens that are red when you flip them over to mark them as bloodied. The book itself has uptodate lethal monsters with some very nice  adventure inspiring, easy to read fluff.

Repackaging ... hmmm ... if that is the case it is some marvellous packaging well worth the very reasonable asking price. I couldn't beleive my eyes when I opened the box ... drool! I'm not a colectionist. I'm very specific about what I buy. It has to be something I know I'm going to squeeze every cent out of. I will buy every one of these products that come out, religiously because I know I will be able to do just that with them.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 29, 2010)

jbear said:


> Skipped here from page 1.
> 
> @ OP if your still even involved in the thread:
> 
> For exciting products why don't you check out  The Monster Vault. It is fantastic, seriously.




Thanks for the recommendation -- at first glanee I assumed it just repackaged MM1, so ignored it -- I'll check it out.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 29, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But you also get different results depending on play styles in just about any edition.




It's not exactly noticeable going from 1e to 2e, or for that matter to the BECM games. It is with 3e and 4e. 

One of the most obvious places to observe this is with the pre-generated characters provided with some modules. Compare the magic items they have. Then look at characters of similar level from 3e games. That's expected by the rules, and it's not a cosmetic difference.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> It's not exactly noticeable going from 1e to 2e, or for that matter to the BECM games. It is with 3e and 4e.
> 
> One of the most obvious places to observe this is with the pre-generated characters provided with some modules. Compare the magic items they have. Then look at characters of similar level from 3e games. That's expected by the rules, and it's not a cosmetic difference.





Recent editions have certainly more obviously codified the relationship between power items and levels of play.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.




Not IME. I play in both a 3.x and an OD&D game. Although 3.x adds a lot of new options, the fundamental gameplay is virtually identical.

We've noticed only three significant points of departure:

(1) _Sleep_ is crazy powerful in OD&D. It effectively ends any low-level encounter.

(2) Turning is incredibly powerful in OD&D. A 2nd level cleric can _automatically_ turn 2d6 skeletons, for example, and there's no limit on the number of encounters clerics can turn in a given day. The result is that undead encounters are fast-tracked for obsolescence. (This was changed in AD&D1.)

(3) The lack of a mechanic for handling searches requires significant adjustment. (But, of course, this was gone by 1976.)

I've also used 3E modules in OD&D and pre-3E modules in 3E. The result supported the fact that encounter design, not fundamental changes in gameplay, is the difference most people describe in 3E versus pre-3E play. (Modules played the same regardless of the edition you were playing them in.)

Conversely, I've run _Keep on the Shadowfell_ (or sections of it) in both 4E (three times) and OD&D (twice). The result here was a radically different experience.

This is unsurprising, frankly. 4E is a game explicitly built to support a very different style of play and it's fairly trivial to notice that the core gameplay has been radically altered for every single class.



Asmor said:


> Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a  railroad. Perhaps one with lots of branches and tracks, but still a  finite number. Adventure paths only exacerbate the issue by forcing  assumptions as to the resolution of previous adventures.




This assumes that "branches" and "tracks" are the only way to design an adventure.

They aren't. And, in fact, they're a poor way to design a non-linear adventure whether you're writing a professional game module or prepping your notes at home. I recommend Don't Prep Plots and Node-Based Scenario Design.

If you design situations instead of plots, it's actually quite trivial to design non-linear printed adventures.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 29, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It started off as an AD&D game, and over time was converted to a 2Ed, 3Ed and eventually 3.5Ed game virtually seamlessly.  Sure, there were some houserules along the way, but the PCs remained quintessentially the same.




Oddly, we came with a lot of hiccups when the conversion to 3e took place.

A number of our 2nd edtion PCs (not unusually, multi-classed or dual-classed) came out terrible in 3ed edition due to the stacking multi-classing. Often times, PrC stop-gap fixes (EK, MT, AT, and the like) fixed some of the problem, but often times created PCs that couldn't do everything their 2e counterpart could (fight, sneak, and spell). 

Other 2e->3e conversion problems came up (many converted thieves were starved for skill points due to Int not being as big a requirement for 2e thieves as it was for 3e rogues) and sometimes some oddities occurred (the wizard/archmage, by virtue of his 20+ Int, had a higher search than the Rogue of equal level. If the wizard had taken one level of rogue, he could have rivaled the Rogue on nearly all counts of trapfinding).

We had so many problems that people often converted multi-classed PCs to single classes (a mage/their to sorcerer, a cleric/mage to just cleric) or even re-rolled their PCs (to take into account 3e's new ability score requirements for classes, like Cha for clerics or Int for rogues. 

We eventually decided that 3e was better with fresh new PCs than older one rolled up under 2e's assumptions. We never bothered to try and convert to 4e (other than to mess around with the CB) since we KNEW they wouldn't even remotely look "Ze same!"


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> A number of our 2nd edtion PCs (not unusually, multi-classed or dual-classed) came out terrible in 3ed edition due to the stacking multi-classing. Often times, PrC stop-gap fixes (EK, MT, AT, and the like) fixed some of the problem, but often times created PCs that couldn't do everything their 2e counterpart could (fight, sneak, and spell).




This is a good point.

This is something I didn't encounter because the dual/multi-class rules were so horrifically (and self-evidently) broken that we stopped using them at least a decade before 3E came out. (I suppose the other solution would have been to have everyone use them, as you did.)

With that being said, you can pretty accurately model dual-classed 2E characters using 3E multi-class rules. For mulit-classed 2E characters I'd probably look at gestalt classes.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> One of the most obvious places to observe this is with the pre-generated characters provided with some modules. Compare the magic items they have. Then look at characters of similar level from 3e games. That's expected by the rules, and it's not a cosmetic difference.




I fail to see the the tell-tale difference you seem to see. 3e characters tend to have more magic items, but many of them are relatively weaker in effect, particularly when you look at a 3e character who happens to have gauntlets of ogre power, items *much* weaker than their 1e counterparts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2010)

> Oddly, we came with a lot of hiccups when the conversion to 3e took place.




Clearly, we had wildly different experiences!

Question for you: did your group have the Conversion Guide to use?


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> The lack of a mechanic for handling searches requires significant adjustment.



What lack? Either
(A) You open the closet and see the skeleton in it, or you don't and so you don't.
or
(B) There's a chance you _might_ find something, so the DM rolls a dice.



			
				D&D Vol. 3 said:
			
		

> Secret passages will be located on the roll of a 1 or a 2 (on a six-sided die) by men, dwarves or halflings. Elves will be able to locate them on a roll of 1-4. At the referee's option, Elves may be allowed the chance to sense any secret door they pass, a 1 or a 2 indicating that they become aware that something is there.



If that doesn't suit you, then change it; you are, after all, the Dungeon *Master*!

However, to claim that it does not exist is preposterous.



> The result supported the fact that encounter design, not fundamental changes in gameplay, is the difference most people describe in 3E versus pre-3E play.



I think the really fundamental change makes a fundamental difference -- but admittedly not to what "most people" around here describe.

The "mechanical" giveaway to the magic-using classes (especially versus AD&D) would produce in any case the very problems that it has in the event produced. The common change in "play style" (already widespread in the 2e era) just exacerbated those.



> If you design situations instead of plots, it's actually quite trivial to design non-linear printed adventures.



This was always a problematic usage of "adventure". "Dungeon module" or "scenario" suggests a situation.

An adventure, properly, was formerly a risky undertaking on the part of the players. It was events arising in play.

The association simultaneously with _events_ and with _a text_ almost inevitably suggests a plot instead of a situation.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 30, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> I am sure more companies do it, those are just the ones I have experience with that I see do it fairly often.




Certainly. The common denominator with all of them is that they are (comparatively) small companies, which are privately owned that lack a battallion of lawyers dictating who can say what when and to whom.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2010)

_*Ahem.*_

Lawyers do not dictate to their clients; we can only advise.  The client is always free to disregard.

If anyone is telling WotC employees they _cannot_ post here or elsewhere, it has to be someone with power over them.  That means WotC or Hasbro mgmt.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _*Ahem.*_
> 
> Lawyers do not dictate to their clients; we can only advise. The client is always free to disregard.
> 
> If anyone is telling WotC employees they _cannot_ post here or elsewhere, it has to be someone with power over them. That means WotC or Hasbro mgmt.




You missed the memo. 

The emperor has dissolved the senate. The legal team now has direct control over their office managers.

There will be no one to stop them this time....................


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 30, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> They have some yes, but the ones that did it the most are no longer with WotC. Even when they did, I didn't see them post anywhere near the level that some other companies do. Mongoose for example you fairly often see one of them posting. ICE you see the posting just about every day. White Wolf back in the hey day you seen just about everyone working their actively posting in the forums. Paizo is the same as White Wolf. I mean just about every person that works there has thousands and thousands of posts.
> 
> I think any company that does that on a regular bases and engages their fans that way is smart. I mean lets face it we are a niche product and most gamers tend to be fairly smart and passionate. Letting us feel like we get a say in the game and our concerns, opinions etc are heard is a good thing.
> 
> I am sure more companies do it, those are just the ones I have experience with that I see do it fairly often.




Thanks for the info Dark Mistress. I specifically remember seeing Rouse on a lot. I remember giving him crap about skill challenge mechanics. 

To be honest, after running 2-3 4e campaigns since mid-2008, I actually like how they have codified skill challenges (yes, multiple errata). DMG2 is one of the best 4e books because of its skill challenge section. So let me say Rouse was right I was an a$$. 

Anyway, it'd be nice to interact with the WotC people here, but then again this isn't their site. I just don't feel the great need to post much on WotC's hydra-like boards/article discussions. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Cyronax (Dec 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> You missed the memo.
> 
> The emperor has dissolved the senate. The legal team now has direct control over their office mangers.
> 
> There will be no one to stop them this time....................




I spilled hot coffee on myself while reading your post, consider yourself served.

Can I's haz yurz a'dress?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> What lack?




Rules for finding traps did not exist until Supplement I. The rules for finding secret doors does not change that fact. Your ridiculous appeal to a Rule 0 Fallacy does not change that fact.

(You might want to dial down the "Pompous" on your posts.)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 30, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I fail to see the the tell-tale difference you seem to see. 3e characters tend to have more magic items, but many of them are relatively weaker in effect, particularly when you look at a 3e character who happens to have gauntlets of ogre power, items *much* weaker than their 1e counterparts.




  Actually, I think you've struck on an example where the differences make it hard to compare. 

   A character with a 10 Str will get more out of a pair of 1E/2E _gauntlets_ than the 3E version. But as Strength scores increase, the 3E version becomes much more useful. However, it's nearly impossible to compare because the scores don't even match nicely--a 1E/2E character has to have a 17 Str to get the same attack and damage modifiers as a 12 Str character in 3E/4E.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2010)

That is because all stat bonuses in 3Ed and beyond are linear...and the pre-3Ed Str chart was simply wonky.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is because all stat bonuses in 3Ed and beyond are linear...and the pre-3Ed Str chart was simply wonky.




My group converted their 2E characters to 3.0 a few months after the new edition came out.  The biggest change that I noted was that many of the PC's got a power up because they had ability scores in the 14-16 range that gave them effectively no benefit in 2E but had greater benefit in 3E.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 30, 2010)

How did this evolve into a discussion of converting 2E characters to 3E?

Focus, people, focus!  <emperor's voice>  Unleash your hate...only it can destroy this thread!


[sblock]
The only problem we had in the 2E to 3E conversion was with an elvin F/MU, everyone else was single-classed (and strangely, the group of 8 only had two non-humans, an elf and a halfling).  Never would have even considered attempting to do conversion for 4E, just made brand-new characters.
[/sblock]


----------



## carmachu (Dec 30, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a railroad. Perhaps one with lots of branches and tracks, but still a finite number. Adventure paths only exacerbate the issue by forcing assumptions as to the resolution of previous adventures.





Again, its apparant you arent paying attention to catsclaws examples. Do the majority of AP go more railroad like you say? Sure. Buyt they dont necessarily have to. Kingmaker is much more snadbox then AP. Same with Sumbering Tsar.

Both have much more sandbox features then railroad ones.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 31, 2010)

This thread has taught me the following:

4e is stale and doesn't have enough innovation
4e is changing too much and too rapidly
4e is changing just the right amount but is still doing it wrong
4e has way, way too many products coming out
4e has way, way too few products coming out

4e needs to be like 3e and have more rules
4e needs to be like 2e an have less rules
4e needs to be like 1e and have almost no rules
4e needs to have a smaller release schedule like TSR (*LOLS.*)
4e needs to have a more robust release schedule like 3e
4e needs more splats.
No less splats.
No the same splats but better.

Oh, and every single one of those is why 4e is doomed to day any day now, just like it was doomed to die when it first came out years ago.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 31, 2010)

Also, 3e was an incredibly huge change from 2e.  3e multiclassing and NPC/PC rules being the same are both things that exist in literally no other edition.  Then you have feats and standardized wealth and buyable magic items and workable crafting and, and, and...

4e is a radical departure from previous games, indeed!  Just as 3e was.  4e took some of the radical changes from 3e, reverted some back to the way they used to be, and added some of their own.

Also, 3e allowed for different styles of play, in that you could be a BMX Bandit or an Angel Summoner.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 31, 2010)

I think that 3.x was a _huge_ change over what came before. Before, to play the game you had to say what you were doing; since 3E (4E is the same) you just roll the dice and add your modifiers. "Roll to see it" is an obvious example: before you had to say where you were searching. Now it doesn't matter what you say, all that matters is that you roll high on the D20 and have a good modifier to add to it.

This is doubly so for the social skills like Diplomacy. Before you actually had to speak in character or at least explain what point your character was making; now you just roll high on a D20 and have a good modifier to add.

The aftermath of this is evident when you try to play Old School games with New School gamers. I'm in a Classic Traveller campaign and one of the players is very New School. She will roll the dice without being prompted by the Referee and offer the result. Her character, an Imperial Peer, recently set up an important breakfast meeting with a subsector Marquis. My character attended as well and I hammed it up for a little bit; the Ref told me the gist of how the conversation went. When my friend's turn to talk came up, she said a couple of halting phrases, scowled, then rolled the dice. They came up snake eyes.

This is why I personally, in my non-binding personal aesthetic preference, prefer 4E to 3E. They're both just games about rolling high. But in 4E there are sometimes decisions that you get to make which impact the die rolls (i.e. your powers). In 3E there are comparatively few. But both of these games are totally different from Old School D&D and, to me, are woefully inferior.


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 31, 2010)

I like the skeleton of 4e. It's flesh is putrid though.

It is in the RPG's uncanny valley to me.

Is D&D flaming out? I doubt it. Hopefully 4e will be the newest generation's OD&D/AD&D. We have good things to look foreward to in 5e and 6e.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 31, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> The aftermath of this is evident when you try to play Old School games with New School gamers. I'm in a Classic Traveller campaign and one of the players is very New School. She will roll the dice without being prompted by the Referee and offer the result. Her character, an Imperial Peer, recently set up an important breakfast meeting with a subsector Marquis. My character attended as well and I hammed it up for a little bit; the Ref told me the gist of how the conversation went. When my friend's turn to talk came up, she said a couple of halting phrases, scowled, then rolled the dice. They came up snake eyes.




I do appreciate the fact that the newer versions have a bit more separation between the character and the player.  It's more possible for the wallflower player to ham up being a smooth-talking bard, relying on die rolls where his own interpersonal skills may be lacking.  Likewise, the smooth-talking player can't just dump his charisma and expect his character to be as eloquent as the player.

I, myself, like to do a bit of acting to RP conversations and stuff, but I've got a couple players in my group who are uncomfortable or tend to put their foot in their mouth when speaking to NPC's, and for them, rolling is better than trying to act things out (though they do try at times).  Forcing these folks to RP everything out would be like forcing me to don full plate and swing at target dummies with a sword to determine if I hit and what kind of damage I'm doing in combat.


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 31, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I do appreciate the fact that the newer versions have a bit more separation between the character and the player. It's more possible for the wallflower player to ham up being a smooth-talking bard, relying on die rolls where his own interpersonal skills may be lacking. Likewise, the smooth-talking player can't just dump his charisma and expect his character to be as eloquent as the player.
> 
> I, myself, like to do a bit of acting to RP conversations and stuff, but I've got a couple players in my group who are uncomfortable or tend to put their foot in their mouth when speaking to NPC's, and for them, rolling is better than trying to act things out (though they do try at times). Forcing these folks to RP everything out would be like forcing me to don full plate and swing at target dummies with a sword to determine if I hit and what kind of damage I'm doing in combat.




Interesting take. I have heard it argued before but before today I have never been compelled to agree. 

I would instead like to see players get creative before picking up the dice. That mostly applies to dungeon settings though and the knowedge checks I hate those.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 31, 2010)

Wiseblood said:


> Interesting take. I have heard it argued before but before today I have never been compelled to agree.
> 
> I would instead like to see players get creative before picking up the dice. That mostly applies to dungeon settings though and the knowedge checks I hate those.




Definately.  If there were as many options to choose tactics when interacting with others as we had options for combat, that would go a long way to making those interactions interesting, even though you're rolling dice.  Details are always good, expecially when those details can have a mechanical effect.

Player 1:  I'm addressing the Baron with the proper address, that'll give me a +2 bonus.  I'll open with _Emotional Plea_, telling him how his peasants are suffering from the taxes he's leveling.

Player 2:  Forget that.  I'm going to interrupt and make an _Ad Homonin _attack.  Let's see how he likes that!

DM:  The Baron howls in indignation.  He's going to try and use _Intimidate_ to make you back off.

Player 1:  Hey, can I use _Soothing Words_ to try and calm the Baron back down?

etc....


----------



## BryonD (Dec 31, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This thread has taught me the following:
> 
> 4e is stale and doesn't have enough innovation
> 4e is changing too much and too rapidly
> ...



So in summary, it is difficult to pin down, but every agrees there is a problem....



> Oh, and every single one of those is why 4e is doomed to day any day now, just like it was doomed to die when it first came out years ago.



Nah that isn't going to happen, but on the other hand, the chances of it undoing the massive fanbase fracture it created seem to have moved from slim to none.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> So in summary, it is difficult to pin down, but every agrees there is a problem.....




I'd wager the real answer is gamers are never happy


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> So in summary, it is difficult to pin down, but every agrees there is a problem.....




I agree, but I think the problem is with the gamers, not the games.

WOTC probably went on vacation Dec 22 or so, and has been on vacation ten days. Look at all the threads that have been up since then. We have gone through 3 generations of nerd rage in that week ,and WOTC has been enjoying their free time.

Who is odder?


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 31, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I, myself, like to do a bit of acting to RP conversations and stuff, but I've got a couple players in my group who are uncomfortable or tend to put their foot in their mouth when speaking to NPC's, and for them, rolling is better than trying to act things out (though they do try at times).  Forcing these folks to RP everything out would be like forcing me to don full plate and swing at target dummies with a sword to determine if I hit and what kind of damage I'm doing in combat.




If we were in the SCA and you suggested rolling dice instead of putting on armor and swinging your weapon, then we'd have that discussion.

What I'm trying to say is this: Old School is about saying smart things, New School is about rolling hot dice. They cannot get any more different than that. In Old School you succeed or fail based on your ability to make clever inferences about the game world and/or say things which count as clever within the context of that world. But it's basically a test of the cleverness of the player. New School, on the other hand, is a test to see whether you can roll high. If you roll high, you win. Those are very different games.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 31, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Any printed adventure *must* to some extent be a railroad.



Absolutely wrong.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2010)

> Old School is about saying smart things, New School is about rolling hot dice.




_If_ this is a true statement, then Old School is New School's merely slightly older twin- I've seen both those styles played side by side since 1977.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Absolutely wrong.




Not really.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> Rules for finding traps did not exist until Supplement I. The rules for finding secret doors does not change that fact.



Well, the fact is that we were finding traps (and reading and climbing and sneaking and hiding) without the Thief class -- just as our characters were not falling off their horses for want of the Cavalier! It was not something that "required significant adjustment" for us.

The fact is also that there were:
1) Dwarves that "note slanting passages, *☆Traps☆*, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings"
2) Cleric spell of *☆☆☆Find Traps☆☆☆*
3) Sword Primary Power of *☆Trap☆* Detection
4) Wand of Secret Doors and  *☆Traps☆* Detection

There were plenty of other spells and magic items that could also be useful, but they did not have a specific "Traps" reference. Neither, of course, did a 10' pole, 50' of rope, a large sack, a quart of wine and a Hobbit.

This attitude of needing a special rule for everything is in my view ruining the game by reducing "everything" to umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board. *We already had that kind of thing up to our ears before D&D came along!*

A general rule is not "no rule". A fundamental, common sense general rule is that our imaginary people in their imaginary world can do the same things that real people can do in the real world. We don't need a line in a book to specify that they can LOOK at things and thereby SEE them -- much less a rule for each specific case (Look in Box, Look at Rocks, Look at Bagel and Lox ...).

D&D by its nature is not conveyable in a text of comprehensive prescription. We cannot play it without the ability to extrapolate from exemplary description and carry on with our own imaginative and rational faculties. Anything less is something else.

If you want something else, then you want something else -- but so do people who dis D&D because they prefer Old Maid or Scrabble. Trying to make everyone's favorite dishes at once in the same pot just ends up producing a mess that nobody finds palatable. An actual buffet of different dishes -- or different games -- lets people choose what they like.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Dec 31, 2010)

I proudly belong to the "rolls hot dice and roleplays" master race.

If you ain't rolling, you're freeforming and having a tea party.

If you ain't roleplaying, you're solving math problems.

In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of the whole "Just describe what you're doing!"  Typically it leads to a game of Mother May I.  "Well, you didn't prod the third cobblestone from the right in the fifth layer?  Guess the trap activates."

Then you have the problem of players thinking their speech is really cool and DMs not being impressed, or vice versa.

Dice don't replace roleplaying.  What dice do is serve as the objective mediator and ref.  Some people _love_ playing as ref in their games, and that's awesome.  Others, like me...ehhh, not so much.  As DM I'm there to make a cool setting and help the players make their cool story, not play as Divine Keeper of the Holy Rules, like some kind of strange god who refuses to hand out ten commandments but just says "Look you'll know when I disagree."


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

Stormonu said:
			
		

> Definately. If there were as many options to choose tactics when interacting with others as we had options for combat, that would go a long way to making those interactions interesting ...



Yes, language is just so lacking in options. For instance, in that quote you used the word "as" twice (which is required to execute the _Exemplary Comparison_) and "to" twice as well (but prepositions are _At Will_).

Of course, all 27 other words were unique. Moreover, when one considers the bigger scheme of sentences and paragraphs, your 888 posts don't seem so terribly redundant.


----------



## mudbunny (Dec 31, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> What I'm trying to say is this: Old School is about saying smart things, New School is about rolling hot dice. They cannot get any more different than that. In Old School you succeed or fail based on your ability to make clever inferences about the game world and/or say things which count as clever within the context of that world. But it's basically a test of the cleverness of the player. New School, on the other hand, is a test to see whether you can roll high. If you roll high, you win. Those are very different games.






Wait. What??


----------



## Tuft (Dec 31, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> > What I'm trying to say is this: Old School is about saying smart things, New School is about rolling hot dice. They cannot get any more different than that. In Old School you succeed or fail based on your ability to make clever inferences about the game world and/or say things which count as clever within the context of that world. But it's basically a test of the cleverness of the player. New School, on the other hand, is a test to see whether you can roll high. If you roll high, you win. Those are very different games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ten foot pole prodding vs Skill Challenge Yahtzee, if you put it flippantly.


----------



## darjr (Dec 31, 2010)

4e needs player skill in a couple of areas.

Combat tactics, single and group tactics on the battle mat.
Deck building, again, single and group deck building skills are important.

I think if your players are very poor at those they will still win, it'll just be much more of a chore, assuming you don't vary from the recommended encounter design.


----------



## Asmor (Dec 31, 2010)

Tuft said:


> Ten foot pole prodding vs Skill Challenge Yahtzee, if you put it flippantly.




Actually, most DMs are wise to the ten foot pole by now. Many groups are upgrading to 11 or even 12 foot poles. Personally, I think the best thing to do is just tie a rope around the rogue and toss him in (adding the dwarf as ballast if necessary).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Actually, most DMs are wise to the ten foot pole by now. Many groups are upgrading to 11 or even 12 foot poles.




YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 31, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> What I'm trying to say is this: Old School is about saying smart things, New School is about rolling hot dice. They cannot get any more different than that. In Old School you succeed or fail based on your ability to make clever inferences about the game world and/or say things which count as clever within the context of that world. But it's basically a test of the cleverness of the player. New School, on the other hand, is a test to see whether you can roll high. If you roll high, you win. Those are very different games.



 There is nothing in your formulation that precludes Old School activity in the New School paradigm. You can still say smart things and gain a bonus or if you impress the DM enough an automatic success.

On the other hand I know of one player who quit rpgs after a long (but quite hilarious, for the others present) session of epic fail where his character ended up is worse situations one after another because he could not make up stuff on the spot.

In hindsight, I should have ran the session in another way, I miss him as a player but at the time I knew no better. It does give me an appreciation for the bluff skill though.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 31, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> If you get that, then I'd like to see the ladies of the edition wars offer an interpretive dance of the saga thus far.



I've seen this. It's awesome! My wife is a gamer and a bellydancer. (Don't hate me.)



Asmor said:


> Actually, most DMs are wise to the ten foot pole by now. Many groups are upgrading to 11 or even 12 foot poles. Personally, I think the best thing to do is just tie a rope around the rogue and toss him in (adding the dwarf as ballast if necessary).



In my experience halflings tend to work better than dwarves, if only because you can almost always convince the halfling that it is a good idea and worth trying.



			
				Flamian said:
			
		

> Y'know y'know y'know?


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Dec 31, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I've seen this. It's awesome! My wife is a gamer and a bellydancer. (Don't hate me.)




I hate you, especially since I can not give you XP saying I hate you.  (must spread ......)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2010)

> I've seen this. It's awesome! My wife is a gamer and a bellydancer. (Don't hate me.)




YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 31, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of the whole "Just describe what you're doing!" Typically it leads to a game of Mother May I. "Well, you didn't prod the third cobblestone from the right in the fifth layer? Guess the trap activates."




Talk about pixel B*☆☆*ching.
[Explain] Pixel-Bitching - RPGnet Forums


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

> There is nothing in your formulation that precludes Old School activity in the New School paradigm. You can still say smart things and gain a bonus or if you impress the DM enough an automatic success.



Ah, no, actually you can't. That's the definitive point of that particular distinction among "schools"! The "New School" _defines itself_ by precluding that and insisting on strictly controlled quantitative factors.

(That what they actually get actually still allows the DM to pick from a range that typically covers _at least_ 5:1 to 1:5 is probably less than satisfactory when they catch on.)


----------



## Shazman (Dec 31, 2010)

You can have any way you want, especially if there are rules to support it.  If have players that aren't comfortable roleplaying their conversations with NPC's they can resort to just rolling dice.  You may have players that enjoy these interactions and forgo dice rolls if you think their RP is particularly good or bad.  I think the best way to do it is a combo of both.  Let them roleplay the conversation a bit or at least describe what they are trying to say and give them a bonus or penalty to their roll depending on how good you think they did.  Then have them roll.  The default may be to just roll, but it doesn't have to be that way.  I don't see how anyone can argue how 4E skill challenges encourage roleplaying more than 3.5 or Pathfinder.  They may have intended to help everyone get involved more, but it usually ends up with everyone aiding the person with the highest skill modifier which is even more gamist and "anti-roleplay" than anything I've seen in the 3.x rules.  A lot of times to try to include more PC's in the skill challenge odd uses of skills are included that seem a bit silly.  I think skill challenges missed their intended effect of encouraging more classes to roleplay, especially since there is little support for and few examples of well made skill challenges that encourage immersive roleplay and clever thinking.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 31, 2010)

Shazman said:


> You can have any way you want, especially if there are rules to support it.  If have players that aren't comfortable roleplaying their conversations with NPC's they can resort to just rolling dice.  You may have players that enjoy these interactions and forgo dice rolls if you think their RP is particularly good or bad.  I think the best way to do it is a combo of both.  Let them roleplay the conversation a bit or at least describe what they are trying to say and give them a bonus or penalty to their roll depending on how good you think they did.  Then have them roll.  The default may be to just roll, but it doesn't have to be that way.  I don't see how anyone can argue how 4E skill challenges encourage roleplaying more than 3.5 or Pathfinder.  They may have intended to help everyone get involved more, but it usually ends up with everyone aiding the person with the highest skill modifier which is even more gamist and "anti-roleplay" than anything I've seen in the 3.x rules.  A lot of times to try to include more PC's in the skill challenge odd uses of skills are included that seem a bit silly.  I think skill challenges missed their intended effect of encouraging more classes to roleplay, especially since there is little support for and few examples of well made skill challenges that encourage immersive roleplay and clever thinking.




I didn't think their intended effect was to encourage role play so much as to guarantee everyone participates in the resolution of a challenging situation.

Under the older systems, you had situations develop where the best course of action was to get the specialist involved and others "helping" didn't.

The new system encourages (requires?) everyone's participation regardless of how valuable they are in the situation.  So now, some challenges can evolve into a whole bunch of "Aid Other" checks for the specialist.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 1, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Well, the fact is that we were finding traps (and reading and climbing and sneaking and hiding) without the Thief class -- just as our characters were not falling off their horses for want of the Cavalier! It was not something that "required significant adjustment" for us.
> 
> ...
> 
> This attitude of needing a special rule for everything is in my view ruining the game by reducing "everything" to umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board. *We already had that kind of thing up to our ears before D&D came along!*




Let me sum this up:

(1) I talk about the lack of mechanics for resolving most searches in OD&D in 1974.

(2) You narrow that down to traps and claim that such mechanics existed.

(3) You anachronistically claim that this required no adjustment on your part. (Duh. Unless you had a time machine, your adjustment came with when Supplement 1: Greyhawk was released and it went the other way.)

(4) You then start complaining about the fact that such mechanics were later added... the very mechanics you claimed were always part of the game.

(5) You then somehow conclude that the Find Traps thief skill, added to the game in 1975, is responsible for "ruining the game" and adding "umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board".

I'm not really sure where you're going with all that. When you start by disputing that the distinction I perceive exists and conclude by ranting about that the exact same distinction is so severe that it's ruining the game, what point are you trying to make, exactly?



mudbunny said:


> Wait. What??




You're looking at a particularly ludicrous definition of "old school". This link does a pretty good job of summarizing it and then dismantling it.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 1, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> I think that 3.x was a _huge_ change over what came before. Before, to play the game you had to say what you were doing; since 3E (4E is the same) you just roll the dice and add your modifiers. "Roll to see it" is an obvious example: before you had to say where you were searching. Now it doesn't matter what you say, all that matters is that you roll high on the D20 and have a good modifier to add to it.




So lemme get this straight: You picked up the White Box in 1974 and then somebody woke you up in 2000. Having missed 25 years and everything published for D&D from _Supplement I: Greyhawk_ in 1975 until the the 3rd Edition PHB, you were shocked to discover rules for resolving searches using dice rolls?

I find your story... implausible.



> This is doubly so for the social skills like Diplomacy. Before you actually had to speak in character or at least explain what point your character was making; now you just roll high on a D20 and have a good modifier to add.




AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 10: "The author has a d6 with the following faces: SPADE, CLUB, CLUB, DIAMOND, DIAMOND, HEART. If, during an encounter, players meet a character whose reaction is uncertain, the card suit die is rolled in conjunction with 3d6. Black suits mean dislike, with the SPADE equalling hate, while red equals like, the HEART being great favor. The 3d6 give a bell-shaped probability curve of 3-18, with 9-12 being the mean spread. SPADE 18 means absolute and unchangeable hate, while HEART 18 indicates the opposite. CLUBS or DIAMONDS can be altered by discourse, rewards, etc. Thus, CLUBS 12 could possibly be altered to CLUBS 3 by offer of a tribute or favor, CLUBS 3 changed to DIAMONDS 3 by a gift, etc."

AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 35: "When the basic level of interest is found, and Characteristics discovered, roll percentile dice if the PC states a desire to accept the applicant as a henchman. Adding the player character's charisma reaction adiustment to the interest level, and if the dice score does not exceed interest and charisma reaction adiustment, the NPC accepts employment."

AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 63: "Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character thot is speaking. reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and opplicoble loyalty odjustment as if the creature were o henchman of the character speaking, and the modified score of the percentile dice is compared to the table below:"

Mechanical resolution of NPC reactions, as handled by the Diplomacy skill in 3E, have been part of the game since 1974. Explicit guidelines for modifiying the base die roll have been in place since at least 1979.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 1, 2011)

Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

Like RuPaul in a San Francisco bath-house!

*_fingersnap_*

Holla!





What?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 1, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Ah, no, actually you can't. That's the definitive point of that particular distinction among "schools"! The "New School" _defines itself_ by precluding that and insisting on strictly controlled quantitative factors.




  I've yet to be convinced that the 'New School' _exists_ outside of something for Old Schoolers (who do quite obviously exist) to define themselves against and all too often feel superior to.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> (1) I talk about the lack of mechanics for resolving most searches in OD&D in 1974.



I cite the mechanics, which are also present in most RPGs published since -- most definitely in every one published under the name of _Dungeons & Dragons_.



> (2) You narrow that down to traps and claim that such mechanics existed.



No. That's what _you_ appear to have done. If you meant something else in _Greyhawk_ than the Thief, then please reveal it.

The Thief in fact gets no special ability to find anything whatsoever -- only an _improved_ chance for listening at doors -- but that you ("anachronistically"?) imagined that it does is the only explanation that makes sense to me. If I have forgotten some other rules addition (which would not be a "first" for me), then I would appreciate having it brought to my attention.



> (4) You then start complaining about the fact that such mechanics were later added... the very mechanics you claimed were always part of the game.



No. I start complaining about "this attitude of needing a special rule for everything".



> (5) You then somehow conclude that the Find Traps thief skill, added to the game in 1975, is responsible for "ruining the game" and adding "umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board".



I wrote no such thing, for the simple reason that I know even the first premise -- that "the Find Traps thief skill [was] added to the game in 1975 [in Supp. I]" -- is patently false.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I've yet to be convinced that the 'New School' _exists_ outside of something for Old Schoolers (who do quite obviously exist) to define themselves against and all too often feel superior to.



I reckon there are different New Schools and different Old Schools, differing on different points.

There are posters right here at EN World who draw a sharp line between the (in their opinion) much better, and certainly more modern, approach of just totting up numbers from the character sheet and tossing dice, and the "old-school" view that what comes first is dealing with the situation in the imagined world from the assumed role's position in that world.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> I find your story... implausible.



That's the thing about real life: unlike fiction, it does not need to be plausible.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> you were shocked to discover rules for resolving searches using dice rolls?



Put down the _Wand of ESP_ and try reading what people actually write.

What Korgoth wrote was, "before you had to say where you were searching. Now it doesn't matter what you say, all that matters is that you roll high on the D20 and have a good modifier to add to it."

The rule of describing moves held (and holds) true playing *RuneQuest* as well, in my experience. Depending on what you're doing there might or might not be a reason to roll. The reason suggests the skill or other rating that is applicable. Circumstances may warrant a bonus or penalty.

Not that the 3e designers did not write some (IMO) bonkers stuff -- but I'll bet they actually laid down no such rule as that it doesn't matter how the player conducts a search. If they did not in fact advise that specifics of moves can and even _ought to_ be taken into account in adjudication -- in searching as well as in slashing -- then I will be surprised.

The actual, by-the-book rules have not kept *players* from imposing all sorts of restrictions for which "3e" broadly often gets blamed.



> Mechanical resolution of NPC reactions, as handled by the Diplomacy skill in 3E, have been part of the game since 1974. Explicit guidelines for modifiying the base die roll have been in place since at least 1979.



Yes.

Korgoth's apparent objection is to *removing the explicit basis* for modifying the roll, or -- what is really the object -- the effect in the situation. As with physical undertakings, some exercises of influence are more difficult than others and there are more and less effective strategies.

It is indeed *strategy* that gets cast to the wind, just as if we were to "play Chess" by letting dice choose our moves.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 2, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Definately.  If there were as many options to choose tactics when interacting with others as we had options for combat, that would go a long way to making those interactions interesting, even though you're rolling dice.  Details are always good, expecially when those details can have a mechanical effect.
> 
> Player 1:  I'm addressing the Baron with the proper address, that'll give me a +2 bonus.  I'll open with _Emotional Plea_, telling him how his peasants are suffering from the taxes he's leveling.
> 
> ...



There are two other ways to handle it, at the least.

The first is for the GM to give a circumstance bonus for a well played bit of social interaction - this is what I favor when I am GMing. It rewards role play, and can add to the fun.

The other is to look at your die roll and tailor your response to fit. For example 'I am very glad to be seeing of your fatness! All the land speaks of how large you are! One of the biggest kings in all the world!' when translating from Common to elfish for example, where the word 'great' is taken to be synonymous with 'Large', 'Big', and 'Fat'. (This has worked both ways in the real world - Albertus Magnus was originally 'Albrecht deGroot' or 'Fat Albert'.)

Hamming up the failures can be just as much fun as sliding gracefully through the successes. This is the method that I prefer on the rare occasion when I am a player.

The Auld Grump


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Put down the _Wand of ESP_ and try reading what people actually write.



Hey guys, this sucks. 

Ariosto, I have seen you be antagonistic in the past.  I even left enworld for a while, but I'm a 7-8 year EnWorld poster with his share of _relevant_ posts.  And I am starting to think that the the bile coming out of here stinks pits...  

All the WOTC bashing, the retaliatory "railroad APs suck" (a dig at Paizo I can only assume, too bad too.) and ", New school vs Old school, all the antagonistic and non productive talk that can't let a guy like me get his new sandbox world going.

Cause I am gonna use 4.xe Essentials+Compendium, but instead of the "points of light" world, I want to do a new one, with a sketch and all my massive 3.x material to build his world, I have all the Necro stuff, bluffside, scarred lands, .  And start at 10th level. 

Here I am.

But with all the bickering I see here, how can anyone get some really great ideas?

Should I world build here, in the forums, and draw upon the EnWorld Collective? Or, instead, when I visit the General Forums to talk generalities what will I see?  

Individuals spewing self righteousness and bile or active aid an helpful specific answers?

Cause, when I visit the 4e Forums, I see sadness and discussion of WOTC business decisions instead of "how do I do this in my world' discussions. 

I want to world build a 4e game in a 3e sandbox world with old 3PP supplements.  Atlas Games' Seven... series.  City State of the Invincible Overlord. Sasserine from the Savage Tide AP.  Freeport of Green Ronin fame.  Etc..

Do you think I can find some help with 3.x dudes with experience in these 3.x products that can respect that I will be converting to 4e? And even be willing to give me a lift?

There's lots of 3.x setting info ripe for 4e conversion.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 2, 2011)

theauldgrump said:


> hamming up the failures can be just as much fun as sliding gracefully through the successes. This is the method that i prefer on the rare occasion when i am a player.




+1.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2011)

> Do you think I can find some help with 3.x dudes with experience in these 3.x products that can respect that I will be converting to 4e? And even be willing to give me a lift?




Yes, I think it's possible, but given the amount of time someone puts into learning 3.XEd and/or 4Ed- and how those systems appeal differently to different people- finding those able and willing to bridge the gap...well...that's going to be rare.

For instance, I love 3.X and think I've a decent grasp of it.  4Ed, OTOH, I'd a game I respect as a FRPG, but don't find it scratching my D&D itch.  This translates into my mastery of 4Ed being...sketchy.

Being who I am, I'm perfectly _willing_ to help anyone flesh out their game and convert elements from one to another...but I'm not sure I have the ABILITY to help.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 2, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Do you think I can find some help with 3.x dudes with experience in these 3.x products that can respect that I will be converting to 4e? And even be willing to give me a lift?




I know both systems pretty well, but I do not know those products. Sorry. 



> There's lots of 3.x setting info ripe for 4e conversion.




I agree 100%


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 2, 2011)

Catsclaw you actually might want to try necro forums as well. There is a few people there that like 4e, some that like 3e, some into pathfinder and some into retro clones. We all get along fairly well and tend to be helpful. Yeah there is a few now and again who can be a problem but it's pretty rare. You might be able to find help there if you can't find it else where.


----------



## catastrophic (Jan 2, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, I think it's possible, but given the amount of time someone puts into learning 3.XEd and/or 4Ed- and how those systems appeal differently to different people- finding those able and willing to bridge the gap...well...that's going to be rare.



Certainly help might be rare, but it's not really fair to assume that everyone views these systems like you. 

You might feel that the systems 'appeal differently to different people', but there are plenty of people I know who got the same thing from playing each game, even if they feel one game is a btter fit for them. I certainly know a lot of people who know both systems very well.

Anyway I hope catsclaw has fun with his project, and I think he has the right attitude.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2011)

> Certainly help might be rare, but it's not really fair to assume that everyone views these systems like you.




I'm not.

My statement was based on what I've seen on ENWorld the past few years.  Simply put, there aren't many who love & mastered 3.XEd who likewise love & mastered 4Ed, and game conversions work best when there is equal skill on both sides of the equation.



> Anyway I hope catsclaw has fun with his project...




I wish catsclaw nothing but success, and will contribute to that if I can.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 2, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> the retaliatory "railroad APs suck" (a dig at Paizo I can only assume, too bad too.)




WotC's published plenty of APs as well. With the caveat that this is just a gut feeling (which is to say, not backed up and worth slightly less than the pixels representing it on your screen), I suspect WotC's published more APs in 4e than Paizo.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 2, 2011)

Asmor said:


> WotC's published plenty of APs as well. With the caveat that this is just a gut feeling (which is to say, not backed up and worth slightly less than the pixels representing it on your screen), I suspect WotC's published more APs in 4e than Paizo.




Huh? Are you saying WotC has published more AP's for 4e than Paizo has for 4e? Because I'll agree with that...

Or are you saying that WotC has published more AP's for 4e than Paizo has done for Pathfinder? If so, I think you're totally off base with that assumption... I think WotC has only published one, SoW, (possibly two if you count the unconnected modules, KotS...Thunderspire...etc... that first came out with 4e, though whether they are a true AP is open to debate.) complete AP's since 4e was released.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 2, 2011)

Asmor said:


> WotC's published plenty of APs as well. With the caveat that this is just a gut feeling (which is to say, not backed up and worth slightly less than the pixels representing it on your screen), I suspect WotC's published more APs in 4e than Paizo.




Yeah, I'm not really clear on what youre saying here. 

WOTC has clearly published more 4E AP's than Paizo quite simply because Pazio isnt supporting 4E AT ALL. 

Paizo has published 3 AP's for the Pathfinder ruleset specifically (Council of Thieves, Kingmaker and Serpent Crown) and seven in total (including the 3 mentioned above Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire). 

WOTC's AP's for 4E are Seeds of War and what else? The modules Keep on the Shadowfell and the other's? 

Are you talking about prior to 4E because even then the AP's were published in Dungeon which was licensed to Paizo. Those AP's are as followed The Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tide (each in 12 parts). 

WOTC's AP's? I'm actually not recalling any of the sort since during that period I kind of remember WOTC saying that adventures dont make any money. Which is weird, seeing that Paizo pretty much is doing just that.


----------



## delericho (Jan 2, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> WOTC's AP's? I'm actually not recalling any of the sort since during that period I kind of remember WOTC saying that adventures dont make any money. Which is weird, seeing that Paizo pretty much is doing just that.




The series from which the term "Adventure Path" originated was published by WotC when 3.0e was first published. It started with "Sunless Citadel" and ended with "Bastion of Broken Souls".


----------



## Herschel (Jan 2, 2011)

rounser said:


> But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.




And yet it fits many people it hadn't before. Some times our feet change but everyone has feet and needs shoes. Cest la vie.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 2, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> So I will say, in my campaign a pre-published AP is not a railroad unless the DM runs it like one.





Then how fo you explain THIS:


----------



## Herschel (Jan 2, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The question is: does the shoe fit the market?




Or, more importantly, have we reached the shoe event horizon?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 2, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And yet it fits many people it hadn't before. Some times our feet change



 The important thing to remember is that shoes have more than just a brand: they also have a *size*.

If 3.0 doesn't fit, try 3.5.
If that's still too small, try 4.



Herschel said:


> but everyone has feet and needs shoes.



 You owe an apology to all Yuan-ti and Hobbits.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Herschel (Jan 2, 2011)

Hobbits? I don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And yet it fits many people it hadn't before. Some times our feet change but everyone has feet and needs shoes. Cest la vie.



And as far as your game this month is concerned, you are exactly right.  And as far as my game this month is concerned, you are exactly right.

But as I said in the "shoes" statement you quoted: does it fit "the market?" which is a completely different question.

Keeping the perspective of "it is a hobby game" in mind, for those that care the health of the flagship isn't simply "cest la vie".

A lot of people who don't like it want to claim it is "flaming out" or the like.  They are not accurate.  

A lot of people who love it want to claim it is gangbusters.  They are not accurate.

It is doing fine.  It is making a lot of money.  But, it has also lost a major chunk of fan base and has not replaced it with other faces.  It COULD be doing a lot better.  It also COULD be doing a lot worse.  

But, as much as the flagship brand is big to the hobby, the hobby can certainly go on without it.  And it isn't nearly at that level.

So, bottom line, it is at least interesting to discuss and conditions are such that it is a legitimate point of conversation.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 3, 2011)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out?



I have no interest in the current edition, and haven't purchased anything from WotC in years.  From my point of view, WotC and the D&D brand flamed out a long time ago.  But I'm just one man, not the market.

I doubt 4e D&D is a loser; I think it's probably making money.  I doubt it's making as much money as was hoped.  Also, I get the impression that D&D isn't the 800 lb. gorilla, anymore.  It's still the dominant silverback, but maybe it's only 500 lbs., now.  



> We're three years into the current edition, and if we're already reaching the point where much of the official publication is repackaging/reimagining rather than truly original exciting material, I don't think it bodes well.



I guess the whole "Yet Another Returning Expedition to the Keep Near the Tomb of Elemental Horrors" concept still sells.


----------



## catastrophic (Jan 3, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not.
> My statement was based on what I've seen on ENWorld the past few years. Simply put, there aren't many who love & mastered 3.XEd who likewise love & mastered 4Ed, and game conversions work best when there is equal skill on both sides of the equation.



Yes, you are. 

One, you're assumng that love=mastery, and that's simply not true- for instance, many of the people I know who despise 3e certainly have a better grasp of it's mechanics than the people who defend it. The spellcaster debates in various places are a clear example of that. Likewise, a lot of the people sticking with 3e use house rules or limited class lists to vercome shortcomings that they themselves often dont' deny.

Second, you're assuming that the type of people who bitch about either system are the type of people who are likely to work on a conversion, or that those people represent the majority of a comunity. This is highly debatable to say the least. If anything, I'd say that people who spend theirtime doing that stuff are less likely to have time to spend on other things in any event- regardless of their agregated views of both systems. 

Instead, catsclaw should be looking for other comunity members, even if it's hard to find them through all the hate and noise. The noise doesn't mean there isn't signal behind it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 3, 2011)

delericho said:


> The series from which the term "Adventure Path" originated was published by WotC when 3.0e was first published. It started with "Sunless Citadel" and ended with "Bastion of Broken Souls".




I just pulled my copy of "sunless Citadel" off of the shelf and there's nothing that describes it as an AP. In fact on the back to the module it says specifically:

"The Sunless Citadel is a Stand alone adventure for the Dungeons & Dragons game" 

Forge of Fury which I think is the next mod in the "series" has no link to The Sunless Citadel. 

I have Lord of the Iron Fortress but it's in a box in a closet somewhere so I'm not certain if there's a connection to the earlier mods in he series as well. 

Bastion of Broken Souls basically says the same thing and in my admittedly brief perusal of both mods there's nothing that connects one to the other. 

So unless the connection isn't stated I dont see these as AP's at all. Were they declared to be an AP after the fact?


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jan 3, 2011)

delericho said:


> The series from which the term "Adventure Path" originated was published by WotC when 3.0e was first published. It started with "Sunless Citadel" and ended with "Bastion of Broken Souls".






			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I just pulled my copy of "sunless Citadel" off of the shelf and there's nothing that describes it as an AP.




Chris Thomasson, now Chris Youngs, got the modern adventure path idea rolling with the Shackled City/Cauldron adventure path in Dungeon magazine, where he was editor. I think around issue 100 but I'm not looking it up. Chris deserves a lot of credit for that (also for the modern swarm/mob mechanic and other things).

You could also say that Gary Gygax got the adventure path idea rolling with, well, lots of stuff, but in particular standouts such as G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3, Q1. But that's not especially modern or especially path-y.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 3, 2011)

I like 3e, but I don't love it.  I can honestly state that my understanding the mechanics leads to the lack of love.

I don't really try to transfer things between the two, because what I love about 4e is typically a fix on what I hate about 3e, and vice versa.  There's not much to transfer between the two without making some kind of bizarre half and half new system entirely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Yes, you are.
> 
> One, you're assumng that love=mastery,




...And that's simply not true.  Note, please, that I used the phrase "love & mastered"- were I of the opinion that they were equivalent, I would have only used one or the other.

Besides, I myself love many RPGs I have not mastered, and have mastered RPGs I do not love.


> Second, you're assuming that the type of people who bitch about either system are the type of people who are likely to work on a conversion, or that those people represent the majority of a comunity.




Neither of those is true either.

I think that those who bitch about systems are the LEAST likely to work on such a conversion, and that the majority of the community is silent on their preferences OR don't feel strongly either way.

However, due to their low profile on matters of edition preferences, they are also harder to find.  You're FAR more likely to find persons with strong opinions volunteering to express themselves.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 4, 2011)

There is an easy way to measure popularity. How easy is it to find a free torrent on the internet? (And not a fake one from certain sites that appear in some google searches; one an average pirate can download for free.) Yes, piracy is morally questionable, but it is also a good measure of popularity. 

Search for Lady Gaga: tons of torrents. Search for The Polka Dogs: nada, zip.

Search for everything 4th edition before Essentials: tons of torrents. Many of the earlier books like the Players' Handbook II and Divine Power were uploaded almost the same day as their release. Search for Essentials: hardly anything. Even pirates cannot be bothered to scan and upload it.

I would say that enthusiasm for 4th Edition is starting to die down.


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I just pulled my copy of "sunless Citadel" off of the shelf and there's nothing that describes it as an AP. In fact on the back to the module it says specifically:
> 
> "The Sunless Citadel is a Stand alone adventure for the Dungeons & Dragons game"
> 
> ...




While the modules can be run stand-alone, there are links between them that may become apparent to observant groups as they go through the adventures.

For example, the "Gulthais Tree" in Sunless Citadel is tied to the vampire Gulthais, from Heart of Nightfang Spire. Gulthais was a minion of Ashardalon, from Bastion of Broken Souls. The dwarven smith who built the Forge of Fury is encountered in Lord of the Iron Fortress. There were other links, but they were pretty subtle.

It is true that that Path wasn't as tightly connected as we're now used to seeing. However, I'm sure that the term "Adventure Path" was first used at that time, and to describe those adventures. (Unfortunately, my Google-fu isn't strong enough to find a suitable reference from ten years ago, so I can't cite.)



Ycore Rixle said:


> Chris Thomasson, now Chris Youngs, got the modern adventure path idea rolling with the Shackled City/Cauldron adventure path in Dungeon magazine, where he was editor.
> 
> You could also say that Gary Gygax got the adventure path idea rolling with, well, lots of stuff, but in particular standouts such as G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3, Q1. But that's not especially modern or especially path-y.




Both of these things are true. The Dragonlance adventures were also a very good example of an Adventure Path.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> There is an easy way to measure popularity. How easy is it to find a free torrent on the internet? (And not a fake one from certain sites that appear in some google searches; one an average pirate can download for free.) Yes, piracy is morally questionable, but it is also a good measure of popularity.
> 
> Search for Lady Gaga: tons of torrents. Search for The Polka Dogs: nada, zip.
> 
> ...




That is a one-sided way of looking at it. I think a lot of the 4E classic pdfs coming out so regularly and quickly was more a reaction to the pdfs being withdrawn due to piracy. You challenge those folks and they will respond.

I have also noticed that essentials is nowhere to be seen, and I wonder why. I do not think it is a lack of popularity. I am not sure what it is, but something is going on.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I have also noticed that essentials is nowhere to be seen, and I wonder why. I do not think it is a lack of popularity. I am not sure what it is, but something is going on.



I'd think one contributing factor might be that most of the Essentials products are box sets as opposed to books. About the only one I'd want as a pdf version is the Rules Compendium.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

delericho said:


> Both of these things are true. The Dragonlance adventures were also a very good example of an Adventure Path.




Couldn't XP you, but that's another great example.

There was also:

I3-I5, the Desert of Desolation series,
I6 & I10, Ravenloft and Ravenloft 2: House on Griffon Hill,
L1-L3 - the Lenore Isle adventures,
U1-U3 - The Saltmarsh series,
T1-T4 - Village of Homlett/Temple of Elemental Evil superadventure
UK2 - UK3 - Sentinel/Gauntlet
DDA1-DDA4 - The Thyatis series
H1-H4 - Bloodstone series

During 2E days, there were also quite a few, usually for campaign worlds:

DSQ series (Road to Urik, Arcane Shadows, Asticlian Gambit)

Ravenloft:  Death Ascendant, Death Triumphant, Death Unchained, (Death Undaunted)

FRE1-FRE3 - Time of troubles series

Ruins of Undermountain (I/II) + Maddgoth's Castle, Stardock & the Lost Level

Sword of the Dales, Secret of Spiderhaunt, Return of Randal Morn

Marco Volo series (Departure, Journey, Arrival)

Castle Spulzeer / Forgotten Terror crossover

The most unusual was probably Ravenloft's Feast of Goblyns, Ship of Horror, Web of Illusion, Night of the Walking Dead, Roots of Evil and From the Shadows, which shared a metaplot but couldn't easily be run as a "series"

...And I think I've listed more than enough.  I'd also add that many of the boxed adventure sets were basically APs, sold en masse rather than parcelled out over several modules/books.


----------



## rounser (Jan 4, 2011)

> One, you're assumng that love=mastery, and that's simply not true- for instance, many of the people I know who despise 3e certainly have a better grasp of it's mechanics than the people who defend it. The spellcaster debates in various places are a clear example of that. Likewise, a lot of the people sticking with 3e use house rules or limited class lists to vercome shortcomings that they themselves often dont' deny.



The spellcaster debates hinge on whether you saw wizards as "a problem that needed fixing." A lot of the changes 4E wrought were answers to problems that not everyone saw as such, or just generated bigger problems in place of the old.  The fact that you think defenders of vancian magic are less knowledgable than the attackers is probably just a reflection of you agreeing with their arguments, as I can point you to one recently where my opponent couldn't even quote well known loopholes in the spell system and was talking in handwaves and general impressions rather than specifics.  So no, I think you're indulging in wishful thinking here.  Rejectors of 4E cannot be stereotyped as uninformed rejectors - they know what they like in their game.  Unthinking acceptance of whatever rules might lead to just going with whatever the newest edition serves up, because it's new and shiny.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Search for everything 4th edition before Essentials: tons of torrents. Many of the earlier books like the Players' Handbook II and Divine Power were uploaded almost the same day as their release. Search for Essentials: hardly anything. Even pirates cannot be bothered to scan and upload it.
> 
> I would say that enthusiasm for 4th Edition is starting to die down.




Sadly, you are terribly wrong on this.  I am seeing plenty of scans/PDFs for all the Essentials products.

Also, if I recall correctly, the PHB2 and Divine Power were uploaded so quickly because they came from WotC's own legal scans-turned-pirate, which isn't being done for these news items.  It seems to be taking about a month for the pirates to turn around & popularize a good scan nowadays because they don't have WotC shortcuts.  It isn't stopping them, just slowing them a bit.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 4, 2011)

delericho said:


> It is true that that Path wasn't as tightly connected as we're now used to seeing. However, I'm sure that the term "Adventure Path" was first used at that time, and to describe those adventures. (Unfortunately, my Google-fu isn't strong enough to find a suitable reference from ten years ago, so I can't cite.)




This Google Groups search confirms your memory, which conforms to mine. Everyone referred to these modules as the Adventure Path.

Here you can see a regurgitated press release from around that time: "This month begins the “Adventure Path” series of eight adventures for  Third Edition that WotC delivers to take beginning Third Edition  characters from 1st level through 20th. The first in the series is the  32-page The Sunless Citadel by Bruce R. Cordell..."

I have very vivid, but apparently false, memories of "Adventure Path" being printed on the covers. In fact, I can find no indication in back issues of Dragon that there was any sort of "Adventure Path" branding going on. So why did the entire community start calling them that?

I'm guessing it was something Ryan Dancey said.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> I have very vivid, but apparently false, memories of "Adventure Path" being printed on the covers. In fact, I can find no indication in back issues of Dragon that there was any sort of "Adventure Path" branding going on. So why did the entire community start calling them that?
> 
> I'm guessing it was something Ryan Dancey said.




Yeah, there was no branding on the covers of those modules calling them Adventure Paths or linking them in anyway. 

As for Dungeon Magazine branding well HERE:  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JdaXTit5QaI/TI3Fk45JNDI/AAAAAAAAD1s/yIpL1wtCTCM/s400/Dungeon+Magazine+102.JPG

They pretty clearly were calling them adventure paths on the covers of the magazine. 




Beginning of the End said:


> This Google Groups search confirms your memory, which conforms to mine. Everyone referred to these modules as the Adventure Path.
> 
> Here you can see a regurgitated press release from around that time: "This month begins the “Adventure Path” series of eight adventures for Third Edition that WotC delivers to take beginning Third Edition characters from 1st level through 20th. The first in the series is the 32-page The Sunless Citadel by Bruce R. Cordell..."




Which is funny because I have at least 3 of those modules and had no idea that they were called adventure paths or that they were even remotely connected . Granted I havent read these mods in a loooooooong time. I'm still looking in the actual products themselves as to where they call themselves AP's. 

NOTE: After digging a little deeper, I'm seeing that there is a a connection, the build up to the eventual confrontation with the dragon, Ashardalon. Does anyone know the names of all of the mods in this AP? So that I can track down the ones that I'm missing?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 4, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> NOTE: After digging a little deeper, I'm seeing that there is a a connection, the build up to the eventual confrontation with the dragon, Ashardalon. Does anyone know the names of all of the mods in this AP? So that I can track down the ones that I'm missing?




There are quite a few other connections, too. The villain from The Sunless Citadel, for example, reappears later in the series. And a legendary forge master from The Forge of Fury also has a running presence throughout the series.

I believe the full list is:

The Sunless Citadel
The Forge of Fury
The Standing Stone
The Speaker in Dreams
Deep Horizon
Heart of Nightfang Spire
Lord of the Iron Fortress
Bastion of Broken Souls

Here's Todd Lockwood referring to it as an Adventure Path.

And here's a reference from D&D For Dummies doing the same, although that's post-Shackled City.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> There are quite a few other connections, too. The villain from The Sunless Citadel, for example, reappears later in the series. And a legendary forge master from The Forge of Fury also has a running presence throughout the series.
> 
> I believe the full list is:
> 
> ...




Excellent. Thanks for the list. Turns out (according to my Excel inventory, which may be out of date...) that I'm only missing Speaker in Dreams (although I could have sworn that Speaker is actually on my shelf. I'll have to check when I get home.) Deep Horizon and Heart of The Nightfang Spire.

I believe you guys when you say that WOTC called this an AP, I just dont recall it ever being pitched as such. And I was around at the time and bought at least 6 of the 8 mods. I discovered AP's when I started picking up Dungeon and came on the tail end of Shackled City. 

I personally think that the mods are too loosely connected for what I consider to be AP's. I think A1-4, G1-3, D1-2 & 3 have tighter connections between them than the WOTC mods do. But that's neither here or there...


----------



## Erik Mona (Jan 4, 2011)

My memory is that the 3.0 module series was referred to as the Adventure Path in-house at WotC, in marketing talk (interviews and the like), and possibly in Dragon magazine.

But I also seem to recall a directive from the brand team that employees were NOT to refer to the series as an "Adventure Path" in print, as the business folks must have thought that would somehow hurt sales.

It would be interesting to see someone scour the modules themselves (back cover copy, interior text, etc.) for any mention of the term Adventure Path. My memory is that it isn't there.

--Erik


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

Interesting way of looking at it.



Tallifer said:


> There is an easy way to measure popularity. How easy is it to find a free torrent on the internet? (And not a fake one from certain sites that appear in some google searches; one an average pirate can download for free.) Yes, piracy is morally questionable, but it is also a good measure of popularity. Search for Lady Gaga: tons of torrents. Search for The Polka Dogs: nada, zip. Search for everything 4th edition before Essentials: tons of torrents. Many of the earlier books like the Players' Handbook II and Divine Power were uploaded almost the same day as their release. Search for Essentials: hardly anything. Even pirates cannot be bothered to scan and upload it.I would say that enthusiasm for 4th Edition is starting to die down.




And then the opposing view... 

Interesting thought to-but dont the sets have stuff in them that's scannable material? Although....



Jhaelen said:


> I'd think one contributing factor might be that most of the Essentials products are box sets as opposed to books. About the only one I'd want as a pdf version is the Rules Compendium.




@Tallifer
@Jhaelen
@Dice4Hire

Ultimately HALF the stuff may be boxed, but that does not mean that the boxes dont contain BOOKS. 

DM Kit 256 page book + TWO 32 Page Adventures (Boxed)
Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms 356 page Trade Paperback 
Heroes of The Fallen lands 352 Page book Trade Paperback 
Monster Vault 256 Page Book + 32 Page Adventure (Boxed)
Rules Compendium 320 page Trade Paperback 
The Essential Dungeon & Dragons Starter (AKA Neo Red Box) (Boxed, duh)

DOES ANYONE THINK the books are getting longer than 3x? Seems most of those were shorter. PLUS LOOK AT THE PRICES-these books are all quoted (at least on Wizards page) at $19.95 (actual store prices might vary) but AS I RECALL when I got into 3.x every splat was like $30. Only the DMKIT for 4E is $39.95


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

rounser said:


> The spellcaster debates hinge on whether you saw wizards as "a problem that needed fixing." A lot of the changes 4E wrought were answers to problems that not everyone saw as such, or just generated bigger problems in place of the old.  The fact that you think defenders of vancian magic are less knowledgable than the attackers is probably just a reflection of you agreeing with their arguments, as I can point you to one recently where my opponent couldn't even quote well known loopholes in the spell system and was talking in handwaves and general impressions rather than specifics.  So no, I think you're indulging in wishful thinking here.  Rejectors of 4E cannot be stereotyped as uninformed rejectors - they know what they like in their game.  Unthinking acceptance of whatever rules might lead to just going with whatever the newest edition serves up, because it's new and shiny.




I've yet to meet someone who was truly comfortable with the rules and understood good tactics and how potent spellcasters were and how un-potent most non-spellcasters were and did not find it in some way problematic.

When a wizard can destroy any encounter - not just in combat, either - with "I cast a spell," it's a problem.  When a fighter's only response is "I hit it with a stick" and even that fails more often then not, there's an issue.

Every time I think of houserules to make for 3e, "do something about spellcasters" is first on the list.

See, here's the thing - I can agree that 3e as horrible crippling flaws such as spellcaster issues and _still like it_.  I don't think 3e is a bad game.  I don't think Pathfinder is a bad game.  I think they both suffer from some of the same poisonous and downright toxic design philosophies from my personal standpoint, but I still think they're fun games.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

[MENTION=65637]ProfessorCirno[/MENTION]
Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards - Television Tropes & Idioms

And on the price of books I was talking about a post before.



Dire Bare said:


> Yup. Not to mention that introductory products are often priced artificially low. The D&D core rulebooks are often less expensive (per page) than other hard covers of their size . . . and I'm sure it's the same with the softcover Essentials products.
> 
> But, then again, I've heard people suspiciously complaining about rising prices since I started hanging out here on ENWorld roughly 10 years ago. It's called inflation folks, deal with it.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've yet to meet someone who was truly comfortable with the rules and understood good tactics and how potent spellcasters were and how un-potent most non-spellcasters were and did not find it in some way problematic.
> 
> When a wizard can destroy any encounter - not just in combat, either - with "I cast a spell," it's a problem.




My opinion on this tends to coincide with Justin Alexander's: Death of the Wandering Monster

(TL;DR: It's only a problem if the DM allows the PCs to reliably control the pace of encounters. When the fifteen minute workdays and always-nova strategies are 100% reliable, the spellcasters rapidly become problematic. When they aren't, spellcasters are kept in check until somewhere between 12th and 15th level.)

And I would go further to say that the root of the problem is the new school of My Precious Encounter(TM), in which every encounter is lovingly crafted in painstaking detail. When the wizard suddenly blows up the encounter you spent 2 hours prepping, that's a huge ing problem. The ratio of prep-to-play is completely screwed up.

But if your encounter prep consists of writing down "6 orcs + 2 ogres", then when the wizard decides that that's the one encounter he's going to blow up for the day it doesn't matter.

My Precious Encounter(TM) design tends to focus the game entirely on tactics. The older way of designing encounters made strategy an important part of the picture.

Last interesting note: The fact that balance begins to break down around 12th to 15th level makes sense when you consider that in the original design for D&D this was the level at which fighters became Lords and began accruing dozens or hundreds of followers. _And wizards didn't._

The imbalance specifically exists because the game took away the fighter's high-level toys, but it didn't take away the wizard's high-level toys.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> My opinion on this tends to coincide with Justin Alexander's: Death of the Wandering Monster
> 
> (TL;DR: It's only a problem if the DM allows the PCs to reliably control the pace of encounters. When the fifteen minute workdays and always-nova strategies are 100% reliable, the spellcasters rapidly become problematic. When they aren't, spellcasters are kept in check until somewhere between 12th and 15th level.)
> 
> ...




Cant give XP, would do it for mentioning TheAlexandrian but I must spread it around. Oh-And Wizards followers arent gathered, _they are made._


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> -Snip-




How many spells does a wizard need to destroy a fight?

2.  _Maybe_ 3.

How many spells does a level, let's keep it small, _4_ wizard have?

_Way more then needed._

Balance breaks down *far* earlier then level 12.  Colorspray is a level 1 spell, Glitterdust and Web level 2.

All this is ignoring scrolls and wands the wizard can have.

And no, the problem isn't "my preciosu encounter," because it goes far beyond combat.  Want to have a murder mystery?  Nope!  The spellcaster can just _ask the dead guy_ what happened.  Or he uses a divination spell to easily pinpoint the murderer.  Want to have a difficult and daring traverse through difficult terrain?  Nope!  Endure elements, purify and/or summon food and water.

For *every* situation there is, the wizard can respond with "I cast a spell."  Not just combat.

It's funny - for all the anger and whinging that 4e is just about combat, whenever the discussion about pre-4e wizard power comes out, combat seems to be all people talk about 

Wizards in pre-4e have all the *narrative* power.  That's my issue.

Edit: And for the one billionth time *you are Alexander, stop referring to yourself in the third person.*


----------



## rounser (Jan 6, 2011)

Cirno, I understand you've got this mental picture of an archmage unloading, but as the guy points out above that's highly artificial.  The myth of the solo archmage even requires cheaty spells (c.f. Symbul, Elminster) in order to live up to the hype.  And however you cut it, they have buggerall hit points, and will die if they unload and cannot hide behind magic items and bodyguards (or exotic defensive spells like Mantle or Immunity).

Yes, the wizard will be good for a sprint after which he can immediately catch his breathe, but there are superior choices for an endurance event, which D&D often is.

For all the hype about 4E being a cooperative game, it is ironic that you cannot detect how dependent the Vancian wizard is on the other PCs.  The only one I'd say they're clearly superior to is the rogue or thief, because spells can duplicate their abilities.  Fully outfitted fighters, clerics, druids and paladins?  Not so much, especially in terms of endurance between rests.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

rounser said:


> Cirno, I understand you've got this mental picture of an archmage unloading, but as the guy points out above that's highly artificial.  The myth of the solo archmage even requires cheaty spells (c.f. Symbul, Elminster) in order to live up to the hype.  And however you cut it, they have buggerall hit points, and will die if they unload and cannot hide behind magic items and bodyguards (or exotic defensive spells like Mantle or Immunity).




Yes, exotic spells such as Mirror Image which provides better defense then any mount of AC.  Or Blur.  Or invisibility.  Or flight.  Or stoneskin.

The archmage isn't unloading in my mental picture.  He seems to do that a lot in your guys', but never once in mind.  Again, I'm talking about a wizard that plays _smart_.  Throwing out your most powerful stuff once against an easy fight isn't playing smart.



> Yes, the wizard will be good for a sprint after which he can immediately catch his breathe, but there are superior choices for an endurance event, which D&D often is.




Except a wizard has a lot of spells, and even then he has scrolls and wands.  Wizards can also rest on _command_ with any number of ways of summoning magical invisible houses or extradimentional hidey holes.



> For all the hype about 4E being a cooperative game, it is ironic that you cannot detect how dependent the wizard is on the other PCs.  The only one I'd say they're clearly superior to is the rogue or thief, because spells can duplicate their abilities.  Fully outfitted fighters, clerics, druids and paladins?  Not so much, especially in terms of endurance between rests.




Sure they can.

Here's another secret of the trade: fighters have an expendable resource too.  It's called "hit points."  Fighters also can't renew them, nor can they rest on command like wizards can.  They and paladins are also utter rubbish in 3e at doing, well, much of anything.  Druids and clerics?  Of course they compare; they're _more spellcasters_.

And all of this is ignoring my original point.

It's not about combat power.  It's about narrative power.  The wizard can fly, open any door (or lock it magically), turn invisible, shapeshift, stop time, disintegrate solid matter, summon monsters, or bind horrible and powerful demons to his will.  The wizard can, in other words, change and shape the very fabric of the setting itself.

And if you want a very high powered campaign, _that's fine_.  I have no problem with that in such a campaign.  _If everyone gets to play in it_.

The problem is that D&D tried to be a high powered awesome world changing campaign with the wizard *and* the low magic gritty sword and sandals kicked out of the inn game with the warrior.  And those two types of games are mutually exclusive.


----------



## rounser (Jan 6, 2011)

> Yes, exotic spells such as Mirror Image which provides better defense then any mount of AC. Or Blur. Or invisibility. Or flight. Or stoneskin.



Stoneskin is the only one of those worth comparing to magical platemail and tower shield in terms of reliability.  IMO you're an armchair general on this topic.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 6, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> Ultimately HALF the stuff may be boxed, but that does not mean that the boxes dont contain BOOKS.



Sure! However, speaking for myself, the reason I bought the Monster Vault was not the 'scannable' material it contained. I bought it for the monster tokens and the poster map. That the box also contained a paperback with a bunch of new or revised monster stats was just a nice bonus.

And the preferable format for the contents of that paperback would be as a dataset in the monster builder.

The only other products of the Essentials line I bought were the boxes with the dungeon tiles. I realize I 'might' be in the minority here, but I doubt I'm the only one not interested in the 'Essentialized' books.

I suppose at the other end of the spectrum might be people who are not interested in anything in the box _except_ the books. For such persons, I'd imagine getting their hands on a pdf version of the books would be quite neat...


----------



## khantroll (Jan 6, 2011)

Sorry to jump in, but I've been following the last couple of pages. On a certain level, I can see your point, Cirno; if a wizard has access to most or every spell in the book, and he has the time to prep every or at least most encounters, it could be very difficult to frustrate him. With those resources, he can literally write a new ending to the story.  

Thing is, speaking as a wizard player, you don't and shouldn't have access to those things all the time. Your murder mystery example only works if the mage has the spell. A DM can keep scrolls and wands away from the wizard for that adventure; if that magic were that plentiful, there wouldn't be a mystery in the first place. Besides that fact, the deceased doesn't necessarily know the answer  

Your other examples have similar issues. The lower-level spells you mention are not terribly unbalancing except in the most rudimentary setups. The knock spell can unlock most doors, but it doesn't disarm traps (which there is no spell for). Arcane Lock locks most doors, but the lock doesn't matter if the door is bashed in by a fighter, or the lock dispelled. 

Fly is only a pain if you are trying to lock them in a hole. Archers can make short work of a wizard scout trying to do recon. Traps or odd setups cure its use in any locked rooms with ledges. 

Summon Monster is not terribly bad. At lower levels, who really cares about badgers, and at upper levels banishment/antimagic is a real pain. 

Polymorph is a pain in the rear, but size and level constraints are sort of put a muzzle on it. 

Time Stop isn't really a problem. A character can't do a whole lot, and the level/benefit causes most people to overlook it during spell selection. 

Invisibility gets canceled/thwarted by so many things that a single failed role can leave worse off then if you hadn't tried to sneak by magically at all. 

Blur and Mirror Image do give cover bonuses, but in the case of Blur it's much better to be used on the fighters then the wizard. Mirror Image is a pain, but area effects counter it nicely and can take the wizard out of the game entirely. 

Disintegrate is the worst one, but even it is muted. It can only disintegrate 10x10x10 of matter, so a small hut or large rock. Normal weapons and shields are of course dead. An average amount of damage is 100 for that spell, which is a lot. A high fort save by the target limits its likely damage to 15 points, which isn't that much. It's actually less then the average fighter of equivalent level.

Clerics are worse then wizards because they get total access to their spell lists without any kind of control built in. Plus armor.

The point of all this has not been to poke holes in the handful of examples post here; rather, just to illustrate two things. First, that it isn't as all powerful as it seems, second, that the wizard may be able to rip reality, but the DM gets to line it with kevlar. 

If a person wants to play a game like a Conan novel, where the mage is limited to colorspray and divination and the entire plot hinges on the fighter making that natural twenty to throw his sword across throne room and hit a tiny gem stone, then I completely agree with you that the classes as written do not fit in that fantasy world. <For clarity, let me say that the tongue in cheek tone of the above is me ragging on the Conan films/comics, not your position or anyone elses>.

If you have a world where arcane magic is rare, and your adventures are prepared that way, then I concur the wizard class is unbalancing.

If a person wants to play in the traditional D&D world where the clerics augment the fighters into blessed juggernauts wading into undead foes while the wizard spends several rounds trying to send them back to the graves which the party rogue is currently looting, then they jive quite nicely in my experience. Just my 2 cents though.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> How many spells does a wizard need to destroy a fight?






ProfessorCirno said:


> 2. Maybe 3.
> How many spells does a level, let's keep it small, 4 wizard have?
> Way more then needed.




Then isnt IT the SPELLS and not the wizard that need to be fixed if one or two spells can end an encounter? I wouldnt take the wizards slots away necessarily, I'd remove or alter the spells, or increase monsters ability to save. 





> And no, the problem isn't "my preciosu encounter," because it goes far beyond combat. Want to have a murder mystery? Nope! The spellcaster can just ask the dead guy what happened. Or he uses a divination spell to easily pinpoint the murderer. Want to have a difficult and daring traverse through difficult terrain? Nope! Endure elements, purify and/or summon food and water.



 

And havent magicians in fiction and fantasy ALWAYS done these things? Hell, Saul conjured up and spoke with the dead back in ye olde testament. On as SIDE note, players should NOT be denied their divinations. You should also remember that while divinations may give hints YOU in control. WHAT makes you think the dead guy SAW his attacker? AND- dont forget that often information recieved under Speak With Dead is cryptic rather than straightforward. 




> For every situation there is, the wizard can respond with "I cast a spell." Not just combat.



 
And WHATS the problem? Thats what Wizards do. If a fighter were confronted with a deadly situation you would fully expect him to use some physical skill to solve the problem, be it swimming or climbing, trying to trip or grapple an enemy, or just chopping it up with his sword. But what about out of combat?




> It's funny - for all the anger and whinging that 4e is just about combat, whenever the discussion about pre-4e wizard power comes out, combat seems to be all people talk about



 
So whats a wizard do? HE CAST'S A SPELL. And of course he does the wizard is MAGICAL. Magic can do anything -its FANTASTICAL! I mean with the proper spell you can even make your own demi-planes. YES fantasy has had its epic warriors, its Hercules, Gilgameshes and its Samsons but, the fact of the matter is- is that a Wizard, a Sorceror, a magician be his power divine or secret knowledge, can and should by very definition be able to do things that NO classical warrior has any bussiness doing EVER. 

The problem with the fighter or nonmagical class, is that he is mundane. He's may be far stronger and quicker, almost supernaturally so-but otherwise the things he can do are limited to his physical actions, skills, and abilities, no matter how strong.

OH

And the warrior is SOOOOOOO screwed against say, A WRAITH-you know, one the truly fantastical threats in a fantastical setting. He cant touch it, not unless he has that magical sword that some Wizard or a Cleric in his party to loose divine wrath upon it. In fact, a warrior completely devoid of magical items he's expected to have at any given level is severely weakened. If magicians just stopped making all that crap for other people, where would the fighter be then? 

Then again....where would the magicians be without the melee classes to tank for them when they cant fly or cant be invisible against some thing with magic eyes, or what have you. Frankly, sometimes being physically tough, is the only thing that can save you. 

Ultimately though, the classes never have, and never will be perfectly balanced against one another. (somtimes never at all) You are comparing two unlike things that nonethless-each serve a purpose in a party with the mage being the most versatile. But this "wizards" what about Clerics? Its really more CASTERS in general. 

What can a divine agent do?




> "A new cleric can supply enough water to replace the local well (create water) and can ensure that nothing gets broken for long (mending). After some experience a cleric can be the best fix-it guy around (make whole) and is a near perfect magistrate (zone of truth).






> A cleric in the prime of their career should be able to ensure that a town is completely free of blindness, deafness, or disease (remove blindness/deafness, remove disease). They should also be the best stoneworker and sculptor (shape stone), finder of lost things (locate object), and food supplier (create food and water). And just in case a Zone of Truth isnt enough to locate that murderer, they can even try to ask the victim (speak with dead). They can even talk to the crops (speak with plants).
> 
> A senior cleric rules the temple and is cital to the life of the community. No one can lie to them (discern lies). They can predict the future (divination), he can talk to anyone (tongues), removes the efects of any nasty creature (neutralize poison, restoration), and ensures even a drought doesnt reduce the water supply (control water)."



 -DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH (p. 77)

Could a fighter do any of that with no magic at all? Yes. But he would have to try very, very, hard. The sourcebooks tell us this. This is what happens when you live in a kitchen sink high fantasy world. Magic sets you FREE-no matter how strong or fast you are, magic can go beyond physical limits to literally make the impossible-POSSIBLE. Take that away, and its not really magical.

OH

*~And the CLERIC* is a trained WARRIOR-he doesnt melee bad and can wear heavy armor!~*

Even in Shadowrun, my mage can do so many things mundanes cant. TRUE his total selection of spells is far smaller than any D&D magician, but he can summon spirits to aid in many tasks and use their own magical abilities. Thats the way magic is. Nonetheless, he's still mortal and SR is a much more lethal game than D&D (Chunky Salsa My Friends). 

In a kitchen sink fantasy like D&D you're mixing gritty mundande swordsman with fantastic Harry Potter. Those two get in a fight one on one-well we know who would win frankly, its to be expected-of course they were never intended to fight against each other like that, rather they were intended to work together each doing what they excel at. The swordsman will be a swordsman. I will say that 4E powers and system of Daily/At Will/Encounter abilities were _hinted_ at or foreshadowed a bit with Bo9S manuevers, and served to give melee classes more options.

There are some possibilites for 3E:

A. Take away all magic or play a very low magic setting
B. Make all casters distant NPCs, Evil Wizards with undead armies (HEY-EVEN SAURON got his arse whooped by some little haflings) and lordly Priest-Kings.
C. GIVE the fighter-indeed ALL CLASSES at least some magic. *Magical Warriors. If you're going to have a high fantasy setting, you might as well do it. 
D. Just live with the way things are in a high fantasy game, if you're going to play a superhuman/action-movie-heroic, but otherwise mundane person.


And THIS...this is just a fact of the inherent nature of the game.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem is that D&D tried to be a high powered awesome world changing campaign with the wizard *and* the low magic gritty sword and sandals kicked out of the inn game with the warrior. And those two types of games are mutually exclusive.




And yes as you may have guessed-I like magicians. In fact, they are my most favored character archetype in any setting or game. However-I have played Barbs, Rouges, Knights, and Monks and _you know what_? I still had fun anyway, and I didnt try or think I was going to be what the party Cleric, Druid, Wizard or what have you was.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

khantroll said:


> Thing is, speaking as a wizard player, you don't and shouldn't have access to those things all the time. Your murder mystery example only works if the mage has the spell. A DM can keep scrolls and wands away from the wizard for that adventure; if that magic were that plentiful, there wouldn't be a mystery in the first place. Besides that fact, the deceased doesn't necessarily know the answer




1) In most cases where the deceased doesn't know, magic is involved there, so you need magic to counter magic - not a selling point.  Or, again, just divination it up.

2) Why don't you have access to this?  YOu can teleport and fly to any city in the world.  Are you saying that no wizards _ever_ offer their services or sell scrolls or let other wizards copy from their spell books?

Magic is like a secret.  If 10 people know a secret and 9 don't tell, _the secret is out._ 



> Your other examples have similar issues. The lower-level spells you mention are not terribly unbalancing except in the most rudimentary setups. The knock spell can unlock most doors, but it doesn't disarm traps (which there is no spell for). Arcane Lock locks most doors, but the lock doesn't matter if the door is bashed in by a fighter, or the lock dispelled.



Summon Monster



> Fly is only a pain if you are trying to lock them in a hole. Archers can make short work of a wizard scout trying to do recon. Traps or odd setups cure its use in any locked rooms with ledges.



Again, flight has power far, far beyond combat.  I'm talking about narrative power.  The wizard can literally fly over raging rivers or dangerous mountains and sheer cliffs.  A towering citadel is worthless to something that flies.



> Summon Monster is not terribly bad. At lower levels, who really cares about badgers, and at upper levels banishment/antimagic is a real pain.



Again, if the only answer to magic is _more magic_ then my point is proven even stronger.



> Polymorph is a pain in the rear, but size and level constraints are sort of put a muzzle on it.



Not really.  You don't need to be a Gargantuan creature to be hilariously powerful.



> Time Stop isn't really a problem. A character can't do a whole lot, and the level/benefit causes most people to overlook it during spell selection.



People overlook a lot of good things.



> Invisibility gets canceled/thwarted by so many things that a single failed role can leave worse off then if you hadn't tried to sneak by magically at all.



Here I will agree - invisibility can be cancelled by a lot.

Unless you're invisible and flying ;p



> Blur and Mirror Image do give cover bonuses, but in the case of Blur it's much better to be used on the fighters then the wizard. Mirror Image is a pain, but area effects counter it nicely and can take the wizard out of the game entirely.



Again, magic cancelling magic doesn't disprove my point.



> Disintegrate is the worst one, but even it is muted. It can only disintegrate 10x10x10 of matter, so a small hut or large rock. Normal weapons and shields are of course dead. An average amount of damage is 100 for that spell, which is a lot. A high fort save by the target limits its likely damage to 15 points, which isn't that much. It's actually less then the average fighter of equivalent level.



The power of disintegrate isn't in the HP damage, which is why I think a lot of people tend to ignore it more then they should.  It's a trend I see a lot, really.  HP damage is so _minute_ of a thing that wizards can do compared to their ability to completely reshape a battlefield to their desires.  Being able to disintegrate any amount of matter is insanely potent.  Walls - or almost any type of barrier - no longer have meaning.



> The point of all this has not been to poke holes in the handful of examples post here; rather, just to illustrate two things. First, that it isn't as all powerful as it seems, second, that the wizard may be able to rip reality, but the DM gets to line it with kevlar.



See, that's my problem.

To give a fighter challenges is easy.  Most things can be a challenge to a fighter.  Sheer cliffs, dangerous terrain, deadly monsters.  But to challenge a wizard you have to go out of your way to do it.  You need magic to cancel out magic, because that's the only thing that can.  A fighter cannot cancel out a wizard, but a wizard can cancel out a fighter.  Unless the fighter is using something that another wizard made.



> If a person wants to play in the traditional D&D world where the clerics augment the fighters into blessed juggernauts wading into undead foes while the wizard spends several rounds trying to send them back to the graves which the party rogue is currently looting, then they jive quite nicely in my experience. Just my 2 cents though.



I actually agree here.

My gripe is this - in order to play this way, the wizard and cleric either have to, be it purposefully or accidentally, not play up to their actual narrative power.  Bringing a gun to a fist fight isn't unfair if the guy never shoots the gun...but he still has a gun while everyone else has a knife.  And the wizard gun shoots antimatter bullets and creates an anti-fist shield around him and then changes all of reality.

To put it another way, at level 16, the wizard can create his own demiplane.  The fighter, the barbarian, the rogue, the monk, the ranger, and so on, and so on, get the ability to hit things with a stick a bit better.  The wizard isn't even playing the same game as they are - he's playing Exalted while they're playing World of Darkness: Mortals.  And both of those are fun games*!  But they don't really play well together.

*Exalted really isn't a fun game, though for mechanical reasons, not fluff reasons 

For what it's worth, so you know this isn't just me arm-chairing things, I have - quite a few times now - sat down and tried to think on how to reconcile this.  The answer I eventually came up with is this: First, you need to decide if you want a high magic, low magic, or "mid-level" game.  From there, you have to adjust.  In anything but high magic, wizards and their insane versatility are too much.  As are clerics and druids, really.  Sorcerers, funny enough, I don't have that big of a problem with, simply because they lack the insane versatility of always having a spell for every occasion.  For a high magic game, you want to REALLY boost up the noncasters, and give them a means of accomplishing over the top heroic and, really, _mythological_ feats of power and strength, such as Beowulf ripping the arm off Grendel and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, Cu Chulainn's epic warp spasms, or...just about anything that was ever done in the Three Kingdoms.  For a mid level game, which is probably easiest, just nudge players towards classes like the Factotum, the specialized casters (like the beguiler), or Tome of Battle classes.  For low-magic...well, that's it's own thread _entirely_, and I'd be more then happy to comment on that subject elsewhere if you want 

This is, of course, going off a 3e chassis.  A 4e chassis, at least for a low magic style game, easier in some aspects, and harder in others.  I unfortunately haven't had a chance to really stare at 4e mechanics and build a really low-magic style game out of them.

*Exalted really isn't a fun game, though for mechanical reasons, not fluff reasons 



rounser said:


> Stoneskin is the only one of those worth  comparing to magical platemail and tower shield in terms of reliability.   IMO you're an armchair general on this topic.




Yes, a flat chance to miss is way worse then AC which becomes  increasingly hilariously worthless as you level, unless you devout a lot  of resources into it, at which point only _half_ the creatures  will simply auto-bypass it


----------



## khantroll (Jan 6, 2011)

> 1) In most cases where the deceased doesn't know, magic is involved  there, so you need magic to counter magic - not a selling point.  Or,  again, just divination it up.




Not necessarily. Not everyone sees their assassin. If Col. Mustard smacks you in the back of the  head with his candlestick, you probably won't know it. Chemical attacks or accidents will leave you with no answers as well. 

Also, I disagree about magic countering magic. To quote the Sword of Truth "We are steel against the steel, he is the magic against the magic". In most fantasy literature, that is what inevitably happens when one party leverages magic. It wouldn't be magic if a sword could take it down. By the same token, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw as a child where a knight tilts toward a dragon and the lance breaks. Toasted Knight. Magic is what you use outside the bounds of the sword. 



> 2) Why don't you have access to this?  YOu can teleport and fly to any city in the world.  Are you saying that no wizards _ever_ offer their services or sell scrolls or let other wizards copy from their spell books?




Depends on the level and the story. If it is wayside tavern in the middle of nowhere, I would have to travel a ways, spend more time and money, and depending on how hard the foreign wizard dickers the assassin could have blown the inn sky high before I return. 

A murder mystery in a metropolitan area lends itself to other problems. Why am I handling it at all if better mages are around? How does the constabulary feel about me fooling around and bringing more civilians into the picture? There are times when the yellow pages won't help you. 

The above assumes that I cannot cast the necessary spells. If I can, I may not have access to them for the above, or I may simply not have the gold for them. I doubt I'll have time to earn it with a murderer on the loose. Point is that there are any number of nuisance reasons I don't necessarily have everything at my disposal. 



> Quote:
> Your other examples have similar issues. The lower-level spells you  mention are not terribly unbalancing except in the most rudimentary  setups. The knock spell can unlock most doors, but it doesn't disarm  traps (which there is no spell for). Arcane Lock locks most doors, but  the lock doesn't matter if the door is bashed in by a fighter, or the  lock dispelled.
> Summon Monster




Point taken about disabling traps. A waste, but it does work.


> Quote:
> Fly is only a pain if you are trying to lock them in a hole. Archers  can make short work of a wizard scout trying to do recon. Traps or odd  setups cure its use in any locked rooms with ledges.
> Again, flight has power far, far  beyond combat.  I'm talking about narrative power.  The wizard can  literally fly over raging rivers or dangerous mountains and sheer  cliffs.  A towering citadel is worthless to something that flies.




I wasn't necessarily talking about combat either. I meant scouting. Rivers you have a point on. But mountains he is going to either ) be close enough to the ground it won't matter or B) he is going to find himself with a whole new set of environmental problems and random encounters. A citadel is a still a problem unless depend on sheer walls for your defense, and leave a window open. He still has to get inside, fight the guards, get past the traps, and defeat me. So he got in with a spell instead of DC  climb check. Big whoop, IMHO.


> Quote:
> Polymorph is a pain in the rear, but size and level constraints are sort of put a muzzle on it.
> Not really.  You don't need to be a Gargantuan creature to be hilariously powerful.




Nope, but because it does not mimic the truly nasty aspects of most creatures, you still have to be pretty big for it be worth it. Plus, depending on form, you may have to give up spellcasting, or you may open yourself to environmental threats. 



> Quote:
> Time Stop isn't really a problem. A character can't do a whole lot,  and the level/benefit causes most people to overlook it during spell  selection.
> People overlook a lot of good things.




Don't get me wrong. Time Stop is a good spell with the right application, but the level/usefulness ratio is far from the best. Not like polymorph. 



> Quote:
> Invisibility gets canceled/thwarted by so many things that a single  failed role can leave worse off then if you hadn't tried to sneak by  magically at all.
> Here I will agree - invisibility can be cancelled by a lot.
> 
> Unless you're invisible and flying ;p




Depends on what you are flying over. Campfires + Spot Check + Arrow still = boned.



> Quote:
> Blur and Mirror Image do give cover bonuses, but in the case of Blur  it's much better to be used on the fighters then the wizard. Mirror  Image is a pain, but area effects counter it nicely and can take the  wizard out of the game entirely.
> Again, magic cancelling magic doesn't disprove my point.




Not necessarily talking about magic. Breath weapons are area effects, as are landslides, earth quakes, basically anything that strikes a large area. Grenades will work. 


> Quote:
> Disintegrate is the worst one, but even it is muted. It can only  disintegrate 10x10x10 of matter, so a small hut or large rock. Normal  weapons and shields are of course dead. An average amount of damage is  100 for that spell, which is a lot. A high fort save by the target  limits its likely damage to 15 points, which isn't that much. It's  actually less then the average fighter of equivalent level.
> The power of disintegrate isn't in  the HP damage, which is why I think a lot of people tend to ignore it  more then they should.  It's a trend I see a lot, really.  HP damage is  so _minute_ of a thing that wizards can do compared to their  ability to completely reshape a battlefield to their desires.  Being  able to disintegrate any amount of matter is insanely potent.  Walls -  or almost any type of barrier - no longer have meaning.




You are onto something there. I think that, if he can cast enough disintegrates for it to be an issue he can come up with a better way to circumvent walls. Still, though, grenades, gunpowder, or fantasy siege engine accomplish similar feats of destruction as far as barriers are concerned. 

See, that's my problem.



> To give a fighter challenges is easy.  Most things can be a challenge to  a fighter.  Sheer cliffs, dangerous terrain, deadly monsters.  But to  challenge a wizard you have to go out of your way to do it.  You need  magic to cancel out magic, because that's the only thing that can.  A  fighter cannot cancel out a wizard, but a wizard can cancel out a  fighter.  Unless the fighter is using something that another wizard  made.




Depends on a lot of factors. In a stand up fighter, you are correct. The beauty of the fighter is that he is versatile. He can take away the wizard's toys, hire soldiers to distract the summoned creatures, and then take his greatbow and with a few feats kill the same wizard before the wizard's next turn. Depending on the player, it might no make it that far. At the first sign of distraction, the wizard is either going A) armor up or B) summon or C) attack. Distracting hirelings take care of those. The fighter sneaks up behind him. The wizard does whichever of the three above he hasn't done. The fighter nails the wizard three times (or more) with said great bow, and he's down. 

That is just one example, and I can already see a couple of things the wizard might have ready if he's paranoid. Point is, hit points can be an equalizer, as can feat selection and being sneakier then the other guy. 

I can honestly say that wizards have never been an issue in my gaming group. The players work together, and toward the end of the power band they all achieve extreme power levels. 

Side note. At present, the group contains a bard, two wizards (different specialties) a cleric, a paladin a fighter and a rogue. The paladin is the least powerful (no surprise), at 8th level the fighter leads on average realized damage. The cleric is the most unbalancing, but that is the player.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

*@khantroll* 

On the polymorph issue-there is always Shapechange, albeit a 9nth lvl spell. Ever thought of changing shape into a Shambling Mound zapping and then yourself with a permanent, energy-substituted-to-electric _wall of fire _to produce limitless Constitution? You only lose the points at a rate of 1 con point per hour. No? Good.

I'm think you're underestimating the potential of Time Stop. Also consider that with Greater Celerity the wiz (or the cleric with domains*) can take a full round worth of actions as an immediate action-before you even take your turn, even if you won init. Winning init is actually only as valuable as the unlikelyhood your enemy hasnt prepared for you to go first. For example, they use regular turn firing off _enervation_, then follow it up with _celerity_ and _finger of death_ to take advantage of the target's reduced saves before the target gets to react. 

Also combo-able with Foresight. Cast Foresight in advance to negate surprise; then Greater Celerity; follow with Quickened Disjunction, then Maximized Timestop (Rod of Maximize). You're dazed for the first round of the Timestop. Dimensional Lock in the second round of Timestop, Quickened Cloudkill, then Forcecage in the third Timestop round.

The last two rounds of Timestop? Enjoy a good smoke, have a little drink, make a little love, laugh maniacally.

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1161/justpf.jpg

*[I believe Magic Item Compendium notes that you CAN have Swift & Immediate Action magic items, including wands. The Activation time of the spell within is the activation time of the item-SO the cleric with enough UMD could have a Staff of Greater Celerity]

Antimagic can be a PITA but hypotheticall with Invoke Magic (a 9nth lvl spell) the Wiz can cast INSIDE of an Antimagic Field as long as the spell is 4th or less. Spell Resistance and Spell immunity could prove a hindurance -or it may not.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9943.0

And even if somebody killed them, they *MIGHT* not have killed them. It may be a clever ruse as they may have only been an Astral Projection, have a Clone Spell as a backup, or be under the effect of a Death Pact-allowing them to be instantly True Ressurected on the spot. Then...there's Craft Contingent Spell.

Of course-there's no reason the caster cant convey ALL of these benefits on his PARTY MEMBERS too.

(Actually with Astral Projection...because it has no duration and affects multiple targets, the PCs entire party, and also an entire party of recurring enemies could not "actually be there" but be able to use all their abilities and even magical items. They'd never be in danger...unless someone tried to Discern Location their real bodies OR the DM decided their opponents were packing Githyanki Silver Swords. 

A funny note-aside from the Demon Lords in Fiendish Codex, the Nightmare is the only creature I can think of that has Astral Projection as a usable At-Will SLA, which is pretty powerful compared to its CR. Actually, it could be...a "recurring" nightmare to fight the same Nightmare or Cauchemar over and over again.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

I'll limit my response to two quotes 



> Also, I disagree about magic countering magic. To quote the Sword of  Truth "We are steel against the steel, he is the magic against the  magic". In most fantasy literature, that is what inevitably happens when  one party leverages magic. It wouldn't be magic if a sword could take  it down. By the same token, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw as a child  where a knight tilts toward a dragon and the lance breaks. Toasted  Knight. Magic is what you use outside the bounds of the sword.




If magic is rare and powerful and beats everything, *a PC should not have it*.

Magic counters magic, certainly.  But magic also counters steel.  In fact, magic counters everything.  The only thing that counters magic is _more magic_.

Incidentally, magic is beaten by the sword in basically _every source of literature or mythology ever_,  so this idea of wizards being unkillable is utterly bizarre.  The most  common cause of death for wizards in Hyboria is due to Conan Threw a  Chair at Him.  Mouser and the Grey Fafner murdered about a billion  wizards.  Pretty much every mythological hero ever has a scene where  they fight or wrestle some horrible supernatural creature and defeat  it.  The Bible has a dude wrestling _God_ and holding his ground.  The D&D wizard is utterly and completely alien as far as narrative function goes - he simply _doesn't exist_.  You know that thread asking what makes D&D unique?  The God Wizard does.  He's something that exists nowhere else.

Narratively speaking wizards hold two roles - the Wise Old Sage, and the Deus Ex Machina.  The problem with the D&D wizard is that he embodies the second, not the first - and the Deus Ex Machina _isn't a playable character_.  It's the hand of Plot.  It's you, the DM.

Imagine you got all set to play a cool game based vaguely on the Illiad and the Odyssey.  You tell your players to make crafty, strong, valiant, and intelligent warriors.  Their fights will be deadly, and they'll need to use their wits to escape from all manner of monsters and environments.

Then one guy says "Ok, but I call dibs on playing as Poseidon."

That's the D&D wizard



khantroll said:


> NDepends on a lot of factors. In a stand up fighter, you are correct. The beauty of the fighter is that he is versatile. He can take away the wizard's toys, hire soldiers to distract the summoned creatures, and then take his greatbow and with a few feats kill the same wizard before the wizard's next turn. Depending on the player, it might no make it that far. At the first sign of distraction, the wizard is either going A) armor up or B) summon or C) attack. Distracting hirelings take care of those. The fighter sneaks up behind him. The wizard does whichever of the three above he hasn't done. The fighter nails the wizard three times (or more) with said great bow, and he's down.




I'm going to point something out here, though:

_Everything listed here can be done by a wizard_.

Nothing that you listed is a fighter only thing.  Or a barbarian or rogue only thing.

In the grand scheme of things, you have class abilities, and they're specialized.  Then, you have non-spontanious casting, which can be specialized, or not, or it can be specialized towards one thing one day and another thing another day, and it can devour most class abilities.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2011)

khantroll said:


> Magic is what you use outside the bounds of the sword.



Exactly. That's the problem. A sword is useful in a sword fight and magic is useful everywhere else (and magic ain't bad in a sword fight, either).

I was never a fan of the magical arms race that developed in older-school D&D by mid-to-high level. A DM had to either equip foes with countermeasures for the  PC casters magical abilities and/or create situations where the PC caster's spells _don't_ work --ie like the location-based nerfs found in puzzle rooms in classic AD&D tournament modules. 

The first is a lot of work for the DM and the second isn't a lot fun for the players. At least in my experience, YMMV, etc.

The thing I like best about the latest iteration of D&D, and this in from a DM's perspective, is the magical arms race is largely absent. I don't need to spend time figuring out how to nerf or counter PC magic. I can let players use whatever abilities they have to their fullest measure at the time of their choosing without the game breaking down.

This is terrific for the sort of player-driven story-heavy games I run. The game's action can go wherever the players take it, without me having to heard the PC's into a null-magic room in a generic mega-dungeon in order to challenge them.


----------



## rounser (Jan 6, 2011)

4E's cure for this problem you have with D&D is worse than the disease. The result is just another fantasy heartbreaker, and no amount of ridiculously hyperbolic Poseidon analogies will change that.


----------



## Votan (Jan 6, 2011)

rounser said:


> 4E's cure for this problem you have with D&D is worse than the disease. The result is just another fantasy heartbreaker, and no amount of ridiculously hyperbolic Poseidon analogies will change that.




Perhaps, but there are a lot of ways to make magic useful (in a plot sense) without it being overbearing.  Fred Saberhagen had a version of magic where steel and blood made it extremely hard to cast spells.  Only the greatest of wizards could possibly cast spells during an actual fight (and these are clearly not the people playing the roles of protagonists).  

The result (in the novels) was that wizards/clerics and such had a sharply defined plot role that was different than the non-magical warriors.

Other ploys have simply included very long casting times for spells or making magic very subtle.  Gandalf could cast an offensive spell but he was more likely to use a sword in a fight.  

It's possible 4E over-corrected but it wasn't the only solution to the problem.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

@ProfessorCirno 

What if instead of WIZARDS-the games casters were more like *W*_*arlocks*?_


I feel this thread has _kinda sorta_ moved a considerable way from its original topic, but here's just a thought as far as magic countering more magic-dont a lot of creatures have Spell-Like Abilities or basically "magical powers" to use against the PCs? Certainly they dont always have to be countered by magic, do they I mean of course, they're abilities are usually limited in number, and may be usable at will or a few times ber day.

Warlock lacks many of the utility abilities of the Wizard or Cleric has BUT he has High UMD so he can use any magic item he comes across, as well as any scrolls, wands, or staves he is _*allowed*_ to buy or loot and he can craft items as a class feature even though he cannot actually cast any of the requisite spells if he makes a high enough UMD check and expends the gold. If he fails the check, he can *never* try to craft an item with that spell again, until he gains a level.

I like Warlock class, its fun and has a lot of flavor. I've played Warlock, Hellfire Warlock, and right now I'm playing a CE Cleric3(Cloistered)/Warlock4/Eldritch Disciple8. As a 15th lvl character I only just got 5th lvl spells. Though I do enjoy the versatility gained, what I really like is the thematic combined Warlock and Divine angle, and my Warlock abilities are still my favorites -especially The Dead Walk and Nightmare Made Real.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2011)

> Other ploys have simply included very long casting times for spells or making magic very subtle. Gandalf could cast an offensive spell but he was more likely to use a sword in a fight.




This is so very, very true.

Typically, spells used by casters against heroes in fiction were either out of combat spells that took a lot of time, summonings of beings to fight for the casters, pre-cast spells with long durations or were defensive in nature.  Sure, Gandalf did a bit of TK in the movie, and you might see a shapechanger or two, but direct, reliable and quick attack spells were rare.

I mean, look at the aforementioned Conan, Grey Mouser and Fafhrd: typically, enemy casters got one or two spells off against them before they closed and the fight was over.  Ulrich of Craggenmoor's attacks against Vermithrax Pejoritve were repetitive and not exactly quick.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> How many spells does a wizard need to destroy a fight?
> 
> 2.  _Maybe_ 3.
> 
> ...




The point you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the wizard blows up an encounter. I want them to blow up encounters. _That's what wizards do._

I ran a session of OD&D the other day: We got through 14 combat encounters in 4-5 hours.

How is that possible? Because clerics can blow up encounters with turning and wizards can blow up encounters with spells. (In ways which completely dwarf their 3E counterparts.)

Was it fun? Sure. Why? Because they weren't My Precious Encounters(TM) and none of us viewed the 8-10 encounters rapidly dispensed with as "spoiled fun". The use of the wizard's spells is strategically interesting and often requires the tactical abilities of the other characters in order to work to best effect. And, of course, when the strategy calls for the wizard _not_ to blow-up an encounter (or he can't because their strategy has failed and they've used up their blow-up powers while still being stuck in the dungeon) then the tactical abilities of the other classes are given their moment.



> Want to have a murder mystery?  Nope!  The spellcaster can just _ask the dead guy_ what happened.




That's like designing a modern murder mystery where the weapon is next to the victim, there are fingerprints on the weapon, and the fingerprints are in the national database and trivially identify the murderer. (Who can be found watching TV at the address listed on his driver's license.)

You're right: That sounds like a boring adventure. You should probably take into consideration the investigatory capabilities of the characters while designing your mystery scenarios.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem is that D&D tried to be a  high powered awesome world changing campaign with the wizard *and*  the low magic gritty sword and sandals kicked out of the inn game with  the warrior.  And those two types of games are mutually  exclusive.




Not in my experience. You're projecting your inadequacies.



> It's funny - for all the anger and whinging that 4e is just about combat, whenever the discussion about pre-4e wizard power comes out, combat seems to be all people talk about




Only when you do your selective quoting thing. You surely don't think that all those servants and followers a high-level fighter lord receives are only useful for combat, do you?



> Edit: And for the one billionth time *you are Alexander, stop referring to yourself in the third person.*




And for the one billionth time, *you are bizarrely paranoid and mendacious.*

Anyway, to sum up:

(1) If you don't buy into My Precious Encounter(TM), the wizard blowing up encounters is irrelevant from a prep-to-play standpoint.

(2) Quite a few of the spellcasters' "blow up this encounter" techniques work by making the other PCs look awesome (through buffing and the like). The others rapidly dispose of entire encounters in mere moments, so their impact on spotlight time is minimal.

(3) When played by mature people, D&D is a cooperative game. The guy who comes up with a nifty plan involving the wizard's spells is often having just as much fun as the guy actually rolling the dice to use those spells.

(4) If you aren't trying to railroad your players, the ability for spellcasters to blow up the railroad is irrelevant.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 6, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> @ProfessorCirno
> 
> What if instead of WIZARDS-the games casters were more like *W*_*arlocks*?_




So I haven't really been following this thread (ever since it dived into an _ever so thrilling _rehash of the The Edition Wars XXVII: The Editioning!), and when I opened it up to this post without an actual quote for context, my mind immediately assumed the 'Wizards' being mentioned here were the Wizards (of the Coast) in the thread title, and I spent several moments trying to figure out what it would actually mean if they suddenly became "Warlocks of the Coast". 

Anyway, I just found the concept mildly entertaining. You may all return to your daily scheduled [-]nerdrage[/-] debate over irreconcilable differences in playstyles.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Professor Cirno said:
			
		

> Every time I think of houserules to make for 3e, "do something about spellcasters" is first on the list.



_Lightning bolts_ and poison don't work any more?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Professor Cirno, have you looked into Raven Crowking's rule set?

It looks to me as if the designers of 3e really did not grasp D&D, and either
(A) didn't even understand that they didn't understand, or
(B) just didn't give a flying fig.

Still, they seem to have understood more than the players who convinced themselves and others that this or that further cockeyed scheme was "the rules" despite not being in (or even contradicting what was in) the books.

The end result is a travesty of "D&D", even (or especially?) when it's bashed into a shape that actually works pretty well.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 6, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> The point you're missing is that it doesn't matter if the wizard blows up an encounter. I want them to blow up encounters. _That's what wizards do._
> 
> I ran a session of OD&D the other day: We got through 14 combat encounters in 4-5 hours.
> 
> ...




It must be great to play a non-caster in your games.  Man, I can just picture it now; sitting there and watching the wizard and the cleric doing everything, basking in how awesome they are and how awesome you aren't.  That sounds really fun.




> That's like designing a modern murder mystery where the weapon is next to the victim, there are fingerprints on the weapon, and the fingerprints are in the national database and trivially identify the murderer. (Who can be found watching TV at the address listed on his driver's license.)
> 
> You're right: That sounds like a boring adventure. You should probably take into consideration the investigatory capabilities of the characters while designing your mystery scenarios.




Except the investigatory capabilities of the wizard is "Can find out pretty much anything in the universe."



> Only when you do your selective quoting thing. You surely don't think that all those servants and followers a high-level fighter lord receives are only useful for combat, do you?




Yes, the fighter has the DM give him a keep and he has some servants, while the wizard can fly, teleport, reshape the landscape, bind demons to his will, and create his own demiplane.



> (1) If you don't buy into My Precious Encounter(TM), the wizard blowing up encounters is irrelevant from a prep-to-play standpoint.
> 
> (2) Quite a few of the spellcasters' "blow up this encounter" techniques work by making the other PCs look awesome (through buffing and the like). The others rapidly dispose of entire encounters in mere moments, so their impact on spotlight time is minimal.
> 
> ...




YOu really, really don't get it.

The problem _in combat_ is that the wizards do everything while the melee twiddle their thumbs.

*Except my issue isn't just with combat.

*You keep talking about combat.  That's not the (only) concern.  Adn even then your examples are all "No see it's ok because the wizard is meant to utterly overshadow everyone else."



Sorrowdusk said:


> @ProfessorCirno
> 
> What if instead of WIZARDS-the games casters were more like *W*_*arlocks*?_
> 
> ...




Actually, in the semi-low-magic stuff I've been halfheartedly designing  from time to time, I've been looking far more into Bards then anything  else.  They still have a few problematic bits, but my goal is for the  "spellcaster" to be less of a blaster and more of a loremaster.



rounser said:


> 4E's cure for this problem you have with D&D  is worse than the disease. The result is just another fantasy  heartbreaker, and no amount of ridiculously hyperbolic Poseidon  analogies will change that.




And you are certainly allowed to your opinion, regardless of how I or others may feel about things.

One caveat though: the bit about 4e being a fantasy heartbreaker?  Yeah, _that's an opinion_.

Incidentally, if you're going to comment and the analogy, why don't you demonstrate how my specific bit on the role of Deus Ex Machina is wrong?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 6, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It must be great to play a non-caster in your games.  Man, I can just picture it now; sitting there and watching the wizard and the cleric doing everything, basking in how awesome they are and how awesome you aren't.  That sounds really fun.




It's really difficult to have a conversation with someone who insists on so blatantly misrepresenting the text they're replying to.

Let's take a standard OD&D _sleep_ spell, for example. This is a powerful, encounter-ending power. Let's take a look at how it tends to play out at the table:

DM: You see 8 goblins. They haven't seen you yet.
Sara the Cleric: . Time for a _sleep_ spell. Go for it, Bob.
Bob the Wizard: Gotcha. I cast _sleep_.
DM: Roll 2d8.
Bob the Wizard: (rolls dice) 9.
DM: (rolls saving throws) 7 of the goblins fall unconscious. The remaining goblin is looking around in confusion.
John the Fighter: I charge up and stab the goblin. (rolls dice) Hit AC 4.
DM: Gimme damage.
John the Fighter: (rolls dice) 7
DM: You skewer the goblin.

I'm not really clear on what you find onerous in the 30 seconds we spend resolving the _sleep_ spell. (Compared to the 5 minutes we'll spend resolving the fighters tussling with the carrion crawler in the next room because the group decides it doesn't make sense to waste a spell on them. Or the 30 seconds we'll spend with the rogue disabling a nasty trap in our 3E game. And so forth.)

Like I said before, these "encounter-ending" abilities you keep talking about fall into one of two categories:

(1) Spells that allow spellcasters to single-shot large quantities of the opposition. Such spells, by their nature, are quick to resolve and require very little spotlight time.

(2) Spells that allow the spellcasters to buff their allies so that the combat will be easier for them. Such spells, by their nature, _share_ the spotlight of awesome with the other PCs.

Apparently, at your table, the fighter PC can't really enjoy receiving an _enlarge person_ spell because they somehow believe that the "fun" belongs exclusively to the guy across the table who cast the spell on them.

That's not the way it works in the games I've played for the last 20+ years. My friends tend to do things like cheer the enlarging and then start singing "Tip Toe Thru the Tulips" as they stomp their way through the goblins.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90JCY0Eh1s4&feature=related]Tip Toe Thru the Tulips[/URL]



> YOu really, really don't get it. (...) You keep talking about combat.



You not only quoted me specifically talking about non-combat aspects of this "problem", you also replied to me talking about the non-combat aspects of the problem.

In fact, you did it in the paragraph immediately preceding the one I'm quoting here.

And yet you claim that I'm talking about combat to the exclusion of everything else. Why would you do that? Are you really posting in such an irrational stream of consciousness that you completely forget what you write as soon as you write it?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is so very, very true.
> 
> Typically, spells used by casters against heroes in fiction were either out of combat spells that took a lot of time, summonings of beings to fight for the casters, pre-cast spells with long durations or were defensive in nature.  Sure, Gandalf did a bit of TK in the movie, and you might see a shapechanger or two, but direct, reliable and quick attack spells were rare.
> 
> I mean, look at the aforementioned Conan, Grey Mouser and Fafhrd: typically, enemy casters got one or two spells off against them before they closed and the fight was over.  Ulrich of Craggenmoor's attacks against Vermithrax Pejoritve were repetitive and not exactly quick.




*King Arthur Pendragon* has that (and more) covered.

So do some other games that are *not D&D*.

I reckon it ought to be fine for D&D to reciprocate by being itself and _not them_, too.

Variety is the spice of the gaming life.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 7, 2011)

Agreed, which is why I'm over 70+ RPGs on my shelf...down from over 100.

(FWIW, I'm one of those guys in the "never seen the 15 minute day" club; who doesn't have problems with wizards or CoDzilla doing everything all the time, etc.)


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It must be great to play a non-caster in your games. Man, I can just picture it now; sitting there and watching the wizard and the cleric doing everything, basking in how awesome they are and how awesome you aren't. That sounds really fun.




And oh, that was 14 Encounters in 4 hours he was talking about-but he never said the Wiz/Cleric blew them *ALL* up.

@ProfessorCirno

*As for the murder mystery bit*-realize that you can do mysteries in RPGs as The Alexandrian has said before, *but also* realize D&D is a robust system that can _represent everything from mundane to heroic people (1-5th) to friggin superheroes, demigods, and then straight up Immortals!_

*YOU* want a murder mystery? Solved as IF by mundane CSI, Sherlocke Holmes, The G**dam Batman, or the like? _Then keep it Lvl 5th_ *or lower*. 

Hell, The Alexandrian basically _proved_ Olympic Athelethes, Einstein and the greatest minds of our time would only need to be about lvl 5th (or less) to represent them properly in D&D-as would *Gandalf, and basically Conan,* and *most fictional heroes* you are familiar with. _Gandalf and Conan ARE NOT 20th level_, and its mistake on many peoples part who try (usually for fun) to translate them or those kinds of characters under the ASSUMPTION that _"oh these guys are the greatest heroes of fantasy literature-they must be high lvl"._ 

*This is not a flaw* in the system, rather this is _a strength_, because of the sheer range you can represent. This is something many systems cant do, representing both the mundane grittyness and the deific. Just realize that you style fits within a certain section of that range (specifically the lower end), and you may not want to play the full 1-10 or 1-20 experiencing the _full ascension_ in power.

The Alexandrian - Misc Creations

You want superheroes or demigods to solve a common 'murder mystery'? A *NORMAL* murder mystery-with *no elements* honest to goodness *requiring *their most powerful abilities?! Honestly that sounds beneath them. WHY are superheroes and demigods solving a murder mystery when THE COPS (AKA The Mundane City Guard) could do it. Adventures should involve challenges that can ONLY be circumvented by the PCs simply because they're THAT good, talented, _or beyond human._

I'm not saying you cant do it in D&D but realize how much ground the full scope of lvls cover-and where those kind of adventures belong. _E6 or a lower EX may be more to your taste._ Superman doesnt often murder mysteries, he usually leaves that to the authorities because he's *too busy saving the planet*, and you know-sometimes the_ only way to do it_ is to spin it backwards.

Hell, at a certain point-superheroes can no longer become lost, *a thing of gritty low tier heroes*. Dont know where The Bloody Palace of Torment is? 

Well I BET YOU Lord Geno Cide VII didnt expect you to just walk into Murderor-BUT HEY. You know EXACTLY where you're going because you have a Find The Path divination. You know exactly how to get to his hidden keep, exactly, how to circumvent whatever inanimate obstacles (but not creatures) that are in your way, _ALL_ the passwords past his Glyphs of Warding, and to sense the existance of _ANY_ trip wires to his traps (although not how to disarm them). AHAHAHAH-did he *really* believe he was going to stop _you _with a mere maze? And any *natural *features, impossibly tall mountains and raging rivers? Pah, that wont stop you guys-the *natural* *world* is _no longer a threat_. 

You're fantasy superheroes.

Of course, the BBEG _probably_ watched your ascent to power and probably realized you would come after him eventually and prepared accordingly watching you closely through his networks of spies should magical means fail him. That could mean Hide The Path, Forbiddance, and Blood Mortar made with Gorgan Plasma and plenty of other things. 

Lord Geno Cide VII *doesnt* *have to be a wizard or a cleric*, _but as a charismatic leader with many followers, he probably has a fair number of both, as well as vast armies of soldiers and slaves, and perhaps even Devils and Demons he has bargained with, as well as potent magical treasures he accrued from his own adventuring days. _

*Money talks*, and if he *doesnt* have anything, he can shell out the gold to pay for any services, buffs, or creations he cant do himself. *MOST* dusty old wizards and Liches are probably more concerned with their millenial study, *not the politics* of ruling Murderor or anywhere else, and _cant_ be bothered fooling with that and collecting large amounts of heavy taxes from suppressed peasants as it gets in the way of their "work"-_and yet_ casters need gold for their eternal research and experiments. Likewise, Cultists want gold as offerings to their Dark Deities or Demon Princes, whose outsiders want to collect to use to tempt other mortals and fund cults in other places. *BOTH *would happily accept payments or "donations" from Lord Geno Cide VII and ally with him. *The Casters dont* _outshine_ Lord Geno Cide VII, who was probably a Fighter or Paladin, and later a Blackguard -*NO* *they are tools for him. *

*ANYONE *remember Lord Robilar? Remember his Heraldry? It was a green dragon on a yellow shield. The yellow represented gold, which Robilar believed was a more powerful source of power than magic, for with it, one could gain anything or anyone.

If he wasnt prepared the first time, he may survive via his Clone Spell or Astral Projection and recover in a stronghold on another plane warded against divinations or scrying. Then...he plots his next move.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Locate Object and Detect Thoughts are both level 2 spells.  More importantly, *Zone of Truth* is a level two spell, too.

Level 3: welp, there goes the mystery.  ALL the mystery.

E6 doesn't help because *for the millionth time it isn't about combat.*

Again, this is _narrative_ power.  Besides, at level 10, you still have mostly normal people.  They're just the non-spellcasters due to this absurd thought that only spellcasters get to be magical.  Certainly they're non-spellcasters with really high strength, but they're still just normal people.  They aren't the Hulk.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Locate Object and Detect Thoughts are both level 2 spells. More importantly, *Zone of Truth* is a level two spell, too.
> 
> Level 3: welp, there goes the mystery. ALL the mystery.




@ProfessorCirno 

*OH REALLY?*
*I. Dont. Think. So. *

*Let me count the ways ProfessorCirno... *

#1. *Locate Object*
If you're trying to find something specific, say the Macguffin, that implies that you have *PERSONALLY* observed the said object and *NOT* through scrying. It also must be very well known, or clearly visualized requirng an specific and ACCURATE mental image. If you saw the locket you might be able to locate it if its hidden within range-BUT MIND YOU it has a limited range starting at at least 400ft. If you have an ENTIRE city, and you have to figure out where to start divining *IN THE FIRST PLACE. *Which is not necessarily obvious. Now, if the Butler has the locket in his POCKET and he's RIGHT in front of you, or wandering about the mansion then yeah, you could realize he had it. 
Locate Object :: d20srd.org

-----

#2. *Detect Thoughts*
This ONLY detects *SURFACE *thoughts -and so it would only reveal that the Butler had stolen the locket and given it to Myster Man Mr. X IF and *ONLY IF* he was thinking about it at the time!! "~Hahahaha, I cant believe we got away with it!~" You CANNOT read someones mind like a BOOK. Albeit, yes, there ARE more powerful spells and abilities that can, but they either REQUIRE YOU to EAT someones BRAIN (a very nasty Corrupt Spell from BoVD ), OR to subdue them to subject them to it (Psionic 5th lvl Mind Probe which takes a full minute to manifest).

*BUT YOU ARE THE DUNGEON MASTER. *

Divinations like that are _*"Ask the DM",*_ likewise with Augury, Divination, or Communion. IF YOU DONT WANT TO REVEAL SOMETHING-_then dont do it. _

The Butler *doesnt have to be thinking* about the theft_ at the time, when the PCs try to detect his thoughts_, ALBEIT-you can use the divination to drop a *HINT* by what they DO detect _OR_ even drop a red herring. Although as TheAlexandrian notes in his article on mysteries you usually dont have to drop red herrings because the PCs interpretation often leads them to _making them on their own._
*Detect Thoughts :: d20srd.org*

*----*

#3. *Zone of Truth*

HMMMM-WHAT exactly makes the PCs think that the subjects failed their saves? There's no way for them to know!

From the SRD:
Spell Descriptions :: d20srd.org



> Succeeding on a Saving Throw
> 
> A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. *Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against [effect] and [area] spells*.




Zone of truth is an area spell. _You do not sense when creatures succeed on or fail on saves. _THEREFORE-you can *NEVER* KNOW if it worked. A dude could lie to you *ALL DAY* and you could think he was speaking the truth. 

If its a lvl 1commoner with a _GARBAGE_ SAVE-then perhaps he *deserves* to be caught just that easily. Heroes dont catch commoners, they catch *WORTHY* opponents like other PCs or NPCs with class lvls. BUT-if the guy is waaaay better than a commoner but *dresses just like one*, you may falsely believe he _"couldnt have resisted our spell, he's just a common man and we're soooo powerful. You're free to go sir. We're SO sorry to trouble you! We thank you for your cooperation."_ 

_*AND DONT FORGET*_-it ONLY works on "any deliberate and intentional lies". What if the maid THOUGHT she saw someone else, NOT the Butler steal the locket? She didnt lie, she told exactly what she BELIEVED. And who knows, if there were illusions involved, people cant lie if thats what they "saw". 

_FURTHERMORE-_you can always *CHEAT*. You're *The Dungeon* *Master-* and if need be they have always had the _liscence_ to do so. _Comes with the Title_. *There's a reason why rolls happen behind a screen*. 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfTruth.htm

Welp, there goes the mystery-*IT GOES ON* that is!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

Locate Object can be used to find items you haven't personally seen.  It just finds one generalized to scale.  Something rare is stolen?  There you go.

Detect Thoughts does indeed work on surface thoughts.  You use it while you or someone else interviews people and you pick up on their surface thoughts about the crime.  Certainly someone well trained could block it out, but we're just narrowing the mystery more and more.

As for Zone of Truth, it's true you don't know if it failed, but just how high are their will saves?  The DC is 16-17.  Assuming a character with high wisdom and good will saves and high level, it's still a 50/50 chance to fail.  And you know what happens if none of the employees says anything?  _You cast it again._

As for your line on cheating, guess what?  That proves me right.  If you have to bend and ignore the rules and cheat, _the rules aren't working_.

Lastly, do you really need to capitalize and bold every other word?


----------



## Derren (Jan 7, 2011)

As always the problem is not that spells make many cliché plots hard to do or impossible. The problem is that you want to run cliché plots copied straight out of a non D&D books or movies in a world with magic in it.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 7, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (FWIW, I'm one of those guys in the "never seen the 15 minute day" club; who doesn't have problems with wizards or CoDzilla doing everything all the time, etc.)




I've seen them. It's just that they happen about half as often as the days when the spellcasters have exhausted all their spells but the party has to keep going (time limit, consequences real or imagined, still stuck in the dungeon, whatever). And then there are the other days where everybody wishes the spellcasters hadn't prepped the wrong spells.

Given that reality, I find it difficult to consider them horrific. It balances out.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

You do realize that non-casters have an expendable resource too, right?

It's called "hit points."

Wizards can repleanish their own spells.  Fighters?  Not so much.

Incidentally, once again, this isn't about combat.

As far as running D&D style plots, ever notice something in D&D books?  How the wizards very pointedly don't cast a whole lot of magic?  Yeah, even in _D&D novels_, D&D wizards don't work.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Locate Object can be used to find items you haven't personally seen.  It just finds one generalized to scale.  Something rare is stolen?  There you go.




So let me see if I can sum this up:

(1) Wizards prevent you from designing a "mystery" in which a super-rare object is stolen and then hidden within 500 feet (so that it can be trivially located with a _locate object_ spell cast by a low level wizard).

(2) Therefore, "ALL the mystery" is gone.

I'll admit that I'm just plucking out one of your examples, but they all come back to the same central problem: Yes. The typical D&D party has access to a lot of powerful forensic abilities.

So what?

It's like you're playing CSI: The RPG and your sessions go like this--

Cirno: You see a corpse with a bloody knife lying next to it.
Player: I dust it for prints. And then I check to see if the prints are listed in the FBI database.
Cirno: NOOOOO!!!! You're using your narrative powers to destroy ALL the mystery!

Speaking of which...



> Again, this is _narrative_ power.



I think the fact that you're really, really, really upset by the thought of players being allowed to have narrative power is kind of revealing about the real source of your discontent. As a GM you want to wield ultimate control over how your My Precious Encounters(TM) and poorly conceived/railroaded mystery scenarios are going to play out. You've pre-visualized your campaign and the wizards keep throwing spanners into the works.

I, on the other hand, embrace simple encounter design and permissive scenario design. So I don't care if my players have narrative power. I _want_ them to have narrative power.



ProfessorCirno said:


> You do realize that non-casters have an expendable resource too, right?
> 
> It's called "hit points."
> 
> Wizards can repleanish their own spells.  Fighters?  Not so much.




And here, yet again, you're invoking some sort of bizarre reality in which PCs never cooperate with each other. I'm not saying that every party of PCs needs to benefit from perfect harmony; but I also find it difficult to consider D&D deeply flawed because it doesn't work particularly well under the completely dysfunctional style of play you suggest.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 7, 2011)

Real world example of wizards "ruining everything":

The PCs need a _wish_ spell in order to get past a magically sealed door. They ask their patrons in the Imperial Church to procure one for them. After much wrangling, they get a message from their contact that he's secured a _ring of two wishes_.

Two of the PCs go to pick it up.

But their contact in the Imperial Church is actually a traitor working for a rival group that also wants to get through the doors. So the GM has concocted a plan by which the traitor will mark the ring so that it can be magically retrieved. As soon as the PCs leave his office with the _ring_ he telepathically contacts a spellcaster who casts _scry_ on the ring and then _teleports_ a strike force of trolls, ogres, and goblins to "steal" the ring".

The plan is simple: There'll be a minor melee in which the goblins will grapple the ring-carrier and then they'll all teleport away. They don't actually have to pickpocket the ring, because in reality the traitor will have magically retrieved it during the chaos.

PC wizard screwjob #1: Seeing the ambush arrive, he immediately grabs his partner and casts _dimension door_ to escape the ambush. The result is a race of short-range teleports across the length of the city as the two groups try to engage each other. The PCs eventually succeed in getting back to the inn where the other PCs were waiting.

The result is a battle royale / siege: The inn was a gathering point for other wandering adventurers, and they recruited several on-the-fly to help them defend the inn. They end up killing several bad guys, but the bad guys still succeed in stealing the ring (since it was pretty much a foolproof spell they were using to do it).

PCs are furious. They race for the magically sealed door. When they arrive, they find it hasn't been opened yet.

PC Wizard screwjob #2: A _scrying_ spell. The _ring_ itself has been placed in a shielded location, so they instead _scry_ one of the goblins that was part of the ambush. They luck out: The goblin isn't under the aegis of the scry-shield.

But he's also in a completely nondescript room. So they poke him with a _whispering wind_ spell to freak him out and send him running for his boss. This works: He runs to his boss... who is talking to another character in front of an altar decked in Imperial Church symbology. The other character is a spellcaster who detects and dispels the scrying, but the PCs have their lead.

They spend the next session tracking down the specific Imperial Church (there were 12 options within the city), laying a siege, and (eventually) retrieving the ring.

Holy crap! They completely wrecked the game!

Not really. Why? Because while the GM may have put together a clever scheme for his NPCs to attempt, he didn't invest himself into any particular outcome from that scheme. It's impossible to ruin the GM's intentions if the GM was never wedded to them in the first place.

But what about all the other PCs? Weren't they terribly bored to just be sitting around watching the spellcasters having all the fun?

Are you crazy? The rogue had a great time; she was tossed over the wizard's shoulder and carried through dimension doors while firing arrows behind them at the flying ogre that was pursuing them. All of them had a blast at the siege/battle royale. The urban druid and religious knight were the ones who investigated all the different Imperial Churches in town. And so forth.

The magic didn't "ruin" anything or "steal" other people's fun. It empowered the group and created the fun.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm ignoring your example as it's one massive strawman.



Beginning of the End said:


> So let me see if I can sum this up:
> 
> (1) Wizards prevent you from designing a "mystery" in which a super-rare object is stolen and then hidden within 500 feet (so that it can be trivially located with a _locate object_ spell cast by a low level wizard).
> 
> (2) Therefore, "ALL the mystery" is gone.




Nope.  The problem is that wizards have a huge number of tools nobody else has that allows them to tear down potential plot points.



> I'll admit that I'm just plucking out one of your examples, but they all come back to the same central problem: Yes. The typical D&D party has access to a lot of powerful forensic abilities.
> 
> So what?
> 
> ...




Cute strawman bro.  Of course, we're talking about D&D not BotE's Storytelling Hour, so try again.



> I think the fact that you're really, really, really upset by the thought of players being allowed to have narrative power is kind of revealing about the real source of your discontent. As a GM you want to wield ultimate control over how your My Precious Encounters(TM) and poorly conceived/railroaded mystery scenarios are going to play out. You've pre-visualized your campaign and the wizards keep throwing spanners into the works.
> 
> I, on the other hand, embrace simple encounter design and permissive  scenario design. So I don't care if my players have narrative power. I _want_ them to have narrative power.




Yes, I, who adore the FATE system which open faced gives players full narrative control, *hate it when players take control!*

Shut the hell up about "precious encounters," as that's not the case.

Maybe my problem is that the system gives narrative control to some and not others?  Or maybe you could stop reading into what you want other people to say and you could try reading the actual posts?



> And here, yet again, you're invoking some sort of bizarre reality in which PCs never cooperate with each other. I'm not saying that every party of PCs needs to benefit from perfect harmony; but I also find it difficult to consider D&D deeply flawed because it doesn't work particularly well under the completely dysfunctional style of play you suggest.




What does this in any way have to do with my post?  Like, at all?

In short, all your arguments are a mix of strawmen examples, you creating words to shove into my mouth, inventing identities for me wholecloth, or just making up gibberish.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 7, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm ignoring your example




You ignoring what other people write is pretty par for the course.



> Maybe my problem is that the system gives narrative control to some and not others?  Or maybe you could stop reading into what you want other people to say and you could try reading the actual posts?




The fact that you believe magic is the only form of narrative control wielded in D&D is indicative of nothing but your personal failures and biases.

End of (Sub-)Thread.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 7, 2011)

"Personal failures"? It seems it's not Wotc which is flaming out.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 7, 2011)

*The Original Post*



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I was surfing Amazon today looking for a way to burn up a new gift card. I haven't bought any new D&D books in a year or so, and figured there would be some great and intriguing new products out there. Much to my disappointment, it seems like the majority of recent WotC publications -- Dark Sun aside -- are essentially repackagings of existing material. Looking ahead, the only item in the next year's worth of projected publications that caught my eye as interesting/original is the _Neverwinter Campaign Setting_.
> 
> That may just be my perception, of course, but it did lead to this question: is WotC (and by extension, D&D itself) flaming out? We're three years into the current edition, and if we're already reaching the point where much of the official publication is repackaging/reimagining rather than truly original exciting material, I don't think it bodes well. Particularly as it seems the cycle has accelerated compared to the flame out/reboot times of the prior couple of edition cycles. (Note: this is not intended to be and edition war comment as I'm not comparing the edition content but rather the publishing cycles).
> 
> Or have I just become an old(er) grognard?




This is the first post of the thread. ^


Not sure how it got hijacked to become "The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit."



To get back on topic, I (sorta) like 4e, and may eventually play it a bit more, but I've been out of the loop, and I feel as though, if and when I get back into it, I'm going to have to do some real research regarding Essentials, Regular 4e, The Red Box, and the constantly vaccilating quality of D&DI (including what products, like VTT are even part of it as well as quantity and quality of the articles for the present and the likely future).

I see, if not "flaming out", WotC as "diversifying" the game of 4e...into dubiously compatible subgames. I wonder if this further fractures the base/audience who play 4e?

I've read threads in the 4e forums like "I managed to avoid essentials, until now" where someone doesn't want essentials in his pure 4e game. 

So I wonder, for existing players as well as new ones, "What goes with what? Where does one start? What game does the D&DI support?"


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 7, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> This is the first post of the thread. ^
> 
> Not sure how it got hijacked to become "The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit."




You must be new here.


----------



## Rel (Jan 7, 2011)

Folks, Beginning of the End and ProfessorCirno won't be joining us for the remainder of the thread.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 7, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> You must be new here.




"Here" meaning any sufficiently-populated forum on the interbutts, as threads derailing is hardly unique to ENWorld.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 7, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> snip
> 
> So I wonder, for existing players as well as new ones, "What goes with what? Where does one start? What game does the D&DI support?"




It all works together pretty much. There are no issues with essentials that makes it incompatible with regular 4e as far as I can tell. Some people regard essential martial characters as a step backwards because they do one thing each round and it is pretty much what they did last round.

As to where to start, where ever you want. If you have not bought any 4e then get the Rules Compendium and what ever class book takes your fancy.

As for DDI: Well, that is a bit of a mixed bag but I am happy enough with it.

In general there is currently more material out there than I am likely to ever use, other may differ.


----------

