# Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)



## Jack Daniel (Jul 2, 2011)

I have heard this idea expressed more commonly on rpg.net and the WotC boards than here, but I like this community better, so I'd rather address it here before it takes root.  The fallacious meme floating around out in the ether is this:

*WotC would be foolish to simplify its next edition of D&D, because that would only be pandering to the grognards (who aren't coming back anyway) at the expense of current 4e fans.*

It doesn't take much, though, to recognize all the problems with this meme.  Here's the quick list.

1. As many grognards are only too happy to point out, "rules lite" and "old school" are not the same thing.  They just happen to overlap in many instances, because D&D has gotten progressively more complex over time.  But creating a simpler edition of D&D down the road doesn't really have that much to do with pleasing the grognards, beyond this superficial (and kind of coincidental) overlap.

2. The notion that "grognards are never coming back to WotC" is false.  It's a blanket statement based on minimal evidence.  Essentials didn't bring back the grognards?  Of course not; the box-art can be as old-school as you want, but the substance is what matters (both to grognards and potential new players).  If a hypothetical 5th edition of D&D backpedals on the common complaints (too much time spent in combat; "system mastery") and the end result is a *good game*, people will play the good game.  And, *far* more importantly than bringing back grognards, D&D needs a simple, complete, casual, pick-up-and-play iteration to actually draw in new players.

3. A simpler edition of the game would not alienate current fans, because complexity can always be added (via supplements, i.e. *books* that WotC can *sell* to people who will *buy* them!).  It's very difficult to trim complexity; it's very easy to tack more on.  The simple fact is, right now, D&D (even Essentials) is not a simple game.  There's lots to deal with, in terms of character creation/advancement and in tracking information during a combat.  

If we imagine, based on nothing but anecdote, that 50% of gamers like light, simple games and 50% like the crunchy combat character-build type games... well, right now, D&D caters to half of its potential market.  An edition with a simple core and "opt-in complexity" (to use Mearls' words; or, as lots on these boards are calling it, a "complexity dial") could potentially capture 100% of the market. The foolish thing would be to stick with a narrow game that only aims at the hardcore crowd.

I'm a grognard.  I play old-school games.  But this is not why WotC isn't getting my money right now.  I don't play old-school D&D for the sake of being old-school.  I play because those versions of the game are simpler, and combat is an afterthought rather than a time-sink.  If WotC published a 5th edition of the game that catered to this style of play, I'd buy it, plain and simple.  I don't care weather chainmail is AC 5 or AC 15; I just want to play a simple game of D&D!

But I'm not holding my breath.  In the meanwhile, I've got my Rules Cyclopedia.  (It's a great system for any campaign meant to feel like a "Final Fantasy" game from the NES.)  Just recently, I also got my hands on Savage Worlds, and all I can say is... WHOA.  MIND BLOWN.  I've heard all of the good things about it, but honestly?  I had no idea.  (This would be the perfect system for any campaign meant to feel like LotR, or like a "Final Fantasy" game from the PSX.)  So I'm covered for a while.  

But if the hypothetical 5th edition that everybody's furiously speculating about actually does appear, and it's a decently casual system, it will get my attention.  If, on the other hand, the character sheet looks like a tax form... well, good night, sweet game, you won't be replacing my Rules Cyclopedia anytime soon.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 2, 2011)

For me it isnt the amount of crunch in 4e that deters me. For me to return to d&d (played 1st,2nd and 3rd ed, but 4e wasn't for me) they would have to eliminate the powers system.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 2, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> (snip)





You had me at "(. . .) but I like this community better (. . .)."  You post with wisdom.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Jul 2, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> *WotC would be foolish to simplify its next edition of D&D, because that would only be pandering to the grognards (who aren't coming back anyway) at the expense of current 4e fans.*



You have that backwards.  Grognards prefer massive crunch, it's part of the definition of the word.

Whether D&D 4e is simple or complicated had nothing to do with my 4e aversion.  It was solely based on opening the books up, reading the text, and realizing I was being talked down to.

Destroying the FR setting helped my decision-making.  I will never side with the "there's too much material, it's so bad, you must discard it" faction.  Never.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Jul 2, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me to return to d&d (played 1st,2nd and 3rd ed, but 4e wasn't for me) they would have to eliminate the powers system.



In a lot of ways, I believe that WotC thinks that they can't.  They believe that in order to attract the very large MMORPG market, the design of class capabilities must in some respect mirror MMORPG class capabilities.

I've played MMORPGs, and I can see where that is coming from.  I personally dislike what it has done to D&D 4e.  As I was in RPGs since long before MMORPGs, this trickery isn't necessary as far as I am concerned.  I suppose I'll just continue along with my lack of adaptation and become extinct like most other dinosaurs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 2, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> In a lot of ways, I believe that WotC thinks that they can't. They believe that in order to attract the very large MMORPG market, the design of class capabilities must in some respect mirror MMORPG class capabilities.
> 
> I've played MMORPGs, and I can see where that is coming from. I personally dislike what it has done to D&D 4e. As I was in RPGs since long before MMORPGs, this trickery isn't necessary as far as I am concerned. I suppose I'll just continue along with my lack of adaptation and become extinct like most other dinosaurs.




They may be correct. I don't know. MMORPGs definitely ate away at the player base as magic had eaten away at it in the 90s. I think the powers system appealed strongly to some but turned off some others like myself.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 2, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> MMORPGs definitely ate away at the player base (. . .)





That's a leap that I doubt is true.  I think the mainstreaing of CRPGs, inclusive of console games, PC games, MMORPGs, etc., widened the potential player pool, removed a great deal of the social stigma attached to tabletop RPGs, and opened up the field to new designers.  I do agree that the MMORPGification of tabletop games in any or all genres misses the point of what tabletop RPGs do best, which is provide a more socially interactive experience that isn't in need of relying so heavily on combat to keep the interest of the players.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 2, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> But if the hypothetical 5th edition that everybody's furiously speculating about actually does appear, and it's a decently casual system, it will get my attention.  If, on the other hand, the character sheet looks like a tax form... well, good night, sweet game, you won't be replacing my Rules Cyclopedia anytime soon.  It's as simple as that.



I won't speculate on the business wisdom of such an edition, but it sure would be nice to have one that combines TSR simplicity with WotC's unified d20 and 4e's focus on balance.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jul 3, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> But I'm not holding my breath.  In the meanwhile, I've got my Rules Cyclopedia.  (It's a great system for any campaign meant to feel like a "Final Fantasy" game from the NES.)  Just recently, I also got my hands on Savage Worlds, and all I can say is... WHOA.  MIND BLOWN.  I've heard all of the good things about it, but honestly?  I had no idea.  (This would be the perfect system for any campaign meant to feel like LotR, or like a "Final Fantasy" game from the PSX.)  So I'm covered for a while.




  What's the system for campaigns meant to feel like a Final Fantasy game from the SNES, or Dragon Quest (which has remained fairly constant in feel across five systems)?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 3, 2011)

WotC, or any company publishing for a D&D-like game, can earn my gaming dollars.  But it will come from the campaign setting and module side, not the rule sets.  Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the interesting game innovations coming out, but almost all of it is either incompatible or irrelevant to my D&D campaign.  

Really great game adventures are damned hard to write. It takes a breadth of knowledge, an emotional awareness, keen insight, and a skillful ability to communicate in order to create a real work of art. But when everything comes together, I'm itching to buy. Like anyone, I love truly awe inspiring works.  That may be a lot to ask any company to produce on a schedule, but on the up side it doesn't have anything to do with liking or using a particular rule set or buying into whatever edition or game the work is published for. I can convert it, I need great material, and I will [-]steal[/-] buy from anywhere.


----------



## Pentius (Jul 3, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> What's the system for campaigns meant to feel like a Final Fantasy game from the SNES, or Dragon Quest (which has remained fairly constant in feel across five systems)?




I think any class-based, team-oriented TRPG would do a decent job of a baseline for those games(notably, any edition of D&D).  For dragon quest in particular, the consistency of feel largely derives from keeping the same creator, artist and composer across the series, as well as including staple items, monsters and story elements.  Most of the 'feel' of a Dragon Quest inspired campaign would come from the DM, and to a certain degree, the players.  If there were a specific DQ or FF you wanted to translate, then it's a bit easier to narrow down a game, possibly by class elements.  For example, FF5 or DQIX have robust job systems, where characters can switch back and forth and cherrypick abilities.  this would probably be best represented by 3.x.  On the other hand we have DQ8 and FF6, for example, involve characters with personal abilities that other characters cannot gain access to, which cries out for a system where you pick your class at char gen and you stick with it.  AD&D and 4e are both good for that.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 3, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I won't speculate on the business wisdom of such an edition, but it sure would be nice to have one that combines TSR simplicity with WotC's unified d20 and 4e's focus on balance.




I don't think that a focus on "balance" would be a serious factor in getting non-4e players to buy 5e.  Frankly, to an old-school player, balance is probably the _wrong_ thing that D&D should ever focus on.

I think the version that 4e was a turn-off to so many people who played one or more of the prior editions was due to (1) the powers system and (2) the idea that everything has to be balanced.

The first time I tried playing 4e, I looked at the cookie-cutter "every class does essentially the same thing but calls it something different, and they can do it # times/encounter/day" and thought "booorrrinnnggg!"  I even shook my head at the "at-will" powers - if it is at-will, why isn't it just a normal class feature like in previous editions?

It is precisely _because_ each class, spell, etc. was different that people played the prior versions of the game and spent so much time customizing them.  Besides the obvious ability to do so due to the OGL, there were far far more fan-created additions/modifications/changes to 3.x than to 4e.  You could come here on ENWorld every day and there'd be a new feat, prestige class, conversion of a monster or module, or just plain new creative works.  I don't see that at all with 4e - it feels like things stagnated about 1 year after 4e came out.

Another issue is that a game can be a lot of fun, regardless of which mechanics are used.  For example, I'd love to see a conversion of the Twilight:2013 lifepath system and mechanics for use with D&D-type games.  WotC could make a new version that uses a lifepath type of character generation system and still _feel_ like D&D in play.  Essentially - WotC needs to be smarter in regards to which sacred cows they keep or ditch.  Unfortunately, with 4e, their choices weren't all that smart.

No - I think that for a 5e to be successful, WotC wil need to do two things -

1.  Make a great version of D&D that _feels like_ D&D and that is backwards compatible with 1e-3.x while raising the bar for things that have been previously neglected (like a character generation system that is more than just the numbers, and a way to modularize rules such that players can choose as much or as little complexity as they want).  4e doesn't feel like D&D.

2.  Eat some crow and admit that they made a mistake with the direction they took for 4e.  Relegate it to being a "spin-off" game and go back to basics.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 3, 2011)

I think WOTC really needs to look at furthering a design "decision" they made with 4E if they want to please the most people.

Give the players the crunchy bits, while scaling back the amount of DM workload. And by this I don't just mean making it easier to whip up an encounter. The fact that pretty much all I need to run a monster is the stat block and the condition summary, is  an incredible thing. I don't need to look up special abilities, spell like abilities, immunities, a spell description, a feat,  etc scattered through 2 or 3 different rulebooks. 

If they can bring back the player side to a more traditional D&D experience (you know, get rid of all the things1/2/3.X/PF people complain about, like the Power system, and dragonborn, and lame magic items) keep the combat system interesting , yet cut it in half, time-wise, while still moving forward in making life simple for the DM, they will have a big hit on their hands. 

Of course it sounds easy typing it out on a message board, but..


----------



## Pentius (Jul 3, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> You could come here on ENWorld every day and there'd be a new feat, prestige class, conversion of a monster or module, or just plain new creative works.  I don't see that at all with 4e - it feels like things stagnated about 1 year after 4e came out.




Do you not visit the 4e homebrew section?  I mean, I can come to ENworld every day and there'll be a thread about "Hey I made some new stuff?" or "How should I make this new stuff?" and of course, "How do I make this old stuff work with my new stuff?"


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 3, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> I don't think that a focus on "balance" would be a serious factor in getting non-4e players to buy 5e.  Frankly, to an old-school player, balance is probably the _wrong_ thing that D&D should ever focus on.



This may or may not be true, but my comment regarding balance was merely a statement of my own preference.

In fact I can pretty much guarantee that if 5e throws balance to the wind like previous editions, I'll be totally disinterested. I like balance, and 4e has spoiled me. I'm not saying 5e has to be balanced in precisely the same way, or to the exact same degree for me to be interested, but throwing balance to the wind is a sure fire way to get me thinking "What a waste. This feels like a shoddy knock-off of some other edition." I'm sure plenty of gamers would like it, but I wouldn't.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether a D&D edition "feels like D&D." It's such a subjective and transient quality; I think that getting preoccupied with writing a new edition that "feels like D&D" is a mistake. Just write a good rpg, whether it's the kind of rpg _I_ want or not, and it'll feel like D&D to the next generation and to plenty of veteran gamers.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 3, 2011)

That's a nice sentiment, Jack...and I agree with what you're saying.

Unfortunately, WotC really only seems interested in catering to number-fellating aspie basement cases who would rather sit around a table and quote reams of mechanics at eachother than actually exploring strange places and going on adventures.

Once D&D turned into an arms race, I'm afraid that it was never going back. I could be wrong and I hope that I am.

[MENTION=16077]3catcircus[/MENTION]:

Oh? You don't like the idea of balance in a GAME?

Okay...I've got a great game for you then...it's called "Rape Train". You get to be the locomotive and I get to be the caboose. 

You goddamned idiot.

This is an extremely good example of the behavior that earns you a vacation from the board, as Plane Sailing so ably moderated. (No need to report this post further) -Keterys


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 3, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> That's a nice sentiment, Jack...and I agree with what you're saying.
> 
> Unfortunately, WotC really only seems interested in catering to number-fellating aspie basement cases who would rather sit around a table and quote reams of mechanics at eachother than actually exploring strange places and going on adventures.
> 
> ...





Hey, I have an idea!  Let's play a game based around numbers and math and stuff, but not actually do any math!  Won't that be great?

In all seriousness, the math IS part of the game.  Gary Gygax wrote that the original 3d6 ability scores fit a bell-curve distribution perfectly, but hey, clearly he's just one of those "number-fellating aspie basement cases who would rather sit around a table and quote reams of mechanics at eachother than actually exploring strange places and going on adventures."

Also, let's go on adventures and explore strange places.  I'll be a wizard, and you can be my stalwart warrior counterpart.  What's that? You don't like the fact that my planar bound pit fiend is more effective in combat then you are?  Sorry, that's number-fellating aspie basement case talk.  Get out of my game, you're not a "real roleplayer".  How dare you analyze this game with math?  What?  There are numbers on every page of the rulebook, with mathematical operations?  What is this madness? GET IT OUT OF MY ROLEPLAYING IT HURTS!

Sorry if I'm being rude but I hate that attitude.


----------



## Starman (Jul 3, 2011)

I think the best strategy for 5e is to get rid of the stuff that people don't like and keep the stuff that people do like. I think if they did that, they'd have a sure-fire hit on their hands.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 3, 2011)

WarlockLord said:


> Hey, I have an idea!  Let's play a game based around numbers and math and stuff, but not actually do any math!  Won't that be great?
> 
> In all seriousness, the math IS part of the game.  Gary Gygax wrote that the original 3d6 ability scores fit a bell-curve distribution perfectly, but hey, clearly he's just one of those "number-fellating aspie basement cases who would rather sit around a table and quote reams of mechanics at eachother than actually exploring strange places and going on adventures."
> 
> ...




Riiiight. MY attitude is the reason that the hobby is in the toilet. Because, you know, making a social game into an uninviting cesspool surrounded by an exclusionary cultural wall made up entirely of esoteria that could only appeal to high functioning autistics is a sure fire way to draw in new gamers and keep the flame alive. I know...instead of playing around a table, why don't we all just lock ourselves in little rooms and masturbate over stacks of sourcebooks. What do we need people for anyway? Not when we have rules and spreadsheets.

Yeah...D&D is a game written around probabilities and statistics. That doesn't mean it has to be a book keeping nightmare written for people with personality disorders.

There was a time when D&D games were imaginative and not an unending litany of meta-language and game mechanics. 

"I charge the orc, cleaving it nearly in half with my greatsword and kicking it's corpse off of the blade" is a lot more evocative than:

 "I charge 6 squares, rolling a 28 with my spirited charge feat and activate the overwhelming critical power on my + 3 berserker sword, doing +4[W] damage on my daily".

My attitude isn't the  one...it's ultimately inclusive, save for the mouthbreathing, math wanking pedants that I really wish would just find another game...or preferably another hobby. Maybe Fantasy Baseball. Or amateur Tax Law.

The point is, that while the game had math at it's core, it didn't used to be about the mechanics. It used to be about imagination, and context, and creativity. Now it's about trying to get the best numbers, so that your numbers can defeat the enemy numbers so that you can get better numbers to kill bigger numbers and take their numbers. And that's the result of YOUR attitude, Rainman.

Now punch yourself in the face, apologize to the board, log off and cancel your Internet Service. Your opinion expressing privileges are hereby revoked.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 3, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Now punch yourself in the face, apologize to the board, log off and cancel your Internet Service. Your opinion expressing privileges are hereby revoked.




Is there a possibility you forgot what board you were posting to, and posted this stuff to EN World by mistake?


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 3, 2011)

I think where I fell off the wagon was when I realized that this table-top game was trying more and more to emulate a system better handled by computers.

I think the game needs to back away from the path it is heading and look at better ways to handle the player-DM interaction without all the crazy psuedocode.  Leave the number-crunching for the computer games.  

We have rules, math and die rolls in this game to resolve one thing - did it work?  D&D, as it has become now in both 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E has become too caught up in _how_ you do these things and _what_ happens when you do.  It's become a law book of "mother may I*" - a checklist leading up to and following any action you want to perform.  

The game needs to be scaled back so we're not inputting in minituea how we do things.  Player says he wants to do A.  DM tells him what is needed on a roll to do A.  If roll succeeds, A happens - without all the technical lingo/rule lawyering that goes with it.

* "Yes, and only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, if you have the feat/power"


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 3, 2011)

Best of luck in the future, Gizmoduck5000.


----------



## Vespucci (Jul 3, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> You have that backwards.  Grognards prefer massive crunch, it's part of the definition of the word.




You have that sideways.  Grognards prefer Napoleon, it's part of the definition of the word.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 3, 2011)

Vespucci said:


> You have that sideways.  Grognards prefer Napoleon, it's part of the definition of the word.




Clearly, they prefer cheap liquor.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Now punch yourself in the face, apologize to the board, log off and cancel your Internet Service. Your opinion expressing privileges are hereby revoked.




Talking about privileges being revoked... I think a week ban is in order here


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 3, 2011)

I would like to see 5E be, or have a simple game component with lots of room to add on complexity. I 100% agree that players need a simple to play game that is more beer and pretzels level. I have not seen WOTC do something like that in ... well, never.


----------



## AeroDm (Jul 3, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> [Snip}




Sometimes I like to think of message boards like sci-fi tropes.


> Malcolm Reynolds: Getting awful crowded in my sky




On track, I think this is a really neat time in D&D and RPGs in general. The professional designers have educated and introduced their audience to enough variety that people now have a huge range of preferences, knowledge, and gaming foundations. This might not be great for the industry, but it is great for gamers. I'm really excited to see where 5e goes (as well as Pathfinder and every other variant that can trace its roots back to the original TTRPG of D&D).


----------



## Wiseblood (Jul 3, 2011)

I was thinking about 4e the other day. It suddenly occured to me that powers and feats filll the same niche. They allow for cusomization. Feats are usually less powerful and often just add math. 

I don't like powers personally but I think 4e would actually be better without feats. I am also not holding my breath for 5e to be what I want from a ttrpg. Mostly because WotC does not understand me.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 3, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> But I'm not holding my breath.  In the meanwhile, I've got my Rules Cyclopedia.  (It's a great system for any campaign meant to feel like a "Final Fantasy" game from the NES.)  Just recently, I also got my hands on Savage Worlds, and all I can say is... WHOA.  MIND BLOWN.  I've heard all of the good things about it, but honestly?  I had no idea.




That's why I mentioned Savage Worlds in your other thread.

1. It has character creation, but it is fast
2. Combat can be rich and tactical with the various maneuvers, tricks, test of wills, but the mechanics are simple and elegant. rather than hundreds of powers.



> (This would be the perfect system for any campaign meant to feel like LotR, or like a "Final Fantasy" game from the PSX.)  So I'm covered for a while.




It does a lot more than that!  For instance, check out the free Moscow Connection on PEG's site for dialing up the grittiness.  Clint Black, the Brand Manager, posted dials that alter incapacitation from cartoon violence to really gritty. It is my understanding that the dials were included in the Deluxe edition either in part or in full.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 3, 2011)

Why on earth would WotC do something like this when all of the options are already available and in print? I don't know how many old school games have been released in the last year, but I'm certain you can play OE, 1E, Holmes, BECMI, 2E and certainly 3x through games that are out and have filed the serial numbers off.

What I could see, and what they may very likely do is reduce a more basic game aimed at a younger audience. I could see a basic D&D aimed at the 9-12 year-olds that was more kid friendly and didn't have the darker elements that have crept into the game. It would be easier to play than what came out in the Redbox, with a small number of options to work with. Of course with some of the new boardgames that have come out, that may already be the plan.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 3, 2011)

SteveC said:


> Why on earth would WotC do something like this when all of the options are already available and in print? I don't know how many old school games have been released in the last year, but I'm certain you can play OE, 1E, Holmes, BECMI, 2E and certainly 3x through games that are out and have filed the serial numbers off.




The problem is twofold:

1) WotC does not get any income from the thousands of people buying and playing those previous versions of D&D.

2) WotC has no control over those previous versions of D&D.

For the stewards of D&D, if not one of the biggest certainly one of the most beloved modern american pop-culture inventions, both of those are signs of a failure in that stewardship. It works for *me* that I can buy new stuff for any edition of D&D, but if I were the owner of D&D it would be a serious problem and I would be searching for a way to remedy it.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Jul 3, 2011)

Vespucci said:


> You have that sideways.  Grognards prefer Napoleon, it's part of the definition of the word.



Well, Napoleon is one of my all-time favorite deserts.  </yum, yum>

Grognard has come to cover more than just wargamers.  It refers strongly to those who desire to crunch, crunch, crunch away at the rules, especially older rulesets that have more twists or gaps and are easily subject to house rules that the grognards invent.

I've been a Traveller grognard for quite a while.  Heck, my last activity was sitting around and inventing a completely fictional communications protocol for interstellar travel and traffic control in the Third Imperium, pursuant to the equally invented Edict 52 (Imperial Measures and Technology Standards).


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 3, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> 1. As many grognards are only too happy to point out, "rules lite" and "old school" are not the same thing.




It is possible to serve those interested in rules lite and those who like crunch.  Is it easy to do well?  No.  But, with some excellent game design, it can be done.

What you do is create a core mechanic, and then you leave the sub-systems optional.  A GM can get as crunchy or as rules lite as he wants.

For example, let's look at 3.5 E.  You make the core d20 mechanic all anyone needs to play the game.  Skill and ability checks are up to the DM.  Roll STR or less on 3d6 to force open that dungeon door.  Whatever you want.

Next, you have the skill system that can be used with the core mechanic optionally.

Feat system becomes optional too.

And, so on.

In the end, the game suits everyone's taste because it can be customized.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 4, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I won't speculate on the business wisdom of such an edition, but it sure would be nice to have one that combines TSR simplicity with WotC's unified d20 and 4e's focus on balance.



Heh...I wish you luck designing that one.  You'll need it. 

Lanefan


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 4, 2011)

I think, in the balance, there is very little D&D has to be. As long as it's entertaining enough, and financially feasible, for 40+% of their existing fanbase to adopt the new edition, the new edition could be heavy, lite, old school, dungeonpunk... anything you could name, as long as the elements are palatable to the existing base and the overal package is appealing (and different) enough.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 4, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Heh...I wish you luck designing that one.  You'll need it.
> 
> Lanefan



Thanks, I'll get around to writing my fantasy heartbreaker someday. 

Really, simplicity and balance are pretty easy to write. It's D&D's cornucopia of character options that are the tough part.


----------



## Vespucci (Jul 4, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> Grognard has come to cover more than just wargamers. It refers strongly to those who desire to crunch, crunch, crunch away at the rules, especially older rulesets that have more twists or gaps and are easily subject to house rules that the grognards invent.




Swoosh! 

"Grognard" does mean more than wargamer (or, for that matter, Napoleon's Garde Impériale).  It really refers to an old campaigner - in wargames, they typically love lots of counters and maps of Europe.  In RPGs, they typically love oD&D and/or 1e.

That's all the term means.  Crunch and rules-lite have nothing to do with it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> There was a time when D&D games were imaginative and not an unending litany of meta-language and game mechanics.
> 
> "I charge the orc, cleaving it nearly in half with my greatsword and kicking it's corpse off of the blade" is a lot more evocative than:
> 
> "I charge 6 squares, rolling a 28 with my spirited charge feat and activate the overwhelming critical power on my + 3 berserker sword, doing +4[W] damage on my daily".




*1977*

"You come around the corner. Six inches away is a mind flayer. Init."
"Jeez. 10." "3, dammit" "9"
"It has a 12. Psi points are 62."
"I'm psi, so is Roger."
"What's your defense, then?"
"Tower of Iron Will." "Um, I just have Thought SHield"
"Really? Dang."
"Its 60 feet away, that's a -2 to it's THACO." "Another -1, it has to come through the door."
"Dungeon doors are always locked!"
"Except for monsters, duh."
"Psi actions are ten-to-one."
"Where did you get that?"
"I ready my +1 sword, +2 against aquatic stuff and move five inches up."
"It doesn't live in the water."
"Looks like an octopus to me."
"Cephalopod."
"Still not aquatic."
And so on.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 5, 2011)

So who gets to be Basic and who gets to be Advanced this time?
I'm happy with either one.


----------



## Ron (Jul 5, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> Well, Napoleon is one of my all-time favorite deserts.  </yum, yum>
> 
> Grognard has come to cover more than just wargamers.  It refers strongly to those who desire to crunch, crunch, crunch away at the rules, especially older rulesets that have more twists or gaps and are easily subject to house rules that the grognards invent.
> 
> I've been a Traveller grognard for quite a while.  Heck, my last activity was sitting around and inventing a completely fictional communications protocol for interstellar travel and traffic control in the Third Imperium, pursuant to the equally invented Edict 52 (Imperial Measures and Technology Standards).




I don't know, I believe Grognard is more usually associated with veterans, especially those who prefers old games. Personally, I am a rpg/ wargamer player since 1981. My rpg group are players from more less the same period whreas the guys which I usually play wargames are somewhat older, having start playing at the middle to late 70s. We are very fond of some old games, including Traveller you mentioned, and thus we consider ourselves grognards. You know, some prefer cruchier but most -- and by most I mean almost everyone -- moved to simpler systems. I was in love with crunch in the 80s, but I don't have time to waste anymore with something that I currently view as a barrier to my playing experience. I know how exciting crunch can be as I liked it a long time ago but I moved on. We like to play either simple SPI games from the 70s, before crunch destroyed the wargame industry, or some of newer designed games in which complexity is somewhat restricted to cards, keeping the play experience simpler. And yes, it seems that the euro game simplicity is doing a good job in rescuing wargaming a little bit.

Speaking of roleplaying games, we prefer playing RC D&D or AD&D because is simpler. However, Moongose Traveller, the current edition of the old game, is our preferred version. What Moongose did right when WotC failed at our eyes? They kept the game simple, true to its origins, mostly compatible with classic editions, and cleaned up the clumsy old rules with modern design. As a matter of fact, Traveller is a good exemple what WotC should do. Traveller core was always light (except for the dark NewEra edition), whereas supplements like Striker brought enjoyment to those who liked to design complex things more than actually roleplaying. The core book is fairly complete and presents a relatively light rule system that pleases players like me. However, crunch oriented fans can get their fix in several supplements that, I guess, make Rain of Steel happy.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 5, 2011)

Let me throw a hat into the ring here on the 5E discussion:

1 - *4E Good*: *More movement on the battlefield.* Anything which creates a more dynamic battle with more movement and less "stand and swing with full attack" is good. This was a weakness in 3.xx and it continues to be the primary weakness of _Pathfinder_. It's a strength of 4E. KEEP IT.

2- *4E Bad:* *Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design*. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in _every_ edition. But in prior editions, there was at least  a _PRETENSION_ of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings.  With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting.  And it went too far.

The gamesist designs ethic pervades 4E with respect to balance, the powers/day system and healing surges, and even the game world.

You can go too far with this, and sales indicate that there are a large number of people who prefer more of a nod to a pretension of simulationism in their game.  Sure, when the rubber meets the road, you need to go with what makes a better game. _But you need not be so obvious about it._

So that's it: Complex rules for movement and dynamic combat is good. Keep that. It's fun and it makes for a better game. Even the people who dis 4E recognize it. Too much gameist design, however, is bad. Pull back on those aspects and revert to more balance between gameist/simulationist design ethos. 

Revise. Reset, Resell.  

Last Point: Use DDI and 5E to sell and distribute a large and sweeping number of interlocking adventures of high quality published over a successive number of months. Pay designers top dollar to do this and illustrate them lavishly. Six months each in duration for each AP ought to do it. Yes, yes, we all know that Adventures Paths don't sell, right? 

Except when Paizo sells them to their own subscribers, that is.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 5, 2011)

WayneLigon said:


> *1977*
> 
> "You come around the corner. Six inches away is a mind flayer. Init."
> "Jeez. 10." "3, dammit" "9"
> ...




1977 anachronism ROFL!

What does THACO mean?
Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 5, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Let me throw a hat into the ring here on the 5E discussion:
> 
> 1 - *4E Good*: *More movement on the battlefield.* Anything which creates a more dynamic battle with more movement and less "stand and swing with full attack" is good. This was a weakness in 3.xx and it continues to be the primary weakness of _Pathfinder_. It's a strength of 4E. KEEP IT.



This doesn't _have_ to be the case in Pathfinder - it pretty much _does_ describe how the folks in my 'grown ups' game play, but the teens 'n' tweens game sees a lot of variation.   The dwarf likes to open the battle with a bull rush, the halberd wielding elf loves Trip, etc..

Their parents, on the other hand, seem to prefer going toe to toe, and not explore some of the other possibilities, with a couple of exceptions (who are married, and have a kid in the teens 'n' tweens game...). 



> 2- *4E Bad:* *Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design*. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in _every_ edition. But in prior editions, there was at least  a _PRETENSION_ of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings.  With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting.  And it went too far.
> 
> The gamesist designs ethic pervades 4E with respect to balance, the powers/day system and healing surges, and even the game world.
> 
> ...



 I blame the 'twenty minutes of fun' quote for this. All Action! All the Time! (This is also where I think 4e comes closest to fitting the 'MORPG accusations' - not the rules, but in the idea that the whole game should be about action.)

That said... I kind of think that the split has happened, Pathfinder has picked up the folks who don't want 'All Action! All the Time!' We have found a home, and that home is getting larger as more folks move into the neighborhood. 

4e players would be disappointed if WotC tried to roll back on the changes. So let 5e build on 4e - I won't play it, but there are others who will. Them losing their fun won't make me enjoy my fun better, so if they are happy then continue to aim the game at them. If they tire of it then Pathfinder has room.

As long as the hobby is flourishing then let the games travel their separate paths. The fact that both 4e and Pathfinder are doing well seems to say that there is plenty of room for both.  I would rather see both grow than see either one die out.

I will admit to being an alarmist when 4e dropped what I liked in gaming, and did not think that Pathfinder would grow like it has. But it is burgeoning like a rose, so my fears appear to have been largely groundless.  

The Auld Grump


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jul 5, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> 2- *4E Bad:* *Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design*. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in _every_ edition. But in prior editions, there was at least  a _PRETENSION_ of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings.  With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting.  And it went too far.



Me, I disagree. I love that 4e threw D&D sim pretensions to the wind. I guess I don't believe in doing things by halves. If I'm playing a game with hp, magic swords, and giant flying lizards who speak a truly universal common tongue, I don't want the game devs unbalancing the game by pretending the rest should be realistic.

On the other hand, I think it might be a nice change of pace to have an honestly sim edition. Imagine, a D&D game where everything makes some kind of sense! I probably wouldn't buy it, but hey, I've got 4e.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Me, I disagree. I love that 4e threw D&D sim pretensions to the wind. I guess I don't believe in doing things by halves. If I'm playing a game with hp, magic swords, and giant flying lizards who speak a truly universal common tongue, I don't want the game devs unbalancing the game by pretending the rest should be realistic.




It looks like you do agree with him in that you believe 4E did in fact throw out the sim pretensions. Where you disagree is you like that it did this and you don't think it went too far. But the issue this created I think is while it pleased players like yourself, it displeased players who felt differently. And it seems this was a substantial enough number that the game is pretty evenly split at the moment. 

Ideally D&D wants the best of both worlds because it is a game that has classically appealed to a broad base of players. If they appeal too strongly to one segment of their audience they risk losing another segment. 

That said I think Auld Grump may have a point that since the community is already split their best bet may be to continue with the design goals of 4E. I mean 4E is out there now, so if that edition meets your needs, I suspect you wouldn't pick up another one that tried to meet somewhere in the middle of 3E and 4E.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 5, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> It looks like you do agree with him in that you believe 4E did in fact throw out the sim pretensions. Where you disagree is you like that it did this and you don't think it went too far. But the issue this created I think is while it pleased players like yourself, it displeased players who felt differently. And it seems this was a substantial enough number that the game is pretty evenly split at the moment.



Even though I am a bit confused with the meaning(s) of Sim used around here (it seems to have some connotations around "simulating the real world", which for a fantasy game I find just weird), I agree with TS on this.  I also agree that there is a constituency of folks who won't like this.  The odd thing is that everybody feels the need for D&D, specifically, to be "their type of game".  *TheAuldGrump* seems to have got over this - only a "need to spread it around" prevented me from XPing him for that last post.

Maybe I am slightly unusual, in that the confused, mish-mash nature of D&D set me off playing a myriad other games for nearly 20 years before I dipped a toe in 3.x and then came back to it fully in 4E.  I would honestly be quite happy if 4E was just called "Fourth Edition" or something, and "D&D" was used for some other game I could quietly ignore. The only issue is that I would want support/development of 4E to continue - and WotC seem somewhat anally retentive about supporting (read: keeping making money out of) 'old' editions.



Bedrockgames said:


> Ideally D&D wants the best of both worlds because it is a game that has classically appealed to a broad base of players. If they appeal too strongly to one segment of their audience they risk losing another segment.



Myeah.  'Appealing to everybody' is precisely what drove me (and others I play with) away, previously.  The result was a mess - it wasn't balanced and yet it didn't really "simulate" anything sustainable (the economics were totally shot and the implications of magic were not evident in the way the world worked) and the rules amounted to a DM-controlled "mother may I" in the end.  We played everything from RuneQuest to DragonQuest to Traveller to Bushido instead.  We even had an 'offshoot' homebrew from OD&D that was closer to 3.x than to any other edition - and was kinda balanced to a certain point.



Bedrockgames said:


> That said I think Auld Grump may have a point that since the community is already split their best bet may be to continue with the design goals of 4E. I mean 4E is out there now, so if that edition meets your needs, I suspect you wouldn't pick up another one that tried to meet somewhere in the middle of 3E and 4E.



Yep, I think *TheAuldGrump* has it absolutely spot on.  Pick a game or games that suit the specific elements you want out of roleplaying and enjoy.  If it bothers you that "your" particular game should be called "D&D", don't mind me - you are welcome to the name.  Just let me have my own preferred game set without telling me I'm "doing it wrong" or what I'm doing "isn't roleplaying" and I'll be happy.

Give me a dependable company that supports my preferred games without all the control freakery that WotC seems to be susceptible to and I'll be even happier...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2011)

Dont get me wrong belasir, i think it is highly desirable to play the game tgat appeals to you and for companies to aim at a particular demograpgic or niche ( heck that is what my company does). But i think what made d&d so succesful as a product was ( in addition to it being the first and it having name recognition) it appeales to a large cross section of gamers by straddling many styles of play. By changing the formula to appeal to a specific band i think they sacrificed that broad level of appeal. It would be like just going after min maxers or just going after people that love crunch or just going after people who like dungeon crawls or urban adventures. You take a product that attracts all those folks already and you narrow it to just one of those groups. I think the result is people who like the change are really satisfied. But the others move on to different systems.

Also you should play the game you like. 4e may not be my style but i do realize it is a perfect fit for lots of people out there.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 5, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Myeah. 'Appealing to everybody' is precisely what drove me (and others I play with) away, previously. The result was a mess - it wasn't balanced and yet it didn't really "simulate" anything sustainable (the economics were totally shot and the implications of magic were not evident in the way the world worked) and the rules amounted to a DM-controlled "mother may I" in the end. We played everything from RuneQuest to DragonQuest to Traveller to Bushido instead. We even had an 'offshoot' homebrew from OD&D that was closer to 3.x than to any other edition - and was kinda balanced to a certain point.




Yes.  When I'm in a sim mood (and I sometimes am), I'd far rather play Fantasy Hero (with framework geared to a sim focus) or RQ or something like it over any version of D&D.  Heck, Burning Wheel can do some sim aspects better than D&D, and BW is not a sim game by a long shot.

Of course, I'm also sure that some people like some versions of D&D *because* they are the mishmash.  I can even sort of appreciate that, since when *I'm* in a beer and pretzels mode, such a mishmash is what appeals to me, rather than "4E played as a wargame" or some such.

But that makes me interested in just how fair Auld Grump and others like him would want 3.5/PF pushed towards sim?  Is it the mix that appeals, or simply that it is D&D with as much sim as you can currently get?  I'm interested, because those are tastes that I don't really have, and thus don't understand the motivations for.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 5, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me it isnt the amount of crunch in 4e that deters me. For me to return to d&d (played 1st,2nd and 3rd ed, but 4e wasn't for me) they would have to eliminate the powers system.



 Every edition of D&D (and every RPG I can think of off the top of my head) has the powers system, many just don't have the Encounter Power level.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 5, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> But that makes me interested in just how fair Auld Grump and others like him would want 3.5/PF pushed towards sim?  Is it the mix that appeals, or simply that it is D&D with as much sim as you can currently get?  I'm interested, because those are tastes that I don't really have, and thus don't understand the motivations for.



I must admit to some curiosity about this, too - I harbour a sneaking feeling that there are systems out there that would suit those who play older editions of D&D even better - but at the end of the day it's none of my business, really.  If someone is happy playing PF but has never come accross a game that would *really* rock their boat, the chances are that they will be happier finding it themselves, in time, that feeling 'nagged' to it by me.  'Nagging' might even turn them away from something they would really enjoy, in fact.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 5, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in _every_ edition. But in prior editions, there was at least a _PRETENSION_ of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings.




Yeah, I mean really. Last Wednesday that Turbonium Dragon was bearing down on me and I pulled my Orb of Awesome out and Blasted it with Disintigrate but when the DM described that happening to my character  Thursday Night it just didn't feel the same. 

But at least my shorts were cleaner.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Every edition of D&D (and every RPG I can think of off the top of my head) has the powers system, many just don't have the Encounter Power level.




In preious editions all my characters actions werent powers. If i was playing a fighter i simply attacked, if i was a theif i used my rogue skills, etc. In 4e classes all follow the same power format. Just doesn't appeal to me.The whole daily, encounter, utility thing wasn't my cup of tea.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 5, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> In preious editions all my characters actions werent powers. If i was playing a fighter i simply attacked, if i was a theif i used my rogue skills, etc. In 4e classes all follow the same power format. Just doesn't appeal to me.The whole daily, encounter, utility thing wasn't my cup of tea.




Powers, exploits, moves, prayers, spells, whatever you want to call them they were there. Fighters and Rogues had basic attack-based at-wills, Wizards had dailies but they were still the same thing. In fact the Essentials Fighter and Rogue are pretty similar. They can still sit there and whack away with their basic attack modes and work fine. 

4E gave wizards some stuff to do more than once a day and quantified some things for classes that (generally) had a pretty basic playstyle but it's all still there. Preferring one or the other is fine and dandy but I must say your stated reasoning comes across as rather myopic and disingenuous.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Powers, exploits, moves, prayers, spells, whatever you want to call them they were there. Fighters and Rogues had basic attack-based at-wills, Wizards had dailies but they were still the same thing. In fact the Essentials Fighter and Rogue are pretty similar. They can still sit there and whack away with their basic attack modes and work fine.
> 
> 4E gave wizards some stuff to do more than once a day and quantified some things for classes that (generally) had a pretty basic playstyle but it's all still there. Preferring one or the other is fine and dandy but I must say your stated reasoning comes across as rather myopic and disingenuous.




What i am saying is the specific set up in 4e where each classes selects dailies, utilities and encounter powers just doesn't appeal to me. The way powers were done in previous editions i enjoyed. This i have a lot of trouble enjoying.

Not saying the basic concepts have been removed or added. I just dont enjoy the shape powers take in 4e. I agree the raw idea of powers exists in other editions but they play very differently. I've tried 3e and i find the power format it uses produces a much different feel than 3e.

If 4e works for you that is great. It is an innovative system that appeals to plenty of gamers. Just doesn't appeal to me. Believe me there is nothing myopic about my dislike of the 4e powers system. It simply doesn't appeal to my taste.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2011)

People just have different taste. While it is not for me i do believe 4e achieves what it set out to do, and i would be lying if i said i wasn't impressed with its design innovations.


----------



## Sammael (Jul 5, 2011)

Nineball said:


> I'd state that 4e IS a sim game, and a far better one then 3e and 2e were.
> 
> 4e simulates heroic fantasy.
> 
> ...



So, you're essentially saying that 4E simulates a D&D game style that's been pretty much dead for two decades (since neither 3.x nor AD&D 2nd edition embraced that style)? That's certainly possible (although in my AD&D 1st edition games, we strived to make sense of the game world much more than 4E does). But I'm still on the fence as to... why? Why did they feel the need to completely change the gameplay style, other than designers' personal preferences?


----------



## Sammael (Jul 5, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Because for many of us, it's better?
> 
> I don't understand your question.  You seem to be asking "Why are new editions _things?_"
> 
> I'd also add that 3e definately made many concessions to this type of style.  It didn't exactly pop out of nowhere.



I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who find this style appealing (I'm certainly not one of them). What I'm questioning is the decision to completely abandon the style that was in use for 20 years in favor of the style that was basically officially discontinued for that same period. Was there market research that told WotC that there are hundreds of thousands of people playing pre-2nd edition games and who despised setting fluff, world continuity, and the simulationist approach to gaming?

Incidentally, 3e's concessions to the style came near the very end, in products such as _Book of 9 Swords_, which were pretty much 4e playtest material.


----------



## Pentius (Jul 6, 2011)

Sammael said:


> I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who find this style appealing (I'm certainly not one of them). What I'm questioning is the decision to completely abandon the style that was in use for 20 years in favor of the style that was basically officially discontinued for that same period. Was there market research that told WotC that there are hundreds of thousands of people playing pre-2nd edition games and who despised setting fluff, world continuity, and the simulationist approach to gaming?
> 
> Incidentally, 3e's concessions to the style came near the very end, in products such as _Book of 9 Swords_, which were pretty much 4e playtest material.




(Disclaimer: I don't know pre-AD&D1e stuff personally.  The following assumes Nineball's statements are correct)

Being open about the wierdness of D&D is a cue from older editions' rules, that was less prominent in the middle ones.  Simulating heroic fantasy stories, as opposed to simulating a fantasy world, is a playstyle that has not by any stretch of the imagination been dead for decades.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 6, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1977 anachronism ROFL!
> 
> What does THACO mean?
> Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?




1977?  Isn't that Three Little Book terrirory?  I don't think the 1E AD&D DMG came out until 1979!

THACO is 2E terminolgy.  1E used the combat matricies.

And, under 1E rules, you wouldn't roll initiative for spells.  Use used the casting time to find initiative.  The d6 initiative was used to somewhat order melee blows in combat.  And, yep, it was a straight d6 throw, except for bows, which used the DEX based "reaction" modifier.  Melee blows would alternate--so if you won initiative and were allowed two attacks that round, you got in one at the beginning, but the other came at the end of the round after your enemy had a chance to tag you.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 6, 2011)

The idea that 3e was similating a heroic fantasy world is simply a rationalisation of knee-jerk 4e bashing. 

There's nothing smiulationist about buff stacking, or uberpowerful wizards who's player gets to monopolise the time his group spends playing. 

There's nothing simulationist about trip attacks or fighters being boring while barbarians are lsss boring. 

There's nothing simulationist about GMs having to do five times the work to make a fun encounter. 

_There is nothing simulationist about the rope use skill_.

The bitching about the powers system comes from a very negative place. Removing the powers system and re-enstating the kind of garbage that preceeded it would not result in a less 'samey' system, quite the opposite:

After all, combat is far, far less versatile in 3e than it is in 4e. By better balancing the classes, the designers are able to do interesting, exciting, versatile things with them. While there are certainly duds and false starts in 4e class design, compare that to the endless mess of traps and OP casters you see in 3e design. 

4e combat is defined by the clases and monsters, and the extremly versatile, often unique mechanics they involve. Those mechanics work because they are reasonably balanced. As time goes on, the monster builds are getting better and better- but they work because they exist in a balanced context. 

3e combat is defined by buff stacking and the mega-turns of full progression casters. While 4e monsters are incresingly challenging and effective at their roles, in many versatile ways, 3e monsters are a pot luck of arbitary values and sudden death effects that tend to punish again, non-casters and fighter types, further aiding key classes in the monopolisation of time.

You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation. It just adds a lot of quality to combat.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 6, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> 1977?  Isn't that Three Little Book terrirory?




you are correct mostly. they had the supplements out by then too. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and ....



> I don't think the 1E AD&D DMG came out until 1979!



 the 1edADnD MM was released first in 1977, followed by the PHB in 1978, and then the DMG in 1979 (revised).



> THACO is 2E terminolgy.  1E used the combat matricies.




To Hit AC 0 was in Appendix E of the 1edADnD DMG (1979 revised)



> And, under 1E rules, you wouldn't roll initiative for spells.  Use used the casting time to find initiative.  The d6 initiative was used to somewhat order melee blows in combat.  And, yep, it was a straight d6 throw, except for bows, which used the DEX based "reaction" modifier.  Melee blows would alternate--so if you won initiative and were allowed two attacks that round, you got in one at the beginning, but the other came at the end of the round after your enemy had a chance to tag you.




i'm not even going to bother with this...


----------



## Greg K (Jul 6, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> The idea that 3e was similating a heroic fantasy world is simply a rationalisation of knee-jerk 4e bashing.



Just your dismissive opinion. Nothing more



> The bitching about the powers system comes from a very negative place. Removing the powers system and re-enstating the kind of garbage that preceeded it would not result in a less 'samey' system, quite the opposite:



Again just your dismissive opinion



> After all, combat is far, far less versatile in 3e than it is in 4e. By better balancing the classes, the designers are able to do interesting, exciting, versatile things with them. While there are certainly duds and false starts in 4e class design, compare that to the endless mess of traps and OP casters you see in 3e design.



ditto



> 4e combat is defined by the clases and monsters, and the extremly versatile, often unique mechanics they involve. Those mechanics work because they are reasonably balanced. As time goes on, the monster builds are getting better and better- but they work because they exist in a balanced context.



Balance is not the be all end all 



> 3e combat is defined by buff stacking and the mega-turns of full progression casters.



That may be your experience. It is not mine or the people I know



> 3e monsters are a pot luck of arbitary values and sudden death effects that tend to punish again, non-casters and fighter types, further aiding key classes in the monopolisation of time.



 Yawwn!  Once again, it is just your opinion.  Nothing more than your experience.



> You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation.



Just your own opinion once again presented as fact.  For some people it does interfere with the latter two and, by doing that, it does interfere with the first.



> It just adds a lot of quality to combat.



A lot people on these boards disagree just as there are people that will agree


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 6, 2011)

diaglo said:


> you are correct mostly. they had the supplements out by then too. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and ....




That's right.  I get fuzzy about those and the Basic D&D release (that ended up being concurrent with AD&D).





> To Hit AC 0 was in Appendix E of the 1edADnD DMG (1979 revised)




Sure, the concept was there.  Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.  

But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).







> i'm not even going to bother with this...




Then, you don't know your 1E combat very well (as complicated as it is).  Most people House Ruled it, and I am fuzzy on it as I haven't seen it in years.  But what I wrote was close to how it went.

Initiative was only rolled for melee and bows, on a straight D6 without modifiers except for the DEX based reaction modifier (for bows).

In fact, on the first round, the longer weapon attacked first.  On the 2nd and following rounds, initiative was thrown.

On an initiative tie, weapon speed factors were compared, possibly allowing the weapon with the smaller speed factor to attack an extra time during the round (or maybe even have three attacks).

Spells were counted in the combat order according to their casting time--no die roll there.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Spells were counted in the combat order according to their casting time--no die roll there.




Not exactly. The die roll was still applicable to casters. If side A rolled a 2 for initiative and side B rolled a 5 then a caster from side B would begin casting on segment 2. In this scenario any spell with a casting time of 3 segments or less could be cast before side A could interrupt the casting.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 6, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Just your dismissive opinion. Nothing more
> . . .
> Again just your dismissive opinion
> . . .
> ...



In my opinion, your post is completly worthless. Saying "that's just like, your opinion, MAN!" is an utterly pointless response given when people have nothing worthwhile to say. 

Everything is not just a matter of preference. Design matters, system matters, and if you're going to make statements about the design of a system, then you don't get to cop out and act like everything's subjective.

I know that people like to pretend this is all just a matter of preference, but it's not. That's just a cop-out people use because they don't want to admit that they aren't arguing rationally, but simply gathering fuel for a witch-burning.

Where's your proof? What makes your opinon so special, that you think yours somehow dismisses mine?

There are too many dodgy arguments in this debate to just chalk everything up to opinion. 

I know the 4e-bashers would prefer not to be held accounable in any way, shape or form, but if design is a meaningful process that operates on the basis of merit, regardless of the role of preference, sooner or later people are going to have to drop the 'just your opinion' BS and make arguments of substance.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 6, 2011)

I think these are great conversations but people might want to tone it down a notch. There is no reason people should be attacked for simply preferring a different edition of the game. Systems are designed with different goals in mind and for different sets of preferences. If you've found a a game that works for you that is great. Let others enjoy the game that works for them.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation.




Having run a 4E campaign for a year (and doing it my way) I have to say this was true for our campaign. 





catastrophic said:


> It just adds a lot of quality to combat.




And, IME this was not.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Where's your proof? What makes your opinon so special, that you think yours somehow dismisses mine?




It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth.  The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective.  Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.

Mind you, just thumping you over the head with that statement is not constructive.  It is unlikely to change your mind, just as your unsupported assertion is unlikely to change anyone else's mind.

So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 6, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth.  The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective.  Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.
> 
> Mind you, just thumping you over the head with that statement is not constructive.  It is unlikely to change your mind, just as your unsupported assertion is unlikely to change anyone else's mind.
> 
> So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.




Not butting heads with him at all.  Being dismissive of his post, because of  the dismissive tone of his rant while making claim to some objective truth without providing the proof to support such a claim?  Yes.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Not butting heads with him at all.  Being dismissive of his post, because of  the dismissive tone of his rant while making claim to some objective truth without providing the proof to support such a claim?  Yes.




Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, then.  That's not any better.

EN World does not operate on the basis of "Well, he did it to me, so I can do it to him."  In the future, if you are tempted to be snarky to prove a point, please resist that temptation.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 6, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, then.  That's not any better.
> 
> EN World does not operate on the basis of "Well, he did it to me, so I can do it to him."  In the future, if you are tempted to be snarky to prove a point, please resist that temptation.




Umbran, not so much he did it to me. I had just woken up so, maybe, it was not a good choice of words.

 I kept hitting the point so, maybe, he would realize he was just stating opinion and not fact. In my opinion, 4e has its good points and bad points. as does 3e.  Many people that dislike 4e on these boards  have stated similar opinion.  

Catastrophic ranting and outright dismissing the preferences of others and their experience, because he holds the objective "Truth", was just not rude to everyone that disagrees it it left no room for discussion.  I can't be anything, but dismissive of his post, because his position comes off as myopic.  However, trying to point out that he is only stating his opinion based on his experience and preference and that does not make it an objective truth was not being dismissive. It was pointing out that all he was stating was opinion and  that he does not hold some universal Truth with a capital "T" as to the basis of other's opinions. 

People have stated what they dislike about 4e. He may disagree and that is fine.  If they misrepresent something as written in one of the books, he is fine to correct them by quoting a passage. Maybe, he will convince someone to see an aspect of the game in a new light. However, to rant and make  the "extraordinary" claims that he did and deny the validity of fellow posters, he better come with proof, because, as you stated, he is the one making those claims.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 6, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Sure, the concept was there.  Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.
> 
> But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).




Not just Dragon Magazine articles. THAC0 also made it into RPGA tournament modules and the AD&D Open, if I recall correctly, before 2e.

That said, while THAC0 debuted in the 1e DMG appendices, it was clearly an afterthought that wasn't a perfect fit with 1e. It fails to account for the repetition of the 20 entry on the combat matrices. So I'd agree that THAC0 became the official method in 2e for the first time, though I wouldn't state that it "started, full-force" with 2e.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 6, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> That's right.  I get fuzzy about those and the Basic D&D release (that ended up being concurrent with AD&D).



Holmes 2edD&D and Holmes 3edD&D.








> Sure, the concept was there.  Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.
> 
> But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).




THAC0 was in a few published late 1edADnD modules too. if you open to Appendix E starting on page 196 you will see it in print as To Hit AC 0 as a header right after Monster and Size

i don't play 1edADnD i referee OD&D(1974) and even i have that memorized.



> Then, you don't know your 1E combat very well (as complicated as it is).  Most people House Ruled it, and I am fuzzy on it as I haven't seen it in years.  But what I wrote was close to how it went.
> 
> Initiative was only rolled for melee and bows, on a straight D6 without modifiers except for the DEX based reaction modifier (for bows).
> 
> ...




you are getting better.

when you want to play OD&D (1974) using Chainmail (1971) some time come find me at Gen Con or Gary Con.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth. The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective. Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.



And if I offered proof and arguments in detail, the 4e haters would keep arguing regardless, and I would be the one you'd end up banning or banishing for edition warring.

I have seen this happen, numerous times, on many forums. There's nothing rational about this debate, and I posted not for those people, but for other people watching, with a more rational view of the issue.

For instance, i've seen 4e bashers insist that fighters in 3e are really great and competitive and fun to play- and after 15 pages of arguing about that, they go the grognard route and decide that fighters sucking is a good and _realistic_ thing.

Or they'd decide that fun has nothing to do with contributing in substantive, system-based manner, and hey, they even have mike mearls backing them up on that. 

Or they'd just decide to call 'edition war', and you'd back them on that. 

Now, can I sit here and debate the balance of that class relative to other classes? Sure. Can I make a concise and well supported argument? Sure. Can I do this with any number of issues, from spotlight time, to failure rates, to deprotagonisation, to the traditionalism that pases for degisn in previous editions, to the simulation fallacy, and on? Sure.

Are the majority of the people i'd be arguing with the least bit interested in such an idea, or willing to recognise that such a proof of concept is even possible? Of course not, they're just here to bash 4e. And if you argue against them too much, they get angry, and hostile, and take offence no mater what you say.

After all, when wotc made similar, rational, well reasoned arguments prior to the release of 4e, in order to inform people, in order to be clear about their position, _people took personal offence at it_, and their 'terrible mean treatment' of the 'fans' in that era has become one of the key myths of the edition war.

Was wotc being mean, or arrogant, or cocky, or any of the nonsence terms bandied about when bashing them? Of course not. They were criticising their own design. But the 4e bashers were happy to take offence, happy to paint them as mean devloper jerks who said mean things to the fans.

Literally, wotc made the kind of arguments you demand, and the 4e haters spun their critique of 3e into a _personal attack on 3e fandom_. WOTC didn't do that, the 4e hate brigade did that- and they do the same to anyone with a viewpoint they don't like.

The final question, about this objective proof you demand, and the debate it would spur. Will you, as the moderator, play a positive, constructive role in that debate? Don't be ridiculous. You know as well as I do that you'll always let the 4e-bashers have their fun, and stop in if, and only if, the other side of the argument puts up too much of a fight.



> So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.



Actually, we're both stating our opinions. After all, in a poorly managed debate like this, when arguing too long is a bannable offence? Stating opinions is all anyone can do.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 8, 2011)

If 3.X is a simulation game, it's simulating a world that quite basically makes no sense at all. It portrays a pseudo-medieval, pseudo-feudal world, where the largest cities have tens of 18+ level spellcasters. That makes no sense at all, either economically or politically. Based on the RAW, 3.5 D&D worlds should be magically transhumanist, with cheap  magical healing, food production, resurrection, and the like. The model should be Star Trek, not Conan. 

However, the contradictory elements of the worldbuilding are easily ignored, because simulation isn't the goal of 3.X, power gaming is. The world doesn't have to make sense when you have an rpg version of Magic the Gathering. Exactly like MtG, the whole point of 3.X is to gather the right combination of race, template, feat, classes, prestige classes and so on to make a winning killer combo. One just has to take one look at the optimization boards to see that's the case. This is also the real reason that 3.X fans don't care about the weakness of non-casters; they aren't regarded as viable classes in and of themselves, but only as components to dip a few levels into, on the route to an uber combo character.

It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.

It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay  from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.
> 
> It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay  from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.




You realize, I hope, that not everyone plays this way. Don't conflate a particular style of play with some overall claim about what the game is about.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin.




Two Comments:  There is no "bad-fun", and if gamers are enjoying themselves, more power to them, however they play.

I tend to agree with you a bit (that said), and I think this falls into the realm of the DM.  He has the power to control the munchkinism in his game.

In my game, I allowed my players to throw stats per RAW (for the Conan RPG), which is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste.  And, that's what I enforced.  One player ended up with a character all over the board:

STR 19 (after +2 racial bonus)
DEX 13
CON 10
INT 12  (after -2 racial penalty)
WIS 7
CHA 6

That's what he rolled.  That's how he arranged the numbers.  That's what he's playing.

My second comment here is that munchkinism can't happen without the GM allowing it to happen.



Except for his STR rating, this character, Caelis Redbirth, may not look to impressive to you.  But, in my game, is STR rating is QUITE impressive because I am so hard on stat throws.  What you roll is what you get.

My game mirrors the stat arrays shown in the DMG, where most NPCs hover around the normal array and the PCs hover around the Elite array.

I roll NPCs by using 3d6, six times, arrange to taste--so they, typically, are weaker than the PCs, but not by much.  And, if I get hot on the dice (which I've done), sometimes I roll a monster using that method.

Which is fun when it happens in the game--because it's rare.





I think most players shun playing a character who has a negative modifier in a stat.  In my game, having a negative modifier in a stat is quite common.  The range of stats, 3-18+, was not meant to be played only using the numbers 10+.

It should be OK to see a 5-9 fairly often.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 8, 2011)

Pretty edition wars in here.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 8, 2011)

I think the "simulation" in 3E comes from the fact that the game is set up to have the mechanics support fictional causes - that is, the fictional material that the players come up with determines which mechanics are used or not used and how they are used.  For the most part.

4E is a little different.  The fiction tends to play a lesser role in resolution than in other games.  One quick example: The fiction is important when it comes to determining positioning (who's where, are we in a forest or a swamp, how deep is that trench, etc.), but how you manipulate character's positions does not always rely on the fiction.  (And sometimes it does.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Pretty edition wars in here.



Thank you.

I wasn't sure they'd go with the drapes, and I had to get new lamps.

The Auld Grump


----------



## delericho (Jul 8, 2011)

Nineball said:


> 3e was very explicitly built around system mastery.  This is a stated fact given by the developers of the game themselves.




No, system mastery was explicitly built into 3e. That's not quite the same thing.


----------



## Balesir (Jul 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Pretty edition wars in here.



No.  I warn you, you cannot do this.  Calling edition wars "pretty" is not "on message".  It's not politically correct.  Please retract that statement - it is not "acceptable".


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> No, system mastery was explicitly built into 3e. That's not quite the same thing.




Yeah, I knew someone was going to misuse the Monte Cook passage again.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> There's nothing rational about this debate, and I posted not for those people, but for other people watching, with a more rational view of the issue.




That doesn't follow - you cannot sway those with a more rational view without a rational argument.  And you don't offer a rational argument, you offer unsupported assertions.  Moreover, rational folks will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.  You won't sway such people by making an assertion, and claiming victory if others cannot disprove it.  They know that's a weak rhetorical dodge, and reject it.  

It sounds like you are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of hypothetical, unnamed readers, like you're trying to WIN.  That's likely the root of your problem - trying to win when nobody can keep score.



> You know as well as I do that you'll always let the 4e-bashers have their fun, and stop in if, and only if, the other side of the argument puts up too much of a fight.




Actually, what I know is that both sides of the argument say we are partial to the other guys, with about equal frequency.  From time to time, we've even counted the complaints.  So, we have good reason to think we are fairly even-handed.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> THAC0 first appears in the 1e DMG.
> 
> 
> RC




The acronym "THACO" is not in the 1E DMG.  I assume you're referring to the chart heading in appendix E of the 1E DMG.

THACO, as a concept and the acronym came around late in the 1E period.  Yes, it's in the 1E DMG, on those charts, but it really doesn't get seen again until the end of the 1E era.  It showed up in some adventures and Dragon articles.

It wasn't until 2E that the game fully embraced the term and the concept, incorporating it officially into the game in the 2E PHB.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Actually, what I know is that both sides of the argument say we are partial to the other guys, with about equal frequency.  From time to time, we've even counted the complaints.  So, we have good reason to think we are fairly even-handed.





Please don't discuss moderation in-thread.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Please don't discuss moderation in-thread.




The rule is really to not discuss specific moderation actions.  General policies and overall trends and behavior are allowed points of discussion.  We usually keep them to the Meta forum, but they are not forbidden.  

That being said, I'd already made my point, and I don't expect it to intrude on the discussion any further.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, it is in the 1e DMG. Yes, it exists as a concept, and we know this because it is in the 1e DMG.
> 
> Is it widely adopted? Not until the 2e era.
> 
> ...




Got a page number where the acronym THACO appears in the 1E DMG?

As I said earlier, Appendix E doesn't count as it doesn't use the acronym.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but is my understanding correct that, although you agree that 1e used "To Hit AC 0", you believe it didn't use THAC0 because it was written "To Hit AC 0"?




You must not have read my post closely enough above. I said that the concept was used, as evident in Appendix E, but the acronym was not. Then, you came back above and disagreed with what I said. So, I asked you for a page number.

And, I'm not sure how *Isle of the Ape* pulled it off (I am aware, as I said above, that THAC0 made it into Dragon and a few late 1E adventures), but there's the issue of the double numbers showing up on the combat matrix.  That had to be cleaned up in order for the THAC0 concept to work properly.  To my knowledge, the matrix wasn't cleaned up until 2E, with the double numbers eliminated and THAC0 embraced full force.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2011)

Can we take the THAC0 pedant pissing match out of the thread? It's not exactly necessary here.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 8, 2011)

Umbran said:


> The rule is really to not discuss specific moderation actions.  General policies and overall trends and behavior are allowed points of discussion.  We usually keep them to the Meta forum, but they are not forbidden.
> 
> That being said, I'd already made my point, and I don't expect it to intrude on the discussion any further.





Well, I'm just glad that these argumentative threads haven't affected your sense of humor.   Cheer up!  The real D&D edition warring won't start until 5E is official and we have three editions that have come to pass during the Internet age.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> For the record, I see THAC0 in module C4, To Find a King (1985), but not C3 (1984). UK3 (1984) uses THAC0, as does Doc's Island (1983), Needle (1987), The Book of Lairs (1986), C5 (1985), C6 The Official RPGA Tournament Handbook (1987), R1 (1982), N4 (1986), N5 (1987), I14 (1988), etc., etc.




That sounds about right.  AD&D 2E was published in 1989, so it was being worked on during the last half of the 80's.  I may be wrong, but I think it was included in the original Dragonlance modules as well.

I remember it being a good idea that I was glad to see adopted when 2E came out.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> For the record, I see THAC0 in module C4, To Find a King (1985), but not C3 (1984). UK3 (1984) uses THAC0, as does Doc's Island (1983), Needle (1987), The Book of Lairs (1986), C5 (1985), C6 The Official RPGA Tournament Handbook (1987), R1 (1982), N4 (1986), N5 (1987), I14 (1988), etc., etc.




That sounds about right.  AD&D 2E was published in 1989, so it was being worked on during the last half of the 80's.  I may be wrong, but I think it was included in the original Dragonlance modules as well.

I remember it being a good idea that I was glad to see officially adopted when 2E came out (and not just a neat rule tweak found in magazine articles and adventures).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2011)

Removed


----------



## diaglo (Jul 8, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Can we take the THAC0 pedant pissing match out of the thread? It's not exactly necessary here.




hiya billd91, 

i believe RC was just assisting me trying to get Water Bob to see its use was actually already in existance before 2edADnD.


----------



## Water Bob (Jul 8, 2011)

diaglo said:


> hiya billd91,
> 
> i believe RC was just assisting me trying to get Water Bob to see its use was actually already in existance before 2edADnD.




It should have been clear to you that I knew it existed before 2E AD&D.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 9, 2011)

Quick question for some of the more experienced players in this thread, but it is completely off topic. Seeing as I've a relatively gamer still (I'm 25), I'm looking to the local experts on this one.

Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?

I see a lot of people talk about the game being about "heroic fantasy" and I was just curious is that's been the trend since the beginning of D&D or not, or if it was something that was added along the way.

Thanks for the replies (if I get any )

As always, play what you like


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 9, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Quick question for some of the more experienced players in this thread, but it is completely off topic. Seeing as I've a relatively gamer still (I'm 25), I'm looking to the local experts on this one.
> 
> Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?
> 
> ...




Adventurers.  Whether or not they are heroes depends upon their actions, not their stats.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 9, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?




Depends on what the players wanted. Some versions have had more options for one side or the other, though. And some things that people wanted haven't really been possible without house rules or outright and frequently applied fiat, in a given version.

You'll also get disagreement on where, "Joe was really clever and thus saved Thud the Barbarian and made it to 5th level!" transitions into "Joe was really lucky" or "Joe pulled a power gamer trick" or "Joe got the DM to save Thud's behind" or even "Joe maniputated and built his token Thud to have a decent chance of success."

But D&D has usually claimed a patina of "heroic fantasy" in the main versions, or at least the anti-hero versions, such as emulating Cugel the Clever. (Not so much in certain settings, off the main branch.) Thing is, in most versions, D&D hasn't consistenly delivered on this heroic fantasy patina. So lots of people naturally went with what it did, instead of what it implied that it did, and sometimes that was playing an "adventurer" that turned out to be the third hood the left, killed by the Gray Mouser--instead of the old Mouser himself.


----------



## rounser (Jul 9, 2011)

> 4e takes more cues from OD&D and Basic, which were open about the weirdness of D&D; giant bees, sentient jelly, and big flying balls with eyes. I linked Rythlondar awhile back and I think it's rather relevant; those guys didn't make or try to simulate "a fantasy world." It's pretty barebones, and everything that exists in the game exists for the sake of adventurers (usually for them to kill).



I don't know where this wishful thinking meme is coming from, but weird monsters are not equivalent to 4E's more extreme suspension of disbelief destroying, meaningless-in-all-but-a-metagame-sense mechanics.  Every edition has weird monsters, from flail snails to stwingers.  Not every edition has rules that reflect nothing but a design convenience, though, to the degree that 4E does.

If 4E really were some second coming of OD&D and Basic, I'd probably like it.  As it exists, it's a long way both philosophically (e.g. borrowing ideas from MMORPGs, M:tG, and GW) thematically (e.g. more Airbender and less Conan) and concretely from that, from the mechanics (e.g. magic system, "healing surges", miniatures pushing powers) to the implied setting (confected stuff like eladrin and dragonborn versus elves and dwarves).  

IMO it's a stretch to suggest that games which actually are directly on the D&D family tree, like 2E and 3E, containing much the same devices it did such as a near identical implied setting and macro rules constructs like the vancian magic system are somehow more divorced from OD&D and BECMI than what is effectively a new game based on D&D, but departing from much of what is associated with D&D over several decades.


----------



## Jimlock (Jul 9, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> But I'm not holding my breath.




Me neither, but I'm afraid that the ship has already sailed.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> That doesn't follow - you cannot sway those with a more rational view without a rational argument. And you don't offer a rational argument, you offer unsupported assertions.



Actually it's not a matter of swaying them, or convincing them, it's a matter of giving them a starting point for a more rational assesment of the issue. 

Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it. My assertions are supported by the fact- you're just not willing to recognise that, or aware of it.

If i'm arguing about climate change, I don't actually have to prove that carbon emissions cause climate change. Rational, reasonable people accept that.

See, your assumption is that this is a two sided issue, but really, it's a one sided bash-fest, where the people who actually know about the subject being bashed sometimes state an opinion, usually to the contrary. 



> Moreover, rational folks will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.



And why, in this thread on this forum, does the burden of proof just happen to be on me? Because i'm making the assertion? I'm countering assertions. Where's their proof? In the essays about how gary gygax would be spinning in his grave, and how videogamey 4e is? That's proof? Oh of course, since they don't have any proof, and don't recognise any proof, the burden of evidence shifts to me? 

The burden of proof is just something people throw at their opponents to appear rational. 

And again, if we really got down into the nitty gritty of it, here's what would happen: 1)4e bashers would deny everything and post esays about gygaxian natualism. 2)you would ban me for edition warring 3) I would be completly wasting my time, and preaching to a choir, against another choir. 



> You won't sway such people by making an assertion, and claiming victory if others cannot disprove it. They know that's a weak rhetorical dodge, and reject it.



You're the one performing that dodge. Where are their facts? Where is their proof? In their hit lists about how 4e doesn't allow roleplaying? Spare me. You don't get to claim high minded ideals in this farce of a debate. 



> It sounds like you are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of hypothetical, unnamed readers, like you're trying to WIN. That's likely the root of your problem - trying to win when nobody can keep score.



No, i'm stating my opinion. And if you think that 4e bashers are not constantly lobbying for their viewpoint well. . . that kind of one sided view does not suprise me. 



> Actually, what I know is that both sides of the argument say we are partial to the other guys, with about equal frequency. From time to time, we've even counted the complaints. So, we have good reason to think we are fairly even-handed.



Both sides of the climate change debate claim that the media is biased towards the other side. From this then, it follows that the media is beng even handed? 

If people were arguing over wether the moon is made of green cheese or not, and both sides of the debate complained on moonconent.org about the mods being biased, would that make the mods unbiased?

Your argument assumed that each side of the debate is identical, in that it complains about bias with identical merit. That's one step removed from circular logic, and none the better for it.



Eric Tolle said:


> It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.
> 
> It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.




The thing is, for people who want to have cool stats, 4e has just as much of that stuff as 3e. The difference is, it's worked to get away from the system mastery traps and exploits that defined 3e.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jul 9, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Actually it's not a matter of swaying them, or convincing them, it's a matter of giving them a starting point for a more rational assesment of the issue.
> 
> Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it. My assertions are supported by the fact- you're just not willing to recognise that, or aware of it.




Wow. I don't think you're being rational here. You are instead observing char-op mythologies. 

3e fighter is not garbage. 3e Cleric is not Superman sans kryptonite. If you were to actually look at the bigger picture here you would see what I mean.

The bigger picture being full casters are not inherently powerful. They have been allowed by poor foresight or malicious intent to have over powered spells and feats. In fights where LVL=CR of monster. The martial classes often would be 50/50 or slightly better. That is not the case with full casters after 5th level they would be in the neighborhood of 75% and top out at 95-99.99% by 20th. It is clearly a matter of broken powers and not your percieved class deficiency.

You facts are subjective.

4e-3e doesn't matter much to me. I have played both and DM'ed both I'm not enamored with them.

I am holding my breath that 5e will be so great that we all will look back and say. "what were we thinking?"


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You realize, I hope, that not everyone plays this way. Don't conflate a particular style of play with some overall claim about what the game is about.




Of course not- there's plenty of room for people to ignore RAW in any actual play of any rpg. You can have a heroic high fantasy version of Runequest, our a WH40K game tha explores tolerance and multiculturalism. But that really says nothing about how the rules are written, or expected style of play. The most publicized style of play is for the oozed power gamer, and that's the style of play the
 RAW support.



billd91 said:


> Yeah, I knew someone was going to misuse the Monte Cook passage again.




I don't think it's a misuse of his statement at all. While in the larger D20 system mastery may only be a component (it's much less important in True20 for example), it's obviously central to the 3.X experience. When one of the base classes is little more than a trap for the inexperienced, when you get concepts like the following:



> "Consider an Unseelie Fey Loredrake Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer X/Mage of the Arcane Order Y using the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage so that you're 3 Sorcerer levels ahead of your actual level. You'll need Arcane Preparation to get into Mage of the Arcane Order, and you'll want Arcane Thesis: Wings of Flurry along with lots of metamagics."



Someone who hasn't built up a mastery by studying dozens of sourcebooks and the synergy between hundreds of racial attributes, feats, powers, etc..

In fact this points out the  intended parallels between mastery, sourcebooks and Magic the Gathering collectors: just like MtG players have to buy hundreds of cards to build up powerful decks, so do 3.X players have to buy as many sourcebooks as possible to get access to components to build uber-characters. Likewise, the set-up of the sourcebooks is in parallel to  purchasable magic decks; you have the useless fluff no one pays attention to; the obviously useless classes and feats; the occasionally useful versions of the same; and finally, the "rare" classes, feats, templates or powers that can be used in combination with the right attributes from other books to make unbeatably powerful decks- er, characters.

And there you have the core of the Third Edition experience. This explains why True20 failed (no material for power gaming builds), and why 4E isn't doing so well (the emphasis on balance gives power gamers nothing to buy).

This also shows the problem Pathfinder faces. It's popular now as a continuation of 3.5, so power gamers feel they can use the standard builds. But if Pathfinder doesn't start giving the munchkin crowd material to build uber characters with, it's popularity will probably decline.

Finally, this is why 5E will be so problematic. Unless it gives the "build a munchkin character" crowd plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their mastery of complicated uber-builds, the gamers are the 3.X base will claim the game "isn't really D&D. On the other hand, of 5E is built to please the 3.X power  gamers, then those of is who like to create simple characters and be assured of their usefulness won't buy the game.


----------



## fireinthedust (Jul 9, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> It is precisely _because_ each class, spell, etc. was different that people played the prior versions of the game and spent so much time customizing them.





Not so.  I, for one, spend my time playing earlier editions (and Pathfinder) because I like thinking about how to create objects and have them work in, basically, a simulation of a world.  I also like creating games using these rules, and am informed by 4e when I do this.  These are the two reasons that spring immediately to mind, and I'm sure I could find others, but I didn't start RPGs because I wanted to avoid cookie-cutter rpg classes.

That they're different is not a primary concern; certainly not one of the desires I'm conscious of (though if it's an unconscious desire for classes that play differently but mix well enough, explain that to Freud or Erickson).


I don't get the argument about cookie cutter design.  The Leader role in 4e is very different from the striker, and the defender, and the controller.  The emphasis is certainly different.  My wizard blankets areas in small damage, while my barbarian whallops one target for big damage.  Yes, they all have powers that function a certain number of times a day, but that's not a new phenomenon for anyone except spellcasters.

Example:  in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round:  Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action.  All of them.  Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.

Is that cookie cutter?


----------



## Pentius (Jul 9, 2011)

fireinthedust said:


> Example:  in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round:  Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action.  All of them.  Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.
> 
> Is that cookie cutter?




Very much so.  

This is the full round cookie:






Here is the Standard Cookie:





The Move Cookie:





The Minor Cookie:





And finally, the Free Cookie:


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 9, 2011)

diaglo said:


> when you want to play OD&D (1974) using Chainmail (1971) some time come find me at Gen Con or Gary Con.



side trek

[MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION] - Where and when does one find you at Gen Con? (shoot me a note or post in the GenCon planning forum...)

/side trek

Lan-"you'd probably consider me new-school: I play 1e"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 9, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it.



Of course, this assertion completely depends on what you're defining as "garbage" within the game context.

As far as I'm concerned, regardless of class, race, stats, even system: if I can give it a personality and role-play it we're already beyond the garbage stage.  And I've yet to see any game where this was impossible.

Now, if you're talking about things like damage-per-round output etc. etc. then I'll just leave you to it, as in my view that (along with most other char-op gype) is just not a relevant part of the game - in any edition.  As long as you can take down the monster before it kills you, whether you can give out 16.5 dpr or 22.4 dpr is utterly immaterial.*

* - these are numbers pulled out of my hat - I've no idea if they're realistic or not.


			
				Wiseblood said:
			
		

> I am holding my breath that 5e will be so great that we all will look back and say. "what were we thinking?"



I second this motion.

Lan-"I call question on the motion.  All in favour?"-efan


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 9, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Of course, this assertion completely depends on what you're defining as "garbage" within the game context.



Implications of mechanics, for gameplay, as opposed to meaningless drivel about how fun somebody's terrible 1e rogue was despite himself, or whatever. 



> As far as I'm concerned, regardless of class, race, stats, even system: if I can give it a personality and role-play it we're already beyond the garbage stage. And I've yet to see any game where this was impossible.



 These are roleplaying games. If they're games, then the rules have to add to the fun. Otherwise, why have them? For the sake of tradition, no matter how many absurd, time-wasting hoops they require you to jump through?

There's roleplaying, there's craft, but they should not be a crutch for design. Design should pay it's way, otherwise, why are we paying people to do it? Sure, we don't pay them much, or often, but still. It's a skill, and it deserves respect.



> Now, if you're talking about things like damage-per-round output etc. etc. then I'll just leave you to it, as in my view that (along with most other char-op gype) is just not a relevant part of the game - in any edition.



You can dismiss whatever you want, but this isn't about character optimisation- it's about good design which leads to players having more fun, and all players being able to contribute to a substantial degree in game. 

You can dismiss good design because you don't care about the amount of time, in fact the number of fans our hobby loses to idiotic tripe like 3e style fighters. But design matters, system matters, and the best way for a roleplaying *game* to make fun is for it to be well designed. 

And I don't give a damn if you scoff at that. You're not a rational contributor to the discussion. You reject design, fine. I don't have to take your viewpoint seriously.



> As long as you can take down the monster before it kills you, whether you can give out 16.5 dpr or 22.4 dpr is utterly immaterial.*



And fighters never do that. This is not about minutia. This is not about dps decimals. 

This is about the fact that at high levels, fighters can't make will saves, despite often facing them from high level monsters. Your heroic fighter? Will scream and run away unless he's standing next to a paladin. 

This is about the fact that full progression spelllcasters can cast 'be better than a fighter at fighting' 50 different ways, and for the cleric, do it all day off one spell slot and a turn undead attempt or two. And on top of that, they get to nuke everything, raise the dead, fly, ect, ect.

This is about the fact that when a new player joins D&D, half of them are going to say "i wanna play a cool guy with a sword!', and most of those people are going to end up playing a fighter. In 4e, they get to be a cool guy with a sword. In 3e, even at low levels, they play a boring garbage class that does the same thing over and over again, and is rapidly left behind.

This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result. And again, _I don't care about the guy who loves his boring do-nothing fighter_. I care about good design, not people who aren't engaged in the game enough for design to matter.

Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun. , wizards at low level? One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play. 

In play, it leads to 15 minute days, it leads to people dropping in an out of classes- or games- based on when their pc starts or stops being fun, it leads to the kind of negative outcomes that 4e makes an effort to prevent. It doesn't always work, 4e has a lot of flaws- but it's better than wallowing in failure.

I don't care who wants to boast about their hard-earned wizard from the old days, and how it's really really important to their play style that the guy with the sword starts looking like a complete chump at some arbitary point in the storyline. This is D&D, not ars magica.

I don't care about the sacred cows, especially when they step all over people's fun. I'm interested in making fun for _people_, not just the people who shoult their 4e-bashing outrage the loudest who insists that everyone act like there's no such thing as merit in design, and no way to improve play, because after all, everything is just, like, your opinion, mannn!

Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play, _or_, we act as a stagnant backwater, hostile to improvement and genuine design goals. Either we recognise that play experiences can be improved with design, or we buy into the copout that all design can do is service play-style, when in reality, that is only part of what design does, and that the features people are defending are toxic to good design, and good play.

We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a shitload of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.



> * - these are numbers pulled out of my hat - I've no idea if they're realistic or not.



Well, at least you admit it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 9, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result. And again, _I don't care about the guy who loves his boring do-nothing fighter_. I care about good design, not people who aren't engaged in the game enough for design to matter.




If that's your opinion, who am I to argue with it 

Play what you like


----------



## Ranes (Jul 9, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> 3.X players have to buy as many sourcebooks as possible to get access to components to build uber-characters. Likewise, the set-up of the sourcebooks is in parallel to  purchasable magic decks; you have the useless fluff no one pays attention to; the obviously useless classes and feats; the occasionally useful versions of the same; and finally, the "rare" classes, feats, templates or powers that can be used in combination with the right attributes from other books to make unbeatably powerful decks- er, characters.




Ye gods, I'm glad my experience tells me otherwise. Rarely have I come across such a ludicrous assertion. I always make it clear to new players, just as most of the other DMs I have ever known, that non-core sources may be allowed by me if (a) I own the source and no I'm not interested in borrowing your copy, thanks and (b) I don't have an issue with it (ruling out almost anything that ever had 'Complete' in the title).

Furthermore, if you cannot control your anal-retentive and typically selective rules mastery skillzzzzzzz, there's the door.

Fortunately, in eight years of DMing 3e for dozens of players, I've only had one problem player who expected me to incorporate any rule ever written by anyone. That's about the same rate as when I played 1e.

Everyone else seems to have a good time without feeling trapped by choice. They don't worry about whether or not they have squeezed every last little plus one they could have done our of their characters.

If what you wrote genuinely reflects your experience, I do feel sorry for you.

As for what 5e might be like, I don't care to speculate. My D&D works fine.


----------



## Ranes (Jul 9, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result.




[Beavis] Hehe. You said, "4e." Hehehe. [/Butthead]



catastrophic said:


> Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun.




I've never taken fun damage.



catastrophic said:


> In play, it leads to 15 minute days...




Actually, no, it doesn't.



catastrophic said:


> 4e has a lot of flaws- but it's better than wallowing in failure.




It is not a binary argument.



catastrophic said:


> I'm interested in making fun for _people_, not just the people who shoult their 4e-bashing outrage the loudest who insists that everyone act like there's no such thing as merit in design, and no way to improve play, because after all, everything is just, like, your opinion, mannn!




Well done. You win today's straw man award.



catastrophic said:


> Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play, _or_, we act as a stagnant backwater, hostile to improvement and genuine design goals.




I'm sure no one wants to act like 'a stagnant backwater'. I'm not even sure that anyone can.

I do recognise that design can improve. I also recognise that, just because it can, it doesn't necessarily so do.



catastrophic said:


> Either we recognise that play experiences can be improved with design, or we buy into the copout that all design can do is service play-style, when in reality, that is only part of what design does, and that the features people are defending are toxic to good design, and good play.




I agree that design can improve play. But a good game is more than the sum of its mechanics. Furthermore, irrespective of a new game's merits, if you're still enjoying the one you've already got, why not spend your money on something or someone else? Wait, would that be acting like a stagnant backwater?



catastrophic said:


> 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.




The outrage seems to be all yours.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 9, 2011)

fireinthedust said:


> Not so.  I, for one, spend my time playing earlier editions (and Pathfinder) because I like thinking about how to create objects and have them work in, basically, a simulation of a world.  I also like creating games using these rules, and am informed by 4e when I do this.  These are the two reasons that spring immediately to mind, and I'm sure I could find others, but I didn't start RPGs because I wanted to avoid cookie-cutter rpg classes.
> 
> That they're different is not a primary concern; certainly not one of the desires I'm conscious of (though if it's an unconscious desire for classes that play differently but mix well enough, explain that to Freud or Erickson).
> 
> ...




You miss my point - in prior editions of the game, character abilities were thematically and mechanically different.  A fighter didn't have "powers."  He was able to engage in combat based solely upon his own physical ability and training.  A wizard was able cast spells do to an entirely different source of ability - his intelligence and mastery of the mind.  Thematically different.

Mechanically, also different - wizards cast spells that oftentimes just did damage.  It wasn't until 3.x that they started to emphasize spells that required a to-hit roll.  Likewise, who can forget the thief skills being percentile-based - vastly different than a d20 roll to-hit.

In 4e, *every* class has its abilities (whether spells, class abilities, etc.) described, for the most part, as a power of some kind.  Every class can do the exact same thing - some powers at-will, some per each encounter, and some each day.  The PHB reads to me like a logistics manual - extremely repetitive and boring.

The point I made for previous editions is that because of the mechanical differences in how each class played, it allowed different players to gravitate towards the class that appealed to them more easily.  In 4e, because each class "reads" the same, it can lead to analysis paralysis by players.



Ranes said:


> Ye gods, I'm glad my experience tells me otherwise. Rarely have I come across such a ludicrous assertion. I always make it clear to new players, just as most of the other DMs I have ever known, that non-core sources may be allowed by me if (a) I own the source and no I'm not interested in borrowing your copy, thanks and (b) I don't have an issue with it (ruling out almost anything that ever had 'Complete' in the title).
> 
> Furthermore, if you cannot control your anal-retentive and typically selective rules mastery skillzzzzzzz, there's the door.
> 
> ...




This - in DMing both 3.x and Pathfinder, I make it clear up-front which books are allowed and, in some, even which parts of which books are allowed.

For example - in my current Pathfinder campaign, which is set in Goodman Games' campaign setting World of Aereth (Gazetteer of the Known Realms) and is using 3e DCC adventure modules, none of the pathfinder campaign setting or adventure paths are allowed - only the core Pathfinder book, APG, and the two bestiaries.  Likewise, none of the 3.x books are allowed wholesale and, so far, the only thing I've allowed is the Healing Belt from MIC (since there are only 3 players and healing can become difficult because of the way I run my campaign.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

In your opinion.

So put away your bubble pipe. It is a matter of opinion, but one that _can_ be defended, depending on personal definitions.

For some folks it is three paragraphs of carved in stone truth.

Your sentence by sentence correction would, because they are based on _your_ opinions, be _wrong_, sentence by sentence, because it is not _your_ opinion that he is describing. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

4e _isn't_ D&D in a large number of substantiable ways - but the only unopposable defense and the one that matters legally is that it is the current game under that title by the trademark holder.

For many people that is the _least_ important way.

I do not say that 4e is not D&D, I _do_ say that is the first edition of 4e that I have no interest in either playing or running. If pressed then I will say that it is a _bad_ edition of D&D, which is true in _my_ opinion.

Other people do not care about the legalities, and feel that it has changed too much from what was D&D to be worthy of the name.

Yet other folks consider it to be a _good_ edition of D&D, if not the _best._

At least one considers OD&D to be the one true edition of the game, with all others being pale imitations, 4e, 3.X, and all the rest.

As a non-fan of 4e I have seen the mods stomp on folks who were too vocal in their annoyance with 4e and their dislike of either the game or its players. To me it looked like they were partial towards 4e.

Going through the archives, on the other hand, and actually taking note, it is the tone the folks were taking, not the message that they were carrying.

Frankly, there are folks on both sides that the mods should stomp more firmly, who cannot seem to grasp the difference between fact and opinion. But whom are more than willing to share what they consider to be carved in stone fact, then complain that they are being treated unfairly when it is pointed out that what they are saying is not fact, but opinion....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Just to make it completely plain - yes, _both_ sides! There is at least one pro 3.X/Pathfinder evangelist who is the exactly the same in not respecting others's opinions.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

Nineball said:


> This is - and is why Rounser is - objectively wrong.
> 
> 4e is D&D.  It might not be an edition some people like.  That's fine.  But that makes it "an edition of D&D they don't like."  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Rounser post is literally "I don't like 4e" wrapped in a lot of insults and "big words" for the sake of big words.  If you replaced his post with "I don't like 4e" you would lose nothing but a lot of word salad.  The problem is that he states "4e is not D&D," to which he is wrong.



Because in his opinion it is not.

Mind you, if he were to take it to court he would lose.

But I can fully understand his view, that no, it is not D&D in the same ways as previous editions of the game. That it say Dungeons & Dragons on the book is completely unimportant.

Legally WotC can call a new and enhanced edition of tidily winks 'D&D 5e', but I don't think that too many people would actually _think_ of it as D&D.

On the other hand I have heard some kids calling Pathfinder 'D&D' even though it is not what it says on the cover. In their opinion Pathfinder _is_ D&D, in all the ways that they consider important. 

So he _does_ have reasons to not think of it as D&D, and he _doesn't_ want to play Tidily Winks. Perhaps he just prefers Pogfinder.

The Auld Grump


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 10, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> What does THACO mean?
> Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?




Well, THAC0  Since we pronounced it 'thay-ko', I usually mess up and put an O instead of 0.

We always used a d10 because there were 10 segments in a round. Another case of a 1E house rule being so common that later we'd swear it was printed in the rule book.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 10, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> There's roleplaying, there's craft, but they should not be a crutch for design. Design should pay it's way, otherwise, why are we paying people to do it? Sure, we don't pay them much, or often, but still. It's a skill, and it deserves respect.



On this, I agree.  However...


> You can dismiss whatever you want, but this isn't about character optimisation- it's about good design which leads to players having more fun, and all players being able to contribute to a substantial degree in game.



We may well be in serious disagreement on what constitutes "good design".  Obviously we all want the game to be as much fun as possible for all involved, and design - while not the only fun-deciding factor - can certainly help here.  It can also hurt.



> You're not a rational contributor to the discussion.



Because I dare to disagree with what you say?  This can't end well...


> You reject design, fine.



In fact, I don't reject design.  I've been designing my own system for well over 25 years now - it still ain't perfect, but hey. 


> I don't have to take your viewpoint seriously.



I'll take this under advisement...


> This is about the fact that at high levels, fighters can't make will saves, despite often facing them from high level monsters. Your heroic fighter? Will scream and run away unless he's standing next to a paladin.
> 
> This is about the fact that full progression spelllcasters can cast 'be better than a fighter at fighting' 50 different ways, and for the cleric, do it all day off one spell slot and a turn undead attempt or two. And on top of that, they get to nuke everything, raise the dead, fly, ect, ect.



At high levels, yes.  I'm not going to defend that design as I'm not much of a fan of it either.



> This is about the fact that when a new player joins D&D, half of them are going to say "i wanna play a cool guy with a sword!', and most of those people are going to end up playing a fighter. In 4e, they get to be a cool guy with a sword. In 3e, even at low levels, they play a boring garbage class that does the same thing over and over again, and is rapidly left behind.



What to you may be fact to me is an assumption, and not necessarily a correct one: that mechanical similarity automatically represents boredom.  You can play a cool guy with a sword quite well in any edition regardless of the mechanics.



> One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play.



Except, oddly enough, it does work in play - perhaps, I'll freely admit, in spite of itself.

Also, keep in mind that in all editions there's not much difference in combat abiltiies between the classes at very low level.  In 3e, for example, a BAB of +1 or +0 at first level - big deal.  A wizard using a crossbow is only marginally less effective than a fighter using one.  And by the time the combat difference does become significant the non-warrior types have other things going for them.


> In play, it leads to 15 minute days,



This one's not restricted to 3e.  1e 2e and 4e all hit it too.


> it leads to people dropping in an out of classes- or games- based on when their pc starts or stops being fun,



I haven't seen this much if at all in my experience; but YMMV.



> Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play,



OK.  Trouble is, what is an improvement to one person may be a backward step to another. 


> We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a ----load of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that.



Again, your experiences are vastly different than mine...fair enough. 


> Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.



Well, I don't fall into that category - I rejected it after I bought the first round of core books and read through 'em.

Lan-"all rational, all the time"-efan


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 10, 2011)

WayneLigon said:


> Well, THAC0  Since we pronounced it 'thay-ko', I usually mess up and put an O instead of 0.





Do you mean "THAK'-Oh?"


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Do you mean "THAK'-Oh?"



*Thwack!* Ow! 

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

Nineball said:


> The solution is "just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right."



And in this case your opinion is the one that isn't right.

He is using different standards than you, within each of your own paradigms the definition of D&D is correct. It is only in saying 'his opinion is wrong' that you become incorrect.

He has chosen his definition. He is defining whether it is D&D by its systems.

You have chosen yours. You have decided that it is the title that matters, and that the rules are close enough.

I don't think that either of you would accept tidily winks rebranded as D&D 5th Edition - they have not yet pushed out of your definition of the game, but they theoretically could do so.

If it makes you feel any better than restate it in your head as '4e doesn't feel like D&D to me anymore; too much has been changed' whenever someone says that 4e isn't D&D anymore. Not just that he doesn't like 4e, but that the rules are no longer consistent with his definition of the game, and there is nothing wrong with his definition - the changes can be labeled and counted.

My own reaction is just to say 'I don't play D&D anymore. It has changed too much, and I really do not like those changes'.

Pathfinder is closer to what I call D&D in my head, even without that title. When I say D&D in any fashion that sounds like a game that I would or have played then it will be _every edition through 3.5_. But more often I will label it 3.X, AD&D, or the like rather than use the term D&D.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ranes (Jul 10, 2011)

I bet that somewhere out there, two gamers meet up for the first time in a while and the conversation goes:

"Still play D&D?"

"Sure."

"Which edition?"

"Pathfinder..."

Millions of players have house-ruled or re-written D&D rules extensively over the years and they are as entitled to claim that what they play is D&D to them, as they are to say that edition X is not D&D to them.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

Ranes said:


> I bet that somewhere out there, two gamers meet up for the first time in a while and the conversation goes:
> 
> "Still play D&D?"
> 
> ...



I do not doubt this for a second, and have already witnessed something akin when a teen described a Pathfinder book that he was looking at in Borders as 'D&D' to another kid. He bought the book. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2011)

Removed


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not so sure about that.
> 
> A court can prevent you from using name X that applies to product Y (in certain circumstances).  AFAICT, the courts are not in the business of determining whether or not product Y has the carried-on identity from previous trademark usages.
> 
> ...



Heh, I meant that him proving in court that 4e isn't D&D isn't going to happen.  

I suppose that the term D&D _might_ eventually lose its Trademark protection, but I wouldn't want to be the test case. 

The Auld Grump, for me Pathfinder _is_ D&D. I just call D&D Pathfinder now....


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 10, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun. , wizards at low level? One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play.



Every time I see this particular argument being made, I think of the wizard I played in Shackled City. Magnus (a human) took Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot at 1st level. At low levels, he used his crossbow about ten times as often as he cast a spell. He positioned himself well, focused on targets who had at least some chance of being dropped by a crossbow bolt (usually because they'd already been hit by someone else), and quickly developed an extremely lethal reputation. A running joke was calling him "Magnus the [insert appropriate creature] Slayer" whenever he made the killing shot on yet another opponent.

Now, you can call it a "fairy tale" if you want, but everyone who played in that campaign remembers Magnus (for that and several other reasons), and I don't recall ever once feeling like he was less fun to play at low levels than he was at high.

Personally, I tried 4e for several months, and had _much_ less fun than I did playing 3e with its "garbage design." YMMV.


----------



## SoldierBlue (Jul 10, 2011)

Wow.  Very eloquent.  It takes a truly great writer to distill a complex thought into such clean English.  These are my thoughts exactly, but I was too clumsy to articulate them like this...


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 10, 2011)

Nineball said:


> The solution is "just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right."



Actually that's not a solution at all, that's just a cop-out people use when they don't want to seriously discuss design in any concrete terms, but still want to bash their least favorite edition of D&D. 

Here's an example. Say I decide that the design of 3e is inherently supportive of fascism. Why? 

Well the monocultural and supremacist qualities of the 'adventurer' caste, the overt racist themes, the role of wealth in the creation of military might, the inherent argument for systemic indoctrination present in the alignment system, and the doctrine of total war as embodied by the fireball spell. 

Now, you might disagree with this, but that's just your opinion. My opinon is that 3e totally supports fascism, and argues that it is the only viable form of real-world government, and to be honest i'm a little. . suspicious of the designers of 3e, and their role in this. I mean, 3e is pretty clear pro-fachist propaganda. . in my opinion.

And i'm going to turn up in every thread about 3e, and many threads which have nothing to do with 3e, and tout my theory. But of course, it's just my opinion. And a bunch of other people do the same. . against, just their 'O'.

Now, are you allowed to disagree with me? Of course- but that's just your opinion, _nothing more_. I can ignore every argument you make, even cases when my assertions are clearly testable (like my claims that monte cook spent several decades cryogenically frozen at the south pole after his final ww2-era battle with captain america), I can just say that it's your opinion, because really, who can say for sure? Have you ever even _been_ to the south pole?

You can't reach a conclusion in your debate with me, because that's just your opinion. You can't summarise the debate to other people, unless you qualify that summary with multiple "IMO YMMV" weasel-words, and note that your opinion is 'nothing'- nothing but an opinion, but the important thing is, it's nothing.

You can't ask the mods for me and my increasingly obnoxious friends to be silenced, because no mattter how bizzare our assesment, it's _our opinion_, and opinions are sacred and cannot be wrong.

And we'll keep banging on year after year, on forums, comments pages, reviews, and more, saying a bunch of stuff that doesn't make any sense, making rather nasty veiled statements about the motives and mindsets of fellow fans who happen to work in the industry, and we'll do it all with pride, under the mighty banner of 'IMO'.


----------



## Dunnagin (Jul 10, 2011)

There is also an option to agree to disagree... or perhaps better put, freedom of opinion without suppression.

Such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Sometimes one side or another may wish these did not exist... but no matter how irksome some people may be... they are still quite important.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 10, 2011)

The "4e isn't D&D" dispute going on in this thread is akin to the "today's music isn't as good as the music back when I was younger" statement I hear from a lot of my contemporaries. As others smarter than me have said, it is an unlikely coincidence that what you grew up listening to (or playing) _just so happens_ to be the truest expression of music (or D&D). It's simply something you aren't familiar with and _you don't like it_ (paraphrased from Stephen Fry).

4e still reminds me more of the very earliest games of D&D I played, back in the late 70s/early 80s, than anything since. Doesn't make it superior or inferior to anything else.


----------



## dagger (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a shitload of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Well, at least you admit it.




Played it for almost two years then my group of newbies and old timers dropped it because we recognized bad design. But keep fighting the battle soldier, your opinion (because it is not fact) of 4e carries so much value.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 11, 2011)

If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.



Dunnagin said:


> There is also an option to agree to disagree... or perhaps better put, freedom of opinion without suppression.



There's a difference between the protection freedom of speech, and the endorsement of organised misinformation. One is a right, the other infringes on that self-same right.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 11, 2011)

ColonelHardisson said:


> The "4e isn't D&D" dispute going on in this thread is akin to the "today's music isn't as good as the music back when I was younger" statement I hear from a lot of my contemporaries. As others smarter than me have said, it is an unlikely coincidence that what you grew up listening to (or playing) _just so happens_ to be the truest expression of music (or D&D). It's simply something you aren't familiar with and _you don't like it_ (paraphrased from Stephen Fry).




I'd quibble over the metaphor. It's more like disputing whether, say, Hootie and the Blowfish are an example of southern rock. They're from the deep south, but they really don't have the same sort of style as the Allman Brothers Band or Lynyrn Skynyrd. Some people, however, may emphasize particular elements of the style that are more in common, others more dissimilar, based on personal preferences and what they judge to be the more important criteria in musical classification.
It's not a question of overall quality, it's a question of qualities that put the game into a different sort of classification.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.




Ultimately, the question will be "Is the current design performing the way WotC wants it to perform?" If they way they want it to perform is to capture or maintain marketshare, then it may well be that 3e performed better than 4e. Depends on the stats WotC is keeping and exactly how they want 4e to perform. Whether or not it is enjoyed more by 4e fans like yourself may be irrelevant. Whether or not it is better balanced for certain types of games may be irrelevant.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> If you drop 4e after two years and go back to a previous edition, you're not making a decision based on design. If you went to another system, that I could see as a legitimate design informed by design, but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke, including arguments about it's suitability for some vague, contradictory subgenre.




You liking 4e and thinking it's a better game then all other versions of 4e is cool. It's your opinion and it's an inherently subjective one.

Implying that hose who don't share it are irrational idiots. That's not so cool. 



catastrophic said:


> There's a difference between the protection freedom of speech, and the endorsement of organised misinformation. One is a right, the other infringes on that self-same right.




There's no misinformation here. The fact that I, or anyone else, doesn't like 4e and prefers to play 3.X or 2.X or 1e or BEMCI or another basic or OD&D because it's a better game for our tastes doesn't make us wrong.

The only people in the wrong here are those saying that others subjective opinions are wrong and that makes them crazy.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> ...but the idea that 3e or another edition is better designed is just a joke...



3e is better designed to produce the kind of gameplay that I enjoy than 4e is. No joke.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 11, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Ultimately, the question will be "Is the current design performing the way WotC wants it to perform?" If they way they want it to perform is to capture or maintain marketshare, then it may well be that 3e performed better than 4e. Depends on the stats WotC is keeping and exactly how they want 4e to perform. Whether or not it is enjoyed more by 4e fans like yourself may be irrelevant. Whether or not it is better balanced for certain types of games may be irrelevant.



By this logic the best tabletop rpg in history if world of warcraft. After all, only sales matter, right? Everything else: design, content, medium- is irrelevant. 

In fact, by this logic, the best tabletop rpg in history is crude oil, which clearly outperforms all rpgs by a wide margin! Even tabletop rpg industry leader, world of warcraft!

It's all well and good to harp on about sales, but sales only tell some of the story, and retreading 3e wasn't going to allow wotc to solve it's real probelm- a stagnant, rapidly aging playbase. 

I'm not suggesting that 4e was an unquialified success- but the bad design features it removed from the franchise are not liabilities, unless you assume that the only people who will ever buy D&D are the people who bought pathfinder. 

If that's the case, you may as well give up producing new content, because clearly that market is not interested in anything genuinly new, no matter what they may claim.

The way forward for rpgs is innovation, and not just in the wrapping of a product. Innovative design is needed to ensure the future of the hobby- punishing people for taking up that challenge is damaging to the hobby as a whole.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> The way forward for rpgs is innovation, and not just in the wrapping of a product. Innovative design is needed to ensure the future of the hobby



I rarely agree with you, but this is one of those times where I do.

Innovative design is essential.

Where we disagree, I think, is on whether innovation includes building on and-or building around what was there before.  I say that it does, and that backward compatibility is an absolute ironclad requirement in order to keep and expand the current customer base (in other words, grow) as opposed to simply trading one batch of customers for another (in other words, tread water).


> punishing people for taking up that challenge is damaging to the hobby as a whole.



Again agreed, as long as said people are willing to realize - as most are - that they might not always be up to said challenge, and their designs might not quite get it done.

Lanefan


----------



## AeroDm (Jul 11, 2011)

Vegepygmy said:


> 3e is better designed to produce the kind of gameplay that I enjoy than 4e is. No joke.



I cannot begin to tell you how much I believe this statement. It also isn't surprising. This thread is basically four pages of people disagreeing with each other over how to phrase the idea that "different things appeal to different folks." To be fair, this thread, along with about three others that I follow, all require me to look up at the title to remember which thread it is because they all tread the same ground. 

Ultimately, that ground is that different people enjoy different things and different aspects of different systems best cater to those differences.

Maybe that should be a logo of a 5e. Regardless, I still think there is a lot of room for improvement. There are things I dislike about 4e, but 4e also does things that put into contrast 3e weaknsses that I can no longer abide. I fully expect 5e to incorporate strengths from both editions because the community is learning. Every edition has been an improvement and this is a damn great time to be a gamer.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 11, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I rarely agree with you, but this is one of those times where I do.
> Innovative design is essential.
> Where we disagree, I think, is on whether innovation includes building on and-or building around what was there before. I say that it does, and that backward compatibility is an absolute ironclad requirement in order to keep and expand the current customer base (in other words, grow) as opposed to simply trading one batch of customers for another (in other words, tread water).



In other words, you reject genuine innovation, and place impossible restrictions on it. The reason they went as far with 4e as they did, is because they realised that to fix it, they were best off rebuilding it. If you can't accept that, then you're not after innovation.

There's nothing innovative about keeping the same mistakes made in the past, in order to appease people who reject change.



AeroDm said:


> Maybe that should be a logo of a 5e. Regardless, I still think there is a lot of room for improvement. There are things I dislike about 4e, but 4e also does things that put into contrast 3e weaknsses that I can no longer abide. I fully expect 5e to incorporate strengths from both editions because the community is learning. Every edition has been an improvement and this is a damn great time to be a gamer.



You can't incorperate the strengths of 4th edition by adding back in the weaknesses of 3rd edition. The strength of 4e is that is was designed to avoid the weaknesses of 3e, the very thing it's fans are demanding back. 

Just take a look at those wishlists some time. Don't tell me 'balace is bad' and "let's make things complicated and arcane and difficult to compare"
and "how dare fighters get to do things" are good guidelines for design.

And no, callling them strengths instead of weaknesses doesn't change that. 4e has man flaws, but being unlike 3e is not one of them.


----------



## delericho (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> The way forward for rpgs is innovation, and not just in the wrapping of a product. Innovative design is needed to ensure the future of the hobby- punishing people for taking up that challenge is damaging to the hobby as a whole.




Sure, punishing people simply for innovating is a bad idea. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean you have to uncritically accept whatever rubbish they put out, simply because they've dared to innovate.

4e simply does not work for a lot of people and a lot of groups. For many of the 3e (or Pathfinder) simply works better - generally because they've checked them both out and made a rational choice.



catastrophic said:


> The reason they went as far with 4e as they did, is because they realised that to fix it, they were best off rebuilding it. If you can't accept that, then you're not after innovation.




Here's the thing: when they were developing 4e, I agreed that the best way forward was to rebuild the game from the ground up. I supported and applauded that decision. I _still_ believe it was the right decision, and in large part rejected Pathfinder precisely because they _didn't_ take that path (and so were unable to really address some of the fundamental issues I saw).

But...

In a great many cases, the issues that 4e addresses were not the issues I had with the system. In many cases, the 'fixes' simply didn't work. In many cases, in fixing one problem they introduced others that were just as bad, or even worse.

In other words, they took the right approach, and came up with _entriely the wrong solution_. That being the case, I'm not going to hail 4e as an improvement, simply because it's new. I'll agree with it's strengths, as I see them, but I'll also note it's weaknesses. And I'll continue to maintain that _for me_, 3e is the better game, despite its obvious flaws.



> There's nothing innovative about keeping the same mistakes made in the past, in order to appease people who reject change.




Conversely, there's no benefit in innovating if the solutions you come up with are no better than what went before. Indeed, since radically overhauling the system inevitably means introducing a whole load of new kinks (witness: three years of extensive and ongoing revisions, with no end in sight), you're better off _not_ innovating unless you are _very_ sure that your revised solution is better.


----------



## AeroDm (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> You can't incorperate the strengths of 4th edition by adding back in the weaknesses of 3rd edition. The strength of 4e is that is was designed to avoid the weaknesses of 3e, the very thing it's fans are demanding back.
> 
> Just take a look at those wishlists some time. Don't tell me 'balace is bad' and "let's make things complicated and arcane and difficult to compare"
> and "how dare fighters get to do things" are good guidelines for design.
> ...




I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it isn't accurately responding to what I said. Why would I want to incorporate the *weaknesses *of 3e onto 4e? No one is abject labeling weaknesses as strengths. I don't even know what a "man flaw" is but I'm guessing it is a humorous typo.

Moreover, the gist of my post was that all editions have strengths and that I believe the game as a whole is generally building on strengths to make a better and better game. If you read that and see only an opportunity to tear down one edition in "defense" of another, then I would meekly posit that you are missing a lot of the potential fun available.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> In other words, you reject genuine innovation, and place impossible restrictions on it. The reason they went as far with 4e as they did, is because they realised that to fix it, they were best off rebuilding it. If you can't accept that, then you're not after innovation.
> 
> There's nothing innovative about keeping the same mistakes made in the past, in order to appease people who reject change.




The thing, though, is that there's nothing innovative about 4e, other then DDI. Every single system of design concept was cribbed from some other game. That doesn't make it a bad game, but there's nothing innovative about 4e in either detail or as a whole.

Which isn't surprising, 2e and 3e weren't either. I get the impression that 1e, BECMI, etc were't all that innovative, more just a direct progression of earlier editions. 

The primary difference is that 4e threw out pretty much everything and used games that were not D&D as source material.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> In other words, you reject genuine innovation, and place impossible restrictions on it. The reason they went as far with 4e as they did, is because they realised that to fix it, they were best off rebuilding it. If you can't accept that, then you're not after innovation.
> 
> There's nothing innovative about keeping the same mistakes made in the past, in order to appease people who reject change.
> 
> ...




I would say that some of the innovation behind the 4E design was motivated by legal concerns involving leaving the OGL behind. After all you can't enforce a trademark on "goblin" but " goblin nosepicker" is ripe to lock down as a proprietary creature. Making a design incompatible with previous incarnations just for the sake of doing so isn't really innovation IMHO. Companies do this all the time as forced obsolesence drives sales. RPGs are not technology though so this strategy doesn't really work. 

To some, the radical design change was a breath of fresh air. To others the new playstyle just didn't feel like D&D anymore. I believe what Lanefan was trying to convey was that just being different and new is not always enough to grow a customer base all by itself. 

Starter sets aside, D&D is very much a game that is taught to new players by more established players. If enough of the older players are not happy with a new edition then the teaching base for new players is greatly diminished. Those who prefer older editions will instead teach new interested players those games. Creating a game that holds the interests of your current audience while appealing to new players is vital to a game like D&D. 

I would say that prior editions are not so weak if they maintain a good sized player base despite being out of print for years. If there are players who are willing to scour used bookstores and the internet for old playing materials how inferior can these products really be? It takes a bit more effort to obtain this stuff than just strolling into a game or bookstore and picking up the latest incarnation off the shelf. 

If what you are offering is so objectively superior and easier to come by then the number of folks still buying the older design stuff would be next to nil wouldn't it?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> In fact, by this logic, the best tabletop rpg in history is crude oil, which clearly outperforms all rpgs by a wide margin! Even tabletop rpg industry leader, world of warcraft!




We done with straw men now? I've said nothing to suggest that completely different products should be classified as other products. The only issue is what design is more successful - and that's the one that meets the company's goals for it, which may include sales.



catastrophic said:


> If that's the case, you may as well give up producing new content, because clearly that market is not interested in anything genuinly new, no matter what they may claim.




That is also, apparently false. It may just be that they want new content that 4e isn't giving them - like good (and new) adventures.



catastrophic said:


> The way forward for rpgs is innovation, and not just in the wrapping of a product. Innovative design is needed to ensure the future of the hobby- punishing people for taking up that challenge is damaging to the hobby as a whole.




Unless, of course, that innovation isn't what the market of the hobby wants. In such cases, that innovation is what will damage the hobby.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 11, 2011)

billd91 said:


> We done with straw men now?



You're the one who said that anyting but perfomance may be irelevant. Ok then, everything but performance is irelevant, crack cocaine is a better rpg than any of the ones we talk about. After all, as you said, quite literally, everything but market performance is irelevant in that scenario.

You're the one who said it, not me.



> The only issue is what design is more successful - and that's the one that meets the company's goals for it, which may include sales.



By this logic, is sales or return is the goal, the design who's pages are soaked in an addictive chemical is the best design. By this logic, the design that comes packaged with people's life insurance is successful in the only way that matters.

Sales are not the only goal of a product, and certainly any given product has many, many other goals as an adjunct to sales.



AeroDm said:


> Moreover, the gist of my post was that all editions have strengths and that I believe the game as a whole is generally building on strengths to make a better and better game. If you read that and see only an opportunity to tear down one edition in "defense" of another, then I would meekly posit that you are missing a lot of the potential fun available.



Actually, i'm getting more fun, because the whole point of good design is to do that. 

You are wroking from the assumption that game design is about fun gimmics that don't really mean anything. Hence, you can mash the gimmics from different games together, and have more fun fiddling with them and reading about them. 

But in reality, design is about creating a game which is functional as a whole, not as a pile of gimmics. The idea that you can take a game, rip bits out and combine them with another game is popular amongst hobbyists, but actual game design takes a lot more care, even when adopting things from other sources. 

You want to pretend that we can take good things from 4e, and then add bits of 3e to that. The problem is that a lot of the good things in 4e are the _lack of things from 3e_ that make the game less fun, and replacement systems that _work better_.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 11, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Actually, i'm getting more fun, because the whole point of good design is to do that.
> 
> You are wroking from the assumption that game design is about fun gimmics that don't really mean anything. Hence, you can mash the gimmics from different games together, and have more fun fiddling with them and reading about them.
> 
> ...




Can you accept that some people are of the opinion that 4E may be well designed and mechanically pretty solid but that it still fails to capture the spirit of what D&D is to them? 

I believe 4E is a great design for the playstyle it was written for. I tried to adapt it to my campaign style for a while but it was just too labor intensive to keep doing. I don't require the arms race or the math bloat of 3E or 4E to have fun playing. Older editions simply suit my more modest needs for fewer rules. 

All change is not objectively improvement and not even all improvements are universally true for everyone.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 11, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Can you accept that some people are of the opinion that 4E may be well designed and mechanically pretty solid but that it still fails to capture the spirit of what D&D is to them?



Not if that 'spirit' involves joke fighters, absurdly overpowered wizards and clerics, deliberatly dense math, impossible to balance subsystems which are pointlessly varied in ways that render many classes simply a waste of time, and various other poor qualities of previous designs that must be removed if the game is to improve in any genuine sense. 



> I believe 4E is a great design for the playstyle it was written for.



Having the rope use skill does not inform a playstyle. Having one player dominate the table while the other's contribution is a running joke past a certain level does not make for good play in any style. 



> I tried to adapt it to my campaign style for a while but it was just too labor intensive to keep doing. I don't require the arms race or the math bloat of 3E or 4E to have fun playing. Older editions simply suit my more modest needs for fewer rules.



So how are we supposed to maintain wat's good about 4e, when you're after simply fewer rules? You've obviously speaking in very narrow terms when you define what's positive about 4e.



> All change is not objectively improvement and not even all improvements are universally true for everyone.



The fact that human beings are so good at denying what is staring them in the face has never been a rebuttal of the facts they deny.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't require the arms race or the math bloat of 3E or 4E to have fun playing. Older editions simply suit my more modest needs for fewer rules.



I second this, as someone who is not much of a fan of either 3e or 4e overall.

Simply put, what I want a new edition to do is to largely be the game I already have, only better written and with new material being produced for it.  3e and 4e failed this test, as will any further edition that is not at least vaguely compatible with my current game.

Lan-"I'm easy to please - just do it the way I want it done"-efan


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 12, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Not if that 'spirit' involves joke fighters, absurdly overpowered wizards and clerics, deliberatly dense math, impossible to balance subsystems which are pointlessly varied in ways that render many classes simply a waste of time, and various other poor qualities of previous designs that must be removed if the game is to improve in any genuine sense.




Hmm. Never heard of the joke fighter, it must be some 4E construct that damages enemies with stand up comedy. What are these waste of time classes? I have played every class in classic D&D at one point or another and none of them felt like a waste of time.



catastrophic said:


> Having the rope use skill does not inform a playstyle.




Who exactly is saying that it does? 



catastrophic said:


> Having one player dominate the table while the other's contribution is a running joke past a certain level does not make for good play in any style.




I don't know what games you played in but that certainly doesn't resemble my experience with any edition.



catastrophic said:


> So how are we supposed to maintain wat's good about 4e, when you're after simply fewer rules? You've obviously speaking in very narrow terms when you define what's positive about 4e.




By acknowledgement of the qualities inherent in the design. Just because they are not to my taste does not mean they are absent. For example say that you didn't like pound cake. A whole slew of people that you know say that they have found the best pound cake ever tasted and you gotta try some. You try it and just don't like it. That doesn't mean it isn't great pound cake to those that like it. 



catastrophic said:


> The fact that human beings are so good at denying what is staring them in the face has never been a rebuttal of the facts they deny.




To my knowledge I haven't denied any facts here. Try presenting some and we shall see where things go.


----------



## Connallmac (Jul 12, 2011)

I think one factor being over looked in pre-3E editions was that warrior classes at higher levels gain followers which certainly balances out the power of higher level wizards and clerics. Same thing for the rogue classes. 20th level fighters in 2E were supposed to come to battle at the head of an army and 20th level thief should have the might of a thieves guild behind him. 

Add on to that the fact that a canny fighter, regardless of edition, is not going to adopt the headlong charge at a high level wizard. Read a little Sun Tzu for cryin' out loud!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 12, 2011)

At high levels in older editions _everybody_ gained followers. Fighters just tended to get _more_ of them.

Understandable, given the wargaming roots of D&D.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jul 12, 2011)

Okay, quick topic check here.  It seems that the last few pages of this thread have been dominated by:

• Lots of people pointing out that 4e is a mechanically solid game but different enough from older D&D that it's lost some of the auld charm.
• The occasional (and irrelevant) "3e sux0rs, linear fighter/quadratic wizard" rebuttal.
• No discussion whatsoever regarding the original topic, which was (just to remind folks) that 4e, 3e, frankly any game that involves buying more than one hardcover book, are heavy and complicated games and not at all congenial to new or casual players.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 13, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> Okay, quick topic check here.  It seems that the last few pages of this thread have been dominated by:
> 
> • Lots of people pointing out that 4e is a mechanically solid game but different enough from older D&D that it's lost some of the auld charm.
> • The occasional (and irrelevant) "3e sux0rs, linear fighter/quadratic wizard" rebuttal.
> • No discussion whatsoever regarding the original topic, which was (just to remind folks) that 4e, 3e, frankly any game that involves buying more than one hardcover book, are heavy and complicated games and not at all congenial to new or casual players.



Or a handy box with dice (or chits) and a slim rulebook. (Lots of folks entered the fold with the old Basic sets.) The can still get the huge book(s) later.

I have hopes for Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. But, much as I love it, I will admit that the Pathfinder Core rulebook is intimidating.

However, given the nature of the beast, I very much doubt that 5e would be a one book wonder. For that, maybe True20? Fantasy Craft?

The Auld Grump


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I have hopes for Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. But, much as I love it, I will admit that the Pathfinder Core rulebook is intimidating.
> The Auld Grump




I don't. I have yet to see any evidence that the weasels at Paizo can actually write a game on their own. I imagine that the Beginner's boxset will just be Pathfinder -15 levels, flat-footed AC and all.

It would be nice to have a modern version of D&D that doesn't feel like I'm building a magic deck, so that I can actually stand to play it without popping Zyprexa like M&M's.

Unfortunately that won't happen because instead of producing fun, well designed games in multiple genres with carefully controlled crunch support and a metric asston of modules, WotC will just decided to take a giant crap in D&D's toilet again, so that we'll have ANOTHER bloated, cancerous mass of feats and powers that will have no business being there.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jul 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> At high levels in older editions _everybody_ gained followers. Fighters just tended to get _more_ of them.




The quantity and quality of the cohort was less dependant on Charisma than in 3.X, where Bards and Sorcerers are better leaders than Fighters. On the other hand, followers, as level 1 warriors, are pretty much useless.

A far more fundamental difference between editions lies in the changes to the saving throw system between AD&D and Third Edition. While reducing the number of saves was a good idea in theory, in practice the unified save system crippled non-spellcasters, especially fighters. Either nobody bothered to run the basic math, or it was deliberately done to handicap non-spellcasters.




Jack Daniel said:


> • No discussion whatsoever regarding the original topic, which was (just to remind folks) that 4e, 3e, frankly any game that involves buying more than one hardcover book, are heavy and complicated games and not at all congenial to new or casual players.




Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus. 

What's important is not simplicity, but accessibility. The game needs to be presented in such a way that as the players are introduced to the complexities of the game, it draws them in, rather than confusing or repelling them. Having ready made templates or example characters ous a start, as is the gradual introduction of systems. Games that a good job of introducing systems would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer rpg, and Persona III the crpg.

I do think that needless complexity that doesn't add to the game experience should be avoided. For example, on D&D, skills like professions, and creating really should have been put in the  appendix or GM's manuel, for those few souls who really desired to play Shopkeepers and Seemstresses. Likewise 3.X had too many useless and redundant skills (To Pathfinder's credit at least they consolidated the skill list).

There's also the fact that allegedly "simple" systems often hide a different form of complexity; for example. Profession systems where a character is assumed to know all the skills subsumed in a  brief profession description can lead to confusion and negotiation over what a profession actually encompasses.

The bottom line is that well-organized complexity is an asset to a game, but it needs thought as to how to be presented.


----------



## Darwinism (Jul 13, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> I don't. I have yet to see any evidence that the weasels at Paizo can actually write a game on their own. I imagine that the Beginner's boxset will just be Pathfinder -15 levels, flat-footed AC and all.
> 
> It would be nice to have a modern version of D&D that doesn't feel like I'm building a magic deck, so that I can actually stand to play it without popping Zyprexa like M&M's.
> 
> Unfortunately that won't happen because instead of producing fun, well designed games in multiple genres with carefully controlled crunch support and a metric asston of modules, WotC will just decided to take a giant crap in D&D's toilet again, so that we'll have ANOTHER bloated, cancerous mass of feats and powers that will have no business being there.




That's a lot of vitriol amounting to, "It's not 2E AD&D or earlier! It's bad! They should just continuously rerelease what I got started on!"


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 13, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> I don't. I have yet to see any evidence that the weasels at Paizo can actually write a game on their own. I imagine that the Beginner's boxset will just be Pathfinder -15 levels, flat-footed AC and all.
> 
> It would be nice to have a modern version of D&D that doesn't feel like I'm building a magic deck, so that I can actually stand to play it without popping Zyprexa like M&M's.
> 
> Unfortunately that won't happen because instead of producing fun, well designed games in multiple genres with carefully controlled crunch support and a metric asston of modules, WotC will just decided to take a giant crap in D&D's toilet again, so that we'll have ANOTHER bloated, cancerous mass of feats and powers that will have no business being there.



Sorry, but I am afraid that I have disagreed with several of your posts, and this is another such.

First off - in what way are Paizo weasels? They produce good solid games with good solid support. They have built upon a system that WotC abandoned, with a license that allowed exactly that, a license that I believe was _intended_ to allow exactly that, going by several of the authors of said license.

They did not create the rules in their original form, but did improve them - and have claimed nothing more than exactly that. In what way does this make them weasels?

Also, the Beginner's Box is levels 1-5, which may have been what you meant, not 1-15, which is what you wrote.

Feats do have a place in the 3.X architecture, and while I do not play, nor have any desire to play, 4e, I have no trouble believing that they serve their purpose in that architecture as well.

I will take three saves as opposed to the overly narrow focus of saves in AD&D 1 & 2. I will keep the feats, and the systems that hold together in a coherent hole over the mixed systems of the TSR days - I will take an attack bonus over a THAC0 any day of the week.

I also don't think that 3.X or Pathfinder is overly complicated, nor do I think that non-casters are as gimped as you seem to think. If the games are such that you need medication, perhaps you should see a doctor? 

More seriously, it sounds like you should avoid D&D from AD&D on - there are other games out there that might suit your tastes better. Have you tried True20? True20 has become my default for when I want a generic system that I can tailor to fit a setting.

Perhaps you should focus more on what you _want_ in a game rather than rant about games that are not to your personal tastes. C&C is not to my personal taste, but there are folks who like it. Osric is much the same in regards to my preferences, but perhaps it would be more in line with your own tastes?

Find a game and shout its praises rather than rail against an uncaring sky. Do not call a company 'weasels' because they do exactly what they claimed to be doing - keeping the edition they enjoyed alive. Why rant at either Paizo or WotC because they do not cater to your own niche? Find something that you _do_ like and play it, leave the medication in its jar.

The Auld Grump


----------



## delericho (Jul 13, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus.
> 
> What's important is not simplicity, but accessibility. The game needs to be presented in such a way that as the players are introduced to the complexities of the game, it draws them in, rather than confusing or repelling them.




Indeed, I think that's the major problem.

Existing players buying a new edition will want to buy the 'complete' game. For D&D, this has traditionally meant the PHB/DMG/MM combination. This presents all the rules, all the races, classes and other options, and is generally the full deal.

The problem is that that typically represents the better part of 1,000 pages of text (and $100). Put that in the hands of a new potential player, and watch the enthusiasm in their eyes die. I have seen it. "You mean we have to read all of this before we can play?"

And the reality is that, yes, _someone does_ have to read it before you can play - someone needs to read and understand the rules, create characters, create an adventure, and _then_ they can start having fun. (Or buy an adventure, at the cost of more money and reading.)

And all this for a game they _might_ like? No wonder they'd rather play WoW!

The solution to this would _seem_ to be the Starter Set. Unfortunately, these typically use not just a restricted set of options, but a dumbed down ruleset to avoid the complexity. Worse, they tend to be designed as a throwaway product (or a pay-for preview, if you will) - play this to 2nd level, and then buy our Essentials books! (Oh, and do all that reading anyway, and unlearn what you have learned.)

Faced with that, it's no wonder that the Starter Sets always fail. (It doesn't help that there really hasn't been a good one since the _last_ Red Box.)

I've gone on about this before, but I'm convinced the solution is as follows:

1) Present the core of the game in its simplest form. The Core Rulebook should be a 1-book game, with a limited set of options but the actual rules of play, containing everything you need. When you want more, there are plenty of supplements.

2) Build a Starter Set that includes pre-gen characters and adventures, and a quick-start guide, _but also include the same Core Rulebook as everyone else uses_.


----------



## nedjer (Jul 13, 2011)

If anyone has been holding their breath, it's maybe time to gasp a couple of lungfuls of air before oxygen deprivation destroys your brain stem.


----------



## Bluenose (Jul 13, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> The quantity and quality of the cohort was less dependant on Charisma than in 3.X, where Bards and Sorcerers are better leaders than Fighters. On the other hand, followers, as level 1 warriors, are pretty much useless.
> 
> A far more fundamental difference between editions lies in the changes to the saving throw system between AD&D and Third Edition. While reducing the number of saves was a good idea in theory, in practice the unified save system crippled non-spellcasters, especially fighters. Either nobody bothered to run the basic math, or it was deliberately done to handicap non-spellcasters.




Saving throws, hit point inflation, the changes from NWPs to the skill system; all hurt the Fighter. I'm not persuaded by any argument that the designers simply didn't realise this. Were they really incapable of doing simple mathematics or realising the implications of teir choices?



> Well, based on my observations over the last 20 years, I strongly disagree that rules complexity is actually much of a turn-off to new players. Aside from the complexities of AD&D, I've seen numerous complex games, ranging from rpgs to board games, to crpgs where the complexity is regarded as a bonus.




One of the problems with complex systems is that complexity increases the number and amount of interactions between various parts of the system. This makes playtesting a lot harder, especially since it's quite common for variables to be altered during the testing to take account of difficulties. That doesn't make it easier to get a good game out of what you're doing. Also, if you're aiming at simulation, and it turns out your starting assumptions are incorrect, rewriting the whole system involves a lot more work with the complex system. I suspect what is far more likely is the addition of more mechanics, increasing complexity, in an attempt to make a bad initial assumption 'work out' without having to change that and restart a lot of work.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 14, 2011)

This is why I was arguing for seperate systems earlier. It's all well and good to have complexity, but testing it, learning it, and making it work is another matter. And it's the interactions, including the unforseen interactions, that end up getting you.

A set of bounded subsystems are a far better option, than a system that tries to grade castles, dungeons, blacksmiths, magic missiles, and dragons-fire on the same curve.

It's not as if you can't have interactions between your systems, but they have to be very simple. So for instance, your noncombat system could define how many bonus healing surges you have when you go into the dungeon. Your mass combat system could define the stakes for the pivotal battles the heroes fight during the war. That sort of thing- simple granular differences, instead of a bucketload of minutia interacting in ways that are only going to thrill a very small subset of players, and cause big problems for everyone else.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 14, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I have hopes for Pathfinder's Beginner's Box. But, much as I love it, I will admit that the Pathfinder Core rulebook is intimidating.



I was at GenCon the year PF was released - I remember bumping into a few guys that had the books and remarking that if they didn't like the game they could at least still use the books to kill bears. 

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2011)

Removed


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 15, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> That's a lot of vitriol amounting to, "It's not 2E AD&D or earlier! It's bad! They should just continuously rerelease what I got started on!"




That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .

What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece. 

I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.

3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 15, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .
> 
> What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece.
> 
> ...




I'm sure I'm tilting at a windmill here...

Your two paragraphs are so mind numbingly offensive and wrong they don't deserve comment.

As for the first part of the third, that's a play style issue. My take on it is that I'm not a thieve or adventurer. I have no clue how to disarm ancient traps in forgotten tombs. That's why my character has skills. Just like he has a target number ot hit things with the pointy metal thing he carries. You may detest this playstyle, but it doesn't make it wrong. Just like how I can't stand GM-may-I and pixel bitching. That doesn't make you wrong.

Where you are wrong is from the middle of the third paragraph to the end. D&D 3.X and 4e (if memory serves) explicitly give XP for overcoming challenges and doing things with NPCs other then killing them.

As for the rest, that's your opinion. Your inflammatory, nonsensical opinion. It;'s not right, it';s just an opinion. One without any apparent support other then "I hate D&D".


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 15, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Huggy or Swatty?



Yes.

Lan-"and Smokey and Yogi too"-efan


----------



## Connallmac (Jul 15, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions........
> 
> I want modern D&D that requires more player interaction than just skill rolls ("I don't give a turd what your thievery skill is...tell me HOW you are disarming the trap), rewards experience for ALL in-game accomplishments rather than just slaughtering things uglier than the PC's, and something that pushes the mechanics back behind the screen where they belong...behind the screen.
> 
> 3.x characters were pretty much magic decks with names written on them, and 4th edition games are like playing spreadsheet wars. All I want is a return to the basics. My opinion might not be popular...but it IS right.




This WAS what I wanted about two or so years ago, before I came to the Promised Land that is Savage Worlds. Now from a personal standpoint I really couldn't care less about what WotC does with 4.5 or 5e, I've got the game I want to play and run for my friends. It worries me that they may come out with a version that is even more complex and less user friendly to new players than 3.5 or 4e. I want to see this hobby continue to live and grow and be healthy, and I think that is more likely to happen with a healthy WotC and a simpler, easier, and in my opinion better version of D&D.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> That's not actually correct. Older versions of D&D were more fun for people who don't have personality disorders, this is true. But the actual mechanics were a .
> 
> What I want is a modern version, that is accessible, user-friendly, fast playing, and rewards in-character decisions more than it rewards locking oneself in their basement and fapping over a 4ft. stack of source books until they spurt out their latest character build masterpiece.
> 
> ...




I'm confused. The old rules as they were still serve perfectly well for the playstyle you describe. 

What could 'modern D&D' offer in the way of actual mechanics to give you what you want?  Whare are your actual hang ups with the older mechanics? 

Do you have any examples of rules or procedures that would be more modern yet still require player interaction? 

Please give a glimpse of what a return to the basics should look like if you are going to insist that it is the only correct way.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 16, 2011)

Krensky said:


> I'm sure I'm tilting at a windmill here...
> Your two paragraphs are so mind numbingly offensive and wrong they don't deserve comment.




Then why did you comment on them?



Krensky said:


> As for the first part of the third, that's a play style issue. My take on it is that I'm not a thieve or adventurer. I have no clue how to disarm ancient traps in forgotten tombs. That's why my character has skills. Just like he has a target number ot hit things with the pointy metal thing he carries. You may detest this playstyle, but it doesn't make it wrong. Just like how I can't stand GM-may-I and pixel bitching. That doesn't make you wrong.




Sure...it's a playstyle issue. One playstyle is lazy and unimaginative, requiring nearly no thought put into the part of the game that is actually played around the table...and the other is actually fun and rewarding.

No wonder you like newer D&D so much, you don't actually have to be good at anything. Just write numbers down on a sheet and the thing runs on auto-pilot. No need to engage the gameworld at all. Must be gratifying to succeed without actually having to put any effort in. Congratulations.

Personally, I prefer to make decisions relevant to the actual game when I'm sitting at the table, not when I'm locked in my little basement dungeons with a bunch of splatbooks and a half empty bottle of Zyprexa. This si why I support bringing puzzle problems back to the forefront...something players can't just roll their way out of. You can't imagine how to disarm a trap without getting killed? Too bad. Learn....or lose your character. Simple as that.

The problem with modern D&D is that the game focuses on crap that other media does much better: sweaty-palmed, giggling, solitary, obsessive, competitive  number-crunching. Videogames do this much better than TTRPG's. D&D needs to focus on fast, simple, imaginative, interactive play. The playstyle you describe, wherein everyone simply plugs their game sprite into the sourcecode and watched passively while the system automates all of their roleplaying, is really just masturbation. And hey, there's nothing wrong with masturbation...I just prefer not to do it in front of a table full of my friends.



Krensky said:


> Where you are wrong is from the middle of the third paragraph to the end. D&D 3.X and 4e (if memory serves) explicitly give XP for overcoming challenges and doing things with NPCs other then killing them.




Actually, no. No they don't. See, YOU aren't actually overcoming any challenges. YOU are just watching while the numbers on your sheet overcome these challenges. These challenges were pretty much predetermined when you leveled your character up, and the only real variable was the die roll. So really what those games are rewarding is the numbers on your sheet. So give your numbers a pat on the back for me.



Krensky said:


> As for the rest, that's your opinion. Your inflammatory, nonsensical opinion. It;'s not right, it';s just an opinion. One without any apparent support other then "I hate D&D".




Of course it's an opinion. That's the wankiest, most pussified defense that I hear on gaming boards. Just because it's technically subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't curb stomp your weaker and less defensible opinion before impregnating it's mother AND it's girlfriend.

Your opinion comes from laziness, uncertainty and fear of failure. Skill ranks? Pfft. Do 90 lb. wheezing, asthmatics really have any grounds at all to whine about not being on an NFL team? Certain people are good at certain types of games. The key component to playing D&D is imagination...if you don't have any imagination, then why are you playing? Did it ever occur to you that D&D might not be your bag? Why not find a hobby that doesn't require imagination but DOES reward pedantry. Like stamp collecting.

So yes...that's all my opinion. But it's BETTER than yours. It's better than everyones. And any opinion that doesn't agree with mine is flat-out wrong AT BEST. At worst, it's a dangerous and virulent aberration of logic that needs to be quarantined and destroyed before it reaches the general public.

And any arguments that refute mine are just disingenuous, weasel-mouthed verbal trickery, designed to lead people on the path to ruin.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 16, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Sorry, but I am afraid that I have disagreed with several of your posts, and this is another such.
> 
> First off - in what way are Paizo weasels? They produce good solid games with good solid support. They have built upon a system that WotC abandoned, with a license that allowed exactly that, a license that I believe was _intended_ to allow exactly that, going by several of the authors of said license.
> 
> ...




First of all, Paizo are not a gaming company, they're a marketing firm.

Gaming companies write games. Marketing companies sell things to the gullible masses. 

What Paizo did was repackaged a game that they didn't write, and sold it from a marketing platform based around spite, essentially duping all of the frothing-at-the-mouth 3.x basement cases into re-buying a game that they already own. And yes...I'm aware that the SRD can be found for free online, to whatever sniveling ass muppet out there is thinking of THAT objection...but if you had actually bought the core books with any of your own money, then you are not allowed to make that defense, you gullible boob.

Paizo is full of politicians....cooing reassuring in the ear their fans while they sneak money out of their pocket with another. I don't even really intend to be mean here, mostly. I feel the same kind of pity and vicarious shame for paizils that I do for old folks that came across an email from a "nigerian prince" one day while writing to their grandkids, and pumped their life savings into that scam.

Or I would feel that way, if paizo fans weren't s. Now, before you jump on my case...I'm not saying that people are s JUST because they play Pathfinder...I'm saying that people play Pathfinder BECAUSE they are s. That is seriously the games core demographic.  gamers. In fact, I'll bet that you could probably take care of most of the hobby's problem elements by simply locking the doors of paizocon and gassing the place. I really hope that WotC just buys that company and completely dismantles it. Their staff would be better served working on campaigns for republicans, since they don't actually write games.


----------



## Gizmoduck5000 (Jul 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm confused. The old rules as they were still serve perfectly well for the playstyle you describe.
> 
> What could 'modern D&D' offer in the way of actual mechanics to give you what you want?  Whare are your actual hang ups with the older mechanics?
> 
> ...




I'm not here to listen to you wank at the shrine of gygax, grandpa.

Early D&D mechanics were a turdparty, and you know it.

Just because modern games are about tables full of people reciting a litany of numbers at eachother instead of roleplaying, doesn't mean that the actual game functions can't be improved over time.
Turns out you're  not going to be here for at least two weeks, Plane Sailing


----------



## Krensky (Jul 16, 2011)

Well... so much for this thread.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 16, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Well... so much for this thread.




I get the feeling it won't be a problem for too much longer.


----------



## Ranes (Jul 16, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Sure...it's a playstyle issue. One  playstyle is lazy and unimaginative, requiring nearly no thought put  into the part of the game that is actually played around the table...and  the other is actually fun and rewarding.




So kind of you to enlighten us. And so politely, too. I can see why you  play games that require social contracting skills. Perhaps you should  learn to apply those skills elsewhere?



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> No wonder you like newer D&D so much, you don't actually have to be  good at anything. Just write numbers down on a sheet and the thing runs  on auto-pilot. No need to engage the gameworld at all. Must be  gratifying to succeed without actually having to put any effort in.  Congratulations.




Of course! Numbers will tell you which NPC to question and which question to ask, for instance.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Personally, I prefer to make decisions relevant to the actual game when  I'm sitting at the table, not when I'm locked in my little basement  dungeons...




You've little basement dungeons, eh? Okay.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> This si why I support bringing puzzle  problems back to the forefront...something players can't just roll their  way out of. You can't imagine how to disarm a trap without getting  killed? Too bad. Learn....or lose your character. Simple as  that.




So, you play the player, not the character. That isn't big or clever. You cannot imagine being a genius. Trust me.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> And hey, there's nothing wrong with  masturbation...I just prefer not to do it in front of a table full of my  friends.




Oh, methinks thou dost protest too much!



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Actually, no. No they don't. See, YOU  aren't actually overcoming any challenges. YOU are just watching while  the numbers on your sheet overcome these challenges. These challenges  were pretty much predetermined when you leveled your character up, and  the only real variable was the die roll. So really what those games are  rewarding is the numbers on your sheet. So give your numbers a pat on  the back for me.




The die roll for what? Yes, the die roll to determine the outcome of the decision you took with the imagination you applied.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> Of course it's an opinion. That's the  wankiest, most pussified defense that I hear on gaming boards. Just  because it's technically subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't curb  stomp your weaker and less defensible opinion before impregnating it's  mother AND it's girlfriend.




When bringing the written word to bear in an attempt to convince someone  of your cleverness and wit it behooves you to be literate. Your failure  to apply even basic syntax correctly simply undermines your efforts to  appear superior.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> So yes...that's all my opinion. But it's  BETTER than yours. It's better than everyones. And any opinion that  doesn't agree with mine is flat-out wrong AT BEST. At worst, it's a  dangerous and virulent aberration of logic that needs to be quarantined  and destroyed before it reaches the general public.




It seems that WotC forgot to mention insecurity in the troll's MM entry.



Gizmoduck5000 said:


> And any arguments that refute mine are just disingenuous, weasel-mouthed  verbal trickery, designed to lead people on the path to ruin.




Hilarious. Do you realise that, in order to refute something, you have  to have proof? Therefore, if someone does refute your argument, they are  by definition not guilty of that which you claim they would be.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> I'm not here to listen to you wank at the shrine of gygax, grandpa.
> 
> Early D&D mechanics were a turdparty, and you know it.
> 
> Just because modern games are about tables full of people reciting a litany of numbers at eachother instead of roleplaying, doesn't mean that the actual game functions can't be improved over time.




When you return from vacation please enlighten an old doddering fool with some specifics. Its easy to just say that no one is doing D&D 'right'. I would like to hear some of your suggestions as to how 'modern' mechanics and design can improve the game . 

If you do not in fact have any constructive ideas about how to implement improvements to the game then find one you hate the least, play it and stop whining.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 17, 2011)

Gizmoduck5000 said:


> I'm not here to listen to you wank at the shrine of gygax, grandpa.
> 
> Early D&D mechanics were a turdparty, and you know it.
> 
> Just because modern games are about tables full of people reciting a litany of numbers at eachother instead of roleplaying, doesn't mean that the actual game functions can't be improved over time.



Thank you, Gizmoduck, for confirming my opinion about you in nearly every way.

Unfortunately, this was not a positive confirmation.

Given that Paizo _does_ produce games, and that, no, not everyone agrees with you about the older rules, and given that there are enough people buying PFRPG, and for that matter OSRIC and C&C to show that there are plenty of folks that _don't_ think that the 4e rules are in any way shape or form an improvement, and that there are plenty of folks that _do_ think that the 4e rules _are_ an improvement, you are just being silly.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost.
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost....

Neither change nor lack of change is inherently bad.

*EDIT 2* Just noticed that the mods had spoken to the Duck. Ah well....

Is anyone else wondering about sock puppets?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2011)

Folks, GizmoDuck was being insulting and using profanity, and won't be continuing in this discussion.  Carry on with that in mind.


----------



## Kannon (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm a fairly young gamer and DM (AD&D 2e came out the year I was born, just to make you all feel old.), so most of my experience is with 3e-4e. I also may be the odd one out being a very aggressive DM who has no issue with handwaving a rule that gets in the way of the table having fun, who still really likes 4e.

Now, since my particular writing style tends to come off a bit incendiary without people able to tell I'm kidding over the internet, I'll get this out of the way first: I don't care what edition, game system, or even game type you play. As long as you're having fun, more power to you. I don't have enough energy or time to stomp my feet and pout because you're not having "my" kind of fun.

That being said, I do think I know why I enjoy 4e more than 3.5/PF. First, I'm a coder and a computer gamer. So my brain already works in a lot of the "gamism" aspects of 4e. Second, 4e makes it a whole lot easier to build an interesting, challenging encounter without doing enormous amounts of work.

And, with the caveat of the gamism of the "encounter" and "daily" powers, I really do like the power system. I think the trick is to look at the power system as a more concise version of what there was in previous editions. (In 3.5e games I played and DMed, people generally had something similar to power cards anyway to make it a little easier to remember what all your character knows how to do well.)

I like the bigger focus on balance as well, it makes it substantially easier to build challenging encounters (That the PCs can take on or avoid, or find a third option at their choice), without having to worry about needing to fudge the dice to avoid a stupid TPK. (Stupid in this case meaning, high rolls on my side, low on their side, a round later, half the party is dead.)

Now, this doesn't mean I think it's perfect. I think rituals are an awesome mechanic that they missed with so hard it hurts. Not having to clutter up limited spellbook spots with noncombat utility spells that'd take longer to cast because you didn't have them mostly-prepared before hand? Awesome! Sounds like something a pragmatic wizard would come up with. But they fumbled the implementation badly enough it's hard to even fix, because players are used to them being mostly useless.

Also not fond of the use of magic items to set the power curve for the players. It makes shiny things expected and common. Fortunately, DMG2 has an out in the form of inherent bonuses, and combining that with creative and interesting magic items brings back the wonder and awesomeness, and keeps balance. That needs to be pushed harder.

And while I notably dislike vandian magic (I never really thought it made sense, and houseruled it out of 3/x,), the power limiting balance construct they came up with to replace it is not really better. I'm just not entirely sure I could fix it in an elegant matter that didn't require prohibitive bookkeeping. (While the system our group came up with for 3/x worked well, we had enough geeks handy that we just wrote up a computerized character sheet tracker for it, and a tabletop one that tracked everyone's for when we were playing in person.) 

And I seriously like the new monster statblocks, I do miss the detailed noncombat information the previous edition bestiaries had. If anything, I want them to bring that back. Have a noncombat statblock, then a quick reference one, that has the current MM3 stats. One funny little anachronism that I carried over from my days DMing 3.5e, are meta-powers. Instead of listing the 5-6 abilities that a versatile spell-casting enemy would have, I toss a note to which power list they have for their "spells" in the sheet, then have a list of thematic powers made up or cribbed from other monsters that fit for spells, their usage, and all that.

That, and the new unified skill system. Makes it less annoying for a player trying to shoehorn Chef (french) into whatever the hell they're currently doing.

Now, I know for the above reasons listed, that 4e isn't for everyone. But that doesn't mean it's bad for everyone because you don't like it, or there's nothing to learn from it. If nothing else, you learned what you don't like, and hopefully (and more importantly), why, so you can better find stuff you like in the future.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 17, 2011)

Very nice post - you don't have to dis 3.X to trumpet 4e. 

I disagree on a few points, agree on others - I have used variant magic systems with 3.X, including one by E N Publishing, but my players prefer the Vancian magic of 3.X and older.

I prefer the long statblocks of 3.X, mostly for important NPCs and critters, but I also like the scalable statblocks of Spycraft/FantasyCraft. So I can understand that as well. (Actually, if there ever is a 5e, I would really like to see a scalable statblock system - Adamant converted it for D20 Modern, so it _can_ be done.)

Aside from that, I would like to see a return to the OGL, but I am pretty sure that that is a pipe dream.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ranes (Jul 17, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Is anyone else wondering about sock puppets?




Have been for some time.



			
				Kannon said:
			
		

> Now, I know for the above reasons listed, that 4e isn't for everyone.  But that doesn't mean it's bad for everyone because you don't like it,  or there's nothing to learn from it. If nothing else, you learned what  you don't like, and hopefully (and more importantly), why, so you can  better find stuff you like in the future.




Absolutely. And you make good points about 4e in general. It's just fun and interesting to imagine what WotC will do with a 5th edition. Personally, I'm intrigued by speculation about how it might relate to DDI.

There's a couple of things that concern me about any future edition of D&D. One of them would be that, irrespective of its qualities, I'd take some convincing before investing in yet another version of one game. That would be the biggest issue for me, I admit.

The other thing is, from the beginning of the third edition, there were themes in art direction and what people around here often call flavour that I didn't really care for. Dungeonpunk (been around since the eighties, I know) and prestige classes with with titles so long it takes the first page of a character sheet to write them down aren't my cup of tea. Now I see people saying that 4e has more flavour than 3e. I'll take their word for that but, from what I've seen and read of 4e, that flavour has gone further down a round I didn't want to take in the first place. Consequently, I suspect that a fifth edition would be a step too far for me, purely from a thematic perspective.

Of course, I'd happily be proven wrong but I doubt they're going go photorealistic with really, really understated magical effects.

So my two biggest concerns about any future edition aren't even mechanics related (although magic has to be Vancian, for me, Kannon, _because of the way it doesn't make sense_). That's just how I roll.


----------



## Kannon (Jul 17, 2011)

I like Eberron, as much maligned as it tends to be, just for the film noir vibe that you can get from it, and how much fun it is to completely flip expectations on someone.

It does bring up one of the greater strengths of the D&D brand, I think, though. It has multiple, widely different campaign settings. You have the hostile low magic Dark Sun, High Magic forgotton realms, the dungeon punk ebberon, and the middle child, er, what would you call it, Core? Points of light-land?

That said, D&D needs a low-magic campaign setting that _isn't_ Dark Sun. And 4e really needs a campaign setting of it's own. They're trying to flesh out points-of-light-land, and I applaud them for that, but I would like to see a low-magic setting get added, too, that isn't in the middle of a dead world. It's worth mentioning, I do like the changes to the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos, as well as the Shadowfell and the Feywild, but perhaps that maybe should have been it's own setting, while keeping the familiar Great Wheel and such for "Core", and breaking the points-of-light-land out into it's own, named setting. And hey, it'd have given them more splatbooks to sell, new stuff for the Great Wheel, as well as the new setting. Win-win, right?

I am curious, if you could design your dream edition of D&D for 5e, what would it look like? Mechanics wise, flavor wise, settings, what do you specifically want from D&D. I have the sneaking suspicion a lot of us want the same thing, but disagree on how to get there. (Differences in taste and setting choice aside.)

Since I can't stand to miss a chance to be long-winded, and I think just under 1500 words is a bit much for a forum post, I've got my take on a dream edition of D&D here.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jul 18, 2011)

Well, I almost never post, but I'll give my two bits.  For a hypothetical 5e, I'd like to see a more _streamlined_ version of 3e, especially in regards to generating stat blocks for NPCs. That would make my life easier as a DM.

I also feel compelled to mention that I don't really know what to do with 4e. It's a weird game, and I can't truthfully classify it as D&D. That's troubling to me. The reason I say this, is that D&D players normally expect a _shared experience_ when discussing D&D. Whether you started playing D&D in 1977 or 2007, you could expect the following:

* There was a planar cosmology with Prime Material Planes, Inner Planes, Outer Planes, the Ethereal Plane, and the Astral Plane.
* As PCs went up in level, they rolled a die for Hit Points (d4, d6, d8, etc.).
* There were mooks that had approximately 1 Hit Dice (Orcs, Goblins, etc.).
* Ogres were huge brutes with approximately 4 Hit Dice.
* The magical fabric of the universe was very precise, with 9 levels of spells.
* _Magic Missile_ was a 1st-level spell, and it automatically hit, unless countered by a _Shield_ spell.
* _Charm Person_ was a 1st-level spell, and it transformed the victim into a buddy or a slave.
* _Fireball_ and _Lightning Bolt_ were both 3rd-level spells that inflicted d6 damage per level.
* _Teleport_ was a 5th-level spell...with a chance of mishap.
* Non-combat magic was as prevalent as combat magic.
* If you were badly injured, you needed to either rest for many days or procure magical healing.
* Clerics are healbots.
* Rogues or Thieves probably steal things.
* Saving Throws improved as you went up in level.
* For better or for worse, level draining existed.
* Your character's Alignment could influence what he did for a living. After all, Paladins do not grow on trees... 
* A character could (in game mechanics) be as defined by his flaws as by his strengths.

There are many more details the various editions have in common, but I figured that I'd just throw a few of them out there. _Individually_, these details might seem to mean very little on the surface, but _collectively_....these little details create an implied meta-setting, and add up to a _shared experience_ that D&D gamers have come to expect for _decades_. 

Now....the problem many people have with 4e, is that it took that shared experience of the other editions, and chucked it clean out the window. As a result, the D&D fan base is far more fragmented than ever before. It's so completely fragmented now, that three years after the release of 4e, the 3.x fan base remains as large as the 4.x fan base, and in fact might be considerably larger. Before anyone scoffs at that statement, let's remember that _Pathfinder alone_ is challenging 4e in the marketplace. If we compare the two fan bases...

* 3.x (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, d20/OGL games [like Castles & Crusades, Trailblazer, and Fantasycraft], D&D Online, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, playing online via some type of MapTools program, etc.)

* 4.x (original 4e, "errata'd" 4e, Essentials, Gamma World/D&D, playing 4.x online with some form of MapTools program, etc.)

...then we see that that the 3.x group is probably a larger gaming segment. What that means in the long term though, is anyone's guess, as I don't really believe that WoTC can simultaneously placate both the 3.x and 4.x groups. But who knows? Maybe WoTC could surprise us all, and create a design that could "wow" all of us. Stranger things have happened... 

Many regards,
 the Sacrificial Lamb


----------



## NN (Jul 18, 2011)

I hope WOTC dont bring out a unified "5E"

Better to make 2 games: 

- a 4.5E type game for the 4E fans

- a revamped modular d20 system for everyone else.


----------



## Bluenose (Jul 18, 2011)

NN said:


> I hope WOTC dont bring out a unified "5E"
> 
> Better to make 2 games:
> 
> ...




So, disregard the people who don't like either WotC edition, then? Doesn't meet the criteria 'everyone else'.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jul 18, 2011)

Well, here's the thing about 5e and D&D in general...

It's all well and good to make the very, very finest RPG in the world. It could be rules light, but with complex options. It could be fast to play and detailed enough for combats to be tactical. It could be perfectly balanced and allow for massive diveristy.

It could also be made by White Wolf and have nothing to do with D&D.

Or it could be made by Goodman Games and have nothing to do with D&D.

Or it could be made by WotC and have nothing to do with D&D.


It might even have the name D&D on it.




My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.

Innovation is good. However, innovation is limited if you want to call it the same game. Addition of too many new elements and subtraction of too many other (especially "sacred cows", i.e. pivotal genre and structure defining elements) and it might be a great game, but it will no longer be the SAME game.

Throw out the fluff of the forgotten realms, add dragonborn and tieflings as core races, change the outer planes, radically change how healing works (and magic in general), etc. etc... Each of these changes, on its own is fine. 

However, if someone from 1977 (or even from 1999 or 2005) saw me playing an all tiefling and dragonborn party of warlords and warlocks, I doubt they'd recognize it as D&D. 



Final point: It's fine to make a great new game, but if you want the people playing an existing game to be your core market, it needs to maintain enough similarity to that existing game for them to want to play it.


----------



## delericho (Jul 18, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.




You missed several other groups:

There are those for whom it was not spectacular, but they feel it adequately captured the feel of D&D. There are those for whom it was not spectacular, they feel it doesn't capture the feel of D&D, but they like it anyway. And there are those for whome it was not spectacular, they feel it doesn't capture the feel of D&D, and they dislike it for that.

Actually, there are still other groups beyond that.

Personally, I find the revolution was far from spectacular (had some good elements, some _really_ bad ones, and a whole lot of 'meh'), it _does_ capture the feel of D&D (mostly) for me, but as a whole I dislike it.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jul 18, 2011)

That was actually a poor word choice/usage on my part.

When I said "spectacular" I meant "to a great degree" or "dramatic", not necessarily "positive".


----------



## Greg K (Jul 18, 2011)

I say a 5e should use Savage Worlds or True20 Revised with the D&D IP  : ducks for cover


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 18, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.



You are leaving out those folks who do _not_ think that 4e is spectacular, and dislike the rules themselves. Some decided to play it anyway - 'it may be crooked, but it's the only game in town', kind of thing. Others lost interest and went on to other games.

Even if it did not claim to be D&D, I doubt that I would be interested in it.

Mind, I would not be as annoyed with the game as I am if it didn't claim to be D&D - so that annoyance _does_ come from it having the D&D label. I am not disagreeing with your major point, just a minor adjustment.

Fortunately for those who do not like 4e there are other options, from OSRIC to Pathfinder, while 4e _does_ make those who like it happy.

I do not think that a 5e _could_ make both camps happy at this point. On the flip, it doesn't really need to, though I will admit to some sympathy for the idea of WotC splitting 5e and OGL into separate but concurrent releases. I do not think that it would work - splitting their own pools of current fans and game designers, both.

They have lost one market, the folks who liked D20/3.X have moved on, I doubt that a 3.X style 5e could reclaim them. I think that trying to turn back the tide would hurt them more than it would help.

It is also possible, I think, that 4e was an acknowledgment of a split that was already occurring, that the folks that _do_ like 4e may have moved on to other games in much the same way that those that prefer 3.X  have.

If so then WotC had to decide which audience to keep, and changing the architecture essentially allowed them to pull back a portion of the properties licensed out under the OGL back under their own umbrella at the same time. 

I do think that they were expecting a larger migration of both players and 3PP to 4e and the GSL, but trying to bring them back might be a case of closing the door after the cows done run off.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 18, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> My point is, is that there's making a great game, and then there's making a great version of D&D. To some, the revolution and reinvention of the game with 4e was spectacular, and yet managed to capture the feel of D&D. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and they love it anyway. To others it was spectacular, does not capture the feel of D&D, and for this reason they dislike it.



You are leaving out those folks who do _not_ think that 4e is spectacular, and dislike the rules themselves. Some decided to play it anyway - 'it may be crooked, but it's the only game in town', kind of thing. Others lost interest and went on to other games.

Even if it did not claim to be D&D, I doubt that I would be interested in it.

Mind, I would not be as annoyed with the game as I am if it didn't claim to be D&D - so that annoyance _does_ come from it having the D&D label. I am not disagreeing with your major point, just a minor adjustment.

Fortunately for those who do not like 4e there are other options, from OSRIC to Pathfinder, while 4e _does_ make those who like it happy.

I do not think that a 5e _could_ make both camps happy at this point. On the flip, it doesn't really need to, though I will admit to some sympathy for the idea of WotC splitting 5e and OGL into separate but concurrent releases. I do not think that it would work - splitting their own pools of current fans and game designers, both.

They have lost one market, the folks who liked D20/3.X have moved on, I doubt that a 3.X style 5e could reclaim them. I think that trying to turn back the tide would hurt them more than it would help.

It is also possible, I think, that 4e was an acknowledgment of a split that was already occurring, that the folks that _do_ like 4e may have moved on to other games in much the same way that those that prefer 3.X  have.

If so then WotC had to decide which audience to keep, and changing the architecture essentially allowed them to pull back a portion of the properties licensed out under the OGL back under their own umbrella at the same time. 

I do think that they were expecting a larger migration of both players and 3PP to 4e and the GSL, but trying to bring them back might be a case of closing the door after the cows done run off.

*EDIT* 


> That was actually a poor word choice/usage on my part.
> 
> When I said "spectacular" I meant "to a great degree" or "dramatic", not necessarily "positive".




Sorry, I didn't see that. I started a reply, got distracted, then finished without seeing that you had posted again.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jul 18, 2011)

No worries, Auld, I pretty much agree with everything in your post.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 18, 2011)

Weird, my edit produced a second post instead of changing the older one.

The Auld Grump


----------



## NN (Jul 18, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So, disregard the people who don't like either WotC edition, then? Doesn't meet the criteria 'everyone else'.




You can whittle a reasonable grognard-satisficer out of d20.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 20, 2011)

NN said:


> You can whittle a reasonable grognard-satisficer out of d20.



Assuming, of course, that one does one's whittling with a chainsaw... 

Lanefan


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 20, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Assuming, of course, that one does one's whittling with a chainsaw...
> 
> Lanefan



Nar, just a Skilsaw....

The Auld Grump, or a Sawsall if you're going for OD&D....


----------

