Quote from: James McMurrayWhich is all I was trying to do. I'm not trying to say which play style is best, just illustrate that, contrary to one opinion, they have changed.

Well, that and kill some time waiting for the rest of the game group to arrive so we can do our best to survive a Warhammer trap dungeon without any kind of Search skills.

I smell a TPK.  Have fun!

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYou're on the right track, but I see it more as damage control.

Mearls is one of the primary reasons that my hopes for 4e being a game I will like haven't faded away completely yet. These statements by him confirm my faith in him a bit more.

ATM, the only official 4e product I am interested in checking out is his starting adventure. I'm curious what he will bring to the table.

Quote from: architect.zeroWell, that just about sums up the whole damn argument, doesn't it?

I like Chocolate!
I like Vanilla!
DIE!!!! Fucking Vanilla liking scum!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU, CHOCOLATE BIGOT!!!!

What a fucking waste of effort.

To a degree - this certainly exists.

But there's another point/counter-point going on that's not captured by this succinct summary.

"I like Chocolate, and this is Vanilla."
The response is, strangely, one of two:

• "It's always been Vanilla."
• "It's still Chocolate."

It's NEAPOLITAN!

Quote from: James J SkachBut there's another point/counter-point going on that's not captured by this succinct summary.

"I like Chocolate, and this is Vanilla."
The response is, strangely, one of two:

• "It's always been Vanilla."
• "It's still Chocolate."

I think it's a matter of perception. All three of those viewpoints would likely contain some subjective observations.

The Golden-Wyvern-Something drama that is currently unfolding at ENWorld/RPG.net is very much the latest case of this. Is this kind of stuff new, or did it always existed? The response depends very much on who you are asking. It is not a clear cut answer of vanilla or chocolate.

Ditto for those who feel the game is now becoming a superheroic fest, where I've thought it was a superheroic fest since the early 80s and others will surely contend none of the versions (including the next one) are superheroic.

A lot of it is about impressions.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think it's a matter of perception. All three of those viewpoints would likely contain some subjective observations.

The Golden-Wyvern-Something drama that is currently unfolding at ENWorld/RPG.net is very much the latest case of this. Is this kind of stuff new, or did it always existed? The response depends very much on who you are asking. It is not a clear cut answer of vanilla or chocolate.

Ditto for those who feel the game is now becoming a superheroic fest, where I've thought it was a superheroic fest since the early 80s and others will surely contend none of the versions (including the next one) are superheroic.

A lot of it is about impressions.

Just a quick not to point out that I did not bring up the strict dichotomy, ony extended the metaphor.

I would also not that the question of whether or not it was superheroic could be hashed out using definitions.  For example, just tonight I was explaining to my son the editions (he's only really seen the 3.5 PHB, and I had the 1e on the night stand for reading).  I happened to look at the strength tables and was reminded that at 15 you still didn't get a bonus to hit - I don't think that kicked in until 16.  At strength, 15, 3.5 to hit bonus is +2.

Something factually changed. Now some have argued that as long as other things the threat level didn't really change, the change is essentially illusion. That's an interesting point, but it doesn't address a play style that does not prefer the higher power illusion.

The question remains, to Seanchai's point, that we won't know the sum total of all of the changes, and how they affect Spike's illusion, until the game comes out. However, it seems a bit silly to say that people can't speculate about the possible impacts of those small chucks of information coming from WotC.

Halflings: These also get a stature boost, and will now be about four feet tall on average. They are now presented as a nomadic race that travels on river barges, one that is instrumental in promoting trade amongst the races, granting them something of an "invisible empire" across the land. They are differentiated from hobbits in that they are lean and athletic rather than portly (and now they wear shoes, too). Their racial abilities evidently involve luck, trickery and trade. It is also mentioned they are good at raising and training animals. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW I actually want to play a halfling - GOOD ON 'EM !

QuoteI've always believed that WotC was too generous and too liberal in their opening and licensing of the D&D core engine. I believe they have realized that and are slowly tightening the grip.

Well, there won't be a D&D trademark licence, but the OGL will still be there. There's even mention on the ENWorld page that they are considering allowing some OGL products to describe themselves as "compatible with 4th edition D&D", which is more than the current OGL allows.

They can't really close that Pandora's box. Legally speaking, the OGL licence is about copyright, the D20 licence is about trademarks. You are correct that they are taking the trademark back, but they're pretty much stuck on the OGL issue: it would be too trivially easy for someone to use the old 3.X OGL to create a rough approximation to 4E anyhow, because you can't patent game rules; you can only own copyright over a particular presentation of them. (Heck, legally speaking game companies could have probably gotten away with putting out D&D-compatible adventures in pre-OGL days, so long as they were careful not to mention any trademarks of TSR/Wizards, but people were too afraid of TSR's legal teams.)

Quote from: WarthurWell, there won't be a D&D trademark licence, but the OGL will still be there. There's even mention on the ENWorld page that they are considering allowing some OGL products to describe themselves as "compatible with 4th edition D&D", which is more than the current OGL allows.

They can't really close that Pandora's box. Legally speaking, the OGL licence is about copyright, the D20 licence is about trademarks. You are correct that they are taking the trademark back, but they're pretty much stuck on the OGL issue: it would be too trivially easy for someone to use the old 3.X OGL to create a rough approximation to 4E anyhow, because you can't patent game rules; you can only own copyright over a particular presentation of them. (Heck, legally speaking game companies could have probably gotten away with putting out D&D-compatible adventures in pre-OGL days, so long as they were careful not to mention any trademarks of TSR/Wizards, but people were too afraid of TSR's legal teams.)

If my suspicions are correct (that they've figured out it's counter-productive) then they are taking exactly the appropriate steps I would have taken. You are correct that OGL is forever. And you the company can't turn their back right away.

Phase 1 (4e release):
-Take back what you can (D20 License)
-Become less accomodating with regards to third party companies (See companies like Paizo currently whining because they don't have any word on draft documents and fear they won't leech as effortlessly as they used to)
-Don't stray too far away from 3e but make a few moves system-wise
-Place a few name references here and there, like the Wyvern-thingie making litteral open transplants a bit harder

What I predict next:

Phase 2 (during 4e's life, approx. 5 years):
-Compete in the setting/adventure market (drop a few nostalgia bombs here and there)
-Let the OGL market further fragment into different "ultimate OGL system", which are ultimately irrelevant except for a few exceptions
-Make sure your yearly core books introduce explosive new concepts, making it harder for third-party to leech off
-Explore areas where it is difficult for 3rd parties to compete. Online support and softwares.
-Explore exclusive licensing (similar to what they had with Kenzer/Kalamar) here and there

Phase 3 (5th edition release)
-By then, the 3rd party market is probably fragmented but if it is still a nuisance:
-Plan 5th edition carefully, release with a bang earlier than anyone expect and give no help to 3rd parties at all
-The system should now be far away from 3rd edition D20
-Make several core mechanics almost impossible to replicate. (See M:tG tapping)There are numerous ways to do this. Special trademarked dice with symbols instead of numericals, weird character sheet or an engine that requires a pda. Or dozens of other ways, really. Integrate new IPs into the system as well.

Quote from: Consonant DudePhase 3 (5th edition release)
-By then, the 3rd party market is probably fragmented but if it is still a nuisance:
-Plan 5th edition carefully, release with a bang earlier than anyone expect and give no help to 3rd parties at all
-The system should now be far away from 3rd edition D20
-Make several core mechanics almost impossible to replicate. (See M:tG tapping)There are numerous ways to do this. Special trademarked dice with symbols instead of numericals, weird character sheet or an engine that requires a pda. Or dozens of other ways, really. Integrate new IPs into the system as well.

Dude, that's crazy. No matter how far the system drifts from 3.X, it'd still be possible for third parties to come up with OGL versions because you can't patent game mechanics. You could potentially trademark the symbols on the dice (but what's to stop people using normal dice and "translating" the symbols to normal numbers), or character sheet designs (but what's to stop third parties from coming out with different character sheets with the same information but with a different design). Requiring proprietary PDA software to run the game could work, but you'd just be opening up a market for third parties to publish "hacks" to get around the requirement for a PDA.

Really, those ideas are on the level of putting out a pop-o-matic with a D20 in it. They rely on gimmicks, and gimmicks are trivial to back-engineer.

I always kinda thought that the issues we've seen with the conceptions of D&D lie on which level you're looking at. First of all, I'm not sure how dangerous high-level play was in older editions, but anecdotally, I remember playing a mid-level game of AD&D as a kid where my party and I trounced a few young dragons and giants, and I felt kinda like a bad-ass.

I mean, giants and dragons arn't gods or anything, but whatever. The point is that the highest level I ever played in anything before 3rd Ed. was something like '9'. Since Pundit played the shit out of what seems to be RC D&D, he might be able to tell us what kind of power scale we're looking at here.

OTOH, anything below level 5 is pretty fragile. It's fragile in AD&D and before, and it's pretty fragile in 3.5. But since you've got a few more options to fall back on and hit die rose some (from original editions, when fighters had a d8 and thieves had a d4...) you're probably not as screwed. Some people liked that and others saw it as part of a power escalation thing that pretty much changed what they considered the game to be. That's not because D&D became dramatically different, but because the change occured on what they considered to be a crucial aspect of the system; lethal low level play, and D&D's power curve.

Now, I think it's difficult to argue that at high levels of the game, the characters are a force to be reckoned with. They are, in all iterations. And like it's been said before, what we're looking at isn't the raw power level of the characters, but their power level relative to the setting to measure the difference in power between editions. Newer editions have more 'stuff' in them, which change the game on another axis - complexity.

I haven't measured it, but I'm looking at it, and frankly the game has gotten more complex at the character level over the course of the game. And honestly, devising a character of greater then 4th level is kind of a chore. (1st level takes long enough. I made a 9th level fighter-mage, and by the time I got to what spells and equipment to take, I got tired and just invested in shit like Fly and a couple of stand-bys I knew worked, and because I power-gamed, I went really cheap on the gear. And by 'really', I mean 'thousands of gold cheaper'.)

I figure it caters roughly to the same playing style, but where the extra additions give it more flexibility to apply rules to situations, it also makes it more complicated. I think the areas that see the most shift are 1) complication of the game, 2) rules application to areas that didn't have rules before, and 3) percieved change in power level (which I don't really think has been looked at carefully enough, since most people will just state that there has been/hasn't been a change in overall powerlevel instead of presenting numbers which, to be fair, would be a massive chore). A brilliant runner-up would be 4) change in ascetics, which Set tends to harp on a bunch. I don't consider this to be a great reason because if you could play the game with all the pictures covered up, then the actual game wouldn't change. It always felt, to me, about complaining about a book because you don't dig the art on the cover.

Quote from: WarthurDude, that's crazy. No matter how far the system drifts from 3.X, it'd still be possible for third parties to come up with OGL versions because you can't patent game mechanics. You could potentially trademark the symbols on the dice (but what's to stop people using normal dice and "translating" the symbols to normal numbers), or character sheet designs (but what's to stop third parties from coming out with different character sheets with the same information but with a different design). Requiring proprietary PDA software to run the game could work, but you'd just be opening up a market for third parties to publish "hacks" to get around the requirement for a PDA.

Really, those ideas are on the level of putting out a pop-o-matic with a D20 in it. They rely on gimmicks, and gimmicks are trivial to back-engineer.

Phase 3 is probably not needed and the cases are extreme. But you'd be surprised at what a company like that can actually do. The card tapping in Magic is actually a great example.

The point is not to make back-engineering completely impossible. The point is to make it sufficiently difficult to not be worth it for all but the most dedicated companies, and for less return than there are right now. This will likely not require the drastic changes I outlined later. Just by encouraging this stuff less and less, companies will die out and the market will fragment. Eventually, OGL will continue but the games will be only distant cousins of D&D much like, say, Rolemaster or Warhammer were distant cousins of AD&D.

Once this is done (I would assume by 5th edition, if they are remotely competent), Wizards is back holding the larger piece of the supplement/fluff pile. Possibly licensing specific items (an IP like Ravenloft, stuff like that) and their edition have a longer life shelf by as much as 3-5 years. Which brings stability. The current overflow of products makes it impossible for an edition to be as profitable as it could past the first 3 years. (And 3 years between editions is way too straining and would alienate everybody)

Quote from: Thanatos02I always kinda thought that the issues we've seen with the conceptions of D&D lie on which level you're looking at. First of all, I'm not sure how dangerous high-level play was in older editions, but anecdotally, I remember playing a mid-level game of AD&D as a kid where my party and I trounced a few young dragons and giants, and I felt kinda like a bad-ass.

In "Ye Olde Dayse", a 7th level character was considered pretty competent to take care of him/herself.  9th to 11th level was definitely badass.

Quote from: HaffrungI know that gaming culture today presumes that players want arrays and combos of cinematic superpowers to play with. And that's cool. But that wasn't always the case. Some people do genuinely enjoy playing (or at least starting with) characters that are more like normal humans, and who have narrow options. It's not a mainstream preference today, to be sure. But it was the default premise of the earliest iterations of D&D. You became a hero.

First, even in OD&D and AD&D, the starting PC was much better off than the average person. They had Hit Points, armor, weapons, class abilities, etc.. They're already heading off in search of adventure while the average person is tending a bit of land for the local lord. They didn't become heroes, they started off that way.

Second, check out the recent thread about when people started playing. The people you're saying used to want to play normal humans are the very same people you're saying now want cinematic superpowers.

Here's my point: They've always wanted cinematic superpowers, even back in the days of OD&D and AD&D. It was OD&D and AD&D that created min-maxers, munchkins, Monty Haulism, and Drizzt.

There hasn't been a sea change here: People have always played, basically, fantasy superheroes.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachHowever, it seems a bit silly to say that people can't speculate about the possible impacts of those small chucks of information coming from WotC.

It's not silly to speculate. In my opinion, it's silly to work yourself up in a lather over the bits and pieces and the speculation - particularly when said speculation is generally not related to what the company said, but what someone said somebody on some other message board inferred from what the company actually said.

Seanchai