Quote from: estar;518721Well considering that only one edition of D&D omitted Vancian Magic, and that when a competitor released a competing edition that featured Vancian Magic it took the lead in the market; I don't see any argument advocating that Vancian Magic is NOT esstential to D&D holding much weight.

The original version of Microlite74 did not have an option for pure Vancian (aka fire and forget) magic. As the original purpose of Microlite74 was to be an intro to the old school style of play for 3.x fans, I just used the burn HP to cast spells method that Microlite20 used as most 3.x fans who liked the very light Microlite20 rules for 3.x were fine with it (and it was very similar to my "use fatigue points [hit points renamed] as spell points house rule so I knew it would be "balanced".

I immediately started getting requests for optional rules for Vancian spellcasters. Lots of requests and lots of ideas for how it could be best done. More requests than for any other changes or additions. Needless to say, Vancian spellcasters were added in the first supplement and I've made sure Vancian casters have been available on release in updated editions.

I think any version of D&D that is going to have a chance of attracting a large number of players from pre-4e editions will have to include Vancian fire-and forget casting and the tradition mix of MU and cleric spells as core.

I think the problems WOTC is having making a game that both pre-4e and 4e fans will play instead of their current game shows just how unlike pre-4e D&D the 4th edition really is. In spite of trying to tell everyone that the game really plays just the same for the last 3-4 years, there really are large and hard-to-bridge differences between 4e and all the previous editions.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518774And the OSR hasn't spawned some megagame which has destroyed post-WotC D&D, what's your point?

Not the OSR but open gaming has ... Paizo.

Quote from: Marleycat;518781OFT.  Keep it lean and simple like BMXI or whatever and then add on to your heart's content.  I for one wouldn't even give the game a chance if powers or healing surges are core.

but again its presentation.

If you present some core classes then give the DM a tool kit that shows how these can be created from a list of 'powers' and the option of letting the Players build their own custom classes using those powers ....

If you explain HP as they are explained in 1e it really only makes sense that they recover quickly so if you rebrand healing surges somehow because you aren't actually healing you are just regaining "energy" whcih is what HPs amount to if you are lookign for a simple parallel.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752A separate set of classes that use magic is good enough for me if that set can cover all the bases(which includes space occupied by the traditional Vancian classes) and doesn't make those options second rate compared to Vancian classes(which is what happened in 3.5E).

I think it not going to be possible to balance everything. They are going to have to present options in discrete sets that work well each other but with the understanding that if you combine everything that it is not going to be balanced.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752As for option/core-concept, the issue is wanting to build and  play any traditional D&D concept without having to deal with mechanics you detest, and the modular ability for a DM to completely remove Vancian magic from the game without removing essential D&D tropes(like the Wizard).

It is going to lose the wizard. The wizard uses vancian magic. They may have a warlock that uses the same spells but it not going to be the wizard.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518752Last I checked, the attitude 5E was being designed under(at least as advertised) isn't lets cater to the majority and fuck everyone else. There is a significant section of the D&D community hostile to Vancian magic, and this goes back a long time.

We've had an entire edition without it. It may not be a majority, and it isn't just about Vancian magic, but I think its enough to maintain D&D as a fragmented community and maintain the Edition Wars at a decent intensity of 5E screws that section of the community over, all of which would be a failure of their stated goals.

Despite the fact that I am in the playtest. I have no clue as to how they are going to cater to 4e fans in a substantial way. Right now they haven't released that portion of the rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518780It isnt about giving everyone what they want in core, but leaving out the elements that would be major dealbreakers. I think they can get away with vancian as core and adding in options to help 4e fans work around it. But if they were to include healing surges or 4e powers in te core i suspect they would lose the customers they are trying to regain.

It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.  

I suspect that for this to be accepted among a majority of 4E, 3.X/Pathfinder, and OSR fans - that the fans will have to accept that the core rules can support what they want, but also will contain optional elements that they don't want.  I don't think any of those three groups will be satisfied by having core rules with nothing distinctly from their preferred edition.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I immediately started getting requests for optional rules for Vancian spellcasters. Lots of requests and lots of ideas for how it could be best done. More requests than for any other changes or additions.

That is a great data point and thanks for sharing it.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I think any version of D&D that is going to have a chance of attracting a large number of players from pre-4e editions will have to include Vancian fire-and forget casting and the tradition mix of MU and cleric spells as core.

One reason that will be important is because of the Parents looking for that D&D game they played to share with their kids.

Quote from: RandallS;518784I think the problems WOTC is having making a game that both pre-4e and 4e fans will play instead of their current game shows just how unlike pre-4e D&D the 4th edition really is. In spite of trying to tell everyone that the game really plays just the same for the last 3-4 years, there really are large and hard-to-bridge differences between 4e and all the previous editions.

Despite being the playtest, I am not seeing how they are going to accomplish it either. But they haven't released everything either. Right now they are focusing on nailing down the foundation of what they plan to build on.

Quote from: jhkim;518790It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.

It will be difficult not just for legal reason but also because it is a ton of work. Like designing a complete set of magic the gathering cards, a handful may be fun but a whole set is way more time than most folks are willing to invest.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518776To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D commnunity to be a complete failure.

What the hardcore AD&D crowd wants is the original rules and materials reprinted and kept in print. They couldn't give a crap about a new edition of D&D.

But they are dwarfed by gamers who just like the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D and happily use any material that fits that in their campaigns. Those are the ones that Wizards can turn into customers through D&D Next.

(Re: releasing an OGL 4E clone)

Quote from: estar;518793It will be difficult not just for legal reason but also because it is a ton of work. Like designing a complete set of magic the gathering cards, a handful may be fun but a whole set is way more time than most folks are willing to invest.

I don't think that the clone would have to replace the whole set of all powers to be successful.  The point of a 4E clone would be that it would act as support for 4E players in combination with existing 4E material.  Particularly since we live in the era of PDFs and other electronic material, the existing 4E material can live a long time.  (Especially if someone stores a copy of accessible DDI data to make a pirate version.)  

Note that the OSR clone games are not exact matches of earlier edition D&D or AD&D.  Rather, they are (1) in the same style as those editions, and more importantly (2) compatible with those editions.  

Some people might keep playing with the 4E core rules, and some people might switch over to the new cloned core rules - but both could use out-of-print official 4E supplements as well as new clone supplements.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518776To that I would add that I think if the AD&D crowd was given everything they want, the end result would be offensive to a large enough group of people for WotC's goal of uniting the D&D community to be a complete failure.

I agree.

Mega-quote incoming:

Quote from: estar;518789It is going to lose the wizard. The wizard uses vancian magic. They may have a warlock that uses the same spells but it not going to be the wizard.

For me, such wouldn't be a deal breaker by itself(like a return to 3E style imbalcne would), but would be the first of three strikes before I walk away. I want to be able to play anything without dealing with Vancian mechanics, and I want to remove it entirely from my campaign when I DM. I already have an edition that can do this, if 5E can't I'm likely to stick with 4E.

Quote from: estar;518789Despite the fact that I am in the playtest. I have no clue as to how they are going to cater to 4e fans in a substantial way. Right now they haven't released that portion of the rules.

Like has been said on the rules catering to Old School, at lot of what the game must do to appeal to 4E players is fundamental, not something tacked on later. Take balance, for example, as I really don't see how balance is something you can tack on later, and instead needs to be built into the system from the ground up. If 5E can't satisfy the 4E desire for balance on a fundamental level, its unlikely any amount of modularity is going to do any good.

Quote from: jhkim;518800(Re: releasing an OGL 4E clone)

I don't think that the clone would have to replace the whole set of all powers to be successful.  The point of a 4E clone would be that it would act as support for 4E players in combination with existing 4E material.  Particularly since we live in the era of PDFs and other electronic material, the existing 4E material can live a long time.  (Especially if someone stores a copy of accessible DDI data to make a pirate version.)  

Note that the OSR clone games are not exact matches of earlier edition D&D or AD&D.  Rather, they are (1) in the same style as those editions, and more importantly (2) compatible with those editions.  

Some people might keep playing with the 4E core rules, and some people might switch over to the new cloned core rules - but both could use out-of-print official 4E supplements as well as new clone supplements.

I think its more likely 4E holdouts will rally around DDI for as long as its available, or if that is taken away rally around the pirated version of the old character builder, which isn't that hard to get a hold of.

Quote from: jhkim;518790It seems to me that if they don't include anything like 4E in the core books, that they are then going to lose the current 4E players - who will stick with 4E and refuse to make the switch.  Probably someone will come out with an OGL 4E clone within a year or two.  

I suspect that for this to be accepted among a majority of 4E, 3.X/Pathfinder, and OSR fans - that the fans will have to accept that the core rules can support what they want, but also will contain optional elements that they don't want.  I don't think any of those three groups will be satisfied by having core rules with nothing distinctly from their preferred edition.

What I want is to be able to build any character concept I can think of without having to use mechanics I hate. As long as there is a Wizard subclass that isn't Vancian, I'm good, but if the only option for playing the Wizard concept is to use Vancian magic I'm not going to be happy. I also want to be able as a DM to be able to remove Vancian magic from my campaign without removing important parts of the game(I consider the Wizard class important, and Vancian magic unimportant).

If I'm going to switch they are going to need to do this from the start. If its in a supplemental book instead of the main book, thats disappointing but not a big deal for me since I tend to buy everything regardless. If I have to wait 6 to 9 months after launch to get mechanics to run the D&D I want, I'm going to stick with the edition that already does what I want. In addition, the rules for non-Vancian magic need to be as robust and supported as the rule for Vancian magic. If non-Vancian magic is gimped or a second rate choice(like it was in 3E), then I'm a lot less likely to embrace the new edition.

Quote from: estar;518794What the hardcore AD&D crowd wants is the original rules and materials reprinted and kept in print. They couldn't give a crap about a new edition of D&D.

But they are dwarfed by gamers who just like the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D and happily use any material that fits that in their campaigns. Those are the ones that Wizards can turn into customers through D&D Next.

What about the Pathfiner/3E crowd? I wouldn't say they fit your description of wanting the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D any more than the 4E crowd.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518787but again its presentation.

If you present some core classes then give the DM a tool kit that shows how these can be created from a list of 'powers' and the option of letting the Players build their own custom classes using those powers ....

If you explain HP as they are explained in 1e it really only makes sense that they recover quickly so if you rebrand healing surges somehow because you aren't actually healing you are just regaining "energy" whcih is what HPs amount to if you are lookign for a simple parallel.

You could be right because I come to realize I dislike 4e almost purely on presentation alone.  There are other things but that one is huge.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;518814What about the Pathfiner/3E crowd? I wouldn't say they fit your description of wanting the simplicity and feel of older edition D&D any more than the 4E crowd.

Speaking for myself, I'd be very very happy with a game that had the flexible character building of 3x with much better math (which pathfinder couldn't pull off for compatibility reasons). Also, with the ease of prep and use that other editions tend to have.

I'll be the first to admit my favorite system doesn't quite do everything I want yet, but 4e does a bunch of stuff I do not want, and prior editions lack some stuff I happen to like. So 5e really could fill an unfilled niche for myself and (I would imagine) others.

Yeah, I would be very happy with a 5e that traded some but not all of the flexible building 3.x offers for ease of use, and so far it seems like that's exactly what they're doing, so it all looks pretty good to me. I just can't fuckin' play 3e anymore, it's too top-heavy and I'm tired of building every single thing out of legos.

Strangely, I found 3e games run much smoother when you start stripping the legos out.

3e provided two main things I really wanted from D&D back in the day.  Sensible mechanical framework that didn't look too frequently like it was utterly arbitrary (I'm looking at you Saving Throws!...also positive and negative armor class....ugh...), which I got, though not without its own warts.

The second thing was the elimination of the creative straight jacket. I want an elf that doesn't toss spells... done! Now that was the move from Basic to AD&D, but frankly AD&D's classes were strict and multi/dual classing was incredibly painful.  3e... solved! More than solved, they went almost overboard with feats and shit!

And it took a few years, and a metric ton of poorly concieved splat books for me to realize just how mucked up the construction was.

In metaphorical terms, so I'm not easily mistaken: The foundation and frame were well made, but the drywall is crooked, the wires are shoddy and the pipes knock horribly if you try to run more than one faucet at a time.

But gosh durn it if it wasn't my dream version of D&D when it came out.



Says the guy who had long before ditched D&D for greener pastures... I feel like an abused spouse sometimes...