Old games have a lot of 'charm' and 'personality'

Sure, the mechanics may have issues.

But I will play 1E gamma world any day due to its 'flavor'

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization. Even in Basic, between the sub-races and classes there are 28 combinations. Factor in domains, fighting styles, and arcane traditions and we're at 154. Add backgrounds (even from the paltry 5 included in Basic) and you're at 770 possible configurations. In the most Basic iteration of the game. And that's not even considering ideals, bonds, and flaws. Now consider the archetypes, sub-classes, feats, and new backgrounds that will come out with the PHB, which will bring the different possible PC configurations into the tens of thousands, and and I can't even begin to fathom why some people instantly need more options. Before they've even played. It boggles my mind.

Mechanical customization for the purpose of being unique is bullshit because a character option, by its very nature is available to ANYONE.

Quote from: James Gillen;772169The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples.

JG

Which is perfectly fine for a game. The protagonists of fiction can do anything their authors need them to do to tell the story they want. If I'm playing a game, my character MAY end up saving the world OR die covered in feces at the bottom of a kobold pit trap on his first adventure. I am playing the game to find out what happens.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774158But there are a couple of things that make me wonder whether I'll prefer that experiment. One simple one that is a game changer in play: Weapon vs armor type has all the charm of a tax return, but is actually an incredibly powerful discriminator between fighters and other classes. A 1st level ST 17 fighter in platemail with a two handed sword and a 1st level DX 17 thief with leather armor and a shortsword are barely distinguished in AC, to-hit chance and damage in 5E. The rules in 5E very much re-enforce the attitude that every character concept is equally valid, beautiful, deadly, etc.

In 1E with weapon vs. armor adjustments turned on, this isn't even a fight. The fighter hits on an 11 and does 1d10+1 damage; the thief hits on a never (to-hit adjusted to 21, so hits only on a natural 20) and does 1d6+nothing. If you are into super number nerd-gasms, the expected value for the fighter's damage output is 0.5x6.5 = 3.25 points per round while the thief's is 0.05x3.5 = 0.175 — nearly a factor of 18.6 difference. And that is how it should be. If you want to be a badass in melee combat you should eat your fucking wheaties, put on some real fucking armor, and bring a real fucking weapon. I do not hold at all with rationalizations people raise as to why twee, fay little slips of characters should be as good at kicking ass as a proper fighter with proper equipment.

The other thing that I worry about with 5E is that it maintains the 3E and 4E focus on making sure everyone has a list of specific stuff to do every turn. In 1E it often wasn't clear what you should do, either in a given round of combat or, more importantly, out of combat. That dynamic might be frustrating if you are shitty at playing table top roleplaying games, but if you work on your skills a little you realize it empowers you to dream up a lot of very clever, interesting, idiosyncratic stuff. 1E has a lot of rules details that encourage and enable clever, interesting play. From the quirky spells to the importance of henchmen, to the really challenging resource management of few spells and few HP. It all drives you to think your way out of problems.

Amen!  Ever since the fighter was made merely as good at fighting as every other class the gamer community at large has been scratching their heads trying to figure out why the fighter seems so bland.

WELL DUH!

Quote from: The Ent;774534Now, now, I dislike 4e as much as the next guy but saying the classes Are all just rebranded Fighters is just wrong.

...well okay, Rangers do come across as Nothing but fast-moving light-armoured Fighters, I'll give ya that one. Wizards Are quite different though.

Naw. 4E characters weren't rebranded fighters. 4E characters were all just superheroes that traded in their snazzy spandex outfits for armor, robes, or whatever. A 4E party was more like the Avengers or the Justice League than adventuring inhabitants of a fantasy world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;775642Naw. 4E characters weren't rebranded fighters. 4E characters were all just superheroes that traded in their snazzy spandex outfits for armor, robes, or whatever. A 4E party was more like the Avengers or the Justice League than adventuring inhabitants of a fantasy world.

Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

Quote from: Batman;775805Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

Says the JLA member with a cloak.

But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;774892As a BECMI fan I don't feel left out in the cold at all. 5e is closer to BECMI in feel than any other edition (2e, 3e, 4e) has been, and I'm very happy about that.

Although there are no specific rules that seem to have been taken from BECMI and used in 5e, there are a few places where it definitely feels like there's been a strong influence:

1) Spells with few "moving parts" that vary by caster level.
2) An almost complete lack of situational bonuses and penalties to rolls.
3) Alignment has almost no mechanical impact on the game.

Also, while Expert D&D* (B/X, BECMI, RC) got relatively love when it came to retrospectives of how the game has changed, it got quite significantly name-dropped when Mearls said he wanted the core rules to essentially be "like Basic D&D** in terms of rules, but with AD&D character generation options."  And later talking about the new 5e Basic Rules, he called out the Rules Cyclopedia as the model.

For us Expert D&D fans, that's the important stuff.  Lighter rules weight and minimal need to reference the rules during play.  Having 5e draw on Weapon Mastery would have been cool, but not really necessary.  Heck, we may yet see them draw on the Companion set for domain rules.

*I've stopped referring to the Dungeons & Dragons game published by TSR as "Basic D&D".  Basic was but one part, the introductory part, and the lion's share of the game (levels 4-14) were in the Expert Set.  At the time it was just known as D&D to distinguish it from AD&D.  WotC dropping the "Advanced" confuses things, but in that case I think "Expert" is better than "Basic".  "Basic D&D" just reinforces the idea that D&D was the kiddie version of the game, when actually over the course of B/X, BECMI, and RC, D&D was no less a complex or expansive game than AD&D, it was just a lot less baroque and rococo.

**Mearls hadn't gotten the memo when he made that statement.  Actually, I hadn't put out the memo by then...

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

Nicely done. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

Yes. That was my first thought as well.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880Says the JLA member with a cloak.

Former member, but I guess I'm splitting hairs....

Quote from: Natty Bodak;775880But you make a good point. No 4E character would be caught dead with anything so crippling as a weakness or a code against killing.

And thousands of players with different experiences probably disagree with you. The point......?

Quote from: Batman;775805Well, except for all the parts where they're not.

That's simply the feel the rules gave. All character classes had the same basic structure. Everyone used powers, so spell casters didn't really feel that different from anyone else- the spells were more like just flavoring than anything else.

The expressly defined combat roles were pretty much in line with City of Heroes with a few name changes.

[City of Heroes wiki]
There were five basic hero archetypes, which affected a character's power choices and team role throughout the game. Blasters were versatile damage dealers, capable of fighting at short or long range against one or many opponents. Controllers were adept at preventing enemies from moving or acting. Defenders turned the tide of battle with weakening enemy attacks (debuffs) and ally-strengthening (buffs). Scrappers were melee fighters with a greater chance of critical hits against tough opponents such as bosses. Tankers possessed great defenses and the ability to take hits for the team.
[END QUOTE]

So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

All this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

I don't see a problem in the mere existence of alternate routes to similar effects. Where there can be a problem is where alternatives are privileged in ways that screw up game balance or make things not viable that ought to be.

Tarzan or Conan is awesome with just a knife and a loincloth? I've got no problem with that.

This is fantasy, after all, not medieval history simulation. It's a bit fatuous to mistake the superficial differences between the JSA and a team of old-D&D superheroes for something of great substance.

If all you play of old D&D is low levels, perhaps because your scenario makes survival to higher ones extremely unlikely, then you've got a lopsided picture of what it's about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776038So 4E combined scrappers & blasters into strikers, defenders became leaders, controllers stayed the same, and tankers became defenders.

  Those roles have arguably been latent in the game since the beginning. (And the blaster role got split between strikers and controllers. ) Fighters held the front line, clerics provided support, wizards were artillery. Single-target damage didn't tend to be a specialized thing.

  You may see them in City of Heroes, but I find the four roles are almost a direct lift from Final Fantasy I.

QuoteAll this superhero mechanical support along with the explicit assumption that all PCs were BIG DAMN HEROES right out of the gate made 4E very much a supers genre game underneath the veneer of fantasy that went only costume and skin deep.

   For certain definitions of fantasy, that's true. However, I'm not convinced the fantasy genre requires weak, fragile protagonists who survive by low cunning and tricking others into taking the risks so that they can grab the loot and run.

Quote from: Batman;776002Former member, but I guess I'm splitting hairs....



And thousands of players with different experiences probably disagree with you. The point......?

Drive by zingers are their own point.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776048Those roles have arguably been latent in the game since the beginning. (And the blaster role got split between strikers and controllers. ) Fighters held the front line, clerics provided support, wizards were artillery. Single-target damage didn't tend to be a specialized thing.

  You may see them in City of Heroes, but I find the four roles are almost a direct lift from Final Fantasy I.

I'm not familiar with Final Fantasy so I'll take your word on that front.

What I am familiar with, is the role of fighters in early TSR D&D. The role is quite simple- combat.

Not tanking, not as front line meat shields, not only as melee combatants, but ALL ASPECTS OF COMBAT.

Clerics served as 2nd tier fighters but fighting man did it all. A master of weapons, he/she fought in the front line, fought with spear in the second rank, used missile fire and flaming oil when the situation demanded it, scouted ahead and skirmished as required.

Mind you this is before game designers decided the game should be all about fighting for ALL classes and kind of turned everyone into a fighter more or less.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776048For certain definitions of fantasy, that's true. However, I'm not convinced the fantasy genre requires weak, fragile protagonists who survive by low cunning and tricking others into taking the risks so that they can grab the loot and run.

The fantasy genre certainly doesn't. D&D is not the fantasy genre in general and it certainly does- at least until the PC's gain power and reach higher levels. The whole D&D concept is starting out weak and reaching ever higher for more wealth and power, and getting more powerful & influential as you go.

Starting out as fully formed awesome and riding the awesome train across a flat plane to awesome town just doesn't feel like D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776055Starting out as fully formed awesome and riding the awesome train across a flat plane to awesome town just doesn't feel like D&D.

sig'ed

D&D was not designed to emulate any genre. It's a game. 'It's FANTASY so anything goes' is one of the most tiresome memes in RPG forums. Call of Cthulhu is 'fantastic'. But I don't hear about people pouting because they can't play Wolverine or Cyclops in CoC.