Quote from: jeff37923I'm not thrilled with the way 4E is shaping up, but I find it a bit hard to believe that Mearls & Co have accepted their thirty pieces of silver and crucified D&D to become the Fantasy Heartbreaker that Ron Edwards has always said it was.

D&D can't be a fantasy heartbreaker, as a fantasy heartbreaker is pretty much by definition a game that is nothing more than a D&D hack.  D&D thus cannot be a fantasy heartbreaker, as D&D cannot be a D&D hack.

Palladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker.  Synnibar is a fantasy heartbreaker.

Quote from: JackalopeD&D can't be a fantasy heartbreaker, as a fantasy heartbreaker is pretty much by definition a game that is nothing more than a D&D hack.  D&D thus cannot be a fantasy heartbreaker, as D&D cannot be a D&D hack.

So what if a new "D&D" isn't really "D&D"?

Quote from: JackalopePalladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker.

I was under the impression that this game was successful. Whose heart was broken?

Quote from: JimLotFPSo what if a new "D&D" isn't really "D&D"?

If it's sold in stores as Dungeons & Dragons, then it's really Dungeons & Dragons.  It's still not a clone of D&D, it's not D&D with the serial numbers filed off and repainted.  D&D is just a trademark, it's not a particular system.  It hasn't been since like 1980 at least, when there were already three versions of games with the name Dungeons and Dragons (White Box, Basic Set, Advanced).

You seem to be taking the term fantasy heartbreaker too literally.  It doesn't mean any fantasy game that breaks your heart.  If 4E is a radical departure from 1E-3.5E, then it might break your heart, but it's not a fantasy heartbreaker in the sense that Ron Edwards coined the term.  Radical depature is the antithesis of a fantasy heartbreaker.  A fantasy heartbreaker clings to the structure laid out by 1E AD&D.  Fantasy heartbreakers are written by people who don't realize that 1E AD&D is not their competition in the modern market.

QuoteI was under the impression that this game was successful. Whose heart was broken?

It was moderately successful for a role-playing game, but RIFTS is the game that kept Palladium alive.  But commercial success has nothing to do with being a fantasy heartbreaker.

Palladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker because it's basically just some guy's houserules for AD&D with his own setting attached to it.  The basic structure of the game is exactly the same.  A handful of stats measuring various physical and mental abilities, a race and class combo that advances by levels, a D20 based attack system complete with an "armor class" stat.  it even has alignments -- while they are more rationale in many ways, they are even less integrated into the game.  It's got elves and dwarves and longswords and everything D&D has got.  It's more advanced than 1E advanced D&D in that it adds a skill system, parries and dodges, but it's basically the same old thing.  And then add on to that the fact that it's sloppily edited, has confusing rules, and painfully amateurish layouts and there is little reason to bother with Palladium Fantasy.  Pretty much any edition of D&D is better.

And Palladium Fantasy is one of the better fantasy heartbreakers!

RuneQuest is not a fantasy heartbreaker though, because while the two systems have much in common, RuneQuest had much more graceful mechanics than AD&D, a more integrated setting, an easy but exhaustive skill system, and many serious and trend setting features that forced the evolution of the industry.

Palladium Fantasy could never force TSR to publish a new edition, and had little actual effect on the industry.  The growth of games like RuneQuest, Harn and Rolemaster forced TSR to use real professional layout designers and actual writers to craft 2nd Ed.

Quote from: JackalopeIf it's sold in stores as Dungeons & Dragons, then it's really Dungeons & Dragons.

We'll just disagree here.

Quote from: Jackalopebut it's not a fantasy heartbreaker in the sense that Ron Edwards coined the term.

Neither is Palladium.

From the original Fantasy Heartbreakers essay:

"In the late 70s, this wasn't unreasonable. By the early 90s, though, things were considerably different. This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way."

From the follow-up:

"In order to judge a game a Heartbreaker, three things should be considered: publishing context, rules design, and imaginative content. All three matter, but I think the last one is most important."

And Palladium's first book came out in 1983, so they had to survive seven years before Rifts came around. Sure, Robotech and TMNT probably were more successful, but if Palladium Fantasy was a failure, would it have gotten well over a dozen supplements, as well as a revised edition, and a second edition?

D&D knock-off, yeah. "Fantasy Heartbreaker," no.

Quote from: JimLotFP?

Yeah, I fucked that one up. Serves me right for posting while half-asleep.

The hackmaster announcement is... interesting. We'll have to see.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JackalopePalladium Fantasy could never force TSR to publish a new edition, and had little actual effect on the industry.  The growth of games like RuneQuest, Harn and Rolemaster forced TSR to use real professional layout designers and actual writers to craft 2nd Ed.

:confused:

That statement is not even close to being true.  D&D's various versions had absolutely nothing to do with RuneQuest, Harn, or Rolemaster.

TSR started hiring outside writers as early as 1977, with John Holmes writing the first Basic D&D rules.  I'm not sure when they started hiring "professional layout designers" but I'd say at least by the time of Metzner (1983), if not before.  AD&D 2e didn't come out until 1989, and the improvements in the book quality/layout was largely to get people to switch editions and to appeal to new, non-RPG customers.  They gave a fuck less about competing for fans of other RPGs.

RuneQuest certainly didn't influence it.  RuneQuest I and II look like absolute shit layout-wise.  RuneQuest III had a professional layout, but that was in 1984 and by then RuneQuest was rapidly decreasing in popularity (and was completely obscure by 1989).

Harn has never influenced anything, it's a cult classic at best for sales.  Palladium Fantasy has easily outsold Harn by 10 to 1 or more.

Rolemaster's original books were pretty rough-looking and written by college grads, not professional writers.  They didn't start improving until the revised versions of the core books in 1984.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I think it ended up being of mutual benefit to both companies, in the end.

Frankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

You know what?  I whole-heartedly agree with this.

They wouldn't be stealing market-share, cause the people likely to buy new versions of oD&D/1ed/2ed/etc aren't likely to purchase 4ed.

Allow Goodman Games and Kenzer to produce serious new "dungeon crawl classics" that work with old games and "Hacked" versions of their old modules.

Allow these companies to produce new "classic feel" modules.  Theres a market for it, and it won't impact your 4ed bottom line a single whit.

I may not like pre-3ed versions of D&D, bu5t I don't begrudge those who want to play it.  And more people playing D&D is a GOOD thing.  For their bottom line and the hobby.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

Any major company except for Kenzer.  Putting out a clearcut D&D clone would be absolute suicide for Kenzer.  Wizards would have them dead to rights in court.  The past license leaves them more vulnerable than any other company to a lawsuit.  "Look your honor, they had a signed license with us to do a D&D knock-off.  The license expired, then they made another one anyway."  Kenzer absolutely needs to get as far away from D&D as they can in the new HackMaster edition.  If they're smart, every rule they use will have appeared in some other previous RPG or else have no corollation to D&D at all.

Quote from: beejazzScrew that noise. When a lamer edition of D&D comes out, people will go looking for something that isn't D&D. Like back when White Wolf was all big and shit. I'm looking for some third party science fiction competitor.

This is the smartest thing anyone has said on the thread.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralYou know what?  I whole-heartedly agree with this.

They wouldn't be stealing market-share, cause the people likely to buy new versions of oD&D/1ed/2ed/etc aren't likely to purchase 4ed.

Allow Goodman Games and Kenzer to produce serious new "dungeon crawl classics" that work with old games and "Hacked" versions of their old modules.

Allow these companies to produce new "classic feel" modules.  Theres a market for it, and it won't impact your 4ed bottom line a single whit.

I may not like pre-3ed versions of D&D, bu5t I don't begrudge those who want to play it.  And more people playing D&D is a GOOD thing.  For their bottom line and the hobby.

You'd have to call it something other than D&D, otherwise you would create brand confusion.  Parents buying for kids wouldn't know which to get, hell nor would kids, some folk would buy stuff for the basic line and stuff for the 4e line and then be pissed they didn't work together.

It's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  Creating confusion about what products go with that brand would be an error, losing some sales for the sake of keeping a small number of grognards most of whom wouldn't be happy with whichever particular version you kept on with anyway.

Quote from: BalbinusYou'd have to call it something other than D&D, otherwise you would create brand confusion.  Parents buying for kids wouldn't know which to get, hell nor would kids, some folk would buy stuff for the basic line and stuff for the 4e line and then be pissed they didn't work together.

This happened to us as kids with B/E D&D and AD&D.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  Creating confusion about what products go with that brand would be an error, losing some sales for the sake of keeping a small number of grognards most of whom wouldn't be happy with whichever particular version you kept on with anyway.

Exactly.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  

Not to completely digress, but hasn't D&D always been a brand? I mean when you consider that for every version beyond the 1st there are at least speculative, if not real business reasons for the changes made? Think about it this way:

BECMI/RC: Speculated as a means to separate Arneson from the royalties from the game.

2nd Edition: Speculated as a means to separate Gygax as primary creator of the game.

3rd Ed: Open plan to revise the rules for new markets and a hope to revive old one.

4th Ed: Open plan to revise the rules for new markets.

The moment D&D started selling books beyond EGG's basement and became a full-blown business, it became a brand. I see this as a good thing because in the end it has created a whole family of games that while the rules may be different, I think they all have their merits and they are all still joined by the primary goal of kicking evil's ass and taking it's lunch money and +1 mace.

I gotta say that claiming there is a "true D&D" beyond perhaps OD&D and 1st ed, is a sort of wishful thinking.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

Then again. Maybe not. Depends on who your target demographic is. Perhaps 4e is for the mainstream book distribution houses, whom have made a request for a specific style of game, based on their demographic studies. They plunk down the cash for a pre-order, and the rest is, as they say history.

Quote from: JamesVBECMI/RC: Speculated as a means to separate Arneson from the royalties from the game.

Other way around--AD&D may have been partly motivated as a way to cut Arneson out (though I could see maybe other primary motivators and then a rationalization that the resulting game oughtn't be shared with Arneson). IIRC Basic line was actually a result of legal action by Arneson who wanted back in.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOther way around--AD&D may have been partly motivated as a way to cut Arneson out (though I could see maybe other primary motivators and then a rationalization that the resulting game oughtn't be shared with Arneson). IIRC Basic line was actually a result of legal action by Arneson who wanted back in.

Thank you for the correction. I do think my point still stands.