TheRPGSite

Quote from: Stuart;279540

Quote from: kregmosier;279551not sure what's more pathetic...the game design, or the anime-loving beardos defending it like it was their fat girlfriend.  

is that good? ;)

Quote from: B.T.;279524Please.  I want to read it.  I know Pundit has plenty to go around.

Quote from: jeff37923;279579I'm pretty vitrioled out over 4E. The game just doesn't work for me and there are a hardcore group of 4E Zealots who want to hang me and everyone else who doesn't enjoy 4E for our game preferences.

Quote from: Drohem;279587Seriously... I think that the rabid 4e fans have surpassed the die hard Palladium fanbois in fervor.

Quote from: kregmosier;279551ahhh...Dungeons & Dragons: Tactics, eh?

it's a miniatures game.  i signed on for a role-playing experience; this is Chutes & Ladders with swords.  not sure what's more pathetic...the game design, or the anime-loving beardos defending it like it was their fat girlfriend.  

is that good? ;)

Quote from: Drohem;279587Seriously... I think that the rabid 4e fans have surpassed the die hard Palladium fanbois in fervor.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;279597Where is all this taking place? On RPG.net or EN World? I don't frequent either site much these days. The forums I do frequent seem to have more reasoned discussions, but if anything, I see more 4e bashing than rabid fanboy zealotry.

Quote from: jeff37923;279593That's why I call them Zealots, it is the religious fervor with which they demonstrate their faith in 4E.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;279544My mate bought it a couple of weeks ago (ie xmas), so I took a look.

Where do all those races come from: tieflings? Eldarin?

Quote from: boulet;279601So far Warthur wins the thread, though I wish he had a place for cookie cutter classes and powers in his rant.

Quote from: Drohem;279598I don't frequent EnWorld so I can't comment on that site, but I have personally experienced this on the RPG.net D20 forums.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;279597...but if anything, I see more 4e bashing than rabid fanboy zealotry.

Quote from: Warthur;279535Actually, the skill challenge system in general is a major source of aggravation to me because it represents a shift away from character-and-world focused gaming to system-focused gaming: I find that a great many people have trouble relating the skill challenge rules to the in-game action ("Wait, the fact that the thief failed to get the information we need in the docks means I definitely can't get the information we need from the library? What the fuck?"), and the usual response is to step out of character and "game the system". Whilst I do believe that immersion is possible in just about any RPG, I've rarely seen one which is more hostile to immersion than 4E: it's like the system regularly throws cold water over your head and yells "you're playing a game! your character is just a playing piece! don't worry about your character's motives and just game the system!"

Quote from: Seanchai;279611This is the case. What happens is the anti-4e crowd creates threads like this one; goes beyond posting merely their opinions about 4e (and its players) and starts telling us that the game is objectively bad, et al.; and then whine like little bitches when they get called on it.

You don't believe that? Sign into a site and post a new message entitled, "I Don't Like 4e." Don't say anything beyond, "Well, my group and I tried 4e and it just wasn't for us. We ran through an adventure, but at the end of it, we decided to switch back to 3.5."

You know what kind of response you'll get? The sound of crickets. Because no one gives a damn if you don't like 4e.

Seanchai

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;279597Where is all this taking place? On RPG.net or EN World? I don't frequent either site much these days. The forums I do frequent seem to have more reasoned discussions, but if anything, I see more 4e bashing than rabid fanboy zealotry.

Quote from: Drohem;279598I don't frequent EnWorld so I can't comment on that site, but I have personally experienced this on the RPG.net D20 forums.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;2796314E is a fantasy game the majority of gamers wanted - that is, a platform for freeform roleplaying with an admirable tactical combat system - but were to emotionally tied to the name D&D to break rank and find it elsewhere. That D&D was made to conform to those desires is unfortunate but perhaps it is for the better. After all, 4E can support campaign settings like Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk without players explicitedly following each world's genre conventions.

Quote from: jeff37923;279618Look! Its a Zealot getting defensive about 4E!

Quote from: Seanchai;279656I noticed that you didn't disagree with my assertion...

Seanchai

Quote from: James J Skach;279660I'll go back to missing my dog.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;279527Its a minis combat game that's only reason for popularity is because they stuck D&D as its name.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;2796314E is a fantasy game the majority of gamers wanted - that is, a platform for freeform roleplaying with an admirable tactical combat system - but were to emotionally tied to the name D&D to break rank and find it elsewhere. That D&D was made to conform to those desires is unfortunate but perhaps it is for the better. After all, 4E can support campaign settings like Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk without players explicitedly following each world's genre conventions and all character classes are now playing the same game.

Quote from: Cranewings;279703It is also boring.

Quote from: StormBringer;279705See?  I'm not the only one!

:)

Quote from: jeff37923;279707I don't think you ever were.

Quote from: Cranewings;279703It is also boring.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;279695The most damning thing I can say about the game is this: I enjoy having nothing to say about it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279731Wait.. you guys are actually playing other games, right?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279731It can't be boring ...because you guys can't stop talking about it!

Quote from: jswa;279694Calling it a minis combat game isn't exactly vitriol.

The rest of it is a screed against the players, and not actually about the game.

Just sayin'.

Quote from: KrakaJak;279778As someone else who had grown up playing good old AD&D, I have much vitriol. I think D&D 4e has definitely lost something...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279615This is the singlemost significant criticism, the most essential thing you can say is wrong with 4e. It kills immersion and emulation of genre.  It does it because Mearls and friends have swallowed the Forger poison, so they believe that actually wanting to lose yourself in a fantasy world or feel like your character is real is somehow mentally wrong. Instead, you're supposed to, nay, OBLIGED to see your character as just a bunch of statistics and the point is to perfect yourself in the game system, a game system where the setting is nothing but window-dressing.  And yes, skill-challenges are the PERFECT example of this. It doesn't matter what your characters actually DO, or how they roleplay, it only matters that they get x number of successes before getting y number of failures on a bunch of skill rolls.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;279862And fuck all these people who think D&D's just a game.   These bitches want to play RPGs to have fun?  WTF???  Fuck them for treating it like a game instead of a lifestyle choice.  What is that weak ass shit?  Can you fucking believe that Wizards made 1st level survivable for noobs?  Fucking corporations!  

Quote from: Windjammer;279865That's not quite the problem. The problem is rather that the core ruleset wasn't very precise on how to run skill challenges...

Quote from: Spinachcat;2798624e fucked the hobby because its bringing in unworthy players.   These people never experienced the 80s and without a Mazes & Monsters Jack Chick high school horror story of gamer oppresion to tell, how dare they join our hobby! Fucking posers!  If you didn't play Atari, how could you learn to roleplay?  Everyone knows real gaming ended with 16 bits.  

Even worse, 4e is bringing AD&D players back to RPGs.   Those fucks weren't tough enough to hang in there and stick with it and now they fucking think they can just waltz back into the hobby and be accepted?   Fuck that!  Betrayers keep out!  

And fuck all these people who think D&D's just a game.   These bitches want to play RPGs to have fun?  WTF???  Fuck them for treating it like a game instead of a lifestyle choice.  What is that weak ass shit?  Can you fucking believe that Wizards made 1st level survivable for noobs?  Fucking corporations!  

:)

Quote from: wiseman207;279755So what does 4e do?  They decide to keep the idea of having complex rules to fiddle with, but throw away the essential piece that made the game a "role-playing game"... the rules actually reflected what was going on in the world!  Now instead of having rules to help a DM through a dilemma (like, handling a wrestling match on a greased tightrope), we have rules just for sake of having them.  Alright, so playing with the game's rules is fun I guess.  Um... yeah.

Wait, I can't even pretend anymore.  Having rules that don't represent anything in the game world is TOTALLY USELESS... because that's what the game rules are supposed to do in the first place... adjudicate elements of chance in the game world!  Cripes!  If I liked rules because they were interesting to tinker with, I'd play a game without a tremendous amount of overhead in time and money... like Monopoly or something.

Quote from: shalvayez;283173I already play WoW. Why would I want a tabletop version?

Quote from: shalvayez;283173I already play WoW. Why would I want a tabletop version?

Quote from: Aos;283215My girlfriend is not fat.

Quote from: StormBringer;283238I thought this thread was as dead as the growth in 4e sales.

Quote from: J Arcane;283240My Barnes and Noble stopped carrying 4e corebooks, and filled out their rack with other games instead.  They still get the occasional sourcebook, but that's about it.

Quote from: Aos;283363We should have a "RPGs we Hate and don't play" sub forum.

Quote from: CavScout;283359The "WoW" like snarks don't make much sense at all.

Quote from: Balbinus;283380//www.indie-rpgs.com surely?

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283486It attracts a lot of love by those who don't take the interpretation of people who hate the rules seriously.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283524To explain, people who hate the rules are people who believe 4e enforces the rules as written and you can't do anything outside the rules.

As many of these people seem to be the same people who favour 'Rulings, not rules', the result is intense irony.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283524To explain, people who hate the rules are people who believe 4e enforces the rules as written and you can't do anything outside the rules.

As many of these people seem to be the same people who favour 'Rulings, not rules', the result is intense irony.

Quote from: CavScout;283529I've always snickered at the claim that they dislike 4E because it lacks "strong" non-combat resolution mechanics.... of course they ignore the utter lack of the same in the old school editions they heap praise on. Or how it is (4E) to combat focused while ignoring that combat rules were the core of the old school games as well.

Quote from: The Shaman;283558I've never seen either of these comments made about 4e. Who says this? Name names.

Quote from: The Shaman;283558I've never seen either of these comments made about 4e. Who says this? Name names.

Quote from: StormBringer;283565The post you are responding to is predicated on the false premise that olde school games revolved around combat, which is typically stated as 'olde school games were (more complex/glorified/barely different than) wargames' or 'olde school games have combat rules as central to the game'.  Both of which are demonstrably false.

In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Quote from: Sigmund;283593Like Narf said, you're the one bringing up minis. We always used them back then, but the rules didn't go out of their way to assume their use like 4e's do. Otherwise, I hate to say it but based on looking through my copies of DnD (Mentzer basic, very beat-up, and RC), they sure seem Heavily combat oriented to me, so you must be refering to other editions that are going to somehow demonstrate the falseness. I'm interested so by all means, demonstrate.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283585You're the one who brought up minis.

Quote from: Sigmund;283593WOTC might (and probably will try to) change this by putting out loads of supplements and new classes/powers/spells/rituals, but I have no desire to wade into that morass when I have M&M, and True20, and the great GDi/GD3 (LOVE the new edition) games already, not to mention my RC and the "retro-clones". Sorry to say it, but 4e has created yet another "grognard" I suppose.

Quote from: StormBringer;283565The post you are responding to is predicated on the false premise that olde school games revolved around combat, which is typically stated as 'olde school games were (more complex/glorified/barely different than) wargames' or 'olde school games have combat rules as central to the game'.  Both of which are demonstrably false.

In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Quote from: StormBringer;283604Where, exactly, did I do this?

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283596Oh, good, that means you're supposed to avoid combat in 4e, too!

After all, a single Standard of the same level has a 50/50% chance of killing your PC.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283524To explain, people who hate the rules are people who believe 4e enforces the rules as written and you can't do anything outside the rules.

Quote from: Warthur;283611A rule that is essentially set up so that achieving something "outside the box" is almost always going to be a bit more difficult than just pointing-and-clicking with your powers. (If I remember right you have to pass a skill check to even make the attempt.) So it's almost always more sensible to just point and click.

Quote from: CavScout;283613You dislike 4E because if you try to do something that as a relevant skill the rules say to roll using that relevant skill? :eek:

Quote from: Warthur;283614Out of combat, all's well and good.

In combat, if I remember right, you end up having to make the skill roll AND an attack roll AND a damage roll. At each stage of this chain things have a chance of getting screwed up.

Whereas if you just point and click, you just have to make the attack roll and damage roll. One less link in the chain, one less chance of failure. Many powers either don't require a roll or give you some kind of benefit even if you fail.

Quote from: StormBringer;283606Is this where I point you over to the Citadel and hand you a free copy of OSRIC at the door?  ;)

Quote from: CavScout;283623I know you're probably trying really hard, but this makes little sense. I suppose the "point and click" is suppose to be a reference that is bad for 4E, but tell me, why is "point and click" fine in older editions of D&D but not so in 4E?

But again, have to ask, why down on 4E for having rules to do these things when the older games omitted them all together?

Quote from: StormBringer;283565In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Quote from: Warthur;283636Because those rules are set up so that trying new and innovative things is more difficult than using your tried-and-true powers. The opposite should be the case if you really want to reward out-of-the-box thinking.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283607I have highlighted the statements people are objecting to, including the word 'Minis'.

Quote from: CavScout;283639Again, you are seemingly try to say that lack of rules covering this aspect (ala old style D&D) is better than there actually being rules covering it (ala 4E).

Quote from: jgants;283657If you ever wanted to do something creative, it was inherintly more difficult than just making your standard attack (and in 3e, it was far, far more difficult than in any other version).

Quote from: Seanchai;283638Provably? By pointing to the rules? Or by pointing to actual play? Because it strikes me that no matter which one you chose, 4e adherents can use the same to prove that 4e is one thing or another.

Seanchai

Quote from: CavScout;283664Outdoor Survival...

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover. :)

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover. :)

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover. :)

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?

Quote from: StuartCan you download a PDF version?

Quote from: StuartI've never even seen the cover. :)

Quote from: CavScout;283669The good ol' "but you can house rule it" so you really don't need it....

Quote from: Warthur;283704No, seriously, Outdoor Survival and Chainmail were completely unnecessary.

Literally the only thing the game took from Outdoor Survival was a wilderness map. Anyone who can't handle drawing a wilderness map themselves has no place GMing OD&D.

Quote from: CavScout;283732Like I said, the good ol' "but you can house rule it" so you really don't need it.

Quote from: StormBringer;283733Anyone who thinks Outdoor Survival was necessary to begin with has no standing to talk about OD&D or any RPG published prior to 2005.  ;)

Quote from: RandallS;283735Err, no.  

If you used the alternative combat system printed in the rules in Men & Magic, you did not need Chainmail because the alternative combat system did not use Chainmail mechanics. No house rules needed. The players and GM just decided which of the two alternative combat systems presented in the book they wanted to use.

Use of the Outdoor Survival was optional as well. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures presented using the Outdoor Survival map as a quick way to handle ad-hoc wilderness adventuring without the GM having to first prepare a wilderness map. Note the GM preparing one was mentioned first then using the Outdoor Survival map was presented as an alternative. As both were in the rules, no house-ruling was needed to not use the Outdoor Survival map.

However, I must point out that the entire intent of OD&D was that the GM create whatever house rules he wanted/needed -- it says as much in several places in the OD&D books and supplements. If you aren't using house rules in OD&D you really are not playing the way the designers intended. This may be alien to those used to later editions of D&D which seem to get progressively more "use the rules as written," but that does not change the fact that GMs making spot rulings and house rules for OD&D was an intentional part of the OD&D game design.

Quote from: CavScout;283744It was "necessary" in the sense that minis are "necessary" in 4E. You can houserule and not use it, but it was intended part of the game when released.

Quote from: Stuart;283663When the oldschool gamers talk about D&D and the fun they're having with it -- it makes me want to play the game. I just haven't seen anything like that from anyone jazzed about the newest version. Where is the 4e version of Jrients?

Quote from: counterspin;283755Somewhere where they discuss 4e as something other than the downfall of man, I presume.

Quote from: Stuart;283663When the oldschool gamers talk about D&D and the fun they're having with it -- it makes me want to play the game. I just haven't seen anything like that from anyone jazzed about the newest version. Where is the 4e version of Jrients?

Quote from: Stuart;283786That was a slo-pitch for you to write a post about how much fun 4e is Abyssal Maw.  How much fun your group is having, how the new rules mean you have more fun because of how great the minis and battlemaps are or whatever...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283788And strangely enough, many of my minis are like.. 8 years older than half the supposed "olde-schoolers" on the internet.

Quote from: Stuart;283754You're joking, right? :confused:

Quote from: James J Skach;283792I really wish you'd be more specific, AM. Your wide brush paints indiscriminately.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283797I know. sorry.

Quote from: Sigmund;283780I can't see any discussion of this nature as being too serious, but that said even I know that 4e is heavily designed around miniature use. I hate when folks call it a miniatures skirmish game, because although it is that, that's not all it is. On the other hand, saying it would be easy to dispense with miniatures is just as silly and misleading. It makes perfect sense to me that WotC tied miniature play to the rpg rules, it's pure economics, and it can be fun if one lets go of one's prejudice and preconceptions and just rolls with it. All that said, and with the qualification that I can enjoy playing 4e, theres still several games I'd rather be playing. Hell it might be more fun if we were to drop the rpg bits and play it as a mini-skirmish game only. I would not even consider going the other way though. I thought when I first started with it that it would be easier, but AP has convinced me that it would be a pain in the sphincter to try and remove miniature use from 4e. Can it be done? Yes, but it can't realistically be compared to houseruling/improvising older versions of DnD, it's apples and oranges. It would require an amount of book-keeping and rules mods that would be impractical at best, and would make simply using a different set of rules (like 3.x or especially True20) the more attractive option.

There are plenty of points about 4e one could praise it on if one were attracted to the superheroic fantasy style that it's designed for, but the ease of removing the miniatures aspect isn't one of them. I could, however, see the rules as a great way to change up the flavor and play some over-the-top kung-fu style fantasy, some Iron Monkey/Jade Empire action. Every time I look at the rules I see each class as some "style" of magically enhanced martial "schools". Maybe bring that flavor to a European based fantasy for some kind of crazy mash-up. I could be wrong but it seems to me it'd be good at that, and the miniature aspect would be perfect for that as well.

Quote from: James J Skach;283792I really wish you'd be more specific, AM. Your wide brush paints indiscriminately.

Quote from: CavScout;283732Like I said, the good ol' "but you can house rule it" so you really don't need it.

Quote from: StormBringer;283809But, it is adorable when talk of older editions threatens his identity as a 4e enthusianst.  ;)

Quote from: Abyssal MawBelieve me, it's all slo-pitch from you guys (especially you), but.. thanks!

Quote from: StuartWhen the oldschool gamers talk about D&D and the fun they're having with it -- it makes me want to play the game. I just haven't seen anything like that from anyone jazzed about the newest version. Where is the 4e version of Jrients?

Quote from: CavScout;283790No, not at all. Minis/battle-map is just a way of visualizing the battlefield. Instead of using "feet" for distance, they use squares. These squares are 5 feet wide.

Once you have your measurements, the rest is played just like older editions of D&D. You don't use the battle-map to see if you can see the enemy, you'd ask the DM.

Minis simplify combat in the sense that everyone's position is easily seen and understood. Take away that and you have "role-play" combat where the DM just tells everyone their positions in relation to others.

We could figure out how to use Magic Missiles with a range of 120' without a battle-map in old D&D. Why do some assume you can't do the same in 4E without the battle-map? 4E says Magic Missiles has a range of 20 squares, it is easy to go 5 x 20 = 100'.

It's really not hard. Claiming otherwise is what is really disingenuous.

Quote from: James J Skach;283800As long as we can agree to disagree about certain aspects of the game with it turning into some pissing contest over who is objective right, we're cool.

you and I played 1ed (and I really miss that game - btw, I want to steal some for an upcoming game; can we talk?) and I think you know I play 3x every Wednesday night and played LG for a few years, right?

And yet, for me, the claim that 4e Wizards are "more magical" (to use an example from this thread, IIRC) falls flat - for reasons I don't necessarily want to draw out right now. I don't claim the person who claims that for them this is true is somehow wrong. I only bring it up as an example of how the same set of rules can be pointed at to find preference/fault.

Frankly, rather than vitriol, I'd like to see more discussion of how to adjust the game for the places it doesn't feel right - what ti would take to alter the rules, how much of an impact it would have on other portions, etc.

Alas, like so much else, the opportunity will again be lost...

And just for anecdotal rebuttal - Games Plus on Wednesday nights has, from what I can tell, at least three regular 3.x games going (no 4e, I think they play on a different night). We don't follow the same approach in that the groups don't mix, but there are...hmmm...about 6 per table...so 18 total.

Quote from: StormBringer;283809But, it is adorable when talk of older editions threatens his identity as a 4e enthusianst.  ;)

Quote from: Sigmund;283828Yeah. It was me that said the 4e made the wizard seem "more magical", but only at first, when it was still shiny :) Mainly it was due to the at will powers like magehand and light that would let me do fun and pointless stuff when all the other folks were acting "normal". That feeling ended once we started getting into fights and everyone started busting out the superpowers. Now, my wizard often times feels less magical, since he doesn't have the flashy high-flyin kung fu powers like the Warlord or Rogues (we have 2 :) ), and especially not the super Charmed-style Infernal teifling Warlock. At this point I think I'm more with you James.

Quote from: Sigmund;283827I can't agree with this. I will grant that our group hasn't tried playing without miniatures, but just from playing the wizard I don't see how forgoing miniatures can be considered "really not hard". Yes, the Thunderwave will push the foes back 5" times my wis modifier, but part of the advantage of the push is knowing when using it will be most advantageous, like when I pushed 2 kobolds into a pit with it. Using a Force Orb more than once a session would be annoying for at least the GM in having to determine exactly which foes are close enough to each other to be affected. Knowing where to place my Flaming Sphere for maximum effect would be more difficult of nobody was keep strict track of exactly where the foes are in any given round. These are just the low level wizard spells, I know from AP that my fellow adventurers have similar powers that are much easier to use when the exact positioning of all combatants (and non-coms for that matter) are known. Hell, this is the kinda shit we started using miniatures for in the first place. It made it so much simpler to determine who got caught in the fireball, or web spells, or stinking clouds (pissed off some fighters back in the day I can tell ya). 4e just acknowledges and embraces this, and maybe goes too far in it's acceptance for some. Is it possible to play 4e without mat and minis? Yes. However, it certainly isn't easy, and would at least require the GM to up the book-keeping and/or perform surgery on a good number of powers and combat rules.

Quote from: CavScout;283833Yet in older editions, with spells with effects measured in feet you had no problem?

Quote from: CavScout;283833You're right in the sense that minis makes combat easier, to visualize and figure out effects but that "easier" seems to be what gets stuck in the craw of so many self-declared "old schoolers". If it's easier, they think it's wrong

Quote from: StormBringer;283661I am sure Mr. Juramont would be able to point out how using the Chainmail rules with OD&D leads to a shitty game, because they are not designed for such, and in fact, the similarities between the two are sparse.  Mr Vey (thegreyelf) has already done a comparison of sorts here:  Grognard's Tavern (http://grognardstavern.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=classics&action=display&thread=417).  Holmes, Moldvay and AD&D all make a rather strong suggestion that minis are helpful for keeping track of diverse information like marching order and even combat location, none of them have rules that would require minis or other tokens for the average player to plan their next actions.  While certain groups may be able to eschew minis and still maintain the location of each combatant several rounds into a fight that involved various shift, push and slide effects as well as normal damage and effect tracking, it would hardly be the norm.

4e enthusiasts are trying to demonstrate that minis requirements were there since the beginning, due to any number of factors.  All of these are untrue.  While some aspects did carry forward to some degree (inches to represent tens of feet), generally they were used due to familiarity.

Of course, this is the point where all the 4e enthusiasts swoop in and claim they don't use minis at all.  Well, very few people used them back then either.  You really can't support the claim that 4e and OD&D/BX/AD&D had equal requirements for minis with a statement to the effect "...but we don't use them".  Fine, if 4e doesn't require minis, we certainly didn't back then, as there were far fewer combat effects that needed tracking; especially movement effects.  On the other hand, if the argument is presented that OD&D were combat-centric or needed minis because of the wargaming roots, then the concession that 4e has definite requirements for minis has already been made.  The difference being, the older editions simply didn't require minis or a battlemat, or anything like that.  Whether or not any particular number of groups used them in play or not is irrelevant.  I am sure a good number of groups also used pens instead of pencils.  That doesn't mean older editions were pen-centric.

Quote from: Stuart;283663I just haven't seen anything like that from anyone jazzed about the newest version.

Quote from: Sigmund;283780I can't see any discussion of this nature as being too serious, but that said even I know that 4e is heavily designed around miniature use. I hate when folks call it a miniatures skirmish game, because although it is that, that's not all it is. On the other hand, saying it would be easy to dispense with miniatures is just as silly and misleading. It makes perfect sense to me that WotC tied miniature play to the rpg rules, it's pure economics, and it can be fun if one lets go of one's prejudice and preconceptions and just rolls with it.

Quote from: jgants;283866I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for here, but lots of us have mentioned on multiple occaisions how well we liked 4e.  I know I've pointed out on multiple occasions how surprised I was to find I liked 4e, and that several members of my group felt the same way.  How pretty much everyone who's tried it has liked it so far, with the exception of the guy that isn't into combat-heavy games.  I've even pointed out on multiple times how the guy who goes back with TSR almost as far as Old Geezer tried it and liked it.  I have an AP thread.  

What more are you looking for?  Obviously, none of us are going to describe it in a way that makes you nostalgic for the gaming days of olde the way talking about old school gaming might.  It's 2008, not 1985 (or 1979, or whatever your year was), and no set of rules is going to change that.  Frankly, all the retro-clones have done for me is convince me that I was too young to notice how terrible the rules for AD&D 1e were (the massive old school charm, notwithstanding), and how OD&D was some bizarre, ancient relic that I never would have found interesting and am glad to have avoided (thank god for BD&D, the only "old school" version of D&D I can stand).

Quote from: Stuart;283894I literally mean does someone have a link to someone who's blogging about 4e and how much fun it is (not edition wars or actual play that could be from any RPG).  All I'm seeing here is variations on "we tried it and surprisingly it wasn't total garbage - and old school games aren't that great anyway"  -- that doesn't really get me fired up. :)

I mean something along the lines of this:
http://www.heroscapers.com/

Quote from: jgants;283866(well, except pretending that D&D is a good fit for "gritty" or "realistic" type campaigns - which it was always lousy at past 3rd level anyways).

Quote from: Seanchai;283865So...to get back to my question, how are you proving this? Using the rules as written, actual play, or something else?

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;283916I agree completely, hell, 3.x had a variant combat system created (which our group thoroughly enjoyed) specifically to make it more Grim-N-Gritty

Quote from: James J Skach;283919Which variant? I mean, I could guess at a few possibilities, but now I'm curious...

Quote from: Sigmund;283925We used a couple versions of Kenneth Hood's Grim-N-Gritty HP and Combat rules. The original version we used (I'm fuzzy on the details cuz I no longer have the print outs and the rules belonged to our GM) I'm pretty sure did not involved the defense roll like the newer version we used did. I also remember our DM scared the crap out of us by having an ogre walk right up to our camp at night, we crapped our 1st lvl shorts I can tell ya, but all the ogre wanted was some of our dinner and to share our fire for a bit, which of course we gave it cuz it would have beat us silly :) The GnG rules made DnD pretty scary, for sure, and are very easy to just plug in and go with minimal fuss, which is why I'm still such a 3.x fan.

After a touch of google-fu, I'm pretty sure it was one of these (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12236.phtml).


Actually, it looks like the latest version we used was this one (http://riivo.talviste.pri.ee/dnd/grim-n-gritty/GrimNGrittyHitPointRules3.3.pdf).

Quote from: CavScout;283833Yet in older editions, with spells with effects measured in feet you had no problem?

You're right in the sense that minis makes combat easier, to visualize and figure out effects but that "easier" seems to be what gets stuck in the craw of so many self-declared "old schoolers". If it's easier, they think it's wrong.

Of course I've never understood those who shout disdain for combat using a map, while at the same time suggestion that unless you hand drew maps while playing you were doing it wrong.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;283934I just wonder how the 4e fans will handle it when WoTC ceases to publish their precious 4e in a few short years (and they will), while the OGL games and 3.x games like Pathfinder, True20, and OSRIC are still chugging along. It'll be weird.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;283934I just wonder how the 4e fans will handle it when WoTC ceases to publish their precious 4e in a few short years (and they will), while the OGL games and 3.x games like Pathfinder, True20, and OSRIC are still chugging along. It'll be weird.

Quote from: Stuart;283944The earlier editions encouraged a DIY approach to the game.  More recently that's shifted to less DIY and a more "official content" / Collectible media type approach - which certainly makes sense from a business perspective, and doubly so when you think about the big money earner for WotC.  I'd imagine a lot of people who are really into 4e at this point will also be really into the next thing that WotC publishes as well (which I'd fully expect to be much closer to 4e than 4e is to 3.x).

Quote from: CavScout;283941Probably in a way the other folks reacted when their "precious" version was ceased. They'll decry the new way and shout from the roof-tops about how their way was so much better. In other words, probably act like you.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;2839644e won't be in print long enough to really matter that much. It'll be funny to see Pathfinder still in print, while 4e is canceled, while 5e will be the new game in town. Or maybe they'll make D&D into an MMO instead. Who knows?

Quote from: James J Skach;283919Which variant? I mean, I could guess at a few possibilities, but now I'm curious...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283979I just don't see it. You guys see what you want to see from the vantage point of your hidey holes. Come out to GenCon this year (Sagamore Ballroom) and just count the events. I feel like I've had this same conversation about a million times about how D&D3 would never supplant AD&D2e. It did.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283983You should see if you can find a second hand copy of Grim Tales "High Adventure, Low Magic" by .. Bad Axe Games?
The obvious alternate being talked about was Ken Hoods Grim and Gritty, but I wasnt a fan of that one. I think Grim Tales actually uses the D20 Modern SRD as it's baseline, which meant it had a unique approach to character generation because the classes were stripped out.

Quote from: James J Skach;283985Really, AM. Who are "you guys" and wtf is this hidey hole?

I'm asking honestly. Is it not possible to have legitimate dislikes for certain aspects of 4e without being some BNG or Internet wannabe?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283992It's certainly possible. For example there are plenty of games (and other things- bands, pieces of art, styles of clothing ) I totally dislike. I (like most people) find it very easy not to ever talk about things I am specifically not interested in, because it simply doesn't occur to me.

Nor does it occur to anyone else. Here's my hypothesis: "Casual disinterest is not the sort of emotion that naturally incites people to hatred. It's something else."
 
To understand the bitterness and hatred here, you have to understand the mental process it comes from. My personal belief (and I apologize but I really do believe this) is that a lot of you guys realize you stopped having fun with this hobby a long time ago. Right now there's a lot of clinging to the artifacts of yesteryear. Next year? Maybe not so many of you hanging around is my guess.

Although, nah, maybe I'm wrong and you'll still all be here, and this place will be like Tangency where you can discuss polearms and what period to place the aztecs in, if you were to ever play again, or... something.

I don't mind being wrong. I'm kinda hoping for it.

Quote from: James J Skach;283994But for you, the moment I object to the feel of the game and how "magical" to me goes out the window when some fool fighter next to me is doing some weird ass power with nary but the most tenuous hint of a faint shadow of a connection to reality while I have to roll to hit with my Magic Missile (all in the name of game balance and ensuring everyone has a equal chance to shine!!!), I'm some bitter non-gamer, or about to be, who really isn't interested in gaming any more.

...

Quote from: Stuart;283998Our local gaming con has more D&D 3.5 events than D&D 4e events this year.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283992Jrients aside, a good solid percentage of the "olde school movement" is people who talk about gaming because they don't actually do it anymore. And even so-- a good solid chunk of those people spend a sizable portion of their time (and blogs) talking about 4e, and insulting people who do enjoy it, because they realize in some fashion, that they no longer matter. In many cases (let's take StormBringer here) we're talking about people who haven't sat at a gaming table with other human beings in decades.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283992Nor does it occur to anyone else. Here's my hypothesis: "Casual disinterest is not the sort of emotion that naturally incites people to hatred. It's something else."
 
To understand the bitterness and hatred here, you have to understand the mental process it comes from. My personal belief (and I apologize but I really do believe this) is that a lot of you guys realize you stopped having fun with this hobby a long time ago. Right now there's a lot of clinging to the artifacts of yesteryear. Next year? Maybe not so many of you hanging around is my guess.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284000The types of powers fighters get are things like shield bashes, lunges, footwork lures, sudden turnarounds, last minute parries. They aren't that magical.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284000Here's my question: I never actually made that claim about "more magical", and I forgot who did, but why is it so offensive and infuriating to you? you've brought it up three times.  Aren't people allowed to have positive opinions about things they like? We know negative opinions are completely ok here, but is it such a crime to like something?

Quote from: Stuart;283998Our local gaming con has more D&D 3.5 events than D&D 4e events this year.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284001Provide a link. we'll count the events this year and we'll just compare what happens next year. The only way to resolve things, isn't it?

• Why wait a year - the game has been out for almost a year and support for the previous position is, at least what I can glean from your position, virtually non-existent?
• How many years will the experiment run?
• Is this really a measure of Living campaigns - like perhaps Forgotten Realms is more popular than Greyhawk (which has always been true)?
  

Quote from: James J Skach;284007Can I just ask

• Why wait a year - the game has been out for almost a year and support for the previous position is, at least what I can glean from your position, virtually non-existent?
• How many years will the experiment run?
• Is this really a measure of Living campaigns - like perhaps Forgotten Realms is more popular than Greyhawk (which has always been true)?
  

Just curious...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284008>>you can charm me into why something that "misses" still "hits."

As far back as 1st Edition, we would say this about hit points, about how the fighter or whatever is assumed to be taking lots of little cuts and scrapes and nicks when he fights, and how a round of combat is actually a whole minute long and represents plenty of parries and slashes and cuts, etc. But only a few significant "good hits" create injuries represented by loss of hit points.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284008So in 4e, when using certain powers, when a player rolls the die and "misses" it doesn't actually represent a miss, but rather an attack that didn't connect as hard as it potentially could have. And such an attack does less damage.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284008>>[[4E]] is the end-all, be-all of the RPG world...

I never said this.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284008I will say this:  D&D is the only RPG in the world worth playing. It in fact is the be-all, end-all. That statement is edition-neutral. I really do believe it. I won't put away that particular opinion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284008Oh, also, The Living Realms campaign is awesome and way better than Living Greyhawk. Another "opinion" thing.

Quote from: James J Skach;284007Can I just ask

• Why wait a year - the game has been out for almost a year and support for the previous position is, at least what I can glean from your position, virtually non-existent?

Quote from: StormBringer;284012[/LIST]
 This has been the ongoing question, really.  I don't give a crap much about the game itself, it's the arguments in support that are annoying.  "You have to be playing the game to critique", followed by "You have to try a couple of different characters", "...for several levels", "...for a whole campaign", "...across several campaigns".  It's as though dislike of the game is some kind of aberrant thought process that can be cured through continued exposure.

Quote from: RandallS;284016I wrote a blog entry on this "move the goalposts" style of 4e debate last July (Don't Like D&D Fourth Edition? Beware the Moving Goal Posts (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2008/07/dont-like-d-fourth-edition-beware.html)). It really saddens me to see it still happening.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284019At the end of the day- it's think it's pretty much impossible for me to accept the opinion of someone else in place of my own highly qualified opinion on what it is I like. I can't tell you what you should like, because you have your own highly qualified opinion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284019The fun games are the ones that people are actually playing, regardless of ideological purity (whether we are talking gygaxian naturalism or GNS coherence). The end. That's reality. Everyone else, every other opinion, every other silly little nitpick-- doesn't matter. It's just BS people argue about on forums.

Quote from: James J Skach;284011I'm with ya...you know that...right up until...


See, in those other editions, to do the little cuts and drain luck or whatever you were doing...you were "hitting" - that is, your roll was successful. That's the difference that is, for me, hard to swallow. But I know there are people who have no problem with it. For them, the game will be far more enjoyable than it is for me. Does that make me a bitter non-gamer, AM?

Quote from: jeff37923;284021Your above statement has not stopped you from saying that those who don't like 4E aren't having fun with the games they prefer anymore or that they even matter as gamers.

So, why don't you practice what you preach?

Quote from: Stuart;283998Our local gaming con has more D&D 3.5 events than D&D 4e events this year.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284024Oh not at all, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that people who go waaay out of their way and get really apoplectic about it (alternating with smugness) and who happen to appear on every 4e thread because they can't stop talking about how much they hate it.. have an issue. And I am positive that I know what that issue is.

If this were a matter of simple disinterest, we'd never hear a thing from that person and it wouldn't matter.

Quote from: jeff37923;284026Then what about the converse of the 4E haters? The 4E zealots who feel that they must be in every 4E thread to demonstrate their fanatical love for it? Are they as equally unbalanced?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284023Well, obviously, I disagree, but I don't see it as pertinent. Very few fighter attacks do damage on a miss (Reaping Strike does do a minimal amount of damage on a miss, but that's a standout example.) In any case, I think the dragon breath save from 3e is probably a better analogy. "You saved! You only take HALF the damage..."

• My opinion is not pertinent.
• It's correct that this exists, but it's only in a few cases.
• The same thing happened in previous editions (even if it's not really the same thing - see around page 78 or so of the 1e DMG).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284023We had similar save or take half effects in AD&D1e, at least with traps and poison, so it shouldn't be an alien concept.  But obviously it's a new way to explain an attack.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284023There's even a feat ("Warborn Fury Style"- it's an Arena fighting style that appears in DDI) that will allow fighters to boost the damage they do on a miss with that particular power by +2.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284023er..
I only told you about that last part to get you mad, I admit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284029Why should love be a crime? This is a fandom website, isn't it?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284029Why should love be a crime? This is a fandom website, isn't it?

Quote from: Koltar;284036Love should NOT be a crime  - I also believe this...[/SIZE]

Quote from: jeff37923;284003AM, I like your art and still want to commission more stuff from you, but your opinion of people who don't like 4E sounds like something straight out of the Pretentious Gamers playbook.

Quote from: StormBringer;283918I think you are about the last person on the thread who hasn't realized this, but it is a combination of many factors.

Quote from: Seanchai;284039Check out the thread's title. You think you're going to endlessly bitch about 4e and receive a warm welcome from 4e fans? Really?

Seanchai

Quote from: droog;284038It is if you're a pedophile!

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;283964You're confusing me with someone else, Cav. I'm not the guy who wrote that article, "Tyranny of Fun", nor am I an "edition purist". Now admittedly, since 4e was announced, I think I've probably made about half-a-dozen non-positive posts about 4e, but I think I've been reasonable in my evaluations. A couple of my posts were in a 4e playtest report on this very website, a couple of them were made here in this very thread, and I'm sure I said something else about 4e on this website. That's it. No shouting here, chief. If you've seen my posts in the Gameplay subforum, you'd realize I'm not one of those "bitter non-gamers". That just ain't me.

Don't get me wrong. The 3e/4e "Edition Wars" crap is tons of fun to read, and people speculating about 4e is interesting, but for me, the actual gameplay and writing of 4e is boring, and untrue to its roots. That's my opinion anyway. And if you want some real honesty, it's true that I was initially disgruntled over 4e, but then I quickly got over it. Why? A couple reasons. First, the 3.x community is still going strong, and there are many other non-3.x games out there as well. Another reason is that I have my own group. Also, I've come to the conclusion that 4e is temporary. The "Edition Treadmill" is the new way of things, and I've come to accept it. 4e won't be in print long enough to really matter that much. It'll be funny to see Pathfinder still in print, while 4e is canceled, while 5e will be the new game in town. Or maybe they'll make D&D into an MMO instead. Who knows?

Quote from: droog;284045I didn't mean you, doofus.

Quote from: jeff37923;284042You cannot stand any criticism, however tongue-in-cheek, about 4E.

Quote from: CavScout;284048I generally don't see fans of 4E telling other edition fans that there game isn't a "real rpg" or the like, that seems to flow one way at 4E.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284001Provide a link.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284001we'll count the events this year and we'll just compare what happens next year. The only way to resolve things, isn't it?

Quote from: Stuart;284050http://gryphcon.org/events.php

4e x2 slots
3.5 x9 slots
Other x13 slots

Not including all the other minis games and LARPs and stuff.  

QuoteWhat do you expect to change?  Two years after it's released everyone suddenly stops playing their favourite games and only plays your favourite game instead?

QuoteYour claims about how people playing older editions or other systems are not being part of "the hobby" or whatever you're ranting about just don't match how things are here.

QuoteI also think that while most people have favourite games, they'll play more than one game (or edition). The guy running the 4e sessions at the local con is excited about my B/X game next month, and one of the other guys in the game is putting on a 4e night that I'm thinking of going to (hence my questions about looking for someplace that could get me jazzed about giving it a try).

Quote from: jeff37923;284049Except in this thread, right?

Quote from: vomitbrown;284057my best anti-4e vitriol, ahem,

Report Post
Default Today, 08:56 PM
4e suxs!!!!!!!

http://twitter.com/vomitbrown
http://tonytriestorp.blogspot.com -Gaming BLOG
Playing: nothing

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284058Which game are we saying isn't an rpg? I will be happy to set the record straight immediately.

Quote from: jeff37923;284061But since I don't like 4E, I'm really not having fun with my preferred games and my opinion doesn't matter anymore according to you.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284056Not my claim! My claim is that people who mostly talk about stuff without playing it are cognizant in at least some way that they have already ceased to be part of the hobby.  I have, in fact, never been wrong about this.

Quote from: jeff37923;284061But since I don't like 4E, I'm really not having fun with my preferred games and my opinion doesn't matter anymore according to you.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284062Also not my claim. Thank you for allowing me to set the record straight again.

Liking or disliking is irrelevant. It's the obsession that counts.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283992Jrients aside, a good solid percentage of the "olde school movement" is people who talk about gaming because they don't actually do it anymore. And even so-- a good solid chunk of those people spend a sizable portion of their time (and blogs) talking about 4e, and insulting people who do enjoy it, because they realize in some fashion, that they no longer matter. In many cases (let's take StormBringer here) we're talking about people who haven't sat at a gaming table with other human beings in decades.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283992Nor does it occur to anyone else. Here's my hypothesis: "Casual disinterest is not the sort of emotion that naturally incites people to hatred. It's something else."
 
To understand the bitterness and hatred here, you have to understand the mental process it comes from. My personal belief (and I apologize but I really do believe this) is that a lot of you guys realize you stopped having fun with this hobby a long time ago. Right now there's a lot of clinging to the artifacts of yesteryear. Next year? Maybe not so many of you hanging around is my guess.

Quote from: James J Skach;284063Uhhh...ok...let me see if I have this straight.

In relation to playing, I've talked about 4e more than played it (4 sessions to date, another coming).

How is that I have no feeling in any way that I have ceased to be a part of the hobby? Am I just delusional about it? Do I not realize I'm no longer part of the hobby because I don't play D&D 4e? Am I brain damaged?

I mean, you've never been wrong about this...

Quote from: jeff37923;284065That is another part of the weird 4E zealotry, it reminds me a lot of the most annoying aspects of the viral marketting tactics used by The Forge when members would try and push their crap on people.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284067Which author?

Quote from: droog;284070????

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284068Meanwhile, and on a related note:

It pains me, but I feel compelled to report that per a certain podcast--both of whose hosts are swine, one of whom owns a certain fine gamestore in Oakland and also has a share in IPR--

a) Pathfinder is dead as a doornail;

b) ever since 4E happened RPGA play has been off the scale.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284076Droog is actually correct, but my particular beef with forgies is personal.

Quote from: James J Skach;284063Uhhh...ok...let me see if I have this straight.

In relation to playing, I've talked about 4e more than played it (4 sessions to date, another coming).

How is that I have no feeling in any way that I have ceased to be a part of the hobby? Am I just delusional about it? Do I not realize I'm no longer part of the hobby because I don't play D&D 4e? Am I brain damaged?

I mean, you've never been wrong about this...

Quote from: droog;284075Sorry, don't like the Frankfurters.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284078You misunderstand. I'm saying plenty of people have no feelings one way or the other, and that has nothing to do with anything. But when we start looking at people who are obsessed with talking about how much they hate 4e, and they just can't stop? I think it indicates something. Jimbo's BNG is a better description than I've given.

Quote from: jeff37923;284049Except in this thread, right?

Quote from: Koltar;284081Again, in the lamest Rodney King voice imitation: "Can't we all just get along?"

At the stores localy and the groups I see 3rd/e D&D and 4th/e D&D fans seem to get along alright. The pathfinder society too.

 We seem to have pretty strong presence of the Pathfinder folk in the area.

Quote from: James J Skach;284085Then I give up. You've successfully worn me to the point that I can't figure out to whom you are referring - and you apparently don't want to make it clear for reasons that escape me.

Have fun.

Quote from: CavScout;284086The only thing in this thread is folks saying 4E is as much as an RPG as OD&D. Now if you take that to mean OD&D ain't an RPG....

Quote from: jeff37923;284089I'm out of this one, have fun masturbating...

Quote from: CavScout;284090If you can't find where folks said what you claimed, that's ok.

Quote from: Seanchai;284041In other words, they aren't actually "provably" full of it. When asked what you're going to prove it with, you point to vagaries.

(Again, your original statement: "In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.")

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;284098I will prove it by pointing to the opening paragraphs of the 1st edition DMG, where mini use is suggest to enhance gameplay*and never mentioned again in any other book ever.  While that seems to demand the use of miniatures or the game will be all but unplayable, it just isn't so.  Unlike page after page of power listings that contain all manner of positional prerequisites, movement effects, and ranges or distances listed in squares.  Not scale feet or yards, mind you, which would allow the use of any surface available.  Squares.  As in, squares on a battlemat.  I am having a hard time finding where the editions prior to 3.x had any measurements listed in squares.

In other words, there is nothing in editions prior to 3.x that would require the use of minis or battlemats.  Claiming that 4e has the same ability to be played without minis is disingenuous, at best.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284079That's what I was betting on. I lived in the UK during the Scargill Time, and then the Poll Tax Period. I know your ilk.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;283979I just don't see it. You guys see what you want to see from the vantage point of your hidey holes. Come out to GenCon this year (Sagamore Ballroom) and just count the events. I feel like I've had this same conversation about a million times about how D&D3 would never supplant AD&D2e. It did.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI really suspect Pathfinder won't last very long- the people who really like D&D3 are still able to play D&D3 using the original books. The people who are carrying out the glorious rebellion against WOTC don't actually want to play D&D3 at all anyhow, under any name. Goodman Games (my favorite of the third party publishers) has mostly given up on D&D3 material in favor of supporting (surprise) D&D4.  Green Ronin and Mongoose are supporting their own systems. Pathfinder is going to end up holding the bag for the glorious revolutionaries who will abandon them just as quickly as they signed on. They're happy to cheer Paizo on, but when it comes down to the first 30-40$ rulebook? I don't think it's going to sell.

Heck, you can go to one of ye olden grognards right now and see where he is linking approvingly to Erik Mona talking ON THE PATHFINDER forums, about how anyone who isn't "down with Vancian Magic" being "lost to them.." and you can also see that same olden grognard admitting of course he wouldn't touch an edition of D&D created after 1989. Paizo finds itself in the unenviable position of having customers who are actually not customers.

Which I'm not sure will be "funny" as you say, but in the end is really too bad. D&D3 is a great game, it's just a bit harder to manage at the low and high ends.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284105You're forgetting something there, chief. Back in the day, it wasn't corporate policy to create a new edition every few years. Things have changed. We didn't have the OGL back then. Now we do. We didn't have the "Edition Treadmill" in effect back then. Now we do. In 2000, WoTC ceased publication of 2e, then in 2003, they stopped publishing 3e, and in 2008, they stopped publishing 3.5. Now how long do you think it'll be before 4e is out of print? The answer to that is....not long..

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284105Dude, if Pathfinder or some other 3.x knockoff isn't doing well in five or six years, then I'll eat my hat. By that time, 4e will be out of print. I don't know why that thought hurts you, unless you're some kind of 4e zealot.

Let's face facts. 4e is the most popular rpg today, but this situation is temporary. WoTC sells a new edition every few years, before their sales dry up too much. That's just how they operate now. They have what's known as the "Planned Obsolescence Model". Sell a game, sell some supplements, wait a few years, then rinse and repeat. It's not really that much of a secret. When WoTC comes out with 4.5 or 5.0 or whatever, tons of people will drop 4e like a hot potato, and embrace the shiny new game holding the D&D brand. All this horseshit will start all over again in five years, and we'll be having the exact same discussion we're having now, only I'll be saying, "I told you so", and you, naturally, will dismiss me and others of my kind as irrelevant, while the 3.x player base will be somewhat smaller but still active, and the 4e player base will be in Limbo.

Then the 5e zealots will rabidly froth at the mouth in the same manner that the 4e zealots currently do when anyone dares say anything non-positive about their precious game. And so the cycle continues.

Quote from: CavScout;284086The only thing in this thread is folks saying 4E is as much as an RPG as OD&D. Now if you take that to mean OD&D ain't an RPG....

Quote from: RandallS;2841194e is as much a RPG as OD&D, however, it is not all that similar to OD&D in design, mechanics, or actual play at the table. You can roleplay just fine with both of them -- just as you can with any other RPG.

What annoys me isn't the claim that 4e is a roleplaying game (as it obviously is one), but that 4e is more like OD&D than any other version of D&D -- and the misinformation about OD&D some 4e fans put out to support that claim.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284105You're forgetting something there, chief. Back in the day, it wasn't corporate policy to create a new edition every few years. Things have changed. We didn't have the OGL back then. Now we do. We didn't have the "Edition Treadmill" in effect back then. Now we do.

Quote from: RandallS;284119What annoys me isn't the claim that 4e is a roleplaying game (as it obviously is one), but that 4e is more like OD&D than any other version of D&D -- and the misinformation about OD&D some 4e fans put out to support that claim.

Quote from: CavScout;284135That OD&D was intended to be played on a battle-map and likely with miniatures, just like 4E? 'Cause that ain't misinformation, that is fact.

Quote from: CavScout;284135What "misinformation" is that? That OD&D was intended to be played on a battle-map and likely with miniatures, just like 4E? 'Cause that ain't misinformation, that is fact.

Quote from: CavScout;284134Yeah, good thing there was only one version of D&D back in the day... well... OD&D White... oh, forgot Basic D&D.... oh, yeah... Expert D&D... and then it was Holmes, Moldvay or Mentzer versions.

Yeah.. no "edition treadmill" back then.

Quote from: CavScout;284100Only if you pretend OD&D never was released.... with some weird title of "Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns playable with Paper and Pencil and Minature Figures"

QuoteEDIT: Oh, yeah, OD&D didn't use "squares" they used "inches" instead for their spell descriptions... not because their spells had shitty ranges but because they were expected to be played with minis and a battle-map!

QuoteExample from Men & Magic:

Quote from: CavScout;284134Yeah.. no "edition treadmill" back then.

Quote from: RandallS;284140Sorry, but that not how the designers played it nor how that vast majority (say 85% to 95%) of the OD&D games in the 1970s were played. So it's misinformation -- and nearly every player who played back then will tell you that.  Reading issues of The Strategic Review and The Dragon magazine from OD&D period will show that. Fanzines from the era will show that. Etc.

Quote from: StormBringer;284150No, those were 'scale inches'. Easily converted to any other type of measurement, if you so chose.

Quote from: KenHR;284154The rules as written also invited you to throw away any rule you wanted.

Quote from: CavScout;284160As one could with any game, if one so decided but then we are back to the good ol' "but you can house rule it" defense.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284112Gamers. Always predicting the future, never seeing the present.

Quote from: CavScoutAs one could with any game, if one so decided but then we are back to the good ol' "but you can house rule it" defense.

Quote from: James J Skach;284161The point being it was not a house rule to eschew the use of minis - the rules did not require mini use.

Why is that so difficult to fathom?

OK, so let's keep in this line. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you could say that 4e doesn't require minis either.

Given the rules, which do you think is easier to play without minis?

Quote from: CavScout;284167Converting 1 inch or 1 square is pretty much the same.

Quote from: CavScout;284167Converting 1 inch or 1 square is pretty much the same.

Quote from: CavScout;284160As one could with any game, if one so decided but then we are back to the good ol' "but you can house rule it" defense.

QuoteFor some reason, a small number of very vocal people on the Net are pushing the idea that early versions of Dungeons & Dragons stressed tactical combat and used miniatures and battlemats. I suspect this is being done to try to counter arguments that WOTC editions of D&D, particularly the new fourth edition, are more of a tactical minis game than a roleplaying game.

Whether Fourth Edition is more of a tactical minis game than a roleplaying game is debatable. What is not debatable is that early editions of TSR D&D handled combat very abstractly and did not need miniatures or battlemats to play -- even though the game evolved out of the fantasy supplement to a set of medieval miniatures rules. Very few people used miniatures at all in the early years -- there were not even any for sale until a couple of years after the publication of Original D&D. Once they became available, most players did not use them in combat, at most they used them to show their party's marching order.

Miniatures (or counters to replace them) were not written into the rules -- other than occasional mentions how they added visual appeal or could be useful to show where characters and monsters were in combat -- until the Player's Option books were published for "revised" second edition AD&D. There had been D&D-based mass combat miniatures games (Swords & Spells for OD&D, Battlesystem for AD&D), but these were for fighting out battles between armies, not for use in normal roleplaying encounters. Some players who loved detailed, tactical combat adapted such games for individual combat and used those system in place of the normal abstract D&D combat system, but this was unusual.

The rules to early versions of D&D do not support the idea that minis were suggested, let alone required, for combat. Not only is the combat systems used in OD&D, AD&D 1E, B/X D&D, and BECMI D&D very abstract, but those rules and the examples of play therein seldom even mention minis. Here are some examples from the 1970s.

Here is a link to a description of a sample OD&D combat (http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=links&action=display&thread=301) from a FAQ originally published in TSR's The Strategic Review newsletter in 1975.

From a column by Gary Gygax in The Dragon #15 (June 1978):
   For about two years D&D was played without benefit of any visual aids by the majority of enthusiasts. They held literally that it was a paper and pencil game, and if some particular situation arose which demanded more than verbalization, they would draw or place dice as tokens in order to picture the conditions. In 1976 a movement began among D&Ders to portray characters with actual miniature figurines.From the Holmes Basic Set's description of the game:   The Dungeon Master designs the dungeons and makes careful maps on graph paper. The players do not know where anything is located in the dungeons until the game begins and they enter the first passage or room. They create their own map as they explore. While only paper and pencil need be used, it is possible for the characters of each player to be represented by miniature lead figures which can be purchased inexpensively from hobby stores or directly from TSR Hobbies. The results of combat, magic spells, monster attacks, etc., are resolved by rolling special polyhedral 20-sided dice which come with this game.Later in the book, the author explains why OD&D used inches for distance instead of feet or yards. Note that is only says wargames were used to using these measures, not that they used minis to fight out D&D combats.   Since DUNGEONS & DRAGONS was originally written for wargamers who are used to miniature figures, distances are often given in inches. Inches can be converted to feet by multiplying by ten: 1 inch = 10 feet, 2 inches = 20 feet, etc. This scales the movement appropriately for maneuvering the figures on the top of a gaming table.My personal experience starting in 1975 was: no miniatures, but as DM I did sometimes sketch the positions of stuff in battle on a blank sheet of paper. I did buy a copy of Chainmail when I bought my brown box set of D&D because it was mentioned in the D&D booklets, but then quickly discovered it was not actually needed as the alternative system in the D&D rule books was better and in the rule books (i.e. one less book to look stuff up in). I played with and knew of over 20 different area groups in 1975-1978 era and only one used Chainmail for combat. Most did not even own a single copy of the Chainmail rules between their players.

By 1977, my group was using miniatures to track the "standard marching order" of characters. However, the miniatures were not used in combat at all. Heck, they were only moved when the marching order of the characters made a permanent change. We had tracked marching order on a piece of paper, but one of the best miniatures painters in the area (he was a Napoleonics gamer) joined my game in early 1977 and had this beautifully painted miniature for his character. He offered to paint a figure for all the regulars if they would buy the figure and give him a couple of bucks for his materials. Everyone took him up on it.

When Melee and Wizard came out from Metagaming, most players in my group liked them and enjoyed playing them while waiting for people to arrive or at other odd intervals. So we decided to try using them to fight out combats in the game. That lasted for one game session. After that experience, we decided that using those tactical games for combat made combat too time-consuming and made the entire session too focused on combat. We went back to D&D's abstract but fast combats. While we enjoyed playing tactical skirmish games as independent games, turning RPG combat into a tactical skirmish game was not the way we wanted to go.

Early versions of D&D were not designed for detailed tactical combat nor did they need minis and battlemats to use their combat rules. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply incorrect.

Quote from: StormBringer;284172Except you can't.

And it isn't a 'defence', because you have provided nothing substantial to 'defend' against.  Since you clearly haven't read the blog entry RandallS linked to...

Quote from: CavScout;284167Converting 1 inch or 1 square is pretty much the same.

• indicate how many rules in OD&D were dependent on that representation?
• indicate how many rules in 4e are dependent on the representation?
• see any difference at all?

Quote from: CavScout;284173Why would I look at a blog when I can look at the rules, themselves, as they were released?

Your defense, as has others have clinged to, seems to be that we should ignore the rules and talk about how it was played instead. Of course, those telling us how it was played, just happen to be those who dislike 4E. Nice that.

Quote from: RandallS;284140So it's misinformation -- and nearly every player who played back then will tell you that.

Quote from: CavScout;284135What "misinformation" is that? That OD&D was intended to be played on a battle-map and likely with miniatures, just like 4E? 'Cause that ain't misinformation, that is fact.

Quote from: RandallS;284152Multiple editions, yes -- but not a treadmill designed to force people to drop their current system for the next one by stopping production and support for previous editions.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284162Is anyone here really naive enough to believe that 4e won't be out of print in a few years? Anyone? Because the knowledge of that reality has subtle effects on the present.

Quote from: CavScout;284173Why would I look at a blog when I can look at the rules, themselves, as they were released?

QuoteDungeons and Dragons (you have it)

Outdoor Survival (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Avalon Hill Company, 4517 Harford Road, Baltimore, MD. 21214)

Dice -- the following different kinds of dice are needed
        1 pair 4-sided dice             1 pair 20-sided dice
        1 pair 8-sided dice             1 pair 12-sided dice
        4 to 20 pairs 6-sided dice

Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Tactical Studies Rules, 542 Sage Street, Lake Geneva, Wi. 53147)

1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player)

Graph Paper (6 1 ines per inch is best)

Sheet Protectors (heaviest possible)

3 - Ring Lined Paper

Drafting Equipment and Colored Pencils

Scratch Paper and Pencils

Imagination

1 Patient Referee

Players

Quote from: James J Skach;284174That hardly answers my question. You take one aspect - proportional representation (which, contrary to your assertion, is also not the same) and eschew all of the rules that are more dependent on that information.

OK - so let's say you're right; that is, the scaling versus use of squares is irrelevant. Can you:

• indicate how many rules in OD&D were dependent on that representation?
• indicate how many rules in 4e are dependent on the representation?
• see any difference at all?

Quote from: StormBringer;284176Again, it's not a defence.  You have presented nothing to warrant such.  I am simply providing the overwhelming evidence that you are incapable of correctly interpreting this or any other set of rules.  You have yet to offer anything substantial about these 'rules' you claim exist demanding the use of miniatures.

Which is because you don't hold the position you claim.  Your only position is 'contrary'.  Any manner of disinformation or outright factual errors will be employed to that end.

Quote from: Spinachcat;284181"Intended" is debatable.  

Although the retro-roleplaying micro-fad would like to retcon reality, it stands clearly that the rules for OD&D and AD&D involved movement rates and distance measurements to a far greater extent than any "paper and pencil" game would require.

It was these precise rules that got thrown out, ignored or houseruled by those of us who prefered to game without minis.

QuoteFor fucks sake, welcome to the entertainment industry!    Did anyone buy an Xbox 360, Wii or PS 3 with the belief that Nintendo would never, ever possibly try to sell them a PS 4?

By 2015, there will be a new edition of Warhammer, Magic, White Wolf, Shadowrun, D&D and everyone else who wants to make money.  THAT is the nature of the business.

Quote from: KenHR;284186But...but...minis aren't required in the rulebook...Randall just showed you that....

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284162I notice you haven't actually refuted what I said. :) Is anyone here really naive enough to believe that 4e won't be out of print in a few years? Anyone? Because the knowledge of that reality has subtle effects on the present. WoTC hid the fact that they were working on a new edition for years. Why? Because it would have hurt their current sales at the time. So when do we think they'll start working on a new edition this time? I guarantee you they're at least thinking about it already, though they'd surely never admit it.

Quote from: CavScout;284188And more to the point, the rules were eventually dropped from other editions of D&D. It's readily apparent, that as written, that OD&D was designed to play on a battle-map of some type. I mean do people seriously believe that they put miniatures in the figgen title with no intention on them being used?  

Quote from: Spinachcat;284181Although the retro-roleplaying micro-fad would like to retcon reality, it stands clearly that the rules for OD&D and AD&D involved movement rates and distance measurements to a far greater extent than any "paper and pencil" game would require.

It was these precise rules that got thrown out, ignored or houseruled by those of us who prefered to game without minis.  

Quote from: KenHR;284190Chainmail was explicitly noted in the rules as being needed only for the combat resolution system, i.e. the dice rolling.

Quote from: droog;284193Precisely, Holmes. How you figured out those cones of effect without some sort of representation was beyond me.

Quote from: droog;284193Precisely, Holmes. How you figured out those cones of effect without some sort of representation was beyond me.

Quote from: KenHR;284186But...but...minis aren't required in the rulebook...Randall just showed you that....

Quote from: Sigmund;284192My point is, who the fuck cares if that's how they intended it? The fact of the matter is that all previous editions of DnD were a very great deal easier to play without the use of minis and maps than 4e. That's unfortunately the simple truth of it due to the design choices made during the creation of the 4e rules. I love minis and maps, and would use them whether the rules are designed around it or not, but for folks who prefer not to use them, 4e is the single worst edition yet released. For them, the work involved in altering and removing all the rules that depend on minis and maps makes simply choosing a different game the more attractive option. I can't make this same statement about previous editions. I've played every version of DnD since the Holmes basic, and I've played every version except 4e both with and without minis and maps. I wouldn't even consider putting in the effort to convert 4e when I could just play a different game. I've posted examples in this very thread demonstrating why I arrive at this conclusion. If you know a way to play 4e without using minis and maps and without extensive and time-consuming rules mods, I challenge you to explain this method, at which time I, and no doubt others, will concede and grant you your as yet completely vague and unsupported point.

Quote from: RandallS;284198What I don't understand is why it is apparently so important to some people to get people to believe that OD&D combat was played out using miniatures, battlemats, and tactical minis combat rules?  OD&D wasn't written that way nor was it usually played that way. And I just don't understand while some people feel some type of apparently very strong need to convince people that it was otherwise. This makes about as much sense to me as having a very strong need to try to convince people that green really is red. Why would you want to do so? Color me confused. :confused:

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, the way I did it in my earliest AD&D campaigns was we drew the battle out on scratch paper, but the net result was exactly the same as if we had used miniatures

Quote from: SigmundWhen I DMed I would just look at the map, either mine or the one the players were making, which ever were more convenient, since only rough estimates of range and position were needed for spell areas.

Quote from: CavScout;284185You probably should go back to pseudo-ignoring me. I've presented the rules as they were written while others have tried to say that the way they were written was not they way it was played.

You've only offered "you being contrary" as rebuttal to the actual rules being presented. Of course that's not really a "defense" either.

Quote from: RandallS;284198What I don't understand is why it is apparently so important to some people to get people to believe that OD&D combat was played out using miniatures, battlemats, and tactical minis combat rules?  OD&D wasn't written that way nor was it usually played that way. And I just don't understand while some people feel some type of apparently very strong need to convince people that it was otherwise. This makes about as much sense to me as having a very strong need to try to convince people that green really is red. Why would you want to do so? Color me confused. :confused:

Quote from: RandallS;284198What I don't understand is why it is apparently so important to some people to get people to believe that OD&D combat was played out using miniatures, battlemats, and tactical minis combat rules?  OD&D wasn't written that way nor was it usually played that way. And I just don't understand while some people feel some type of apparently very strong need to convince people that it was otherwise. This makes about as much sense to me as having a very strong need to try to convince people that green really is red. Why would you want to do so? Color me confused. :confused:

Quote from: droog;284201But that's house-ruling, right? I recognised it as such at the time.

Quote from: CavScout;284184How about you answer that question? You seem to know, so why not tell us?

Quote from: SigmundAll I'm saying is that the depth of assumption rules-wise makes 4e a much poorer choice for players who prefer not to use minis and maps than any other previous editions. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that point.

Quote from: droog;284212I'll grant that if a set of rules is tightly integrated, it's harder to house-rule without unknown emergent effects. Beyond that I can't comment.

Quote from: droog;284193Precisely, Holmes. How you figured out those cones of effect without some sort of representation was beyond me.

Quote from: StormBringer;284204I mentioned it before, but it seems to be a desperate need to connect this version with earlier versions, as it is quite clear 4e is virtually a complete re-boot, having almost no connection mechanically or thematically with those earlier versions.

Quote from: Sigmund;284192My point is, who the fuck cares if that's how they intended it?

Quote from: Spinachcat;284181Although the retro-roleplaying micro-fad would like to retcon reality, it stands clearly that the rules for OD&D and AD&D involved movement rates and distance measurements to a far greater extent than any "paper and pencil" game would require.

It was these precise rules that got thrown out, ignored or houseruled by those of us who prefered to game without minis.

Quote from: CavScout;284219Preciously because that is what folks are frothing at the mouth about. I mean, shit, if it’s no big deal if that’s how the rule were written why are folks going out of the minds trying to say it wasn’t written that way?

QuoteSo, if they were written that way, why can’t folks just say, “yeah, you’re right they were” and move one?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284191Counterpoint: How long was OD&D in print before AD&D came out? I mean it had to be at least 30 years, right? OD&D was 1974 and AD&D was.. oh holy crap! Yeah 4 years between OD&D and AD&D. And less than that between versions of basic, and some people played sort of a mish mash of basic and AD&D or played both.. But we didn't care back then, right? Well we didn't. Because we were actually playing back then, and living in the present, and it didn't matter.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNew editions are a fact of life. Living in the present is something that happens if you are actually playing. So it doesn't matter if theres a new edition. I'm not in the hobby because I collect books. I play every week. So every single week from 2001 to early 2005 (I was a late adopter of 3.5) or so I played D&D3. And then when I eventually switched to 3.5 because I was convinced it was worth it, because they addressed certain issues about monster CRs and DR and stuff.. I was playing every week.. and well..?

At the end of it, I still played like 500 sessions of D&D (averaging 4 hours a week for 8 years straight, more on gamedays and less on vacations.. yeah..) with a very large, and very enthusiastic group. So I think I got my moneys worth and then some. So it really doesn;t matter if a new version of D&D came out halfway through. It still comes down to like pennies per hour with awesome returns.

If I had bought some other game, (let's say it's called Hoobly doobly, $15 MSRP, and it's the new sensation and its totaly OLDE SCHOOL or whatever) I think I would have had a way harder time forming a group, and gotten less play, so maybe payed less up front, but ended up paying more money for less chances to play and (net result, even if we just look at hours of fun where fun was potentially had..) - less fun, then I would have to spend my time being sad on my blog, railing against the establishment, and writing about how cool Frank Mentzer was until he "sold out" and founded the RPGA.

Quote from: jgants;284117I don't understand your argument - why do you assume 3e will live on forever, but all other editions of D&D will fall by the wayside?  Is it some kind of "faith" thing, or do you have any data whatsoever that suggests it could actually happen?

Quote from: jgantsContrary to what the online world suggests, IRL most people don't play older editions of games.  OD&D is deader than Dillinger, and all the old school retro-clones in the world won't ressurect it.  Same goes for BD&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e.  Those days are gone.  Sure some people still like them - some people like to program Apple II emulators for modern computers, too, but that doesn't make them relevent to the modern computing world.

3e's sun will set.  It will not last forever.  Times change.  People's tastes change.  I doubt it will last to any meaningful level more than a couple more years.

Quote from: jgantsObviously 4e won't last forever, either.  No edition of any game does.  Planned obsolesence may be the business model, but even if it wasn't the fact is that people would move on eventually anyways.  The styles of other forms of entertainment constantly evolve and change, RPGs are no different.

Of course, I don't buy a game hoping it will last forever anyways.  I buy a game hoping to have fun with it for a while then put it back on the shelf.  I'll play out my 4e campaign to completion, then probably never touch it again in favor of playing something else (maybe it will be 5e by that time, maybe it will be some other game).

Quote from: jgantsTo me, the warning cry of "4th edition will be obsolete soon!" makes about as little sense as yelling out "Call of Duty 4 will be obsolete soon!" or "This season of Lost won't last forever!" or even "The 2011 Camry will be different!"  It's kind of a "duh".

Quote from: Sigmund;284222...or is James right and you're simply being contrary for it's own sake?

Quote from: James J Skach;284224As much as I appreciate the sentiment, we must give credit where credit is due - as in Stormbringer.

Quote from: James J Skach;284210Is this that old "I know you are but what am I" argument for which you've become notorious?

QuoteLet me ask you this - did you play AD&D? Did you find it a requirement to use minis? I know you're old enough to have been the right age to at least have played first edition, right? What was your experience?

Quote from: Sigmund;284222Probably for the same reason you're trying so strenuously to prove that they were written that way. Does that have some kind of relevance to any actual point you've been trying to make, or is Stormbringer right and you're simply being contrary for it's own sake?

I seem to remember doing that myself. What's next?

Quote from: CavScout;284226I would point out, as I have, the similarities on the assumption that one is using a battle-map of some sort with something, likely minis, marking positions. I am simply not doing work to prove what the other side is claiming, that's for them to support if they can.

Quote from: CavScout;284227So if you agree that OD&D was indeed written that way, why argue with me? Why not tell Stormie he's wrong? You're actually going to say that I am "simply being contrary for its own sake" when here you are, still being contrary even though you say we actually agree.

Seriously, WTF?

Quote from: Spinachcat;284218On the fly, based on the GM descriptions plus some random dice rolls if necessary.  The answer to the question "how wide is it?" was often "wide enough to catch 3 orcs, but not the 4th one ganking your cleric" and the game kept moving...except for the ganked cleric.

Quote from: James J Skach;284221Ahhh...

So, OG - how would you characterize the use of minis, the requirements thereof (or not), and how it differs through versions?

Or is that too involved and "Like Gary" should be enough?

Quote from: kregmosier;284239wonder why the OP hasn't posted again...?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: kregmosier;284239wonder why the OP hasn't posted again...?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: CavScout;284226I didn't start on OD&D. I started with the red box set. I don't think that or AD&D used things like "inches" to indcate spell ranges or effects. That component of OD&D had been dropped by those editions.

Quote from: droog;284234And so you're saying that 4e is just as easy to roll with on the fly?

Quote from: Spinachcat;284243However, 4e combat is a skirmish boardgame so unlike 0e, everything halts while we break out map boards and minis and far more monster stats than ever needed in 0e.  But honestly, the same thing happened when we played AD&D with minis and battlemats.

Quote from: StormBringer;284244What happened when you didn't break out the minis and battlemats?

Quote from: Sigmund;284233WTF is, we don't agree. The difference is, I actually provide examples and make valid points. I say that despite the assumptions involved, 4e in reality requires minis and maps and OD&D does not. We can guess at the assumptions, but arguing about the assumptions of folks we don't know and either haven't or can't ask for further info is kinda pointless.

Quote from: CavScout;284226I didn't start on OD&D. I started with the red box set. I don't think that or AD&D used things like "inches" to indcate spell ranges or effects. That component of OD&D had been dropped by those editions.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284223Abby, your counterpoint is actually beside the point, because, before 3e, the various editions of D&D often existed simultaneously, and could easily be used as supplements for each other. Compatibility issues were minor. Even 3.x could be used with these older editions of D&D, though surely with more difficulty.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284223For starters, 3.x and the various OGL games have so much support than the other editions of D&D, that it's enough to blow a person's mind. 4e will never have that level of support, as Hasbro's official "planned obsolescence model" and castration of the GSL has seen to that. Furthermore, the OGL is eternal, or at least until old laws are overturned or the sun goes supernova (whichever comes first). Finally, 3.x and the OGL still enjoy support in some form via Pathfinder, Conan, Castles & Crusades, True20, and more.

Games such Castles & Crusades and Hackmaster enjoyed support and success for many years, so I don't see why Pathfinder or another 3.x clone would enjoy any less.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284223Okay, this last section of your post is about as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop. You're equating technological advancements with roleplaying games. Why indulge in such fappery? This analogy is flawed, and should never be used by anyone, ever again. It's not productive, so please stop it.

Quote from: jgants;284259OD&D is not very compatible at all with AD&D.  Nor was the BD&D line very cross-compatible with AD&D.

Quote from: jgants;284259In any event, I offer these non-technological examples: Disco, Leave it to Beaver style sitcoms, Rock Hudson/Doris Day style romance movies, and hex and chit wargames.

Quote from: jgants;284259I, too, started with BD&D (though with the Moldvay sets).  

I never even saw OD&D - or even knew it existed - until a few years ago (oh, what I have learned about the hobby since the advent of the Internet).  Previously, I had mistakingly thought Holmes was the oldest edition (except for Chainmail).  Actually, now that I have seen it, I'm less than impressed - OD&D compared to any other version of D&D reminds me of comparing Cro-Magnon man to Homo Sapiens: I see the resemblence, but its really primitive.

As for the inch question - AD&D used inches, red box used feet.

Quote from: jgants;284259OD&D is not very compatible at all with AD&D.

Quote from: KenHR;284260AD&D was OD&D + Supplements gathered together and codified.  Very compatible.

And we never had a problem using BD&D materials with AD&D or vice-versa.  Didn't even have to spend time converting..

Quote from: KenHR;284260Hex and chit wargames are still around and doing well.  Before you say they're a very niche hobby (and they are), so is what we discuss here.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284266:confused:

Was I playing it wrong?

Admittedly, I played "Take what I like from AD&D and add it to my game and fuck the rest", but that's the way we always played.

Quote from: Stuart;284270I think that's pretty much how we all played it. :D

Quote from: jgants;284267I won't argue the OD&D vs AD&D point because I'm not familiar enough with OD&D or (especially) all its supplements.  I can say that when I look at the two they don't look remotely alike.

Quote from: jgants;284267What we discuss here is still a viable commercial enterprise with an active, widespread fan base.  Hex and chit wargaming has pretty much been reduced to a cottage industry that I could hold a world tournament for in my house.  There's niche and then there's niche.

Quote from: CavScout;284253Yes, because actually pointing out the rules, as written, is not "examples", right?

Quote"The use of paper, pencil and map boards are standard" isn't an example.

Quote"Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition" as part of the equipment list isn't an example, either.

QuoteI mean, shit, even 4E says "You might find some of the following items and accessories useful at your game table.
-Miniatures
-Battle Grid or Dungeon Tiles"

Quote from: Stuart;284272I don't think anyone here actually believes OD&D and 4e play the same or have the same requirement for minis.  Gary Gygax and Mike Mearls are just two people with plenty of quotes to back that up.

The only reason this is still being debated here is because some people are getting a giggle out of being contrarians just to keep the argument going.  

And ultimately, if a couple of people on the internet want to pretend the earth is flat, or 9/11 was an inside job, or a French time-traveler went back to 1974 and made everyone in Lake Geneva use minis and battle-mats... as long as they're having fun, that's great. :D

Quote from: StormBringer;284244What happened when you didn't break out the minis and battlemats?

Quote from: Sigmund;284280No. Chainmail being included in the Recommended Equipment list is only an option, albeit the default one, since an alternate combat system is presented in the Men & Magic book that makes no mention of miniatures or positioning whatsoever.

QuoteIt might say that, but like I already pointed it, the designers then went and designed rules within the game that heavily revolve around mini and mat use. I'll now demonstrate by providing actual examples of the rules I'm referring to.

Powers would include...
Turn Undead, Guardian of Faith, Command, Split the Sky, Blade Barrier, Knight of Unyielding Valor, hell, I'm tired of listing them. Note that these are only cleric powers and only to lvl 10. I also didn't include any of the area effect spells or spells with secondary targets within certain ranges that would all have to be converted from squares to feet, either beforehand or on the fly. Add to that all the similar powers of every class, like the wizard's Thunderwave, the fighter's Tide of Iron, etc.... that all make use of exact positioning and battlefield terrain to gain their full benefit.

Quote from: StormBringer;284244What happened when you didn't break out the minis and battlemats?

Quote from: Spinachcat;284282The 4e decision to make Minis Mandatory was simple: we have become less imaginative as a culture than in 1974 and we demand more visual stimulus...plus gamers really like minis so WotC can sell them constantly.

Quote from: CavScout;284283The OD&D books themselves are listed in the same "Equipment" section. I guess the rules were "optional" too. I guess you don't need dice either, as they are "optional" too.

Quote from: Stuart;284272I don't think anyone here actually believes OD&D and 4e play the same or have the same requirement for minis.  Gary Gygax and Mike Mearls are just two people with plenty of quotes to back that up.

The only reason this is still being debated here is because some people are getting a giggle out of being contrarians just to keep the argument going.  

And ultimately, if a couple of people on the internet want to pretend the earth is flat, or 9/11 was an inside job, or a French time-traveler went back to 1974 and made everyone in Lake Geneva use minis and battle-mats... as long as they're having fun, that's great. :D

Quote from: CavScout;284283Of course... when playing OD&D folks could convert 1" into feet on the fly, no problem... change that to squares and suddenly there is an impossible math problem to overcome. So converting inches OK, converting squares to hard to comprehend.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284266Admittedly, I played "Take what I like from AD&D and add it to my game and fuck the rest", but that's the way we always played.

Quote from: droog;284102Don't elevate the superstructure over the base, comrade.

Quote from: CavScout;284293Wow... how the positions change as do their fortunes. We've gone from was OD&D intented to be played on a map with minis to which game is more complex or not. Pretty much every version or add-on post OD&D was more "complex" than that 3 page stable job.

Why can't folks just acknowledge that OD&D was written with battle-map and minis in mind? That and as D&D evolved it moved away from that. 4E has simply moved back in that direction more fully.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284294Conversely, seems to me anyone who's into moviegames schlock doesn't have the firmest handle on the superstructure, comrade.

Quote from: CavScout;284283The OD&D books themselves are listed in the same "Equipment" section. I guess the rules were "optional" too. I guess you don't need dice either, as they are "optional" too.

Quote from: CavScout;284293Why can't folks just acknowledge that OD&D was written with battle-map and minis in mind?

Quote from: Old Geezer;2843041 Patient Referee

Quote from: CavScout;284293Wow... how the positions change as do their fortunes. We've gone from was OD&D intented to be played on a map with minis to which game is more complex or not. Pretty much every version or add-on post OD&D was more "complex" than that 3 page stable job.

QuoteWhy can't folks just acknowledge that OD&D was written with battle-map and minis in mind? That and as D&D evolved it moved away from that. 4E has simply moved back in that direction more fully.

Quote from: RandallS;284300The problem with your "OD&D used minis and battlemats" claim is that there are no rules in the OD&D books that actually use miniatures.

Quote from: StormBringer;284311No, because, as has been overwhelmingly shown, the idea that D&D required a map and minis was a non-starter.  It was just another opportunity to show that you have no position other than 'contrary' for its own sake.  You have nothing to show for your numerous posts, aside from a conflation of 'recommended' and 'required'.  While they both start with the same two letters, a designation of 'synonym' necessitates more than a matching initial syllable.


Mainly because those are both wholly fabricated.  There isn't a shred of truth to them.  The first part is wholly incorrect, hence, the second part is prevented from being even wrong.  It has no truth-value whatsoever, because it is formulated from a false premise:  ex falso quodlibet.  Which really seems to be the entire basis of your participation in this or any thread.

Quote from: CavScout;284315Try again. Just repeating yourself over and over won't make you right. I know that's you shtick and all. Keep telling yourself that OD&D didn't have minis/battle-maps in mind with the title including miniatures, the game saying pick up their miniature game and the use of the distance for measurements throughout.

QuoteI mean, it only says it in its title but maybe that is a trick!

QuoteAnd the main stats page (pg 17) has so odd stats for the levels... oh... those are stats used in ChainMail the mini game you say? Get out!

QuoteOh wait... what's this on page 18?
"Fighting Capability: This is a key to use in conjunction with the CHAINMAIL fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein."

QuoteFighting Capability: This is a key to use in conjunction with the CHAINMAIL fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein. An alternative system will be given later for those who prefer a different method.

QuoteALTERNATIVE COMBAT SYSTEM:
This system is based upon the defensive and offensive capabilities of the combatants; such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed in the matrixes. There are two charts, one for men versus men or monsters and one for monsters (including kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc.) versus men.

QuoteBut of course, you're right.. minis.... never intended for the game. Hell... not mentioned.... much.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284303Umm.. because it wasn't?

I was there, Charlie.  Were you?  I know you're not Rob, Gary's dead, so is Tom, so is Don, so is Dave S., you're not Chip, you don't write like Tim or Ernie or Jim... Terry?  Bill?  Joe?  Other Tim?  Brian?

Quote from: James J Skach;284320The peanut butter gets into the chocolate. Now for some people, that's an awesome treat. Hell, I like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. However, I can't stand Reese's Pieces.

Quote from: StormBringer;284321That is because, Mr Skach, you are a man of wealth and taste.

Reese's Pieces are just fucking nasty.

Quote from: James J Skach;284320And that, gentlemen, is why I wanted OG's input.

Here's the thing. I think, and I'm not expert because I wasn't there either (I started with Holmes in 78-9, backtracked a bit to OD&D, then went to AD&D adding as I could until I was playing 1e entirely - of course, using Basic adventures with ease), that the older editions assumed people might use miniatures for various reasons - so the rules included ways to include them if you felt the need for whatever reason.

Quote from: CavScout;284315But of course, you're right.. minis.... never intended for the game. Hell... not mentioned.... much.

Quote from: droog;284334I thought that OG said, on the other hand, that Dave Arneson did use minis. Poor Dave, always left out of the history books.

Quote from: Stuart;284337Didn't Dave also do LARPing as part of the game?  I read someplace about how he (?) took all the players into a dark room and had someone jump out and shout "BOO!" to see which of their characters were surprised.

That's hilarious. :D

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284338So wait, does the group consensus you are seeking have "Dave Arneson is not important" as parts of it's foregone conclusion?

Quote from: Sigmund;284318I hate to say it, but it's hard to say that miniatures were given no thought at all in the design of the OD&D rules when they were created by miniatures wargamers, for at least some miniature wargamers, and the rules actually mention miniatures in the limited capacity that they do. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that they were also designed to be easily used without miniatures however.

Quote from: Stuart;284339Dave is awesome.  Jump to wacky conclusions much?

Quote from: Stuart;284337Didn't Dave also do LARPing as part of the game?  I read someplace about how he (?) took all the players into a dark room and had someone jump out and shout "BOO!" to see which of their characters were surprised.

Quote from: James J Skach;284320Newer editions, and I include 3.x in this though it's not quite as pronounced, assume people will use minis. The assumption that a physical tactical environment will be used is so deep that it seeps into the rules. It becomes evident in 3e; in 4e it's prevalent

Quote from: droog;284349Creative. But ultimately bad news for the Platonic form of old-school D&D.

Quote from: KenHR;284341CavScout, dude, I admire your tenacity, but when you have one of the guys in Gary's own group telling you you're wrong...well, you're wrong.

Quote from: Stuart;284333E.T. likes them.

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;284346D&D 4th ed is STAAAAAGNANT!! There is no creativity left in its overly rule heavy board game/mmo flavor. I played it again this past sunday. My 5th level halfling thief  needed to leap over a ten foot gap in the floor (sewage underneath). To do so in the new system you have computate this formula for your height verses the distance jumped and running start. My problem is you roll your athletics skill. I am a 98 pound three foot tall halfling I don't have an athletics skill I have acrobatics. So why can't I use acrobatics to leap. I guess all those fifteen year old Chinese girl gymnasts will have to be told they are not fit to jump. There is no way that they could possibly leap unless they are a steroid filled American baseball player. lets get real... So to make what I felt like was an easy thing to do for a guy with a 13 skill in acrobatics and a 4 in athletics do, I lied.. Thats pretty fucked up.

My problem with 4th is there is a RULE FOR EVERY STUPID ASS THING and some defy logic. OH and how about PH2, DMG2, MM2... At 40.00 a pop these ass weasels are wringing what little market there is for RPG's dry.

My two cents:
nothing witty

Quote from: Old Geezer;284347Right.

I never said that miniatures weren't mentioned; that they were OPTIONAL.  They were the SECOND default mode of play, whereas, by all accounts in 4E, miniatures and a mat are the FIRST default mode of play.

"Miniatures Optional" vs. "Non Miniatures Optional".

And a big reason it's called a miniatures game, besides deriving from CHAINMAIL, is... we didn't know what the fuck else to call it!  We honestly didn't know.  I don't remember when the term "role playing game" came about, but I want to say 1976 or 1977, WAY after the 3 brown books, and WAY WAY after the game started.

Hell, in Minneapolis they just called the game "Blackmoor", and we just called it "Greyhawk".

We recognized it was different... we just didn't know what it was!


EDIT:  It would be most clear, I think, to say that OD&D acknowledged that it was derived from a miniatures game, it ALLOWED people to use miniatures, but THE DEFAULT ASSUMPTION WAS THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT USE MINIATURES.

Among other things, LOOK AT THE STATE OF MINIATURES IN 1973.  There were NO fantasy miniatures; all our fantasy creatures for "Chainmail" were conversions.  ALL figures, except for the extremely rare and expensive "Elastolin" 40mm at about $1.50 each, were UNPAINTED.

You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.

Anything I tell you three times is true.
Anything I tell you three times is true.

Being a miniatures gamer in an existing period back then involved copious amounts of cleaning, priming, and painting figures.  Add the time of turning dinosaurs into dragons or plastic army men into ogres, and you begin to see why there were so many miniatures clubs back then, to spread out the time and effort.

We all thought miniatures were cool, but we knew damn well that only about one person in ten was actually going to expend the additional effort to use them.

Quote from: CavScout;284359Yes, because appeals to authority always make that argument right.

I guess when he tells us 4E sucks those who disagree are wrong too.

Quote from: CavScout;284359Yes, because appeals to authority always make that argument right.

Quote from: CavScout;284359Yes, because appeals to authority always make that argument right.

I guess when he tells us 4E sucks those who disagree are wrong too.

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;284346D&D 4th ed is STAAAAAGNANT!! There is no creativity left in its overly rule heavy board game/mmo flavor. I played it again this past sunday. My 5th level halfling thief  needed to leap over a ten foot gap in the floor (sewage underneath). To do so in the new system you have computate this formula for your height verses the distance jumped and running start. My problem is you roll your athletics skill. I am a 98 pound three foot tall halfling I don't have an athletics skill I have acrobatics. So why can't I use acrobatics to leap. I guess all those fifteen year old Chinese girl gymnasts will have to be told they are not fit to jump. There is no way that they could possibly leap unless they are a steroid filled American baseball player. lets get real... So to make what I felt like was an easy thing to do for a guy with a 13 skill in acrobatics and a 4 in athletics do, I lied.. Thats pretty fucked up.

My problem with 4th is there is a RULE FOR EVERY STUPID ASS THING and some defy logic. OH and how about PH2, DMG2, MM2... At 40.00 a pop these ass weasels are wringing what little market there is for RPG's dry.

My two cents:
nothing witty

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284375If you did any computing for height or anything that was complicated, chances are you are playing 3rd edition. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm)

The rules for jumping in 4th is you roll a d20, and add your athletics score. If it's a running jump, divide by 5, if its a standing jump, divide by 10. The result is the number of squares you jump.  

The only time height is involved in 4th edition is if you have to determine whether a character can jump up to reach something, like a rope. So like a 6 foot guy only has to jump 4 feet to grab a rope 10' up.. that's common sense, though, right?

If your halfing had to jump a 10' gap in the floor, he would have to get a running start and roll a 10 or higher. Inform your DM.

Quote from: Stuart;284339Dave is awesome.  Jump to wacky conclusions much?

Quote from: Old Geezer;284347Among other things, LOOK AT THE STATE OF MINIATURES IN 1973.  There were NO fantasy miniatures; all our fantasy creatures for "Chainmail" were conversions.  ALL figures, except for the extremely rare and expensive "Elastolin" 40mm at about $1.50 each, were UNPAINTED.

You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.

Anything I tell you three times is true.
Anything I tell you three times is true.

Being a miniatures gamer in an existing period back then involved copious amounts of cleaning, priming, and painting figures.  Add the time of turning dinosaurs into dragons or plastic army men into ogres, and you begin to see why there were so many miniatures clubs back then, to spread out the time and effort.

We all thought miniatures were cool, but we knew damn well that only about one person in ten was actually going to expend the additional effort to use them.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284378But Dave used miniatures. Is he not representative or important to the group consensus and foregone conclusion you are trying to establish here?

Quote from: StormBringer;284383Yes, Mr Arneson used miniatures.  Because it was his option to do so.  He was in no way required to do so, nor was the game more difficult to manage without them.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284384Never made that claim. So at least one of the founders of D&D used miniatures always. Established.

Quote from: StormBringer;284385And not one single person on this thread has made the claim that no one ever used miniatures for any reason.  So, I am having a hard time seeing the notion behind re-inforcing an utterly non-controversial point.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284386I'm like.. the United Nations of Roleplaying!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284384Never made that claim. So at least one of the founders of D&D used miniatures always. Established.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284378But Dave used miniatures. Is he not representative or important to the group consensus and foregone conclusion you are trying to establish here?

Quote from: KenHR;284372If OG says 4e sucks (I don't think he has),

Quote from: mhensley;284388Who the fuck cares if the game needs minis or not?!?  I used minis in 2nd edition games, 3rd edition games, and in the 4th edition games I played in.  Play in ANY edition of D&D is enhanced by the use of minis if for no other reason than it looks cool and people like toys.  

If you don't like to use minis, don't play 3rd or 4th edition.  Their use is virtually required in either set.  They're completely optional in earlier editions as the combat systems were simple enough not to need them.  Good god, you guys waste a lot of electrons badgering such a simple point.

4th edition has many more troublesome flaws than just the need for minis.  Extremely long combats with no concerns for simulation is one.  Changing much of the fluff and the flavor of D&D for no god damn good reason is another.

Quote from: James J Skach;284391Surely, AM, you don't think the assumptions about the use of minis are the same between the two games, do you?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284397Not at all!

Quote from: mhensley;2843884th edition has many more troublesome flaws than just the need for minis.  Extremely long combats with no concerns for simulation is one.  Changing much of the fluff and the flavor of D&D for no god damn good reason is another.

Quote from: James J Skach;284398You are the UN today!

Yay, Peace!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284399I disagree with "extremely long combats" because that hasn't been my experience with any but a novice DM. The bolded parts I completely agree with you, although I think it was for a good reason that the changes were made.

Quote from: RandallS;284403I think this depends on how you define "extremely long combats." When I run OD&D or BX/BECMI, most combats take 5 to 15 minutes real play time. Real complex combats with an important "boss monster" and henchmen might take what I consider an extremely long time: say 25 to 40 minutes.  From what I've seen of 3.x and 4e, their short combats take what I consider an extremely long time.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284357Um... seriously, what does that mean?

Quote from: Old GeezerAmong other things, LOOK AT THE STATE OF MINIATURES IN 1973. There were NO fantasy miniatures; all our fantasy creatures for "Chainmail" were conversions. ALL figures, except for the extremely rare and expensive "Elastolin" 40mm at about $1.50 each, were UNPAINTED.

You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.
You could not buy prepainted fantasy miniatures.

Anything I tell you three times is true.
Anything I tell you three times is true.

Being a miniatures gamer in an existing period back then involved copious amounts of cleaning, priming, and painting figures. Add the time of turning dinosaurs into dragons or plastic army men into ogres, and you begin to see why there were so many miniatures clubs back then, to spread out the time and effort.

We all thought miniatures were cool, but we knew damn well that only about one person in ten was actually going to expend the additional effort to use them.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, that's certainly true.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI guess I see this whole tangent as a profoundly silly diversion.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThere is no time machine and so it doesn't actually matter how or what people played before anyway. The bizarre hatred against miniatures seems a little strained, since it's just one option amongst many. And it's strange to see so many people who started playing during the Vampire age get so strident about this topic when at least some of you guys are arguiing about how people gamed before you were even born. At the end of the day, it seems incongruous to see so-called "olde schoolers" complain about their usage today, when miniatures obviously have their roots in the earliest form of the hobby. I'd think the same thing if I suddenly saw you guys making smug pronouncements about how nobody played adventures set in dungeons before, either.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284434Yet you persist in perpetuating it anyway. Isn't that something?

QuoteHere's the central point you can stop dancing around. It's trivially easy for most people to play old-school D&D without miniatures and a grid. It's almost impossible for most people to play 4e without miniatures and a grid. Will you try to dance around that statement as well?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284438Very few people actually play older versions of D&D, and for the people who do, they usually play in completely isolated groups. Completely irrelevant to what's happening now in the real world.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284438Very few people actually play older versions of D&D, and for the people who do, they usually play in completely isolated groups. Completely irrelevant to what's happening now in the real world.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284442* cries *

Quote from: jeff37923;284446It's OK, Old Geezer, he also claims that we stopped having fun playing older versions of D&D long ago.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284442* cries *

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284438Completely irrelevant to what's happening now in the real world.

Quote from: KenHR;284445Holy shit...does that mean I'm relevant when I play a newer game like Savage Worlds?  I flicker between states of relevance and non-relevance?

Quote from: StormBringer;284451You are Schrödinger's player.  No one can determine your relevance until they look.

Quote from: Sigmund;284450This is where you consistently lose me. This is only true if you define "the real world" as consisting of only you and your opinions. If that is not how you define "the real world", then the only other option is that when you post something like this you are being either stupid or arrogant, either way it's not flattering to you and your opinions. In reality, "what's happening now in the real world" from your perspective is not ever going to be exactly the same as what's going on from anyone else's perspective, so perhaps it would more appropriate to use less sweeping statements that may or may not be veiled insults, but are most likely being seen that way. While OD&D, WoD, M&M, DQ, LL, WoW, NAACP, CIA, PLO, or the MMC might not be relevant to you, it would be very safe to assume that each of them are relevant to somebody, and those somebodies all have "real worlds" too.

Quote from: James J Skach;284455I have a feeling, AM, that if we kept those arguments at arms length, we'd have less communication issues - though I'm not sure you care one way or the other, which almost makes me as melancholy as when I realized these young punks took my game from me :D

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284454I'm not talking about individual perceptions. Geez, is it really this difficult to figure out? This is standard tree-falls-in-the-forest crap.

If the same 4 guys get together and play OD&D three times weekly for 30 years straight, and have the best time human beings can possibly have, but they remain isolated, do not interact with others (which includes socializing or buying things that are game related or whatever else), develop nothing new that anyone else can experience-- they won't matter. Even if they do ALL of those things but somehow, they gain no new converts.. no significant amount of new players suddenly starts sharing this activity--  they will not matter. They will never have affected anyone else, and they will not be affected. They may exist or not exist, and it still won't matter.  

They are for all purposes invisible, immaterial and irrelevant. And gathering dust.

Why, is that offensive?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284456Yes, you have the gist of it. And yes, I actually don't care one way or the other, I just enjoy arguing..sorry!

:)

Don't take it too seriously, it's just gaming. Which I am going to go do now, since it's Thursday night.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284456... it's just gaming. Which I am going to go do now, since it's Thursday night.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284421I can definitely confirm that combat situations in 3e takes a significant amount of time and 4e takes slightly less than 3e. But here's the secret to 3E's success (and presumably 4es as well):

QuotePlayers don't "fret over" the detailed position so much as "appreciate" it because that means that during the most critical part of the game (i.e. combat)...

QuoteThus, the popularity of miniatures, and the advent of the game as a game players could actually be good at (or suck at). Also, it signified the type of game you could improve at with practice.

QuoteIn previous versions of D&D we would never ever hear anyone say "Man, there's that one guy.. he's really, really good at D&D combats. We definitely want that guy in our group...."

QuoteIn 3e (and 4e) this simply doesn't happen- it's more skill involved, and it's more of a game than a simulation....

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284454I'm not talking about individual perceptions. Geez, is it really this difficult to figure out? This is standard tree-falls-in-the-forest crap.

If the same 4 guys get together and play OD&D three times weekly for 30 years straight, and have the best time human beings can possibly have, but they remain isolated, do not interact with others (which includes socializing or buying things that are game related or whatever else), develop nothing new that anyone else can experience-- they won't matter. Even if they do ALL of those things but somehow, they gain no new converts.. no significant amount of new players suddenly starts sharing this activity--  they will not matter. They will never have affected anyone else, and they will not be affected. They may exist or not exist, and it still won't matter.  

They are for all purposes invisible, immaterial and irrelevant. And gathering dust.

Why, is that offensive?

Quote from: RandallS;284462The problem is that I and many other players I know don't consider skill at manipulating the rules and skills at using the rules tactically to be important or fun -- in a roleplaying game. If I want to deal with that, there are great skirmish minis games or boardgames that really shine at that.

QuoteWhen I play a RPG I'm looking for something much different. I want the rules to fade into the background and just let me say what my character does in the world.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284438Very few people actually play older versions of D&D, and for the people who do, they usually play in completely isolated groups. Completely irrelevant to what's happening now in the real world.

Quote from: James J Skach;284455Why is it that every time I look at this thread I get a headache?

you have to learn to interpret what AM is talking about when he says relevance and such. I don't like his verbiage and I think he's a bit over the edge in his assessment.

But would anyone deny that there are less people playing OD&D, AD&D and 2e combined than play 4e? Nah - that would be silly.

Now AM takes the network externalities thing into account and extrapolates that this means if you're not playing the latest version, which to date seems to always tower over the others (and anything else on the market), you're not relevant. I'm never quite sure how to take this. I get what he's saying; I'm not sure the impact is a foregone conclusion - particularly with the SRD and OGL out there.

I do know one thing. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I am no longer, apparently, the main stream of gaming. I'm cool with that. I'm just not sure what it has to do specifics of how the game actually works.

I have a feeling, AM, that if we kept those arguments at arms length, we'd have less communication issues - though I'm not sure you care one way or the other, which almost makes me as melancholy as when I realized these young punks took my game from me :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;284465My involvement with Dragonsfoot and game conventions leads me to believe that there is a much larger AD&D faction out there than people imagine.   I am not talking about the retro-cloners.  I am talking about the sheer number of these "isolated groups" who dot the country.  

I am constantly amazed by the number of gamers at cons I meet who have zero involvement with the online gaming community and who have not bought any new product in 20+ years.  

But...they game every week or every month.

Quote from: CavScout;284464+1 for sneaking in the suggestion that the editions you don't play are more boardgame than rpg.

QuoteThen why buy a game with rules at all?

Quote from: RandallS;284462D&D started out able to accomodate a huge variety of play styles.

Quote from: droog;284475Now that's where I disagree. D&D has always been a very specific type of fantasy adventure.

Quote from: RandallS;284474Please quite trying to put words in my mouth. What I said in context was that if I wanted to play a game where combat was central and played out in a tactical manner with minis or counters, I already have some nice games that do that well -- and that don't interfere with what I want out of an RPG. Sadly, some of these games are almost as long out of print as OD&D.

QuoteAs for 4e, I've never said it wasn't an RPG. That would be as silly a thing to say as saying OD&D assumed one would fight out combats with tactical minis rules and battlemats.

QuoteYou have have an RPG with rules without having to master them to play well or have think in terms of rules to play.  There are lots of examples of such RPGs out there. OD&D for one. :)

Quote from: CavScout;284482Silly them OD&D rules say a battlemat is standard for play*

*Page 5 of Men and Magic.

Quote from: CavScout;284482At least don't be a pussy. Own what you say and say what you mean.

QuoteSilly them OD&D rules say a battlemat is standard for play*.

QuoteIf you mean that outside of combat you simply made most shit up, then you're right about OD&D.

Quote from: James J Skach;284455I do know one thing. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I am no longer, apparently, the main stream of gaming. I'm cool with that. I'm just not sure what it has to do specifics of how the game actually works.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284456And yes, I actually don't care one way or the other, I just enjoy arguing..sorry!

Quote from: CavScout;284482At least don't be a pussy. Own what you say and say what you mean.

Quote from: droog;284297The proletariat must work within the framework of bourgeois art.

[PS Trotsky]

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284456I just enjoy arguing..

Quote from: CavScoutAt least don't be a pussy. Own what you say and say what you mean.

Quote from: Old GeezerOkay.

You are absolutely, completely, totally, and in every other way, full of shit.

You are so far from knowing what the fuck you are talking about that the light from knowing what the fuck you are talking about will not reach you for eight quadrillion years.

Questions?

Quote from: jeff37923;284042You cannot stand any criticism, however tongue-in-cheek, about 4E.

Quote from: Seanchai;284516You think the discussion is still tongue in check and humorous, huh?

Seanchai

Quote from: RandallS;284198OD&D wasn't written that way nor was it usually played that way.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284498I have encountered people who say that at various times in my life.

Inevitably, no matter what the subject, even if I agree with them, I get this insane urge to punch them in the nuts so hard blood squirts out their ears.

I just enjoy a malenky bit of the old ultra-vi against people who just enjoy arguing...sorry!

Quote from: Seanchai;284516You think the discussion is still tongue in check and humorous, huh?

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284524Well, I'll just take for granted that you'll just sit there meekly and impotently have this urge, because you won't ever actually do anything about it. This is the internet. I laugh in your face.

By the way I leveled up my character tonight while you guys were arguing. Suck it, RPG-haters!

Quote from: James J Skach;284527Pish posh - We chased a green dragon away from its hoard last night (we're 15th level). And we had to work for ours!

Only because you seem to think that those of us who don't prefer 4e somehow don't play anymore.

Quote from: jgants;284267I will say that BD&D and AD&D were completely different animals.

Here's a partial list of things than differed between them
* Attribute scales and bonuses
* Character races, their abiltiies, and their options
* Character classes, their abilities, and their options
* The HD scale for PCs
* Multi-Classing
* Alignments
* Equipment - costs and availability
* Weapons - cost, availability, and function
* Armor - cost, availability, and function
* The time scale used
* Movement - both scale and how it worked in general
* Spells - use, availability, and function
* Encumbrance
* The combat rules in their entirety, outside of vague similarities
* How henchmen worked
* Psionics
* The Planes
* Saving Throws - the scale and the categories

Or in other words, pretty much everything in the game worked differently.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284529My character was only 2nd (I just hit 3rd) so I assume I might have worked hard enough. I was dropped all the way to 1 single hit point by the last round of the final combat. I rolled a natural 20 when I busted open the doors in the goblin chieftain's lair, though.

Quote from: Sigmund;284370Are you really this silly? OG knows more about the design and intent of OD&D because he was there.

Quote from: jeff37923;284526It was...

Quote from: jeff37923;284526It was, but you and a couple of other 4E zealots had a shit fit over Your Favorite Game being mocked in jest. You all need to not take this shit so seriously but that is why you earned the title of 4E zealot, isn't it?

Quote from: StormBringer;284098I will prove it by pointing to the opening paragraphs of the 1st edition DMG, where mini use is suggest to enhance gameplay*and never mentioned again in any other book ever.

Quote from: StormBringer;284098In other words, there is nothing in editions prior to 3.x that would require the use of minis or battlemats.

Quote from: StormBringer;284098Claiming that 4e has the same ability to be played without minis is disingenuous, at best.

Quote from: James J Skach;284532Sweet! Sounds like you had fun.

Are you staying essentially 4e come GenCon? I know you're in the LFR fold, so I suppose that's where you'll spend the overwhelming amount of your time.

Quote from: StormBringer;284204I mentioned it before, but it seems to be a desperate need to connect this version with earlier versions, as it is quite clear 4e is virtually a complete re-boot, having almost no connection mechanically or thematically with those earlier versions.

Quote from: jeff37923;284526It was, but you and a couple of other 4E zealots had a shit fit over Your Favorite Game being mocked in jest. You all need to not take this shit so seriously but that is why you earned the title of 4E zealot, isn't it?

Quote from: Seanchai;284536So you agree that it isn't now.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;279579I'm pretty vitrioled out over 4E. The game just doesn't work for me and there are a hardcore group of 4E Zealots who want to hang me and everyone else who doesn't enjoy 4E for our game preferences.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284505"'Out with your love,' 'Out with your art,' 'Out with your regime,' 'Out with your religion' - the four cries of the four parts."

--Mayakovsky

Quote from: Seanchai;284539So your proof is to point out where it suggests using minis? Really?

QuoteThere's nothing in the current edition that requires their use either. Is it easier to use them than not? Absolutely. But that's not your argument, is it?

QuoteAnd yet, provably, people have done it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284537But wait, is that the issue or is the issue that the Stuff You Liked got mocked in jest right back and then suddenly there is an argument? Reinforced conformity and moderator meddling can make certain opinions safe-- it's how RPGnet was able to ignore the existence of D&D3 for 8 years, for example. But this luxury simply does not exist here. We could easily continue having this argument (which must be very frustrating) for as long as you like-- years, really. But that's the thing about TheRPGsite, barring threatening someone (which I think someone has already been done here!) I don't think anyone is going to step in and force anyone to stop. We can all agree to disagree and leave it at that and remain wary of each others opinions or something. I have no idea.

Or we can all agree to just sort of talk about the games we actually play and know something about and kinda go from there.

I dunno. I'm picking out my level 3 encounter power and going to bed.

EDIT: Enforced Threat "Your weapon backs up your threats, extracting its toll in blood." -ooh, and it's a rattling attack that gives me combat advantage if the target is already rattled, and bonus damage for being a ruffian type.

Quote from: Seanchai;284541You've got it backwards. It was the crowd threatened by 4e that desperately wished to disconnect it from D&D. The claims about similarities in rules, themes, approaches, game play, etc., between 4e and earlier editions are in response to that.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284549C'mon, Abby....just admit it. Someone said something about your precious 4e that you didn't like, so you got all pissy about it. Your feigned indifference isn't fooling anyone, and you know it. :)

At the rate this thread is going, you'll soon have over 3,000 posts on an rpg message board. Gee, someone here really takes their roleplaying games too seriously..! ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;284486Wilful mis-interpretations not working, so you resort to complete fabrication?

"The use of paper, pencil and map boards are standard. Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire..."

It says "map boards".  As in, large clipboards (or dry erase boards) for holding... wait for it...  maps.  Typically, they strap to the leg, but those are the smaller ones for hikers and pilots.  Clearly they aren't talking about those.

So, you are now presenting outright false information in an attempt to bolster your argument; an argument that has been refuted into oblivion.  Therefore, I am done beating this dead horse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

Quote from: RandallS;284489You can repeat this as often as you want and it will still be incorrect. Hint: I don't think battlemats even existed as a product when OD&D was first published.

QuoteWe made up lots of shit in combat, too. Making the guidelines fit your particular campaign was and is part of playing OD&D.

Quote from: Seanchai;284516You think the discussion is still tongue in check and humorous, huh?

Quote from: jeff37923;284526It was, but you and a couple of other 4E zealots had a shit fit over Your Favorite Game being mocked in jest. You all need to not take this shit so seriously but that is why you earned the title of 4E zealot, isn't it?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284524By the way I leveled up my character tonight while you guys were arguing. Suck it, RPG-haters!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284524By the way I leveled up my character tonight while you guys were arguing. Suck it, RPG-haters!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284524By the way I leveled up my character tonight while you guys were arguing. Suck it, RPG-haters!

Quote from: CavScout;284556You said of lot of crap to prove something... not certain what exactly. But yeah, the battle-map was standard for OD&D. But hey if pretending that they didn't think folks would be doing battles on a battle map makes you feel good, go for it.

PS: Don't lie. You aren't done. Like a puppet you are forced to dance.

Quote from: CavScout;284557The gymnastics you folks will do. It's priceless, no it really is. The rules do include a map board as standard for play, it's in plain English. Hand-waving won't make it go away.



Seems counterproductive to claim to want less rules in your game and then have to make rules up as you play.

Quote from: CavScout;284558Shush! They are only joking; their rabid defense of a game, they may or may not even play, is just a put-on!

Quote from: CavScout;284559I love how if you don't despise 4E and worship the stapled three booklet OD&D game, you're some kind of 4E zealot.

Quote from: Seanchai;284530Yup. Basically, they're "compatible" as long you ignore this, that, that, the other, this, that, that, et al..

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;284533And yet we can all read the rules on the page.

What's more important to realize, however, is that I was actually there as well. Gary told me that he always intended for miniatures to be used in every game, but when it came to actually getting his intent across on the written page, he wasn't so skilled.

Wait! You don't believe me? But I'm making a claim - do I really need any other proof than you'd like to believe what I'm saying or you wouldn't like to believe what I'm saying?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;284539S
And yet, provably, people have done it.

Seanchai

Quote from: DeadUematsu;284560All of this 4E talk makes me desire a 4E game that dispenses with miniatures and uses the OD&D "flub the distances" mentality as much as possible. I wonder what that would do. I can imagine it would speed up play.

Quote from: KenHR;284576I did something that actually mattered to the world.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284595Well, if you guys are right then D&D4e will soon cease to exist or may already not exist since "nobody is playing it".

But.. that's obviously not happening.

I don't even understand the controversy.

Quote from: Stuart;284573I built tiny card pirate ship minis last night and sailed them around the dining room table! YAR!!! :emot-yarr:

Quote from: CavScout;284600Sweet.. did you use the OD&D rules for that? ;)

Quote from: jgants;284584But according to several on this thread, all you had to do is ignore half the rules in each edition, and the editions were perfectly compatible.  

Of course, that pretty much meant that when you were using a "compatible" adventure, you were basically just using AC, HD, and maybe the standard attack damage for monsters and ignoring every other rule in the game.  Which is exactly why I said that loss of "compatibility" was no huge loss.

Tune in next time to learn why the loss of "simulation" in a game of completely unrealistic fantasy is no great loss.

Quote from: Sigmund;284602I'd have to agree with you about this. I think the sense of "compatability" came from the use of similar terms and mechanisms combined with the sparseness of detail which allowed tinkering and mashing-up easily. We did nearly exactly what you're describing here.

Quote from: CavScout;284605I think the sense of "compatability" came from people just making their own shit up. To hear some of the folks talk, back in the day, they just did what they wanted, rules or not, because it was fun. With a play style like that you could almost say any game is compatible.

Quote from: Sigmund;284608Well, seeing as you didn't actually do it, and I did, forgive me if I take what you think with a grain of salt.

Quote from: CavScout;284609If you did what I said but you don't like that I said it does it that mean you didn't do it? You should really clarify yourself.

Calling yourself "old school", it's street cred for gamers!

Quote from: CavScout;284609Calling yourself "old school", it's street cred for gamers!

Quote from: Sigmund;284610I challenge you to find anywhere on any forum where I've referred to myself as "old school".

Also, I didn't do what you said. You must have a reading problem too.

Quote from: Stuart;284612You know... you COULD play 4e AND old / old school / retro / classic / original / out-of-print / xxxxxx games as well.  You could even like both.

Quote from: Stuart;284612Is that what this is about - you think it sounds cool and feel left out?

QuoteYou know... you COULD play 4e AND old / old school / retro / classic / original / out-of-print / xxxxxx games as well.  You could even like both.

Quote from: CavScout;284616gange affiliation!

Quote from: CavScout;284614Curious, "seeing as you didn't actually do it, and I did" must mean something else when you use it. I mean it was your response to, "I think the sense of "compatability" came from people just making their own shit up. To hear some of the folks talk, back in the day, they just did what they wanted, rules or not, because it was fun. With a play style like that you could almost say any game is compatible."

Quote from: Sigmund;284608Well, seeing as you didn't actually do it, and I did, forgive me if I take what you think with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Stuart;284618@Sigmund:  It's kind of funny to read all "you must hate minis" comments too.  Do a google search for Sculpting Miniatures for D&D (http://www.google.com/search?q=Sculpting+Miniatures+for+D%26D) :D

Quote from: Sigmund;284624That's kinda cool. I might try that one of these days, my brother is Fine Art graduate from VCU and could help me, he took several sculpting classes. I, otoh, haven't tried sculpting anything since the silly-putty days

Quote from: Stuart;284628I've found Sculpey works better than Fimo, and heard Super Sculpey might be better still -- but you won't be able to get really fine detail.  For that you'll need to use the Green/Yellow Stuff they use to actually sculpt minis for casting.  If you're using the polymer clay you'll want to start with larger monsters - or maybe ones that don't have a lot of fine detail.  I have a Cifal in progress at the moment.  It's 28mm scale and I'm adding the insect-swarm texture to the skin by pressing some coarse sandpaper into the clay. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;284590I'm guessing it would wreck the game completely. 4e is made to function only with miniatures and strict rules for movement, facing, etc., so that they can essentially force you to buy their crappy plastic figurines on the one hand, and on the other so that the GM cannot make any truly important calls for himself.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Stuart;284618Not sure what that is...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284633Tables and chairs made from sculpey (they have pennies for bases). They're made so they can be knocked over, stood on, used as barricades. Miniatures are awesome.

Quote from: Stuart;284596@Abyssal Maw

It's been ages since I've looked at any RPGA stuff.  Does the RPGA award players with cards for participating and completing adventures, which give you special powers + abilities if you have the correct official D&D mini figure?

Quote from: CavScout;284559I love how if you don't despise 4E and worship the stapled three booklet OD&D game, you're some kind of 4E zealot.

Quote from: Sigmund;284621I responded the way I did because we used to use AD&D adventures with Basic DnD, and vice-versa. I could be wrong, but from what I've read of your posts so far I get the impression that you didn't, and your lack of denial to my post goes a long way towards confirming that. Therefore, I'll trust my own experience before your brief and sweeping posts on this message board. That clear up the confusion for ya? If not just post more about what is presenting problems for ya and I'll continue to attempt to simplify things for ya.

Quote from: jeff37923;284639You really do just post here to troll, don't you?

Quote from: jeff37923;284639You really do just post here to troll, don't you?

Quote from: mhensley;284580And I played in a 3.5 game last night.  (ironically, the DM is using the world of warcraft as his campaign setting)  

Locally, the non-4e gamers are much more active and easier to connect with.  The 4e players have pretty much all withdrawn into the enclave of the local rpga chapter and aren't heard of outside of that.  And even there I've heard that most actually prefer 3e but play 4e just because they like the rpga.  

More anecdotal evidence, the guy that ran the 4e group I played with last summer (and who was very gung-ho about it) has given up on it and is now playing in an OSRIC game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;284644It took you that long to figure out? He's not the only one, he's just more consistent about it.

Quote from: CavScout;284646Oh snap, someones calling in the hired help again.

Quote from: CavScout;284641So what exactly where you denying that you did when you were denying you did what I said? Seems like you trying to say something here that you didn't say before.

'Cause all I said is if one ignores enough rules you can make anything compatible. That you took great umbrage to that is rather odd and seem to have struck a nerve.

Oh, and for the record, we played D&D with a hodge-podge of editions. The guys who ran my games had books from all over the map. At one point there was a mish-mash of D&D box sets, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions going on. Why some of the shit didn't make sense back them makes sense now since at the time I don't many of us were up-to-speed on the different version of the game. Could explain why when my buddies were buying up D&D books left and right, I was spending my cash on Twilight 2000 and 2300AD stuff.

But I suppose since I don't have enough vitriol for 4E and the corresponding worship of everything OD&D that I couldn't have played it back then.

Quote from: counterspin;284640As far as I can tell, everyone here just posts to troll. Ha!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284651I laughed out loud. :)

The entire thread, starting from the first post is a troll. Did.. uhm.. you guys not get that?

Quote from: Sigmund;284649So you're saying you did use various rules from various editions at the same time. So you're saying you didn't "just make shit up", but instead took rules that were made up by various other people for various different versions of the same game and used them together. That they didn't make sense is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean you "made the shit up" either.

Do you know what "great umbrage" means, or are you just in the habit of exaggerating everything you read? Between that and the "worship" bullshit you really come off as a serious drama queen.

Quote"...When it comes to the rules and their application, nothing is wrong with DM Fiat. That is, if the DM wants to allow a situation in the game to succeed (or not), if it fits the circumstances and the characters, then it should be left to the DM's adjudication."

Quote from: Sigmund;284649So you're saying you did use various rules from various editions at the same time. So you're saying you didn't "just make shit up", but instead took rules that were made up by various other people for various different versions of the same game and used them together. That they didn't make sense is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean you "made the shit up" either.

QuoteDo you know what "great umbrage" means, or are you just in the habit of exaggerating everything you read? Between that and the "worship" bullshit you really come off as a serious drama queen.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;284653It's a frustrating environment, or it can be, when people argue like this. I don't blame anyone for getting too steamed, really. Even the people who disagree with me. I would hope that they can try not to get too emotional about it in the process. At the end of the day we're still just talking about gaming.  

So---  if we're still talking about 4E-- I would also like to point out today's recently posted Design & Development column in Dragon. WOTC R&D came down to DDXP and gave a seminar  where they discussed a lot of things that had to do with the 4e Development process and other issues (errata, why Veterans Armor got nerfed, etc). The transcript for this is posted as a Dragon column and is considered pretty official guidance at least for RPGA. Here's the conclusion:


(DDI Link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20090220)

This is 180 degrees away from the guidance given for previous campaigns, by the way.

Quote from: Stuart;284658This is serious, serious stuff - and as such deserves serious, serious... seriousness. :-|

Quote from: CavScout;284660Serious enough for folks to blog about it would seem. ;)

Quote from: CavScout;284654You’ll have to point out where I’ve said or claimed that I’ve never disregarded or changed rules I didn’t like.

QuoteWhat I did say, which seems to have your panties all in a bunch, is that with enough ignoring of rules or house ruling one can make many games “compatible” with each other. That you are compelled to argue against that is rather odd.

QuoteOh dear. Perhaps I should use zealot instead, that seems to be acceptable to you.

Quote from: Sigmund;284662You can try if you like. If you use the term zealot in the appropriate manner and context it would indeed be acceptable to me. You have shown a remarkable lack of either interest or ability to use any term appropriately however, so I'm not hopeful.

Quote from: StormBringer;284663Wait until the accusations of sock-puppeting come out.  Then it gets really fun.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284665[Belkar voice]

BORED NOW!

[/Belkar voice]

Quote from: Sigmund;284666So set something on fire.

I'm just hoping to take this thread to 999 posts, then I can use each post as inspiration for each layer of the Abyss.

Quote from: boulet;284679Only 476 to go...

I doubt the thread can avoid implosion before that though

Quote from: Sigmund;284662I'm not saying you said that, I'm saying I didn't know you did that until you told me, because you seem to equate other folks doing exactly what you said you did with "making shit up", but then now you seem to be ok with it as long as it was you doing it.

QuoteYou seem to be overestimating your influence, which would be consistent with your general tendency to overestimate or exaggerate most of what most people post for trolling purposes, so I will keep that in mind from now on. What you say here has no point or purpose, so what would be served by arguing it? What we used to do with older versions of DnD does not fit this description, nor do I get the sense that other people's similar experiences fit it either.

QuoteYou can try if you like. If you use the term zealot in the appropriate manner and context it would indeed be acceptable to me. You have shown a remarkable lack of either interest or ability to use any term appropriately however, so I'm not hopeful.

Quote from: CavScout;284685I, and others probably as well, have the issue with "we'll we played it this way, that's they way it was meant to be played regardless of what the rules actually say or imply."

• OD&D/AD&D weren't.
• It was never meant as an insult to begin with.

Quote from: KenHR;284576I did something that actually mattered to the world.

Quote from: jgants;284584Tune in next time to learn why the loss of "simulation" in a game of completely unrealistic fantasy is no great loss.

Quote from: CavScout;284685Accusing someone of not being able to comprehend what they read and then epically failing, oneself, in the same task is somewhat delicious.

QuoteI have not said folks making their own house rules or ignoring the printed rules as doing anything wrong. I have said those who do that can not claim to be playing the game as it was written.

QuoteI've made plenty of shit up for my own games. I've invented rules to use that we would rather play with. But you won't see me claiming that using my preferences is how the game, which ever one it may, the was written to played. That's the difference and it's key.

QuoteThere should be some sort of diminishing returns for someone who keeps calling someone else a troll after they've all but admitted they have no interest in the thread other than trolling themselves.

QuoteAnd folks seem to have this weird definition that if one is not agreeing with them, they are trolling.

QuoteI assume that you mean that when it is aimed at those not bashing 4E it is appropriate.

Quote from: Sigmund;284666So set something on fire.

Quote from: James J Skach;284700No, dipshit. We're saying the rules did not actually say that, nor did they imply it. Get that through your monstrously thick skull. That fact that you inferred it does not make it so.

See - here's where it all breaks down. Someone says "4e is 'X.'" For some reason, you think that's an insult. To defend against that "insult," you say "OD&D and AD&D were 'X' too!"

Quote from: KenHR;284757My gaming was cancelled this weekend.  I'm even less relevant than I was before. :(

Quote from: droog;284544He'd make a great Sorcerer character.

Quote from: StormBringer;284551I'll cop to it, I am not too cool for school.  I take these things somewhat seriously.  :)

I figure if you want to become knowledgeable and skilled at your hobby, you have to afford it some kind of study, right?  It doesn't have to be all sober reflection all the time, but I can't imagine someone getting to be really good at a pastime if they are always casual about it.

Either way is fine, really.  Every hobby needs the weekend warriors as well as the dyed-in-the-wool fanatics.  Not to contradict your point, but rather adding that someone who doesn't take their hobby very seriously probably doesn't have a very serious opinion about it, either.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;284765Oh, that's cool, man. :) Roleplaying games are important to me too, and I'd never pretend otherwise. I was just teasing Abby a bit because he was pretending that he didn't think rpgs are Serious Business. He has thousands of posts on a message board devoted to roleplaying games, so obviously he takes this stuff seriously. That's actually not bad, but I felt the urge to challenge him on his attempt at feigning apathy. We don't spend hours out of every week on activities that aren't important to us. Oh, and I don't really think Abby's a festering troll or any of that crap either, though I do feel he's in the mood to mess with people a bit in this thread. No bigee. :)

QuoteThere is, however, one other poster (not you) behaving like a troll, but I won't name him in this post, because he already knows who he is...;)

Quote from: CavScout;284754Odd that you think that saying 4E shared common elements with OD&D and AD&D would be an insult. I think it's a compliment but then again I am not fighting with every furious word I can type to seperate 4E from them as you and others are.

Quote from: James J Skach;284786I'm not even what you're saying. Ask me if I think 4e is the same as OD&D with respect to the six abilities. My god! It is!

I don't think it's an insult to say that 4e is like OD&D in its use and need for minis. I think it's wrong. The fact that you can't separate the two is quite telling, actually.

Quote from: StormBringer;284807Is this where someone swoops in with pictures of animals eating each other, like from the Serengeti or something?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284762You're in a tough spot, comrade.

Quote from: Old Geezer;284808* sets thread on fire again *

Quote from: One Horse Town;284814If anyone does that, i'll not only close the thread, i'll shove it out of the fucking airlock. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Pete;284767Well in AM's defense, 87% of his posts were used in throwing insulting, baseless and slanderous attacks towards people who like indieForge games so he's still considered "good people" around these parts...

Quote from: KenHR;284757Sounds awesome.  Let us know how it goes!

My gaming was cancelled this weekend.  I'm even less relevant than I was before. :(

Quote from: Koltar;284843Before the lock - I'd just like to say that I have NO "Vitriol" for 4th edition D&D. Matter-of-fact , latter today I am going to play in a 4th edition D&D game.

Look, it sells better than eiother "Exalted" or New World of Darkness stuff.
That helps the store stay in business.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Aos;284873Irrelevance is my fortress.

Quote from: jeff37923;284880Do you actually like the system or is playing 4E a function of your employment?

Quote from: James J Skach;284879Aos' irrelevance is the wind beneath my wings.

Quote from: jeff37923;284880Do you actually like the system or is playing 4E a function of your employment?

Quote from: Old Geezer;284887Or it might be "I'll play just about any game somebody will run at least once, even if I won't spend any money on it myself."

Quote from: StormBringer;284770Which reminds me, when are we going to see you over at the Citadel?

Quote from: jeff37923;284543And actually, Abyssal Maw and Seanchai have proved my statement from way upthread by their actions.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548What you have utterly failed to provide is so much as one other snippet of rules in either OD&D or AD&D* that demonstrates where they are required for use, to even a fraction of the degree 4e has them tied into the mechanics.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548No, actually, that is pretty much the heart of the argument.  

Quote from: StormBringer;284548You have nothing whatsoever to show that earlier editions either required or played better with miniatures and a battlemat.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548You have Old Geezer stating the original groups didn't use minis, but apocryphal stories about Mr Arneson using them consistently, so that is a wash.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548Not a scrap of rules in OD&D, AD&D or early AD&D 2e demonstrate the slightest need for miniatures...

Quote from: StormBringer;284548...and in fact, not a one of them mentions minis at all outside of a rather standard boilerplate suggestion about how they make certain parts a bit easier** or more visually appealing.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548Nor were there any large or small scale battle rules with elements common to skirmish games, like facing, position triggered effects, movement based effects, and so on...

Quote from: StormBringer;284548So, what we have to conclude is that without any kind of evidence showing minis were needed/required/made game play easier in early editions, that premise is false.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548Also, no one made the claim that 4e is impossible to play without miniatures.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548Just very difficult for the vast majority of gamers.

Quote from: StormBringer;284548You might find this discussion more engaging if you were to leave those strawmen to their business and join the actual thread that is ongoing.

Quote from: StormBringer;284550No, not really.

Quote from: StormBringer;284550Unless you are suggesting that out of the clear blue sky, with no indictment whatsoever, fans of older versions decided to spontaneously start making the claim that OD&D and 4e are not similar, prior to anyone comparing the two?

Quote from: StormBringer;284550When you refuse to modify or drop your position regarding this topic, despite the mountain of data in front of you, it would behove you to exercise added caution prior to targeting others with the name 'hater'.

Quote from: Seanchai;284918I asked if your argument was based on actual play versus the rules and you said...well, actually, you dodged around an answer, didn't you?

QuoteAll those articles in Dragon about minis, the ads for minis and sets, the pictures of people playing with minis, the manufacture of different battle mats, et al., are not the result of a culture that had a reason to embrace minis, they're just the result of a few crazys, right? I mean, Chessex and the Armory totally decided to pump out battle mats and minis for just those six gamers in Hoboken who were using them.

QuoteIt's not a wash - who the fuck cares what one or two groups did? You're not basing your arguments just on what one or two groups did, are you? Oh, wait, you are...

QuoteThey certainly don't call themselves a miniatures game on the front of box or put miniatures in the same category as dice in terms of what's required for the game...

QuoteAgain, have you read them? For example, there certain are facing rules in AD&D...

QuoteThe problem with your arguement is that there's plenty of evidence to show that.

QuoteAnd you know what the vast majority of gamers find difficult how again? There you go again thinking you've got some kind of evidence you don't...

QuoteLook up strawmen in the dictionary and it says, "See StormBringer." Seriously. You flip flop around between rules and actually play, between editions of the game, go off on long tangents, and whole little victory parties for yourself after your supposed successes.

QuoteThat's what I'm claiming.

QuotePoint out your data. I ask you to back up your claim that things are "provable" and you waffle. Instead of coming back with a list, quotes, etc., you come back with more dodgy supposition.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;284918For example, there certain are facing rules in AD&D...

Quote from: 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, p. 10USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES WITH THE GAME

The special figures cast for ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS add color to play and make refereeing far easier.

Quote from: Seanchai;284909Each time the subject of 4e and the anti-4e crowd, I make the same challenge: go to some message board, start a thread with a message like, "I looked at 4e, but it doesn't seem like it's for me..." and look at the non-flood of responses.

No one gives a flying fuck what you like or don't. We don't game with you.

What inevitably happens, however, is that the anti-4e crowd doesn't stick to, "I looked at 4e, but it doesn't seem like it's for me..." They launch in with "4e is nothing but a MMO" or "Hey, look at all the 4tard," and then, yeah, people who like game have something to say.

Seanchai

Quote from: droog;284830Really? Let me know when you start that Futurist game up.

Quote from: The Shaman;2849311e AD&D DMG, p. 69, for the curious.

QuoteAlso, there's this bit of text: (Emphasis added - TS)

There's more like that, too, on the following page, for those who are interested.

QuoteI don't recall any of the AD&D books saying, "You must play with miniatures or Tim Kask will personally come to your house and burn it down!" but the use of tabletop inches for range and movement and attack bonuses based on facing (rear, flank, shield v. non-shield side) certainly suggested to an old wargamer like me that minis were a useful and expected tool to use in playing the game. And so we did.

Quote from: Aos;284952Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!!!!!

Quote from: The Shaman;2849311e AD&D DMG, p. 69, for the curious.

Quote from: DMG, p69Number of Opponents per Figure
Physical size and space will dictate limitation upon the number of opponents able to engage a single figure. If Official ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS miniature figures are used to represent the creatures involved in a melee, then these miniatures will dictate the number of opponents which can be involved.

Quote from: DMG, p70To determine the number of opponents which can attack the single defender, use squares or hexes of one inch per face for 25mm scale, or you may simply view the illustrations used above and mentally visualize the situation.

Quote from: The Shaman;284931There's more like that, too, on the following page, for those who are interested.

Quote from: DMG, p11Various products such as modules, playing aids, and miniature figurines will be most helpful in establishing and maintaining an interesting and exciting campaign...

[snip]

Miniature figures used to represent characters and monsters add color and life to the game. They also make the task of refereeing action, particularly combat, easier too! In combination with a gridded surface, such as the DUNGEON FLOORPLANS (to be published by TSR in the near future), these miniatures will add a whole new dimension to your playing enjoyment. It is suggested that you urge your players to provide painted figures representing their characters, henchmen, and hirelings involved in play. The monsters can be furnished by you - possibly purchased through collection of small fees levied on each playing session. The OFFICIAL ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS miniature figures will be released by Grenadier Models, POB 305, Springfield, PA 19064, about November 1979. These figures are the only ones to comply in all respects to AD&D specifications and the AD&D Monster Manual...

[snip]

It is also very important to keep abreast of what is happening in the world of adventure gaming. You may do so by subscribing to such publications as THE DRAGON and WHITE DWARF - or you might find it convenient to purchase them from your favorite game supplier.

Quote from: James J Skach;284958For completeness sake...emphasis mine.

Quote from: James J Skach;284961ETA: The red was because it cracked me up - it reminds me that WotC got more from TSR than D&D. They apparently inherited the ability to release great adjunct products after the game is published. :D

Quote from: Aos;284952Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!!!!!

Quote from: Aos;284952Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!!!!!

Quote from: Stuart;284957Heh. Reminds me of a Revolting Cocks song. :)

Quote from: The Shaman;284964It's possible to play 1e AD&D without minis, and visualize or handwave those rules - I have, but it wasn't nearly as satisfying for me.Yeah, I smiled when I read that, too. :)

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;284941I didn't claim I have such ambitions, but yours are fun to watch.

Quote from: jeff37923;284935Straw Man Arguement much?

Does it possibly occur to you that maybe if you and other 4E zealots wouldn't act like assholes, you all wouldn't get negative responses?

Quote from: The Shaman;284964One of the things that puzzled me about 3e was how many message board posters prattled on and on about how 'tactical' combat was in 3.x compared to other editions. I honestly didn't see it, but that's because our group squeezed every bonus we could find out of the rules, including things like facing, height advantage, attacking from a flank, attacking from the non-shield side, weapon v. armor bonuses, charging, setting spears and polearms to receive a charge, and so forth. The minis-friendly rules in 1e AD&D were very much a part of that tactical play for me.

Quote from: jgants;285013It all comes back to the thing about how a whole lot of people didn't really use 75% or more of the AD&D 1e rules.  A great many people appear to have played it like BD&D, just with some more options for monsters, spells, magic weapons, races, and classes.

Whether that's because a whole lot of people started with BD&D and got confused by the complexity of AD&D 1e, I can't say.  But regardless of the reason, the actual by-the-book combat and encounter rules of AD&D 1e appear to have been used by a very small minority of players.

Quote from: The Shaman;284965Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

;)

Quote from: jgants;285013It all comes back to the thing about how a whole lot of people didn't really use 75% or more of the AD&D 1e rules.  A great many people appear to have played it like BD&D, just with some more options for monsters, spells, magic weapons, races, and classes.

Whether that's because a whole lot of people started with BD&D and got confused by the complexity of AD&D 1e, I can't say.  But regardless of the reason, the actual by-the-book combat and encounter rules of AD&D 1e appear to have been used by a very small minority of players.

Quote from: James J Skach;285034Just for clarity's sake - are you asserting, either through implication or overtly, that to play without minis was a case of ignoring rules?

Quote from: jgants;285048No, I wasn't talking about minis.  I was talking about Shaman's general comment that people ignored a lot of the rules in AD&D.

Quote from: The Shaman;284964One of the things that puzzled me about 3e was how many message board posters prattled on and on about how 'tactical' combat was in 3.x compared to other editions. I honestly didn't see it, but that's because our group squeezed every bonus we could find out of the rules, including things like facing, height advantage, attacking from a flank, attacking from the non-shield side, weapon v. armor bonuses, charging, setting spears and polearms to receive a charge, and so forth.

Quote from: John Morrow;285062In fact, I would argue that one of reasons why early D&D (and early role-playing games in general) were so magical is tied to the same reason that they were often played so differently by different groups.  Because they were generally designed as "physics engines" with rules that were not tightly integrated with each other or with metagame concerns, it was easy for each group to pick the rules they wanted, to ignore the rules they didn't want, and for the GM to fill in with their own ideas without the whole game collapsing into an unusable mess.

Quote from: jgants;285048No, I wasn't talking about minis.  I was talking about Shaman's general comment that people ignored a lot of the rules in AD&D.

Quote from: John Morrow;285062The difference is that in earlier editions, your class abilities did not explicitly require to you use those rules to get a the mechanical benefits of abilities that you got from leveling up.  With the addition of Feats and detailed class abilities that explicitly required the players and GM to consider things like flanking and attacks of opportunity to get any benefit from them, those rules and the tracking of position on a grid required to assess them were no longer the readily discarded or ignored "options" that they were in earlier editions.

Quote from: John MorrowIn fact, I would argue that one of reasons why early D&D (and early role-playing games in general) were so magical is tied to the same reason that they were often played so differently by different groups.  Because they were generally designed as "physics engines" with rules that were not tightly integrated with each other or with metagame concerns, it was easy for each group to pick the rules they wanted, to ignore the rules they didn't want, and for the GM to fill in with their own ideas without the whole game collapsing into an unusable mess.  By making rules more tightly integrated and interrelated and by designing games to be played a particular way by the book for everything to work properly, a lot of that flexibility has gotten lost.

Quote from: CavScout;285073**Chuckles that a lack of rules or incompleteness of rules makes the game "magical".**

Quote from: droog;284983My ambitions? Entertainment and a good time,

Quote from: The Shaman;285083T
My own experience was that following the full suite of combat rules presented by in 1e AD&D made for a more enjoyable play experience.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;285091Actually, no, crackerjack.

Your ambition: Dressing up schlock with Trotsky.

My entertainment: watching you do it.

Quote from: CavScout;285073**Chuckles that a lack of rules or incompleteness of rules makes the game "magical".**

Quote from: John Morrow;285109Pick up some early issues of Dragon or copies of The Space Gamer or Different Worlds.  You'll find all sorts of custom rules and random tables.  Now compare and contrast that to one of the most common reasons why people have praised Fudge, that it gave them "permission" to tinker with the rules.  Somewhere along the way, things shifted from tinkering being the norm encouraged by the rules being silent on how to handle all sorts of things to people feeling that they needed permission to tinker with the rules.  That certainly makes it seem like some of the "magic" of those early games died somewhere along the way to me.

Quote from: John Morrow;285109Pick up some early issues of Dragon or copies of The Space Gamer or Different Worlds.  You'll find all sorts of custom rules and random tables.  Now compare and contrast that to one of the most common reasons why people have praised Fudge, that it gave them "permission" to tinker with the rules.  Somewhere along the way, things shifted from tinkering being the norm encouraged by the rules being silent on how to handle all sorts of things to people feeling that they needed permission to tinker with the rules.  That certainly makes it seem like some of the "magic" of those early games died somewhere along the way to me.

Quote from: StormBringer;285110However, now the rules lawyers have all kinds of meaty loopholes by which to enforce their petulant demands to 'win' and bog down play with their attention whoring.

Quote from: Sigmund;285095Just out of curiosity, what does the full suite of combat rules presented in 1e AD&D consist of?

Quote from: jgants;285130Everyone playing a different version of the rules because they are too damn complicated, contradictory, or incomplete is not a feature.  It was a bug.

Quote from: Stuart;285156Still a feature. :)

Old editions:  Fun in figuring it out + diy quality for world-building and house-rules.

New editions: Fun in Rules Mastery and knowledge of Canon.

Both are valid - I just happen to prefer the first one.