Quote from: estarOD&D doesn't have setting coherence because it doesn't have a setting to be coherent too.

It does a wee bit. I mean, it says, "Here's monsters you'll encounter. Here's treasure you'll find. Here's spells you'll use. Here's character types you'll build from."

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditThat goes a long way to explaining why you're such a miserable cunt.

RPGPundit

This is the first time I was called miserable cunt! Thank you!:pundit:

Quote from: TonyLBHow so?

Are you saying it causes trouble even if the GM is sticking to the schedule?  I see how it leads to trouble if we posit the GM's right to ignore the schedule ... but if the schedule is part of the rules of the game and is adhered to, how is it different from "Pass Go, Receive $200"?

Because then you might as well not have a setting. Its like those German board games, where hte setting is nothing but a window-dressing.

Should we go to the Mountains of Doom? Or the Caverns of Chaos? What the fuck is the difference, since we're 5th level whatever we find will be CR5 and give us 500gp anyways!  

You know exactly what the problem is, motherfucker: mearls drank your poison, and got convinced that D&D is supposed to be a "gamist" game, and has proceeded to turn it into a mockery of what D&D's full potential was once about.  To start with, it seems to have stripped all aspects of emulation of a real fantasy world; the world of D&D is not a real world with its own rules, its just a very shallow backdrop for bundles of 500gp loot and monsters that always happen to be about your level of difficulty.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know exactly what the problem is, motherfucker: mearls drank your poison, and got convinced that D&D is supposed to be a "gamist" game, and has proceeded to turn it into a mockery of what D&D's full potential was once about.  To start with, it seems to have stripped all aspects of emulation of a real fantasy world; the world of D&D is not a real world with its own rules, its just a very shallow backdrop for bundles of 500gp loot and monsters that always happen to be about your level of difficulty.

RPGPundit

You know... amazon sales rank of 22 in the category books and the only book up that that is not actually out yet seems to suggest, that that is what the D&D players want.

Quote from: TonyLBTavis:  That all sounds like a drift toward the things that people value about CCGs.  Does that sound right to you?

Pramas said so after his playtest. I've heard people say that at 3E's launch it was also seen as moving in the CCG direction.

But I dunno enough about CCGs to say if choosing feats and multiclass levels (building a character like an advantages-based superhero instead of being at the mercy of the stats you roll up) = customizing a Magic deck.

OD&D seems to take seriously the idea that it'll be fun to roll 3d6 six times in order, possibly sucking across the board, and start play at 1st level with a party  of dudes whose hit points vary from 1 to 6. Power-creep in how many times you get to roll culminates in the excellent AD&D DMG statistics discussion of how to get just the desired degree of awesome.

4E seems to take seriously the idea that it's never fun to suck. As packaged, it's like a CCG in that every player potentially has access to the same set of cards, and every class requires you to select a hand of cards that are designed to be tightly balanced against one another. You're never at a competitive disadvantage because your dice were cursed or you made sucky choices out of roleplaying or inexperience.

It's like an MMORPG in that it's designed according to massively multiplayer constraints. As Mearls has said, OD&D is best suited for a garage band. 4e is designed for the Hoyles-rules tournament leagues AD&D was supposed to be for. There's no room for the kind of bitching you heard in the 3.5 RPGA that the awesomeness of some spells is subject to "table variation", because 4e leaves no significant role for DM adjucation.

It's not "same as it ever was" because AD&D, and the iterations that tried to stay faithful to it, was so wonkily built on the back of a mutant born to have a different kind of fun. The big tent happened largely through the gaps in the fabric. With 35 years of design experience, and a willingness to ditch tradition wherever it made the tent poke out, it's not surprising that 4e managed to take D&D much further towards the same-experience-for-everyone ideal.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat goes a long way to explaining why you're such a miserable cunt.

I'll take that as a compliment, and further proof that you think you can tell people how to game. Notice that when I posted I said I'd never used a random table, placing absolutely no judgment on people who have or haven't.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know exactly what the problem is, motherfucker: mearls drank your poison, and got convinced that D&D is supposed to be a "gamist" game, and has proceeded to turn it into a mockery of what D&D's full potential was once about.

Get your head out of your ass. I'm sure you find it satisfying to think that indie designers who post a lot exert huge influence. But your historical analysis is half-baked.

You're welcome to prefer "indie" Gygax prescribing infinite possibilities based on the DMs whim in a print run of 1,000, rather than "corporate" Gygax groping for the ultimate ruleset that everyone can and must adhere to precisely.

Nevertheless, the move towards coherence was happening for better or worse, driven by every professional designer in TSR/WotC's history, long before the Forge raised your hackles.

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause then you might as well not have a setting. Its like those German board games, where hte setting is nothing but a window-dressing.

Indeed. 4E seems to be heavily influenced by euro game design. It's all about mechanics stripped to their abstract essence. Theme is just window-dressing, and any discretionary houseruling threatens to break the whole polished machine.

Pundit, you should go all the long way and explain to me why Serious Paul and myself, bacause I also haven't ever used ramdom table are miserable cunts...

Quote from: SaphimYou know... amazon sales rank of 22 in the category books and the only book up that that is not actually out yet seems to suggest, that that is what the D&D players want.

No doubt it is what the shrinking market of gearheads who WotC caters to want. But D&D is a narrower game in scope and potential than it once was, however smoothly the engine purrs.

Quote from: Haffrungdiscretionary houseruling threatens to break the whole polished machine.

In euro games, or miniatures games (another original essence of D&D), house rules are avoided because they break the competition between players. In organized play, as in MMORPGs, DM discretion is avoided for a similar reason, although the competition is indirect and unacknowledged.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt does a wee bit. I mean, it says, "Here's monsters you'll encounter. Here's treasure you'll find. Here's spells you'll use. Here's character types you'll build from."

Well, technically, the original (1974) D&D set was more like "here's examples of monsters you might encounter; here's examples of treasure you might find; here's examples of spells you might use; here's examples of character types you might build from" with the expectation that as each campaign developed those baseline examples would be supplemented with, if not wholesale replaced by, each group's unique additions. It wasn't until AD&D that the attitude changed from "these are examples of the possibilities" to "this is how the game-world works."

Quote from: SaphimYou know... amazon sales rank of 22 in the category books and the only book up that that is not actually out yet seems to suggest, that that is what the D&D players want.

Again, there was no doubt that there would be sales. What will remain to be seen is how sustainedly popular the game is.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: TavisGet your head out of your ass. I'm sure you find it satisfying to think that indie designers who post a lot exert huge influence. But your historical analysis is half-baked.

You're welcome to prefer "indie" Gygax prescribing infinite possibilities based on the DMs whim in a print run of 1,000, rather than "corporate" Gygax groping for the ultimate ruleset that everyone can and must adhere to precisely.

Nevertheless, the move towards coherence was happening for better or worse, driven by every professional designer in TSR/WotC's history, long before the Forge raised your hackles.

The issue isn't about coherence, its about killing off 2/3rds of what D&D used to be able to do and be about, because certain people believe it should never have been that way in the first place.

How is limiting possibilities ever something that makes for a better game?

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiIt does a wee bit. I mean, it says, "Here's monsters you'll encounter. Here's treasure you'll find. Here's spells you'll use. Here's character types you'll build from."

Seanchai

There are several level of details that a RPG could take

1) Universal - the rules are designed to cover any genre

2) Genre - the rules are designed to cover a genre

3) Setting - the rules are designed to reflect a specific place, and time.

Games that do each step

1) Hero, GURPS, Basic Roleplaying
2) D&D,  Traveller, Palladium Fantasy, Villains & Vigilantes, the Fantasy Trip, Space Opera, Cyberpunk 2020, Top Secret, Boot Hill
3) Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Paranoia, Vampire and other WoD titles, DC Heroes, Marvel Superheroes,

Sure by their nature you can use most RPGs for anything but it all about the amount of work it takes. With OD&D there was no D&D world that arose from the game. People naturally ran all variations of the fantasy genre with it. My games were high politics that centered on my players winning their place in my Majestic Wilderlands, another friend of mine was about rising high level enough level to take on his "ultimate" dungeon, another was a wacky world where you would find the latest in 80's fantasy films thrown in.