This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?  (Read 4483 times)

Benoist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22049
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2012, 05:33:43 PM »
Quote from: Spinachcat;502469
I did. You said you miss the early 80s.
Not really, no. That's not what the post said at all, actually. You should stop flipping out as soon as you read "B/X" or "Mentzer". That's not the point, or even the substance of the post.

Fiasco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2012, 05:37:47 PM »
You make a good, Windjammer. Then again, the design team for 1E was pretty much just 1 name: Gary Gygax...

Rincewind1

  • Have YOU got any
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7685
    • http://www.smerf.fero.pl
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2012, 05:39:06 PM »
Quote
Why would anyone in the OSR or Pathfinder Society champion a game that isn't their preferred game?

Of course there are true Grognards, Pathvengers, 4vengers and Av3ngers who will have nothing of that sort, no matter what.

But they are what, maybe 1% of the whole DnD market?

It's not about them. It's about the 99%.

As I said, I started my adventures with DnD with 3e, and before that, there was Warhammer and Call of Cthulhu. And I liked 3e for a certain gameplay. And I did check 4e when it went out, so I'm no True Believer.

Fiasco - don't you f*cking dare forget Dave Arneson.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don't Like You thread should be closed

Benoist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22049
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2012, 05:41:31 PM »
Quote from: Fiasco;502473
You make a good, Windjammer. Then again, the design team for 1E was pretty much just 1 name: Gary Gygax...


Absolutely. If anything, the fact the design team is small is a good thing in my mind, not bad.

RandallS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2012, 05:44:24 PM »
Quote from: Spinachcat;502442
The idea of reuniting D&Ders who are devoted to their beloved edition seems bizarre and ludicrous to me. The mindset behind gameplay for 0e, 3e and 4e make them completely different games.


I don't think it can. What different players require of D&D is often polar opposites. I think a blog post I made last summer explains why I don't think it is possible for one edition to be the go to version of D&D for almost all D&D players:

Quote

A New Edition of D&D Designed to Unite D&D Players -- Can It Be Done?

There's a lot of talk in some areas of the Net about the next official edition of D&D. Some people think that WOTC will try to create an edition of D&D that will bring back not only Pathfinder players but players who prefer even older editions while retaining the 4e fan base.

Personally, I do not believe that any new edition of D&D could appeal enough to all D&D players that it will be their "go to" edition of D&D. What people want and need out of a set of D&D rules varies so much that, in my opinion, it would be impossible to handle this in one set of rules. After all, many of the "must have features" of one group of D&D players directly contradict the "must have features" of other groups of D&D players. Here's a list of twelve examples of the type of "must have features" problems that would somehow have to be overcome to create this visionary edition that reunifies the D&D hobby.

1)    Some people want rules that are light in the crunch department, some people want lots of mechanical crunch in the rules. It would be hard to truly satisfy both in one game.

2)    Some people want the details of every likely action accounted for in the rules with official modifiers written by the game designers so all they have to do is find them in the rules and apply them. Others don't want that level of detail, they'd rather just assign the mods they feel fit the situation instead of "wasting time" looking them up. In theory, I guess you could satisfy both camps by supplying all the modifiers in a supplemental "Book of Modifiers" that only players and GMs who want "official mods for everything" needed to buy.

3)    Some people want fast combat (say 15 minutes real time max) and don't want a lot of tactical detail as combat isn't the core fun in their games -- and therefore they don't want it taking up a lot of play time. Others want detailed tactical combat that uses minis, battlemats, 3-D terrain, etc. (with rules for using all that) and want the combat rules to be very detailed -- and do not mind if combats take 45-90 minutes of play time each (and perhaps even longer for "boss" combats) because combat encounters are the core fun for the players in their games. Worse, more than the first two points I listed, this is a spectrum with many people wanting medium length combats somewhere in the middle. One could handle this like GURPs with a Basic (and fast) combat system for the people who want very fast and abstract and an an advanced (and somewhat slower) combat system for those who want more focus on combat (with lots of optional rules for those who want even more detail and don't mind the even longer battles). The game rules would have to include both from day one, however -- you could not pick one and add the other in a supplement next year as you'd lose the camp you put off to the supplement.

4)   Then there are two types of combat tactics to account for. Some people want combat tactics confined to "real world tactics" (i.e. attacking from the rear gives an advantage, defending from high ground is better, etc.) while others want what I call "rules manipulation tactics" where tactical advantage comes from knowing the mechanical combat rules and manipulating them for an advantage in combat (4e combat is an excellent example). People who want the former generally don't want the latter in their games while people who love the latter often don't even see the former as "tactics".

5)    Some people want character classes that are all equal in combat while others want variety so player interested in combat can take a class that is great in combat while those less interested than take a class whose abilities are mainly non-combat. The latter is easier to provide in a game with very fast, abstract combat as combats do not last long enough for those players playing mainly non-combat classes to get bored. Of course, that doesn't work well in games where combat takes a lot of time to play out. However, assuming everyone is interested in combat is a bad idea even in games where combat takes a long time. Players not interested in combat should not penalize the party's chances of success if all they want to do is roll to hit instead of getting involved in 4e style "character synergy combat" where all players need to be interested in combat and willing to learn to effectively use the rules-based tactics or the entire party suffers.

6)    Some people want high-powered spells in the game even if this means wizards are powerful and can dominate the game at higher levels. Other people want magic (and spell casters) limited -- but often can't agree on how it should be limited.

7)    Some people want a lot of mechanical customization of characters even if this leads to "character optimization" players dominating the game. Other people want some customization but want character optimization really reigned in. Other people don't want much mechanical customization because they want to be able to create characters very quickly -- either because they are causal players who don't want to be bothered or so they can have games with character death is relatively common. Then you have the people who want customization to be limited to just being better (a bonus to some action) at stuff anyone can do (with only stuff that truly requires a special ability to even try limited to only those characters who take a particular customization), while others don't mind limiting things that anyone should be able to try to do to those who have selected a particular customization -- if "knockback" is a feat, they want the rules to prohibit any character from pushing a target being back unless they have taken the feat, no matter how unrealistic this might be.

8)    Some people need monster descriptions to include lots of non-combat info about each monster as they use this to create their adventures and campaigns while others only want combat info on monsters as that's all they use monsters for.

9)    Some people want the game to be based on the player's skill while others want the game to be used on character skill. The two camps are often so divided that they don't even consider the way the other camp plays to be "roleplaying."

10)    Some want a game with lots of limits so they can play in tournaments or organized play with strangers and not have to worry about strange rules interpretations or rules abuse by the GM or other players. Others have no interest in tournaments or organized play on don't want the game designed around the needs of tournaments and organized play.

11)    Vancian magic: Some people hate it with a passion while others don't consider a game without it to really be D&D.

12)    Some people want the rules designed to somehow reign in those they consider to be "bad GMs", others don't want average or good GM limited in an attempt to stop bad GMs.

There are of course many more design points in D&D where you not only cannot please everyone but are likely to actually drive away those who want the "opposite" of the decision the designer made. However, I think that just these points show that would be almost impossible for a single edition of D&D to satisfy all D&D players.

Note for edition warriors: Please understand that none of the incompatible "options" I mention above are objectively right or wrong, they are just "right" to the players who want them and "wrong" to those who would not play in game with them unless forced at gunpoint. What you need from a D&D rules set to be willing to play is just as valid as what I need from a D&D rules set to be willing to play -- even if they are completely incompatible with each other. Where D&D is concerned, there is no one true way. That's a huge problem for anyone who wants to design a new edition of D&D that most (let alone "almost all") players of previous editions are likely to switch to.
Randall
Rules Light RPGs: Home of Microlite20 and Other Rules-Lite Tabletop RPGs

Imp

  • Tiny Outsider
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2012, 05:53:28 PM »
Quote from: Spinachcat;502469
Why would anyone in the OSR or Pathfinder Society champion a game that isn't their preferred game?


I don't know if there are very many people like me, but I'm more about "pick a D&D whose flaws are least glaring at the moment" than "this game is my one twue wuv" so I'd be interested in a 3e that scaled its complexity back towards B/X, or a 1e that introduced some ideas from 3e, 4e, or other games, or even possibly a new take on 4e that didn't go out of its way to be stupid, though I'm not holding up big hopes for any of that at the moment.

I do agree that I don't see 5e reuniting everyone under a big happy tent any way it plays out. But I'd think a lot of people aren't loyalists.

danbuter

  • setting junkie
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
    • http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2012, 06:02:49 PM »
Quote from: Benoist;502478
Absolutely. If anything, the fact the design team is small is a good thing in my mind, not bad.


I agree. Design by committee usually leads to milquetoast that's made to not offend anyone, while also losing all of it's vitality.
Sword and Board - My blog about BFRPG, S&W, Hi/Lo Heroes, and other games.
Sword & Board: BFRPG Supplement Free pdf. Cheap print version.
Bushi D6  Samurai and D6!
Bushi setting map

Skywalker

  • Ron Hates On Zebra
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3636
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2012, 06:06:39 PM »
Quote from: danbuter;502494
I agree. Design by committee usually leads to milquetoast that's made to not offend anyone, while also losing all of it's vitality.


That sounds like a recast of 5e's stated goal to an extent.

David R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 6874
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2012, 06:14:57 PM »
Well, it may not reunite D&Ders but it could remind them that there are elements of commonality between their various playstyles.

Regards,
David R

jibbajibba

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9098
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2012, 06:55:51 PM »
Quote from: Spinachcat;502458
What could they possibly do to please the fans of 0e, 3e and 4e?

For you, its clearly a return to Old School. But is that really what 3e fans want? Or 4e fans? Or people born in the 90s?

Hell, the OSR can't even agree on a rules set. You are on Dragonsfoot and you know what I mean.

Classic D&D fans aren't fans of "character builds" or "combat as boardgame" or any game that isn't written by Gygax. 3e fans aren't going to be thrilled with "rulings, not rules" or unbalanced encounters or high PC mortality. 4e fans aren't going to want 3e-isms because if they did, they'd be playing Crapfinder.
 



As much as I love the idea of a modular RPG, it would be a nightmare in actual play. Just imagine sitting down at the table and the DM would have to describe the Chinese menu options that he's using.

Imagine how players will feel if they can't use "Uber Eggroll" from Column B because the GM isn't using that modular section in his version of D&D. I have seen plenty of 3e/4e players shit themselves over the DM not allowing a certain race, class or supplement in his game.

That's why Eberron and LFR are all-inclusive settings, regardless how laughable that idea may be. If you want to sell lots of books, you have to create settings where players feel entitled to use every book they buy in every game they play.

Otherwise, why would players buy the new shiny book?


cross referencing t the post I made on one of the other 5e threads. You keep the basic game simple and you add complexity through settings (which I said you could tie back to Mtg as an aside :) ) so the base game has 4 classes and 5 races. The settings have setting specific classes and races that tie together. You play in a Ravinca game (to take a MtG setting) and you get to play a Boros Peacekeeper, a Golargi Necromancer, a Selesnya Priest, a Dimir Spy etc etc ...

This gives you a bases entry level game and a treadmill of sorts but tied to unique settings with complexity and rule variants etc etc .

This is a bit contentious as it means ditching the old settings (or making the default setting Greyhawk) but it provides a simple entry level game and the desire for complexity and depth but tied to settings which are self contained and so you shouldn't get the same PC whining.

Personally I would publish the toolbox used to design these settings, the monster creator, the  class creator etc etc . in the basic DMG. I actually like the idea that DMs create their own settings and their own classes etc. But a base game where its all easy and simply old schoolish is still there.
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%


GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

Fiasco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2012, 07:53:26 PM »
Quote from: Rincewind1;502475

Fiasco - don't you f*cking dare forget Dave Arneson.


Haha. I know you are joking but I can't help point out that Arneson was long gone by the time 1E was written.

One thing we are not considering is how many 4E players (no matter how much they grumble) will leap across to 5E through sheer blind loyalty? After all they swallowed 4E...

Rincewind1

  • Have YOU got any
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7685
    • http://www.smerf.fero.pl
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2012, 07:55:02 PM »
Quote from: Fiasco;502542
Haha. I know you are joking but I can't help point out that Arneson was long gone by the time 1E was written.

One thing we are not considering is how many 4E players (no matter how much they grumble) will leap across to 5E through sheer blind loyalty? After all they swallowed 4E...

Good point, though again - do not mistake 4vengers with fans of 4e.

Pseudo seems like a fan of 4e - he took the system, said "okay", and started devising shit for it.

That's what being a fan of a system is about, not fighting meaningless fights on forums.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don't Like You thread should be closed

stu2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2012, 09:01:44 PM »
I think D&D should reverse the trend for the OSR. They should clone other games and release them all under the banner D&D Classics. Do old AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster, T&T--whatever they can do. Put clerics and bugbears in it and call it D&D. I'd love to see what games the D&D crowd would play, as long as they were branded D&D.
Employment Counselor: So what do you like to do outside of work?
Oblivious Gamer: I like to play games: wargames, role-playing games.
EC: My cousin killed himself because of role-playing games.
OG: Jesus, what was he playing? Rifts?
--Fear the Boot

VectorSigma

  • civet orgasm
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1250
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2012, 09:11:02 PM »
If the new stuff is very compatible with both old versions and different 'builds' (heh) of 5e, then there's a way to create shared experience.

"Man, our group finally finished that new 5e adventure, 'Terrible Temple of the Devil-Crocodile' last night.  It was crazy."

"Oh, I love that adventure.  You guys are running just basic core, right?"

"Yep, that's right.  The room with the six-headed snake almost TPK'd us."

"Dude, us too.  We're playing using the grid-tactics add-on, though.  Some killer set-piece encounters in that module."

"Sweet.  Did you guys rescue the disguised hag in the cave?"

"Hahaha - hell no, we stabbed the shit out of her."

"So did we!"

The supplemental stuff is just stickers and spoilers.  It's the chassis that matters.
Wampus Country - Whimsical tales on the fantasy frontier

"Describing Erik Jensen's Wampus Country setting is difficult"  -- Grognardia

"Well worth reading."  -- Steve Winter

"...seriously nifty stuff..." -- Bruce Baugh

"[Erik is] the Carrot-Top of role-playing games." -- Jared Sorensen, who probably meant it as an insult, but screw that guy.

"Next con I'm playing in Wampus."  -- Harley Stroh

thedungeondelver

  • Advanced D&D
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6039
Can 5e can reunite D&Ders?
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2012, 09:21:20 PM »
Quote from: VectorSigma;502574
If the new stuff is very compatible with both old versions and different 'builds' (heh) of 5e, then there's a way to create shared experience.

"Man, our group finally finished that new 5e adventure, 'Terrible Temple of the Devil-Crocodile' last night.  It was crazy."

"Oh, I love that adventure.  You guys are running just basic core, right?"

"Yep, that's right.  The room with the six-headed snake almost TPK'd us."

"Dude, us too.  We're playing using the grid-tactics add-on, though.  Some killer set-piece encounters in that module."

"Sweet.  Did you guys rescue the disguised hag in the cave?"

"Hahaha - hell no, we stabbed the shit out of her."

"So did we!"

The supplemental stuff is just stickers and spoilers.  It's the chassis that matters.


this thing you describe it...it cannot exist between D&Ders...it...cannot...
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l