TheRPGSite

Some stuff on how the play test worked and whats coming up.

http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview-with-dd-lead-designer-mike-mearls-gamers-wanted-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html

QuoteI've joked that fifth edition is the One True Ring of D&D's various editions. It certainly seems that way to me, but will it be backwards compatible, and if so, to what extent?

We've already had DMs cook up conversion guides for earlier editions. We'll be producing official ones that will be freely available in the fall, once we dig ourselves out from beneath the three core rulebooks.

Now there's an interesting thought, although for all I know that was confirmed months ago.

Quote from: tanstaafl48;771788We’ll be producing official ones that will be freely available in the fall, once we dig ourselves out from beneath the three core rulebooks.  

And the Christmas Layoffs

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;771789And the Christmas Layoffs

Take it back to SA or TBP.  Talk about the actual game, not WoTC's hiring practices please.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;771789And the Christmas Layoffs

There isn't anybody to layoff this time around because you're not going to see a book a month or whatever.

Nice to see the new direction they plan on taking.  Mearls seems like a good dude.

Quote from: RunningLaser;771800Nice to see the new direction they plan on taking.  Mearls seems like a good dude.

I like that he can admit he was wrong and has a weakness for over complex rules from time to time but can still correct himself if need be.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771792Take it back to SA or TBP.  Talk about the actual game, not WoTC's hiring practices please.

Nah, let him make his joke. I didn't think it was great either, but this is a free forum.

Quote from: RunningLaserNice to see the new direction they plan on taking. Mearls seems like a good dude.

He's been accused of being an opportunistic weasel, but I think that's an exaggeration. He seemed a straight enough shooter when I briefly interacted with him at PAX at least, despite the standard corporate cageyness.

Quote from: Marleycat;771802I like that he can admit he was wrong and has a weakness for over complex rules from time to time but can still correct himself if need be.

A lot of things he said 5-8 years ago I found quite alarming, in the context of game design.  Most of his recent commentary I agree with.

I guess we shouldn't be judged by some of the stuff we said almost a decade ago, because attitudes can change, huh?  ;)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;771807Nah, let him make his joke. I didn't think it was great either, but this is a free forum.

.

Because you can, doesn't mean you should.  Especially when it's emulating the behavior at SA and TBP.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771809A lot of things he said 5-8 years ago I found quite alarming, in the context of game design.  Most of his recent commentary I agree with.

I guess we shouldn't be judged by some of the stuff we said almost a decade ago, because attitudes can change, huh?  ;)

Its interesting that he sees the survey as contradicting 15 years of game design. I sense we get a certain forum owner declaring this as vindication... ;o)

Quote from: jadrax;771822Its interesting that he sees the survey as contradicting 15 years of game design. I sense we get a certain forum owner declaring this as vindication... ;o)

Pundit, saying everything good is all his idea and he's saved D&D?  Nah, he wouldn't do something like that.....*



*anyone who follows him on G+ knows he puts out 2-3 posts a day about either how it was all his idea, or how people are attacking him. ;)

I'm pretty optimistic that the splat mill is over and D&D is no longer being designed for system-wanks and mini-maxers.

QuoteFor way too long the rules have been a deterrent. So, it's really about focusing on what's important – campaigns and adventures – and selling that, while removing barriers to entry.

As far as worrying about sales goes, we're definitely approaching the business in a different way. In the past, the way to make the business work was to release more and more RPG books. In reviewing sales records, it's pretty clear that after a few expansions people simply stop buying and many even stop playing. Could you imagine trying to keep up with a boardgame if a new expansion or three came out for it every month?

Instead of flooding the market with an endless tide of RPG books, we're moving to diversify the business. We have two active MMOs, board games, miniatures, t-shirts, novels, and even more stuff we're working on.

In hindsight, it's actually a fairly obvious move. Let's say you buy the three core rulebooks and then the two volumes of the Tyranny of Dragons campaign. That gives you everything you need for the next 6 to 12 months of gaming. Do I really have much of a chance to sell you more RPG stuff during that time? Why fight that battle?

Quote from: Haffrung;771843I'm pretty optimistic that the splat mill is over and D&D is no longer being designed for system-wanks and mini-maxers.

Hopefully because in 2e I had maybe 10 books and 2 setting boxes. And it was plenty. And that was for 11 years?

I wouldn't mind a splat mill if the system is ACTUALLY modular. (I have my doubts, but...)

Me, I always found it... bizarre, hearing people talk about how players insisted on using stuff. I thought the core assumption was/should be 'the GM picks what she wants to help define her setting/campaign,' but apparently that isn't as universal as I thought.

That might have something to do with encouragement from the core game -- maybe with the comments about flexibility and modularity, the 5e books will foster more diversity and selection.

Quote from: Marleycat;771846Hopefully because in 2e I had maybe 10 books and 2 setting boxes. And it was plenty. And that was for 11 years?

2e was the splat book king though :)

Quote from: Haffrung;771843I'm pretty optimistic that the splat mill is over and D&D is no longer being designed for system-wanks and mini-maxers.

You forgot the [/sarcasm] tag.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7718512e was the splat book king though :)

Settings yes.:) And the splat books weren't needed given the DMG was a giant toolkit it was the settings that mattered more. You picked your setting and said I am using this varient rule/rules and this book and that book is allowed if any.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771809A lot of things he said 5-8 years ago I found quite alarming, in the context of game design.  Most of his recent commentary I agree with.

I guess we shouldn't be judged by some of the stuff we said almost a decade ago, because attitudes can change, huh?  ;)

A few things have remained very consistent about Mike Mearls. While I've never met him in person, I've corresponded with him in a number of forums across the years, and he always struck me as polite, a good listener, dedicated, intelligent and, more than anything, as a mature fellow with a modest ego who knew how to keep things in perspective.

So it's no surprise to me that Mearls has learned a few things over the years and put them to effective use.

As much as I've been appalled at some of the character assassination directed at Zak and Pundit, I've been even more disgusted at the manner in which Mearls has been relentlessly attacked and ridiculed over the past couple of years. Yet, we hear hardly a word of bitterness coming out of the guy.

WotC could not have asked for a better hand at the helm for 5th edition and I hope he sticks around for a long, long time. The man is a gift to the RPG community.

Quote from: Saplatt;771861A few things have remained very consistent about Mike Mearls. While I've never met him in person, I've corresponded with him in a number of forums across the years, and he always struck me as polite, a good listener, dedicated, intelligent and, more than anything, as a mature fellow with a modest ego who knew how to keep things in perspective.

So it's no surprise to me that Mearls has learned a few things over the years and put them to effective use.

As much as I've been appalled at some of the character assassination directed at Zak and Pundit, I've been even more disgusted at the manner in which Mearls has been relentlessly attacked and ridiculed over the past couple of years. Yet, we hear hardly a word of bitterness coming out of the guy.

WotC could not have asked for a better hand at the helm for 5th edition and I hope he sticks around for a long, long time. The man is a gift to the RPG community.

And he is the twitter king. He will answer any question he is asked on twitter and usually pretty quickly.

Quote from: Will;771847Me, I always found it... bizarre, hearing people talk about how players insisted on using stuff. I thought the core assumption was/should be 'the GM picks what she wants to help define her setting/campaign,' but apparently that isn't as universal as I thought.

Round here, its always seemed to be a rule that if you have bought the book, you get to use it. It drives me nuts. I actually had a rep a few years ago of being an arsehole GM because I would not let someone use a class from a rolemaster companion he bought, despite it not fitting my campaign.

Quote from: MearlsThe most surprising thing had to be the strong, positive reactions to a lighter approach to rules and a game that emphasized exploration, roleplaying, and combat in equal measures.

<--- not at all surprised.

Also proficiency dice mechanic in DMG! Yay!

Quote from: Will;771847Me, I always found it... bizarre, hearing people talk about how players insisted on using stuff. I thought the core assumption was/should be 'the GM picks what she wants to help define her setting/campaign,' but apparently that isn't as universal as I thought.

I don't have any problem restricting what we use at the table. But a game that encourages a big emphasis on char op is going to affect things I do use. Adventures tend to be designed for uber-balance or the char-oppers and system-wanks have a fit. There's all kinds of assumptions about party optimization and power levels that creep into adventures. And in the 3E era, WotC did not put much effort into campaign settings and adventures. If they expect to get more of their revenue from that content in the future, I'll have more to choose from.

Quote from: Saplatt;771861As much as I've been appalled at some of the character assassination directed at Zak and Pundit, I've been even more disgusted at the manner in which Mearls has been relentlessly attacked and ridiculed over the past couple of years. Yet, we hear hardly a word of bitterness coming out of the guy.

Yep. I actually gloss over any critical D&D post with the word Mearls in it because it's a red flag that the poster is an unstable uber-nerd. The system-wanks attack Mearls relentlessly over his lack of qualifications for designing an RPG system, but I'd love to see one of their heroes like Luke Crane handle the job of being the face of D&D at conventions, podcasts, and Q&As, while being subjected to the kind of wild-eyed hostility and nerdfury that Mearls endures on a daily basis. A guy like Crane, or any of the socially-dysfunctional Asperger's creeps who castigate Mearls on the TBP, would have a public meltdown within weeks.

Man the ban hammer is out over TBP on their version of this thread. They actually closed the thread.:eek:

Quote from: Marleycat;771880Man the ban hammer is out over TBP on their version of this thread.:eek:

Time to make some popcorn.

And get a cup for the tears.

Mmm. Delicious.


In the past I haven't been a fan of Mearls. I think some of his comments about system mastery being built into 3e to punish newbs smacked a lot of self-serving revisionism. (It wasn't an accident, we were brilliant!) Also, yeah, a lot of his products that I've seen are unbalanced and fiddly.

That said, none of that are crimes or anything, and I'm quite willing to adjust my impression of folks.

So far WotC has generally been making a lot of lost ground with me, and I'm guessing many others.

Quote from: Will;771892In the past I haven't been a fan of Mearls. I think some of his comments about system mastery being built into 3e to punish newbs smacked a lot of self-serving revisionism. (It wasn't an accident, we were brilliant!) Also, yeah, a lot of his products that I've seen are unbalanced and fiddly.

I thought that was Monte Cook?

... Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


yes, it was. Um. Yeah. my bad.

Quote from: Will;771892In the past I haven't been a fan of Mearls. I think some of his comments about system mastery being built into 3e to punish newbs smacked a lot of self-serving revisionism. (It wasn't an accident, we were brilliant!)

  That was Cook, not Mearls. :)

  Of course, I'm probably One of Those to Blame for having pointed out numerous times that Mearls has changed his tune on some issues of game design over the years, so what he said and did at the launch of 4E doesn't necessarily reflect his plans and opininos when designing 5E. Also, I think he's more concerned with the Big Picture and the D&D 'feel' than details and mechanical rigor.

  So place your bets, folks! Will I be banned first here or on TBP? :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;771905That was Cook, not Mearls. :)

 

  So place your bets, folks! Will I be banned first here or on TBP? :)

Neither because you fit in there well* and you don't have the chops to be banned from here.

*That isn't meant to be a bad thing it just means your posting style at TBP is one that is preferred over there. For example I just don't have the patience for the passive-aggressive nonsense that people like Topher et al get away with on a regular basis so it gets me in trouble over there.

Do people actually get banned here for anything other than spamming or walls of invective?

I didn't know you could get banned here. I suppose there must be something you could say about a mod that might work...

Anyway, that thread on TBP is kind of amazing. You read this pretty simple interview with an obviously sweet guy about stuff we mostly know plus some vague ideas about focusing on adventures instead of splats. And then you see this slick of shit-oil spreading across that board. Ugh. What is their fucking problem?

Quote from: Will;771917Do people actually get banned here for anything other than spamming or walls of invective?

You have to be overtly racist or spam porn or talk about child rape or something worse then any of that.

Now I feel like a dunce. Because I was, effectively, thinking 'huh, M* seems kind of like a prat from other stuff I've read... how did I misread him so badly?'

Duh duh de-duh duh.

Quote from: Will;771917Do people actually get banned here for anything other than spamming or walls of invective?

  That was intended as a joke. It's more likely I'll wind up on a bunch of ignore lists here or get shouted out/decide to leave. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;771921That was intended as a joke. It's more likely I'll wind up on a bunch of ignore lists here or get shouted out/decide to leave. :)

Naw. Nothing wrong with liking different games. You are not militant about it so why should anybody take offense?

Quote from: Larsdangly;771918I didn't know you could get banned here. I suppose there must be something you could say about a mod that might work...

Anyway, that thread on TBP is kind of amazing. You read this pretty simple interview with an obviously sweet guy about stuff we mostly know plus some vague ideas about focusing on adventures instead of splats. And then you see this slick of shit-oil spreading across that board. Ugh. What is their fucking problem?

Some of their obsessive vitriol seems kind of unhealthy. I mean, the pure, white-hot rage some of them feel over this edition is just... yikes.

Some are completely blind. No other opinion is valid: just their's. If you go against the echo chamber, even politely, you're accused of resorting to the old "it's not a problem to ME so it isn't a problem to anyone". It's super insulting... at least, insofar as one COULD be insulted by strangers on the internet, ha ha

You know what's fun? Being modded for being an edition warrior, but the mod doesn't actually say which edition. Because they can't figure out what edition it would be.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can edition war without anyone being able to identify which editions you like or hate.

(Hint: I don't advocate any edition. I don't hate any edition.)

((Extra hint: TBP mods can suck my crank))

And now they have a "special stickie" up. It just gets better and better.

When it comes to their handling of 'attack arguments, not people,' I generally agree with the mods.

I just wish they had stuck to that.

Quote from: Will;771934When it comes to their handling of 'attack arguments, not people,' I generally agree with the mods.

I just wish they had stuck to that.

Not that they're wrong to do the stickie but it just seems like common sense to me. But that whole forum is like a pack of rabid dogs concerning 5e. For example Mearls already tweeted that in the DMG concerning short rests there is a 4e mod that drops it to 5 minutes. Basically it's a non-issue but they would rather argue then actually keep up with the information that is out there. (The WotC boards have a dedicated thread only for Mearl's Tweets and he answers clearly no dodging).

They really mean it when they say 5e is a toolkit game.

You've... met people, right? :)

Quote from: Will;771940You've... met people, right? :)

Uninfortunately.:)

I'm impressed with how well this board works by NOT making a big deal about strongly (or obscenely) worded arguments.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771810Because you can, doesn't mean you should.  Especially when it's emulating the behavior at SA and TBP.

Pot/Kettle=Black

But Marly is right. The staff on this is so pared back that if they do do layoffs it will be surprising. Unless they do the standard WOTC gag of then throwing out all the good to start right back up with the bad.

As for Mearls. He says whatever he thinks is going to garner him the best PR. If tomorrow he believed that there was PR in 4e loons then he'd be pandering to them and kicking everyone else in the teeth. Im sorry. But that routine got very old very fast from him.

Points though to Mearls and co for currently trying to stay on track and do the right thing for once. If he can maintain that then great. And so far he has. This despite WOTCs tendency to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.

And for that he and the others working on this very much deserve praise.

Quote from: Saplatt;771861A few things have remained very consistent about Mike Mearls. While I've never met him in person, I've corresponded with him in a number of forums across the years, and he always struck me as polite, a good listener, dedicated, intelligent and, more than anything, as a mature fellow with a modest ego who knew how to keep things in perspective.

So it's no surprise to me that Mearls has learned a few things over the years and put them to effective use.

As much as I've been appalled at some of the character assassination directed at Zak and Pundit, I've been even more disgusted at the manner in which Mearls has been relentlessly attacked and ridiculed over the past couple of years. Yet, we hear hardly a word of bitterness coming out of the guy.

WotC could not have asked for a better hand at the helm for 5th edition and I hope he sticks around for a long, long time. The man is a gift to the RPG community.

Very true. Personally hes a nice fellow. Very much comes across as a people person. Perhaps a little too much. But he is out there and active rather than being a blank corporate monolith.

Which is why we give him so much slack even when he goofs.

Quote from: Omega;771944As for Mearls. He says whatever he thinks is going to garner him the best PR. If tomorrow he believed that there was PR in 4e loons then he'd be pandering to them and kicking everyone else in the teeth. Im sorry. But that routine got very old very fast from him.

You are almost completely wrong about him.  He tends to say what he believes, and has to be told what not to say - in other words, he's an engineer.  He doesn't kick people in the teeth, ever.  He's an easy going, relaxed guy that genuinely believes what he is saying.

Name three times where he "kicked people in the teeth" in order to get the best PR.

Let me give you a hint, when he made the statement in an interview about warlods "shouting his hand back on" (to paraphrase), that wasn't PR speak, and it wasn't kicking people in the teeth.

Quote from: Larsdangly;771918I didn't know you could get banned here. I suppose there must be something you could say about a mod that might work...

Anyway, that thread on TBP is kind of amazing. You read this pretty simple interview with an obviously sweet guy about stuff we mostly know plus some vague ideas about focusing on adventures instead of splats. And then you see this slick of shit-oil spreading across that board. Ugh. What is their fucking problem?

Sock puppets used to back senseless trolling.
And on rare occasion just senseless trolling.

Bout the only thing I've seen to get the admin here riled.

Quote from: Obeeron;771951You are almost completely wrong about him.  He tends to say what he believes, and has to be told what not to say - in other words, he's an engineer.  He doesn't kick people in the teeth, ever.  He's an easy going, relaxed guy that genuinely believes what he is saying.

Name three times where he "kicked people in the teeth" in order to get the best PR.

Let me give you a hint, when he made the statement in an interview about warlods "shouting his hand back on" (to paraphrase), that wasn't PR speak, and it wasn't kicking people in the teeth.

Let me give you a hint then.

Yes he does. No he does not kick people every time. But he does follow the path of PR and whatever he thinks is trendy at the moment. Its been noted here and elsewhere over just the last two years alone. Look it up.

Currently though hes reigned that in quite a bit. Which is infinitely better than can be said of certain other designers.

I wonder if people are reading too much into motives.

When developers listen to audience and try to appeal to them, they are trendy and lack focus.
When developers decide to do something according to their own set of ideas, they are stupidly ignoring the fans.

Can't win.

Quote from: Will;771927You know what's fun? Being modded for being an edition warrior, but the mod doesn't actually say which edition. Because they can't figure out what edition it would be.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can edition war without anyone being able to identify which editions you like or hate.

Easy. Just make the uncontroversial (to normal people) observation that different editions of D&D emphasize different types of gameplay. You'll rile up the usual passive-aggressive knobs and earn a warning or ban in no time. I TBP world, the publishers of D&D have been releasing the same game for 30 years, it's just that it's been improving with every edition. Until 5E.

Quote from: Will;771965I wonder if people are reading too much into motives.

When developers listen to audience and try to appeal to them, they are trendy and lack focus.
When developers decide to do something according to their own set of ideas, they are stupidly ignoring the fans.

Can't win.

Pretty much. People seem to need some reason to cast aspersions on the devs for publishing something they dislike. Anything to avoid facing the reality that what you like may not be very popular.

Quote from: Haffrung;771969Easy. Just make the uncontroversial (to normal people) observation that different editions of D&D emphasize different types of gameplay. You'll rile up the usual passive-aggressive knobs and earn a warning or ban in no time. I TBP world, the publishers of D&D have been releasing the same game for 30 years, it's just that it's been improving with every edition. Until 5E.

I'm trying to find the link, but I was told off for giving people crap for not liking my favorite edition.

Which the mod couldn't name, because I hadn't.

Quote from: Haffrung;771969Easy. Just make the uncontroversial (to normal people) observation that different editions of D&D emphasize different types of gameplay. You'll rile up the usual passive-aggressive knobs and earn a warning or ban in no time. I TBP world, the publishers of D&D have been releasing the same game for 30 years, it's just that it's been improving with every edition. Until 5E.

  Given how well-received my efforts at identifying and categorizing those types of gameplay were, I have to respond with a Does Not Compute or man what? to this.

  Now, part of the reason for hostility may be that often, making that observation is wrapped up with value judgments about those kinds of play, which is more likely to provoke the hostility.

The problem becomes that once most of the conversation has become overwhelmingly tribal, any intellectual argument is just assumed to be tribal.

Like 'this argument is unsound, and people can totally enjoy that.'

MUST NECESSARILY MEAN I hate the previous poster's edition and am just cravenly defending my favorite system from attack.

Quote from: Will;771965I wonder if people are reading too much into motives.

When developers listen to audience and try to appeal to them, they are trendy and lack focus.
When developers decide to do something according to their own set of ideas, they are stupidly ignoring the fans.

Can't win.

There is that of course. Mearls just tends to do it a bit more frequently than most. Which is why it can end up getting on the nerves now and then.

I have to deal with this from artists and its not any fun there either.

As said. Mearls likes to talk. Great people person overall and he has not yet burned out. From personal experience, short of Gygax or Skip Williams, I cant think of anyone off the bat whos been that out there with the public for an RPG. That kids is an accomplishment in this biz.

I kinda see their frustration with Mearls because he's claiming something is like something else when it really isn't. Sort of like looking at Hit Die healing and treating it akin to Healing Surges (which it sorta is if you squint your eyes and look from a distance).

When looking at Short-rest features and Encounter Powers, they have similarities because they're greater effects than just attacking AND they're not tied to recovering them after an extended period (6 - 8 hours) like spells have traditionally been. But that's pretty much where it stops. There were many ways in 4E to recover Encounter powers and encounter powers could be relied upon every encounter rather than at the whim of the group taking a short rest for an hour.

The "problem" (as it relates to some's angst) here is that Short Rests have been extended to 1 hour instead of 5 minutes and I think there's this belief that the DM now has a longer time frame from which to attack the PCs again where 5 minutes wasn't. Now from my time playing 4E I can attest that MOST DMs allow short rests after battle but it isn't always the case. Sometimes PCs are overwhelmed and they must retreat and Monsters don't always stay in their tidy-little boxes of the battle-map and sometimes come after you. In these situations the "encounter" was never really over NOR did the PCs have time to rest even the 5 minutes to recover the powers. So it's not like this is something new or that 4E hasn't seen.

And, honestly, I'm banking on the DMG having a LOAD of ways to make Short-Rest powers recover quicker by a modular encounter timer. IF you want a more heroic feeling, *BAM* Short Rests are 5 minutes. If you want the standard feeling, *BAM* Short Rests are 1 hour. If you want "Gritty / Make you think before using your expendable resources" then Short Rests are 4 hours.

Something along those lines, at least. That way people who like 4E stylized Encounter Powers can have them and for those that DON'T like it, can extend the period longer. WotC Just had to sort of make a stand on the issue and they sort of took the middle road. Not too short to make their use every battle but not too long that you were only getting 1 or 2 uses out of it in a day.

Quote from: Batman;771994And, honestly, I'm banking on the DMG having a LOAD of ways to make Short-Rest powers recover quicker by a modular encounter timer. IF you want a more heroic feeling, *BAM* Short Rests are 5 minutes. If you want the standard feeling, *BAM* Short Rests are 1 hour. If you want "Gritty / Make you think before using your expendable resources" then Short Rests are 4 hours.

I appreciate that sort of flexibility. But it drives the balance-uber-alles RAW crowd crazy. An encounter might be IMBALANCED if you fool around with those sorts of things!!!!

But 5E is going to have all sorts of toggles and dials a DM can use to customize the game to a preferred playstyle or to suit a particular campaign. Which means balance beyond the roughest guidelines will be left to the DM's judgement. And that will continue to drive the RAW crowd apeshit because they won't be able to engage in the favourite passtime of pointing out IMBALANCE. Or rather, they will continue to engage in their favourite passtime while pissing off the people who are actually playing the game. The only question at this point is how long that crowd will continue to pollute discussion about 5E with their pissing and moaning. You'd think they would eventually recognize that 5E not a game for them, and just move on.

Today Mearls confirmed that the DMG has a mod for 4e that adjusts short rest to 5 minutes.

Quote from: Haffrung;771998I appreciate that sort of flexibility. But it drives the balance-uber-alles RAW crowd crazy. An encounter might be IMBALANCED if you fool around with those sorts of things!!!!

But 5E is going to have all sorts of toggles and dials a DM can use to customize the game to a preferred playstyle or to suit a particular campaign. Which means balance beyond the roughest guidelines will be left to the DM's judgement. And that will continue to drive the RAW crowd apeshit because they won't be able to engage in the favourite passtime of pointing out IMBALANCE.

As far as balance goes, along with the assumption that the DMG will provide ideas on how to re-create Encounter Powers with Short Rest abilities and make changes to how one formats the adventuring "Day" it goes to say that they will also change daily features in terms of hours and such. If a Short Rest is resolved in 5 minutes, then perhaps Long Rest will be readjusted to 6 hours (to what it was in 4E).

Quote from: Haffrung;771998Or rather, they will continue to engage in their favourite passtime while pissing off the people who are actually playing the game. The only question at this point is how long that crowd will continue to pollute discussion about 5E with their pissing and moaning. You'd think they would eventually recognize that 5E not a game for them, and just move on.

You'd think that, however, as we've learned with the "E-War" people will complain until their blue in the face (eh, metaphorically speaking) until people go-away or their heard by the powers-that-be. The squeaky wheel and all that jazz......

Quote from: Marleycat;772001Today Mearls confirmed that the DMG has a mod for 4e that adjusts short rest to 5 minutes.

That's sorta what I figured. To be honest, I don't really see THAT big of a deal between 5 minutes and 1 hour AND 6 hours to 8 hours. If the DM wants to attack you as your recovering then he's gonna do that and I doubt a timeline of 5 minutes (or an hour) will make that change his/her mind. In my experience MOST DMs who've let the players escape into a small, yet fortified area have already conceded the point to allow them a rest. In 3e/v3.5 it was to cast spells like Cure Light Wounds and Vigor from wands, In Pathfinder it's the Cleric using his Channel Positive Energy and similar use of spell-wands, in 4E it was a short rest where people renewed their HP with Healing Surges, and in 5E it's more spells / Hit Die / Healer's Kit. The outcome is nearly the same, it just puts a bit more emphasis on having such resources available and how heavy the party relies on them.

Quote from: Batman;772005That's sorta what I figured. To be honest, I don't really see THAT big of a deal between 5 minutes and 1 hour AND 6 hours to 8 hours. If the DM wants to attack you as your recovering then he's gonna do that and I doubt a timeline of 5 minutes (or an hour) will make that change his/her mind. In my experience MOST DMs who've let the players escape into a small, yet fortified area have already conceded the point to allow them a rest. .

Not me, nor anyone I game with.  In hostile territory, the difference between 5 minutes and an hour is VAST.

Seriously. And that has little to do with me "wanting to attack you."

Quote from: mightyuncle;772012Seriously. And that has little to do with me "wanting to attack you."

Exactly.  My wants are largely irrelevant.  Wandering monsters tables and all.  Speaking of, the difference between 5 minutes and an hour is the difference between no random encounter at all, and possibly 2-3 of them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772013Exactly.  My wants are largely irrelevant.  Wandering monsters tables and all.  Speaking of, the difference between 5 minutes and an hour is the difference between no random encounter at all, and possibly 2-3 of them.

I always did mine every hour in hostile territory. Unless the PCs are in the deep thick of it then it was like every 20 minutes. But even then, meh....

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;771921It's more likely I'll wind up on a bunch of ignore lists here or get shouted out/decide to leave.

How's the view from that cross you hanged yourself on?

'I'm a martyr to my principles!' Please, fuck off.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771809A lot of things he said 5-8 years ago I found quite alarming, in the context of game design.

He's said a lot of incredibly stupid things about D&D over the years; unfortunately my favorite example of Mike-Mearls-is-dumber-than-a-lump-of-lead got swallowed up by one of the EN World crashes, but there's still plenty of stupid out there for the diligent to find.

If he's gotten a clue in the years since, great, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772013Exactly.  My wants are largely irrelevant.  Wandering monsters tables and all.  Speaking of, the difference between 5 minutes and an hour is the difference between no random encounter at all, and possibly 2-3 of them.

That's some nice hyperbole there but you have a big point about short rest length. I prefer 30 minutes because it makes more sense to me but as it is Mearls already said you could miss 10:minutes of that short rest or an hour of a long rest and still receive the benefits. Also it's a reason why elves have a big advantage given a long rest for them is 4 hours. This would be RAI of course, concerning short/long rests which is far more preferable then RAW IMHO. YMMV.

Quote from: Marleycat;772033That's some nice hyperbole there but you have a big point about short rest length. I prefer 30 minutes because it makes more sense to me but as it is Mearls already said you could miss 10:minutes of that short rest or an hour of a long rest and still receive the benefits. Also it's a reason why elves have a big advantage given a long rest for them is 4 hours. This would be RAI of course, concerning short/long rests which is far more preferable then RAW IMHO. YMMV.

what hyperbole?  Depending on which module you're playing, you could make a wandering monster check every turn.  So like I said, the difference between an hour and 5 minutes in a dungeon is the difference between 0 encounters and a few

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772035what hyperbole?  Depending on which module you're playing, you could make a wandering monster check every turn.  So like I said, the difference between an hour and 5 minutes in a dungeon is the difference between 0 encounters and a few

It read like an absolute Sacrosanct remember I am far more on your side then most that played 3e. It's all about a couple degrees where you and I are concerned. We share the same yard. We aren't neighbors like 3.5 or in a different city like 4e.:)

Quote from: Omega;771961Let me give you a hint then.

Yes he does. No he does not kick people every time. But he does follow the path of PR and whatever he thinks is trendy at the moment. Its been noted here and elsewhere over just the last two years alone. Look it up.

Currently though hes reigned that in quite a bit. Which is infinitely better than can be said of certain other designers.

I've followed along very closely the past two years, which is why I want you to back up your claims.  I'll take your post as an acknowledgement that you can't do so.

And I apologize in advance for being snarky about this - TBP has my hackles raised over the firestorms they raise over every little perceived "slight" by Mearls.

Quote from: Obeeron;771951Let me give you a hint, when he made the statement in an interview about warlods "shouting his hand back on" (to paraphrase), that wasn't PR speak, and it wasn't kicking people in the teeth.

The reaction to that one always bugged me.  That wasn't an interview, it was a podcast between Mearls and Rodney Thompson, where they discussed the warlord.  It was meant to be an example of the discussions on designs they have, with Mearls saying in the beginning that his job for the podcast would be to put Thompson "on the spot".  So the whole time they have this fairly interesting back and forth about what HP can and should mean, the place such mechanics have in the history of D&D, what the warlord should be as a concept, etc.  In the course of the debate, Mearls mentions shouting hands back on.  Yes, it was a kind of statement often used in edition wars.  But this was also a debate, the goal of which was to consider those kinds of arguments.  In the end, Rodney Thompson explicitly says, "I think people who enjoyed the 4th edition warlord should be able to create that kind of character in Next," and Mearls agrees with him.

What does anybody talk about?  "Shouting hands back on."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;772021He's said a lot of incredibly stupid things about D&D over the years; unfortunately my favorite example of Mike-Mearls-is-dumber-than-a-lump-of-lead got swallowed up by one of the EN World crashes, but there's still plenty of stupid out there for the diligent to find.

If he's gotten a clue in the years since, great, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Given enough time, the probability that someone will say something on the internet that is either a) stupid or b) something they will change their mind on, approaches 1.

Mearls in 2005 (http://mearls.livejournal.com/80639.html):

QuoteIn D&D, the DM has more power over the flow and implementation of play than the players. However, the players have the rules to keep the DM in line. So, if the DM throws Tiamat at a 1st level party, the players can call out the DM for throwing a CR 20+ monster at them. After all, the rules explicitly say that's wrong.

Mearls in 2012 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120903):

QuoteWhether you care about the characters' relative power compared to a monster or magic item is up to you. As a DM, you can carefully balance everything to meet the party's level, or you can build a world where opening the wrong door at 1st level unleashes Tiamat on the party. The key is that the DM gets to decide how that works, not the game rules. The game's job is to inform the DM, not dictate to him or her.

My take?  Someone once threw Tiamat at Mearls when his character was 1st level...

Quote from: Obeeron;772060I've followed along very closely the past two years, which is why I want you to back up your claims.  I'll take your post as an acknowledgement that you can't do so.

And I apologize in advance for being snarky about this - TBP has my hackles raised over the firestorms they raise over every little perceived "slight" by Mearls.

So you've been following along since he was made the man? :rolleyes:
Mearls flipflops to whatever he is currently doing.  Remember this is the same dude who said 4e was the bestest edition now its been thrown under the bus.  Don't forget that 3e was the bestest edition evar as well.

Quote from: Iosue;772176Mearls in 2005 (http://mearls.livejournal.com/80639.html):

Whoa...I had no idea the rot went so deep ca. 2005. No wonder I felt like D&D sucked a bag of dicks for most of the last decade! The idea of the players rules-lawyering the DM because they stepped in a pile of shit with a CR higher than they like makes me retch. Thank god that's finally in our rear view mirror.

Quote from: Larsdangly;772232Whoa...I had no idea the rot went so deep ca. 2005. No wonder I felt like D&D sucked a bag of dicks for most of the last decade! The idea of the players rules-lawyering the DM because they stepped in a pile of shit with a CR higher than they like makes me retch. Thank god that's finally in our rear view mirror.

That's the kind of stuff I was referring to.  About a decade ago, he was all about player entitlement and drove that wagon himself.  Now it seems the opposite.  Is he flip flopping because he's disingenuous?  Or because he really had a change of heart?  Either is possible.  Lord knows I've said things 10 years ago that I don't agree with any more.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772242About a decade ago, he was all about player entitlement and drove that wagon himself.  Now it seems the opposite.  Is he flip flopping because he's disingenuous?  Or because he really had a change of heart?  Either is possible.  Lord knows I've said things 10 years ago that I don't agree with any more.

I think he pretty much explains this in the interview were he comments how surprised he is that the play test responses overturn 15 years of game design.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772242Lord knows I've said things 10 years ago that I don't agree with any more.

Same here. I'm optimistically assuming that his tastes have simply changed over time. Hell, I know that mine have just over the past YEAR.

Quote from: Sommerjon;772177So you've been following along since he was made the man? :rolleyes:

I've been following him since I bought Iron Heroes when it first came out.

Quote from: jadrax;772252I think he pretty much explains this in the interview were he comments how surprised he is that the play test responses overturn 15 years of game design.

What this tells me is that he's willing to design a game that "the people" want, even if it goes against his own preferences (like the skill die for skills).  How many head honchos are willing to do that?  Regardless of anything else, it seems like he's putting his ego in check for the game.  You have to give credit where credit is due.

Quote from: jadrax;772252I think he pretty much explains this in the interview were he comments how surprised he is that the play test responses overturn 15 years of game design.

He has also commented that for too long WotC catered to the hardcore element of the hobby. I think he genuinely had a conversion a few years ago when he went back and played a bunch of AD&D. And then WotC's own research showed there was more of a market for casual, flexible D&D than there was for the hardcore, crunchy, balanced approach they catered to.

Contrary to what edition warriors who dominate RPG forums would have you believe, the preferences of  most players change over time. Mearls isn't the first or last DM to come to appreciate the merits of a lighter system and flexibility at the table.

Quote from: jadrax;772252I think he pretty much explains this in the interview were he comments how surprised he is that the play test responses overturn 15 years of game design.

To be fair, what he said was that it flew in the face of 15 years of "conventional wisdom" about D&D game design. I assume by "conventional wisdom" he meant the prevailing view among the core of WotC staff and (perhaps) some of the more vocal fan groups on the internet.

I didn't find the survey results especially surprising, since they comport so closely with what I've heard in my own circles. But all we've had is a pretty small anecdotal sample. It's encouraging to see that we weren't alone.

I might have a potty mouth, but I firmly believe you always have to give people the benefit of the doubt and not wallow around in the spew of ad-hominem arguments. If he has helped make a product that reflects my gaming values, and he is a clear advocate for that product and talks about its future in a way I agree with, then he's clearly my kind of guy.

Apropos of nothing, I just finished my first flourish of writing on a super gonzo, super-jacked sandbox for 5E, along the lines of the hints we have about some of the earliest Chainmail/OD&D era campaigns. I actually started it for my Chainmail-related OSR game, Platemail, but decided it would be more likely to actually get played if I did it for 5E. And what's the difference, anyway, right? Games is games.

Quote from: Necrozius;772253Same here. I'm optimistically assuming that his tastes have simply changed over time. Hell, I know that mine have just over the past YEAR.

:)  With both of you.  There's a lot of things that I was adamant about when I was younger, that I've changed my opinion on.  Green and growing or ripe and rotten:)

I've worked with Mearls on a couple of projects. My dealings with him back then were pretty solid and straight-up We were just two guys that loved to game without worrying about the stupid shit we see now in the forums. We'd talk game-mechanics for hours on the phone and what we'd like to do with D&D blah blah blah...

I will say this about him: he's adaptable and very open to ideas. I've never been on the "Lets Bash Mearls" wagon by dint of my former experience working with him. He *is* a very cool guy. He's one of the most enthusiastic gamers I've ever known.

We had this discussion (and he'd had it with others) before 4e happened... about doing an OGL 3.x version of d20 where we'd get a bunch of other designers and we'd chop up all the subsystems and "level the field" and take each subsystem and try to streamline things and re-balance the game. The idea was to peer-review everything in the open on a Wiki and open it up on the web for everyone to weigh in. So anyone could make suggestions for rules-alternatives but each sub-system would have an owner to kinda tend-garden in order to maintain some cohesion. But we planned on having wikis for alternate rules to let everyone go crazy - and make it plug-and-play as much as possible. And it would be free.

It would have required a lot of work and commitment. A lot of the ideas we had would have, imo, fixed a lot of things in 3.x that were simply ignored in PF. Then he announced his WotC gig... and well the rest as they say...

When 4e came out... I was surprised. I was expecting to see more of those ideas that he and I (and others) had been tossing around about what was needed (in our opinion) to make the system better. Obviously it never materialized.

I'm not sure what my feelings were about his involvement about 4e. I just knew 4e was not a game for me... so I moved on. I'm very leery about judging someone solely on the product of their artistic work. That might be "uncool" to say here where "It's just a game" is a mantra for some.

Playing an RPG and arguing about its nuances, is different than making a game based on ones imagination, and factoring "how mechanics should *feel*" and translating that to numbers while making it fun AND open-ended. Yeah there's a bit of art to that, imo.

Judging someone's character and personality, on that criteria, is pretty silly at best. But I don't know how others, that are attacking him, know him personally, as they very well could be close to him.

I can "see" Mearls's fingerprints in this 5e design. I couldn't in 4e. To the extent they exist is beyond my ability to perceive outside of comments made in context of the time. I chalk up his talking-points of that period to a relationship with a new girlfriend. Who DOESN'T like their significant-other during that period of a relationship? Then you later find out she was cheating on your with a bunch of douchebags at TBP... That's 4e for you.

That said - I think Pat Kapera and Alex Flagg pulled the trigger on 3.x "redux" (among the many that exist) and did it best with Fantasy Craft. They had a different approach but fuckin' A' ... *THAT* is a mean-ass toolbox for d20. I just wish they did more with it.

Quote from: Iosue;772176Given enough time, the probability that someone will say something on the internet that is either a) stupid or b) something they will change their mind on, approaches 1.

Very true, but if it's a consistent number of stupid somethings, then we're looking at a pattern of thinking, not a one-off oops. Mearls said a lot of stupid stuff for a long time, but I'm willing to accept that he's learned a little something at least.

Quote from: Iosue;772176My take?  Someone once threw Tiamat at Mearls when his character was 1st level...

:D

Quote from: Necrozius;772253Same here. I'm optimistically assuming that his tastes have simply changed over time. Hell, I know that mine have just over the past YEAR.

The thing I wonder is, we went from simple-ish core D&D to ever more complex core D&D, and then all the way back again, all riding on the real and/or perceived desires of the player base... will the cycle repeat again when/if the average player "gets tired of this dumbed down GM fiat stuff" once more, or is this the paradigm for keeps?

What I'm hoping is more self-aware gamers.

A lot of earlier periods of gaming is marked by people playing stuff without any firm idea of why. Rules that were light or heavy because it struck someone's fancy.

Quote from: Obeeron;772254I've been following him since I bought Iron Heroes when it first came out.

Then you know what Omega said is true.

Quote from: Sommerjon;772177So you've been following along since he was made the man? :rolleyes:
Mearls flipflops to whatever he is currently doing.  Remember this is the same dude who said 4e was the bestest edition now its been thrown under the bus.  Don't forget that 3e was the bestest edition evar as well.

What the fuck do you expect?  Everybody who has a job and half a brain tows the company line when speaking in public.  To do otherwise is to draw an unemployment check.  You are aware this is his career and not just a hobby?

Quote from: Old One Eye;772716What the fuck do you expect?  Everybody who has a job and half a brain tows the company line when speaking in public.  To do otherwise is to draw an unemployment check.  You are aware this is his career and not just a hobby?

Right on.

This reminds me, again, of doing Xbox game testing and trying to nudge a much younger testing while we were chatting with some retraining stuff going on.

Me: 'Well, you know, there are ways to say stuff. Devs are emotionally invested, this is their work. Tact is more productive, and besides, we're waaay lower on the food chain.'

Him: 'Yeah, mangers just don't want us to be HONEST.'

At which point I could see a lost cause and shut up.


Tact and careful commentary doesn't necessitate being a weasely douchebag.

Quote from: Will;772737This reminds me, again, of doing Xbox game testing and trying to nudge a much younger testing while we were chatting with some retraining stuff going on.

Me: 'Well, you know, there are ways to say stuff. Devs are emotionally invested, this is their work. Tact is more productive, and besides, we're waaay lower on the food chain.'

Him: 'Yeah, mangers just don't want us to be HONEST.'

At which point I could see a lost cause and shut up.


Tact and careful commentary doesn't necessitate being a weasely douchebag.

Very true. Criticism is fine. usually... Being an ass while criticizing is more likely to get your opinions dismissed.

"The colour scheme for the piece is a little off. The trees blend in too much with the figures in the foreground while the weapons stand out as too colourfull. (Assuming that was not the intent of the piece)" as opposed to "Where did you learn to colour? It looks like Disney threw up..."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;771810Because you can, doesn't mean you should.  Especially when it's emulating the behavior at SA and TBP.

To reflect the fact that Something Awful and RPG.net (The Big Purple) are ideologically synonymous now, I propose referring to the overall mentality as "The Awful Purple."

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;772778I propose referring to the overall mentality as "The Awful Purple."

Motion seconded.

Quote from: jadrax;772252I think he pretty much explains this in the interview were he comments how surprised he is that the play test responses overturn 15 years of game design.

Which interview is that?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;772787Which interview is that?

In the OP's link.

@JG, I already thought everybody already did?

Quote from: Old One Eye;772716What the fuck do you expect?  Everybody who has a job and half a brain tows the company line when speaking in public.  To do otherwise is to draw an unemployment check.  You are aware this is his career and not just a hobby?

So where is all the outrage then?  Or is Mikey throwing the past couple of editions under the bus A-Okay with you because you didn't like them.

Here let's hope this sinks in for you.

Quote from: MearlsInstead of flooding the market with an endless tide of RPG books, we're moving to diversify the business. We have two active MMOs, board games, miniatures, t-shirts, novels, and even more stuff we're working on.

You know how stupid does this sounds?

Holy Shit Mikey they already diversified the fucking business decades ago.

Quote from: Sommerjon;772814So where is all the outrage then?  Or is Mikey throwing the past couple of editions under the bus A-Okay with you because you didn't like them.

Here let's hope this sinks in for you.

You know how stupid does this sounds?

Holy Shit Mikey they already diversified the fucking business decades ago.

Sounds like U Mad Bro.;)

Quote from: James Gillen;772778To reflect the fact that Something Awful and RPG.net (The Big Purple) are ideologically synonymous now, I propose referring to the overall mentality as "The Awful Purple."

JG

Hell son, awfulpurple's been the name for a while now. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=563976&postcount=2)

Quote from: Omega;772774Very true. Criticism is fine. usually... Being an ass while criticizing is more likely to get your opinions dismissed.

Very true, although, in my profession we have the reverse issue as well. People use "edu-speak" to say a whole lot of nothing. Certainly, how well you know to whom you're speaking is an indication of just how tactful you need to be. In all cases, having respect for your audience goes a long way. On the other hand, sometimes somebody needs to just say it. I'm usually that guy, but I have a lot of leeway thanks to longevity and expertise. Still, you can't go around firing every round in the magazine. Not everything requires a fight (a la, anything posted on the internet).:-)

Quote from: Marleycat;772808In the OP's link.

:duh:

Derp.

Quote from: Sommerjon;772814So where is all the outrage then?  Or is Mikey throwing the past couple of editions under the bus A-Okay with you because you didn't like them.

  *Shrug* It appears to be the way WotC marketing of D&D operates. They have two basic principles; marketing campaigns will typically emphasize one or both of them:
 
   1. Gygaxian AD&D 1E was the Golden Age of the Game;
   2. The previous iteration of D&D was deeply flawed and needs correction.

  The 3E marketing campaign was heavier on 1, while the 3.5 and 4E campaigns favored 2 (to the point of 4E's ignoring 1). 5E's appears to be opening up both barrels.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;772877*Shrug* It appears to be the way WotC marketing of D&D operates. They have two basic principles; marketing campaigns will typically emphasize one or both of them:
 
   1. Gygaxian AD&D 1E was the Golden Age of the Game;
   2. The previous iteration of D&D was deeply flawed and needs correction.

  The 3E marketing campaign was heavier on 1, while the 3.5 and 4E campaigns favored 2 (to the point of 4E's ignoring 1). 5E's appears to be opening up both barrels.

They made t-shirts about how much better 3e was than 2e.  The official policy was that they didn't give a damn if any 2e players crossed over.  Despite all the whining by 3e and 4e players, WotC never shit on their editions like they did 2e.

Quote from: Iosue;772925They made t-shirts about how much better 3e was than 2e.  The official policy was that they didn't give a damn if any 2e players crossed over.  Despite all the whining by 3e and 4e players, WotC never shit on their editions like they did 2e.

  Yes, I remember the shirts. And I did say heavier, not exclusive. :) I think the reason the negativity is remembered less is that there was a general feeling at the time that the game was in dire need of a mechanical retooling and update. And while I'll grant that the in-house policy may have been "we don't care if players update" (I remember Monte Cook's interview with William W. Connors that reported that, and I think Jeff Grubb's passed on something similar), they made more public moves in favor of conversion--the free Conversion Manual and the several "end/convert your campaign" modules.

  But there is a reason I say that WotC looks back to Gygaxian AD&D 1E as the Golden Age. Post-Gygaxian 1E and almost all of 2E tend to get politely ignored at best.

I am more inclined to understand a company trying to make themselves look better than the previous company's work.

I mean, 3e was... a big gamble. Would people really go with someone not TSR making D&D??


I find it less funny when they thumb their noses at their current customers, like the whole 3e to 4e. At least it was a bit less overt.

There were good reasons why 2E was the red-headed step child in the edition mythology:

For all but a handful of people, OD&D is an archeological artifact, not a game. So they don't pay much attention to it one way or the other, other than the novelty value of the re-issued boxed set.

1E was functionally the foundation of the hobby (i.e., it is the thing most people bought and played when roleplaying games were turning from something a few thousand people did to something a few million people did). And, importantly, it was the wellspring of almost all the content — classes, spells, monsters, iconic adventures, some of the first widely popular settings. If you diss 1E you are basically dissing the whole idea of the game (and most of the rest of the hobby to boot).

You can't diss 3E if that is what you are trying to sell and it is your company's first entry into the market.

So that leaves 2E out in the cold. Love it or hate it or don't give a shit, when looked at in the rear view mirror of history, there isn't much there to even talk about, other than the settings that were made during its watch.

Quote from: Larsdangly;772939There were good reasons why 2E was the red-headed step child in the edition mythology:

I concede that those fit the generally accepted definition of "reasons".

Quote from: Larsdangly;772939There were good reasons why 2E was the red-headed step child in the edition mythology:

For all but a handful of people, OD&D is an archeological artifact, not a game. So they don't pay much attention to it one way or the other, other than the novelty value of the re-issued boxed set.

1E was functionally the foundation of the hobby (i.e., it is the thing most people bought and played when roleplaying games were turning from something a few thousand people did to something a few million people did). And, importantly, it was the wellspring of almost all the content — classes, spells, monsters, iconic adventures, some of the first widely popular settings. If you diss 1E you are basically dissing the whole idea of the game (and most of the rest of the hobby to boot).

You can't diss 3E if that is what you are trying to sell and it is your company's first entry into the market.

So that leaves 2E out in the cold. Love it or hate it or don't give a shit, when looked at in the rear view mirror of history, there isn't much there to even talk about, other than the settings that were made during its watch.

I think it also had to do with the namby-pambying of the game in the wake of Gygax' departure and the general upheavals and ultimate end of TSR (no Half-Orcs, no fiends, and even when they were brought back they had to change the names on them).  1st edition AD&D was an amateur product in the best sense of the term.  2nd Edition was a corporate product, and it showed.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;772953I think it also had to do with the namby-pambying of the game in the wake of Gygax' departure and the general upheavals and ultimate end of TSR (no Half-Orcs, no fiends, and even when they were brought back they had to change the names on them).  1st edition AD&D was an amateur product in the best sense of the term.  2nd Edition was a corporate product, and it showed.

JG

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the details of 2E when I wrote that post, but you have a point. 2E suffered from a sort of RPG-specific political correctness that struck the hobby in the mid-80's. Another example I recall happening at the same time was Dragonquest, which had excellent black magic, witchcraft and demons in the original SPI editions, and then had its balls chopped off when it was reprinted by TSR. One amazing thing 1E did was to combine great production values — paper, bindings, printing, artwork — with a quirky, creative, 'we do what ever the fuck we want to do' attitude. And it really showed. If you make a pile of all the pre-Survival Guide rule books, the pastel cover modules, maybe topped by the Greyhawk Gazetteer, you are looking at the spiritual core of the game and, I would say, hobby (obviously, with a nod to the OD&D books on which it was based). Everything else — the late-1E/pre-2E system drift, some of the later modules, most of 2E, and everything after, has struggled to climb out from under the burden of corporate production values and fear in the face of public scrutiny. 5E is cool and everything and I'm sure I'll enjoy playing it. But there aren't many games made today that have the kind of creativity and balls-out personality that 1E had. Maybe DCC.

2e did a lot of good things.  It gave us THAC0, thief skill progression, a real bard class, specialty priests, but most of all?  it gave us this:

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/84/7b/0ce4024128a0f0a33ad63010.L.jpg)

Quote from: James Gillen;7729531st edition AD&D was an amateur product in the best sense of the term.  2nd Edition was a corporate product, and it showed.

JG

  Yes--it was actually comprehensible to non-Gygaxologists/Gygaxolators. :)

I had drifted from D&D because I didn't like system incoherence -- different dice for attacks, climb, etc, and the different XP rates/tables for different classes... ugh.

I ended up playing point systems, like Champions (briefly, I found it too complicated) and GURPS, and then Call of Cthulhu. I liked CoC because it was a MUUUCH simpler game than most of the others.

I came back for 2e, because it sounded more unified... and it was, somewhat. I liked certain elements about it, proficiencies, clerical spheres, etc. I REALLY liked the cool metasystem thing for 'design your own class,' but was disappointed at how it didn't mesh with the rest of the system much at all.

I left, came back AGAIN for 3e, enjoyed a _significantly_ more unified system.

Quote from: Larsdangly;772939There were good reasons why 2E was the red-headed step child in the edition mythology:

For all but a handful of people, OD&D is an archeological artifact, not a game. So they don't pay much attention to it one way or the other, other than the novelty value of the re-issued boxed set.

1E was functionally the foundation of the hobby (i.e., it is the thing most people bought and played when roleplaying games were turning from something a few thousand people did to something a few million people did). And, importantly, it was the wellspring of almost all the content — classes, spells, monsters, iconic adventures, some of the first widely popular settings. If you diss 1E you are basically dissing the whole idea of the game (and most of the rest of the hobby to boot).

You can't diss 3E if that is what you are trying to sell and it is your company's first entry into the market.

So that leaves 2E out in the cold. Love it or hate it or don't give a shit, when looked at in the rear view mirror of history, there isn't much there to even talk about, other than the settings that were made during its watch.

And no-one remembers BECMI at all, or if they do they just lump it in with OD&D when it's actually a completely different beast.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;772974And no-one remembers BECMI at all, or if they do they just lump it in with OD&D when it's actually a completely different beast.

Pretty much 0-2e are the same to me given we just picked and chose which rules were used between them anyway.

I find all the system details that distinguish all these editions (spheres, THAC0, ascending AC, blah, blah) totally uninteresting and unimportant. The are functionally the same game. The only caveats that are practical: I can't play 4E as written because it is too slow and I don't really play OD&D because the nuggets of comprehensible material spread across the 7 books add up to something very much like 1E, so why bother. Other than those points, I don't see any of these — from 1E to 5E and including all the off-brand copies — as different in any important way. Yet I think 1E is better that the others because its creative content is much greater (duh; all the other versions repeat it!), its voice is more distinctive and interesting, and its impact was much, much greater.

Quote from: Marleycat;772821Sounds like U Mad Bro.;)

Nah, the flip-flopping nature of the internet makes me giggle.

Quote from: Sommerjon;773050Nah, the flip-flopping nature of the internet makes me giggle.

Don't let it because that way lies madness.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7729622e did a lot of good things.  It gave us THAC0, thief skill progression, a real bard class, specialty priests, but most of all?  it gave us this:

(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/84/7b/0ce4024128a0f0a33ad63010.L.jpg)

Uh, I wasn't too fond of papers in a binder, actually.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;773073Uh, I wasn't too fond of papers in a binder, actually.

JG

That was the  Monstrous Compendium.

Pic is the Monstrous Manual, the vastly improved hardback.

Quote from: Raven;773075That was the  Monstrous Compendium.

Pic is the Monstrous Manual, the vastly improved hardback.

Unfortunately the art was mostly sub-par and very scattershot.

I actually thought the binder idea for the compendiums was a great, if weird, idea.

Quote from: Omega;773097Unfortunately the art was mostly sub-par and very scattershot.

I actually thought the binder idea for the compendiums was a great, if weird, idea.

come on the art for monsters in D&D has always been sub-par and very scattershot... I mean Mondrons?

For every Rakshaska there are a dozen purple worms....

Quote from: Omega;773097I actually thought the binder idea for the compendiums was a great, if weird, idea.

I loved the idea. Printing monsters on both sides of a page made it useless.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773101come on the art for monsters in D&D has always been sub-par and very scattershot... I mean Mondrons?

For every Rakshaska there are a dozen purple worms....

I liked 1st ed MM art as it was in general pretty clean and had a relative consistency. MM2 was ok. The art there was mostly consistent too. Same for Fiend Folio which if I recall correctly was mostly art from the Fighting Fantasy crew?

2nd ed MM was a mess art-wise for consistency. The transitions were jarring at times. If it had been more uniform then personally it wouldnt have not clicked as much.

The Planescape and Spelljammer MMs were at least relatively consistent. Think at least two of the PS MMs had the same artist throughout.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;773110I loved the idea. Printing monsters on both sides of a page made it useless.

One of those "looks good on paper" but not executed as well as it could have been.

Hell, way before that TSR had experimented with binder punching rulebooks... BX for example. Also Star Frontiers was binder punched.

Quote from: Sommerjon;772814So where is all the outrage then?  Or is Mikey throwing the past couple of editions under the bus A-Okay with you because you didn't like them.

"Thrown under the bus" does not mean "made some critical statements about previous editions".  I get so sick of people throwing up their arms and crying out shrilly because Mearls and Co aren't fellating their favorite edition at all times.

Quote from: Obeeron;773135"Thrown under the bus" does not mean "made some critical statements about previous editions".  I get so sick of people throwing up their arms and crying out shrilly because Mearls and Co aren't fellating their favorite edition at all times.

  OTOH, I think the comments on 4th Edition have been as critical than those that have been mythologized into a "WotC marketed 4E entirely by bashing 3E" narrative, if not more so. And the Basic stream of the game has been almost completely ignored in the editorials and promotional material.

  This wouldn't be quite so grating if they weren't marketing this as "an edition for everyone." I wonder if it would have been better to say "4th Edition was a worthy experiment, and we know a lot of you liked it, but we're going in a different direction for 5E. There will be stuff from 4E in the new game, but we want to go back to a faster, looser set of rules and style of play."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;773139I wonder if it would have been better to say "4th Edition was a worthy experiment, and we know a lot of you liked it, but we're going in a different direction for 5E. There will be stuff from 4E in the new game, but we want to go back to a faster, looser set of rules and style of play."

Better in what sense? I find it difficult to imagine a statement like that would have prevented the storm of Internet outrage and the associated wailing and gnasing of teeth.

Quote from: Iosue;772925They made t-shirts about how much better 3e was than 2e.  The official policy was that they didn't give a damn if any 2e players crossed over.  Despite all the whining by 3e and 4e players, WotC never shit on their editions like they did 2e.

Does anyone have any pictures of these shirts? I honestly don't remember this happening.

Quote from: Omega;773119I liked 1st ed MM art as it was in general pretty clean and had a relative consistency. MM2 was ok. The art there was mostly consistent too. Same for Fiend Folio which if I recall correctly was mostly art from the Fighting Fantasy crew?

2nd ed MM was a mess art-wise for consistency. The transitions were jarring at times. If it had been more uniform then personally it wouldnt have not clicked as much.

The Planescape and Spelljammer MMs were at least relatively consistent. Think at least two of the PS MMs had the same artist throughout.

You jest surely?

I mean you can find better art on the wall of a small primary school...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Orcus.JPG)

And never ever forget this -
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_planes8.jpg)

Quote from: Omega;773123One of those "looks good on paper" but not executed as well as it could have been.

Hell, way before that TSR had experimented with binder punching rulebooks... BX for example. Also Star Frontiers was binder punched.

Way before anything like that you used to have these - http://www.atlaspicturecards.com/safari_cards.html

A much better execution of the idea.

Quote from: Omega;773119Same for Fiend Folio which if I recall correctly was mostly art from the Fighting Fantasy crew?

At this juncture I must share that Russ Nicholson owns a large portion of my imagination.

(http://i.imgur.com/onZkLAO.jpg) (http://imgur.com/onZkLAO)

Quote from: jibbajibba;773286You jest surely?

I mean you can find better art on the wall of a small primary school...

Nice cherry picking.  Good thing pretty much everyone here is more than familiar with 1e art, so your disingenuous selection doesn't really fool anyone.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773288Way before anything like that you used to have these - http://www.atlaspicturecards.com/safari_cards.html

A much better execution of the idea.

Fuck!  Totally blew my Save vs. Nostalgia.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773286You jest surely?

I mean you can find better art on the wall of a small primary school...


And never ever forget this -

The Orcus pic is actually pretty servicible. Clean lines and gets across what he is.

The Monodrone on its own is weird. But within the context of the modrons as presented in the book it is consistent and gets across uniform beings based on shapes.

While I am not a big fan of Holloways art. I can at least appreciate the consistency throughout. He was a real workhorse for a while!

Quote from: Omega;773327The Orcus pic is actually pretty servicible. Clean lines and gets across what he is.

The Monodrone on its own is weird. But within the context of the modrons as presented in the book it is consistent and gets across uniform beings based on shapes.

While I am not a big fan of Holloways art. I can at least appreciate the consistency throughout. He was a real workhorse for a while!

I didn't fully appreciate Holloway until later, but he was one of the only artists to draw realistic people and armor.  And that is underrated

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773303Nice cherry picking.  Good thing pretty much everyone here is more than familiar with 1e art, so your disingenuous selection doesn't really fool anyone.

Um ... you are kidding right......

I just picked the first bit of art I found on a google search which was Orcus - which looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old with no disernable artistic skill. And the Mondron I fetched deliberately as it deserves a place next to orcus on the 9th circle of Hell for being entirely dire by any stretch of the imagination.

Now Orcus maybe you can forgive, a little. Early days at TSR you had to fill a book so okay you got to do whjat you got to do.

Mondrons no forgiveness at all as you were riding a wave of success and MM2 was a money maker.

Compare the standard of art in the monster manuals with the art in Diety and Demigods. Diety andf Demigods has the excllent Melinebonean work of Dee and is solid throughout aside from a couple of oddities. The Monster Manual is full of shit artwork and maybe 1 in 6 is reasonable and 1 in a dozen are actually acceptable as offerings by the time you get to MM2 phase of TSR expansion.

I mean we are all familiar with this stuff so you stop cherry picking and actually try and remember the front cover of MM1 and then think about the bugbear, hobgoblin, the dragons, the hobbits, the bullett the wearbear, OMG!!!!

As an aside - what a devil could have looked like from Deities and Demigods (its actually Pan Tang sorcerer Theleb Kaama)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xQtHIltEYJU/Tm_J3b5mZ1I/AAAAAAAAA1M/eWKdzEvEZ1U/s1600/Theleb-Kaarna.jpg)

What you get from the Monster Manual -

(http://canonfire.com/wiki/images/8/80/Asmodeus03.jpeg)

Now are you telling me they put the same degree of effort into the two books? really?

Quote from: Omega;773097Unfortunately the art was mostly sub-par and very scattershot.

I actually thought the binder idea for the compendiums was a great, if weird, idea.

In theory it was a great idea insofar as it let you customize the Compendium (sorry) but in practice the paper wore out very quickly at the binder holes, especially since the pages got moved around a lot more than they would have in a bound book.

JG

Yeah, a heavy-use binder needs either really heavy stock paper or to be reinforced where the holes are.

Anyone who doesn't enjoy pre-1980 1E art needs to climb up their own ass and die. That shit is classic and amazing.

Quote from: Larsdangly;773495Anyone who doesn't enjoy pre-1980 1E art needs to climb up their own ass and die. That shit is classic and amazing.

Whoa, hey, I like a lot of it too, but you have to admit that it's an acquired taste at this point.

Quote from: Larsdangly;773495Anyone who doesn't enjoy pre-1980 1E art needs to climb up their own ass and die. That shit is classic and amazing.

  Such art's as old or older than I am, and I find it charming in small doses, but it's not really to my taste.

  But I suspect you could strike 'art' from that quote and you'd have the Summary Manifesto of the Dark Side of the OSR. :)

I admit nothing. I apologize for nothing. Long live the revolution!!!!

Quote from: Sommerjon;772814So where is all the outrage then?  Or is Mikey throwing the past couple of editions under the bus A-Okay with you because you didn't like them.

Naw, you figured me wrong.  I started gaming in the late 80s with 1e, switched to 2e when it came out, switched to 3.x when it came out, switched to 4e when it came out, and am now switching to 5e.  In rough order of preference:  1e > 3.x > 2e > 4e > every other rpg out there.  

Every one of those changes threw the prior edition under the bus.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  I'm not a grognard circling tribalistic wagons, just playing some fun rpgs.  Change is awesome!

Quote from: Will;773460Yeah, a heavy-use binder needs either really heavy stock paper or to be reinforced where the holes are.

My MC 1 & 2 both had perferations right along the three holes.  Made it even likelier they would rip.  Later MCs at least stopped with the perferations.

Quote from: Old One Eye;773627My MC 1 & 2 both had perferations right along the three holes.  Made it even likelier they would rip.  Later MCs at least stopped with the perferations.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Quote from: Bren;773145Better in what sense? I find it difficult to imagine a statement like that would have prevented the storm of Internet outrage and the associated wailing and gnasing of teeth.

  A legitimate question. On the other hand, I'm not sure anything--on just about any level--could have prevented the storm of outrage from arising from at least some quarters, even if the specific location differed. I'm beginning to think the same way about 4E--while there were numerous reasons to dislike it (and to like it), I think a large part of the outrage was just general resentment at WotC that happened to find a useful focus. Not that some of their decisions helped...

  Perhaps it's just a personal preference for the quick and clear end as opposed to a lingering one. But then, from what I can tell, they honestly do think they're folding in the best of 4E. At the moment, that's looking like a 'maybe' or 'from a certain point of view'; we won't be able to tell much more before the end of the year.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;773670A legitimate question. On the other hand, I'm not sure anything--on just about any level--could have prevented the storm of outrage from arising from at least some quarters, even if the specific location differed.

Indeed. That was part of the point I was suggesting.

QuotePerhaps it's just a personal preference for the quick and clear end as opposed to a lingering one. But then, from what I can tell, they honestly do think they're folding in the best of 4E. At the moment, that's looking like a 'maybe' or 'from a certain point of view'; we won't be able to tell much more before the end of the year.

Clarity and black and white answers do have a certain appeal. But I would imagine that for the designers, who have undoubtably gone back and forth between different ideas and various iterations before getting to what they've published, there isn't a simple, clear answer to the question of what parts of which versions of D&D 5E is most like or most unlike.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773361As an aside - what a devil could have looked like from Deities and Demigods (its actually Pan Tang sorcerer Theleb Kaama)

What you get from the Monster Manual -

Now are you telling me they put the same degree of effort into the two books? really?

Different art styles does not mean different levels of effort. You use what you have on hand or can use.

They wanted a certain look or the artist produced based on what they described and and they went with it.

Get the fuck over it.

Quote from: Omega;773756Different art styles does not mean different levels of effort. You use what you have on hand or can use.

They wanted a certain look or the artist produced based on what they described and and they went with it.

Get the fuck over it.

No disagree.

The difference between those two pictures isn't merely stylistic. One of them is basically shit.
They just filled the book with shit art because they couldn't be bothered not to. In effect they decided that their customers would buy whatever they slapped together so they felt they owed them no degree of professionalism.

As I said in the first MM it is kind of acceptable, early days of the hobby, no cash to spare, will this stuff sell etc etc . MM2 and the mondrons... no excuse.
I mean look at Dieties and demigods that is the level of artwork they should have been consistently delivering by this point.
Even if you can't fill every book with Jeff Dee and Erol Otus artwork you could have walked into any college campus in '79 and found a bunch of guys willing and able to draw illustrations for very little cash.

Sorry if I seem unduly upset on this point but it's one of my bette noirs. If the DMG had been filled with typos and spelling mistakes people would have called them out on it but art meh.. who cares. This annoys me but the worst part is the nostalgia over a sketch that someone churned out in 5 minutes 40 years ago.
"I think the AD&D hydra picutre from the MM is much better than the artwork on these shitty magic cards"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/D&DHydra.JPG)

NO IT ISN'T

"Your guy drawed with charcoal and fat fingers!"

"UR GUY DRAWD WITH DOODY!"

There *are* actual adults in the hobby, right? Right?

I'm guessing raw,  low/no-fi garage rock,  hardcore punk and black metal would really upset jibba. But there's plenty of folks that enjoy that as well.

Quote from: Raven;773795There *are* actual adults in the hobby, right? Right?

I'm not taking that bet.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;773805I'm not taking that bet.

My pb&j versus your tuna with the crusts cut off.

We settle this in the playground at 10 AM, in the dust spot near the jungle gym.

Quote from: Planet Algol;773799I'm guessing raw,  low/no-fi garage rock,  hardcore punk and black metal would really upset jibba. But there's plenty of folks that enjoy that as well.

Depends.
A skilled guitarist can play thrash metal with skill. If you are a crap guitarist who maybe attempts to hide the fact he can't play by thrashing about then ... you are still crap.

Not all art is about taste. There is a certain entry level of skill that has to be obtained whether by a painter, musician, poet whatever.
Once you get past that then of course there is room for a huge range of styles. Dali, Johns, Pollock, Titian, Caravagio all great artists all with very different styles.
The artwork for most of the Monster Manual and a slew of other early D&D art is not a stylistic choice it's just not very good.

This all reminds me of the time Grognardia put the original Orcus image against the 4e Wayne Reynolds version and declared the former superior for philosophical reasons:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/big-damn-heroes.html

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;773852This all reminds me of the time Grognardia put the original Orcus image against the 4e Wayne Reynolds version and declared the former superior for philosophical reasons:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/big-damn-heroes.html

Hey I'm no fan of Wayne Reynold's style, but... YEEEESH

Quote from: Necrozius;773862Hey I'm no fan of Wayne Reynold's style, but... YEEEESH

Agreed not my style but he does actually know how to draw whch is a plus.

this one I really like

(http://www.merzo.net/Gallery_Dungeons_and_Dragons/Orcus.gif)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;773852This all reminds me of the time Grognardia put the original Orcus image against the 4e Wayne Reynolds version and declared the former superior for philosophical reasons:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/big-damn-heroes.html

Having just read that, I am in agreement with James M. on the matter.

The 4E cover represents a very well produced, technically executed monster.

The original drawing represents a decent working image of Orcus.

This doesn't mean that no other drawing of Orcus can surpass the Sutherland one. There is room for a very technically skilled depiction of Orcus that remains true to his actual appearance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;773867Having just read that, I am in agreement with James M. on the matter.

The 4E cover represents a very well produced, technically executed monster.

The original drawing represents a decent working image of Orcus.

This doesn't mean that no other drawing of Orcus can surpass the Sutherland one. There is room for a very technically skilled depiction of Orcus that remains true to his actual appearance.

I bolded the last bit cos it was funny :)

He looks like that because of the drawing. He doesn't actually look like that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773871I bolded the last bit cos it was funny :)

He looks like that because of the drawing. He doesn't actually look like that.

If you want to get technical he actually looks like nothing because he's fictional. The "actual" in this case refers to his appearance in the D&D game.
:)

re: Orcus, isn't he also depicted inna kickass 2e (and/or late 1e) painting, rising out of Arcane flames in some kinda ritual? Because if that too is Orcus, then that's the best depiction, hands down, Even though it looks like a late 80s/Early 90s fantasy novel cover (but then these could be awesome, too!).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;773874If you want to get technical he actually looks like nothing because he's fictional. The "actual" in this case refers to his appearance in the D&D game.
:)

That was my point he is fictional so he looks like meh :)

But in the D&D game he only looked like the origal monster manual picture cos that was the original picture.

Orcus is described a demon with a goats head, cloven hooves, batlike wings who carries a wand with a skull on it.

That is all you have the fact that you associate that description with the Sutherland drawing is just cos you grew up with it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;773866this one I really like

He appears to be straining at stool.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;773852This all reminds me of the time Grognardia put the original Orcus image against the 4e Wayne Reynolds version and declared the former superior for philosophical reasons:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/big-damn-heroes.html

The Wayne Reynolds version obviously exhibits a much higher level of technical skill, but I still prefer the Donald Sutherland version. I find the "medieval esthetic" (as Grognardia puts it) appealing, especially when the subject is demons.

This discussion is stupid. It is very much like arguing whether the cave paintings at Lascaux are as artistically valuable as a Dragon Ball Z cover.

Quote from: Larsdangly;773972This discussion is stupid. It is very much like arguing whether the cave paintings at Lascaux are as artistically valuable as a Dragon Ball Z cover.

Well that's a kinda extreme analogy, and, given that I prefer 80s Manga to paleolithic art esthetically anyhow, it just becomes kinda wrong to me. Well besides Dragonball's actual merit (Pre-Z anyhow).

A better analogy, imo, would be arguing the artistic value of Golden Age superhero comics (Supes, Bats, WW, Cap, anyone of importance really) vs 90s superhero comics.

Because, well, that's what these two Orcus pics remind me of, really.

Quote from: The Ent;773975A better analogy, imo, would be arguing the artistic value of Golden Age superhero comics (Supes, Bats, WW, Cap, anyone of importance really) vs 90s superhero comics.

Because, well, that's what these two Orcus pics remind me of, really.

Nothing deserves being compared to Rob Liefeld's "art."

Quote from: Celestial;773978Nothing deserves being compared to Rob Liefeld's "art."

Well 4e Orcus > Liefeld but it's in that 3e style that's very 90s/Liefeld inspired (except that said 3e pics would sport people with huge mutated blocky feet, rather than Liefeld's tiny feet :D), well obviously imo ymmv etc.

(http://www.anawfulart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/capnekkid.jpg)

Quote from: Will;773980(http://www.anawfulart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/capnekkid.jpg)

Never gets old! :D

This was always  my favorite illio of Orcus.  Captured his attitude perfectly, IMO

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/S8OqgwQdZdI/AAAAAAAAAnk/gtmUGt84o94/s1600/fat+and+manky+orcus.JPG)

Sacro, that pic is awesome. Real Satanic looking. I like it a whole lot.

Now THAT'S good illustration.

Someone earlier had a line art that was just a mess. If you have lots of details and no shading, it looks almost like one of those stereoscopic illusions, just this chaotic mess of lines that you have to stare at to see what's going on.

Quote from: Celestial;773978Nothing deserves being compared to Rob Liefeld's "art."

Because it never, ever gets old: The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings (http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773984This was always  my favorite illio of Orcus.  Captured his attitude perfectly, IMO

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/S8OqgwQdZdI/AAAAAAAAAnk/gtmUGt84o94/s1600/fat+and+manky+orcus.JPG)

Ok, that one is good.

Yeah, that is fantastic (with the footnote that it is solidly in the 'sexist cheese cake' category). Where is it from?

Quote from: Larsdangly;774005Yeah, that is fantastic (with the footnote that it is solidly in the 'sexist cheese cake' category). Where is it from?

Surprisingly, from Todd Lockwood (3e art fame).  But done in 1980.  And IMO, it's one of the few times where sexist cheesecake is appropriate.  I understand why people don't like typical adventurer female to be wearing a chain mail bikini.  I agree with that too.  But this scene is about a demon, so the subjugating nude helpless peeps is sort of what they do.

If the content matches the context, I'm OK with a lot of stuff.  But that's the key: subject has to match context

Which 1980 product is it in?

The Hell? (:D) Lockwood was that awesome once!?

What happened!?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;773984This was always  my favorite illio of Orcus.  Captured his attitude perfectly

That is the best Orcus.

Quote from: Bren;774032That is the best Orcus.

It's my new fave too I think.

S&S + 80s underground metal = perfection.

Quote from: The Ent;774045It's my new fave too I think.

Yeah, the look reminds me of illustrations from H. Rider Haggard stories or an exceptionally good pulp story from the 20s or 30s.

And this picture is most convenient as just last night I created an evil sorcerer for Honor+Intrigue who has the Consort with Demons spell. Orcus is just the guy he needs to be consorting with. :D

Quote from: Necrozius;773862Hey I'm no fan of Wayne Reynold's style, but... YEEEESH

Not a bad depiction on the cover art. In keeping with the general art style of that edition.

Note that I am not saying the older art is better. I am saying the older art is good on its own.

If Orcus doesn't look like an overweight and sweaty Ron Jeremy you're doing it wrong.

that one's great Sacro. the one I posted did look a lot like Ron Jeremy , good spot BB.

the famous Liefield Cap is just a bad reference to this image (http://www.musclememory.com/images/recent/SchwarzeneggerArnold-Zeller.jpg)

Yeah the "Throne Orcus" is definitely the best, screw Reynold's 40ft tall combat monstrosity.  Sweaty, Satanic, disturbing Ron Jeremy is a good description which is why I like this one too...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/S8OtjCcSlaI/AAAAAAAAAns/8iaoNMAJHUQ/s1600/orcus+ladies+man.JPG)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774011Surprisingly, from Todd Lockwood (3e art fame).  But done in 1980.  And IMO, it's one of the few times where sexist cheesecake is appropriate.  I understand why people don't like typical adventurer female to be wearing a chain mail bikini.  I agree with that too.  But this scene is about a demon, so the subjugating nude helpless peeps is sort of what they do.

If the content matches the context, I'm OK with a lot of stuff.  But that's the key: subject has to match context

And in all fairness everyone in that illustration with flesh left is showing off their tits and making porn face.

Talk about Orcus on his throne stroking his mighty rod.

To me, the Sutherland image of Orcus is reminiscent of Hermann Goering, and so Orcus should look like that. Ron Jeremy's not a bad alternative, except RJ seems kind of harmless.

Quote from: The Ent;773884re: Orcus, isn't he also depicted inna kickass 2e (and/or late 1e) painting, rising out of Arcane flames in some kinda ritual? Because if that too is Orcus, then that's the best depiction, hands down, Even though it looks like a late 80s/Early 90s fantasy novel cover (but then these could be awesome, too!).

This one?

(http://www.candlekeep.com/images/gallery/bloodstone-mines.jpg)

Or this one?

(http://www.munchkinpress.com/cpg149/albums/userpics/10069/orcus.jpg)

Not sure if the second is Orcus. Both are from the Bloodstone series.

Quote from: Omega;774281Not sure if the second is Orcus.

Type VI/balor demon.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774013Which 1980 product is it in?

I believe that Orcus illo was from an old Dragon article.

JG

Quote from: Omega;774281This one?

(http://www.candlekeep.com/images/gallery/bloodstone-mines.jpg).

Yep, that one.

Quote from: The Ent;774299Yep, that one.

not fat enough.  that one is in shape

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774360not fat enough.  that one is in shape

Yep the black and white versions are better. Orcus must be fat.

Why? Is his portfolio sloth and gluttony?

Quote from: Marleycat;774381Why?

Because that's how Eldritch Wizardry first described him.

QuoteOrcus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcus_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)) is first described in Eldritch Wizardry as a "grossly fat demon lord" covered in goat-like hair, 15 feet tall, with a goat-like head and legs, and the horns of a ram rather than those of a goat. His arms are human, but "Vast bat wings sprout from his back, and his long, snaky tail is tipped with a poisonous head". The book also notes that he is extremely intelligent, and mentions a number of magical abilities that he can use, such as being able to summon certain types of undead - "for he is their Prince". Orcus, like other types of demons introduced in Eldritch Wizardry, had the ability to use psionic abilities.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774360not fat enough.  that one is in shape

Obviously he went on the Atkins diet for low-carb souls.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;774698Obviously he went on the Atkins diet for low-carb souls.

JG

The tears of 4vengers, while plentiful, were just too low-carb to sustain his portly visage.

Orcus moved to Hawaii and became a surfer...

Quote from: James Gillen;773073Uh, I wasn't too fond of papers in a binder, actually.

JG

Me either. Or of lengthy essays written by amateur novelists about pseudo-biologies.

Quote from: RPGPundit;777642Me either. Or of lengthy essays written by amateur novelists about pseudo-biologies.

I kinda liked those.  :o

jg

Quote from: James Gillen;777757I kinda liked those.  :o

jg

Pundit is just jealous because no one would read his... :pundit:

I've said it before, but I think one of the central challenges of writing a rpg is that there are two somewhat incompatible goals: explain and excite players about your game, manual/reference to play or run the game.

The first thrives on fluff interspersed and a slowish pace of explaining everything.
The second is served by economy, good simple index, fluff separated out as descriptive setting entries.

Quote from: Warthur;773248

Quote from: Iosue;772925They made t-shirts about how much better 3e was than 2e.  The official policy was that they didn't give a damn if any 2e players crossed over.  Despite all the whining by 3e and 4e players, WotC never shit on their editions like they did 2e.

Does anyone have any pictures of these shirts? I honestly don't remember this happening.

The one t-shirt that I remember was the very first 3e shirt, done a year before the PHB hit the shelves, and given away for free at Gen Con 1999.

 (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/j7rl-m-b6d7.jpg) (http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/j7rl-m-b6d7-jpg-nb.html)

There's one line that could come across as rather condescending, "Rules you never used anyway".
Everything else is just a list of factual changes to the system.


Ironically, 3e became for me the edition of which I ignored more rules than before. For me, the check mark could have been a "yes"...

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;778785Ironically, 3e became for me the edition of which I ignored more rules than before. For me, the check mark could have been a "yes"...

To be fair, it's past tense, so it's accurate to say "We're taking out all those rules you never used anyway and replaced them with a bunch of rules you aren't going to use either!"

Either way, it doesn't really seem extreme enough to jibe with what Iosue was saying. Zeb Cook's intro to the 2E rulebook talked about how a lot of the rules revisions reflected stuff people were doing anyway, so it's not like the statement is without precedent in edition changeovers.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;778785There's one line that could come across as rather condescending, "Rules you never used anyway".

Ironically, 3e became for me the edition of which I ignored more rules than before. For me, the check mark could have been a "yes"...

Yeah, that is bad prophesy, right there.

To be honest  the way people played 2e was such a grab bag roll of the dice that while somewhat condensending it was quite prophetic. And then in 3e everyone tried to use all the rules and it turned out even worse because they left out a bunch of important ones despite being rules heavy.

I never saw that shirt before.  I like "Rules you never used anyway."

JG

I distinctly remember liking 3E when it was first published, perhaps not as much as I'm impressed by 5E but it felt really solid and exciting. And it was. But then it got a case of the galloping feats and sort of collapsed under its own weight. 5E is starting stronger, but we'll all have to keep an eye on the way in which it is tended.

Quote from: Larsdangly;779437I distinctly remember liking 3E when it was first published, perhaps not as much as I'm impressed by 5E but it felt really solid and exciting. And it was. But then it got a case of the galloping feats and sort of collapsed under its own weight. 5E is starting stronger, but we'll all have to keep an eye on the way in which it is tended.

The feats are better but I would have preferred they were a bit more meaty. But that can be houseruled if really needed. I'm thinking they're middle ground so that it won't screw overall balance if you do something like 7/9 feats instead of 5/7 feats decoupling 2 feats from ability bumps for a more 3e feel.

I LOVED 3e when it first came out because my constant frustration with D&D was how scattered and heterogeneous the rules were.

FINALLY. Coherent, consistent rules!


Granted, in time the flaws, rule proliferation, power scaling, and other stuff became more obvious.

Quote from: Omega;777759Pundit is just jealous because no one would read his... :pundit:

No, I have no interest in biology.  I write long essays on pseudo-history and pseudo-religion that no one reads.

I really liked when 3e came out too.

Quote from: Larsdangly;779437I distinctly remember liking 3E when it was first published, perhaps not as much as I'm impressed by 5E but it felt really solid and exciting. And it was. But then it got a case of the galloping feats and sort of collapsed under its own weight. 5E is starting stronger, but we'll all have to keep an eye on the way in which it is tended.

Quote from: Will;779442I LOVED 3e when it first came out because my constant frustration with D&D was how scattered and heterogeneous the rules were.

FINALLY. Coherent, consistent rules!

Granted, in time the flaws, rule proliferation, power scaling, and other stuff became more obvious.

(I wasn't around when 3E was first released).

With that being said, these sentiments and parallels are similar to how I felt about 4E when it was initially released.  (Mostly over the summer and fall of 2008).

As time went on, 4E's flaws were just as bad as 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder.  (If not worse).

Quote from: Will;779442I LOVED 3e when it first came out because my constant frustration with D&D was how scattered and heterogeneous the rules were.

FINALLY. Coherent, consistent rules!

Personally, I think 3e's homogenization of the rules was a huge, huge mistake.  But it's water under the bridge now.

Quote from: ggroy;782080(I wasn't around when 3E was first released).

With that being said, these sentiments and parallels are similar to how I felt about 4E when it was initially released.  (Mostly over the summer and fall of 2008).

As time went on, 4E's flaws were just as bad as 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder.  (If not worse).

I agree; I was perfectly happy to give 4E a try. I bought the starter box, spent a couple of afternoons at the local store playing pick-up games (something I rarely do), and spent a few weeks trying to figure out what new things were in it that appealed to me. Actually, the general concepts of HP 'surges' and periodic special powerzzz of some sort for all classes seemed great (and still seem great; note they are core elements of 5E, which I am enjoying a lot). What I quickly realized was that it took close to 2 hours to resolve a moderately complex combat. That's the only real problem with the game, I would say. But it has a cascading effect: you only resolve 1-2 combats per session. And, you spend almost all of your time in each session resolving those fights. Thus, the game is effectively 'about' set-piece rumbles involving a dozen or so combatants. So, the only real point to your character is their effectiveness in combat. So, the only sensible way to play the game is to 'build' (blech...) an effective combatant.

Ironically, my all-time favorite fantasy roleplaying game (The Fantasy Trip) is just a modest expansion of a board game for set-piece fights (Melee/Wizard). But, with the vitally important difference that it was written so that combats are resolved in a few minutes — perhaps 10 minutes per fight when played by experienced players and involving no more than ~10 combatants. Thus, you have the fun of a super granular tactical combat engine, but there is ample time in a typical night of gaming for those combats to be just part of the overall experience.