TheRPGSite

Mearls talks about a new martial mechanic designed to address complaints that fighters don't have enough options:

]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)

Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

Sometimes, despite his claims, I can't help but wonder if Mike Mearls has ever even played Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the same attitude that gave us so many ill concieved Super Hero movies before Marvel started hitting them out of the park with actual, you know, super hero movies.

Quote from: David Johansen;566281Sometimes, despite his claims, I can't help but wonder if Mike Mearls has ever even played Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the same attitude that gave us so many ill concieved Super Hero movies before Marvel started hitting them out of the park with actual, you know, super hero movies.

I don't really blame mearls here. His job is to get everyone on board and to do that he has to account for criticism of the playtest document. The 4E and "modern design" crowd have been very loud in calling for more fighter options. The problem is their desires and the desires of many on the opposite side of the fence are in conflict. I just want a more classic D&D fighter without additional fiddly mechanics or resource management. I think the core of the problem is wotc is primarily getting feedback through its own website and there is probably a disproportionate number of 4E player feedback as a result. I do think there are also a lot of gamers in that camp. But I think it is equally divided enough that a mechanic like this is better as an optional rather than a core part of the game. At this stage, I would almost rather they just make 4.5 if this is the direction they plan to go.

Fighters don't need to be given more dice in order to be less "dull". To suggest that simply giving the fighter more dice damage seems like a lazy solution.

Granting fighters more dice to dole out damage isn't the right choice. But then again, we're talking about D&D; you can pretty much assume that the game is going to be built upon the same precepts that have been lain down by its predecessors.

I guess what I am saying is that we should not expect some brand-spankin' new IP here. It's going to be business as usual.

I just shake my head at this.

Yes, let's win back old players by . . . introducing even MORE novel mechanics NEVER SEEN IN ANY D&D EDITION **BEFORE**!

That's a totally safe plan.

Yeah, that'll work.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566276Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

I'm not a big fan of this either, although this does not sound all that bad. I could live with it and definitely would not mind it as an optional rule.

However, there is statement in the article that really turns me off to 5e/D&D Next:

QuoteOther classes can attempt to duplicate these abilities, but few can match a fighter's effectiveness. For example, a fighter might have a combat superiority option that allows for two-weapon fighting that is better than the version offered by a feat.

That mention of two-weapon fighting being a feat is a huge turn-off. It looks like they intend to block off abilities anyone should be able to try with some chance of success into things that only those who took a feat can do again (just like in 3.x).  That is an edition-interest-killer for me.  Feats -- if they have to be in the game at all -- should with be simple bonuses for special training. "Must take to be able to do" feats should be limited to things that either require special genetic features or absolutely require specialized training to be able to try with anything but a miniscule chance of success.

Quote from: RandallS;566285I'm not a big fan of this either, although this does not sound all that bad. I could live with it and definitely would not mind it as an optional rule.

However, there is statement in the article that really turns me off to 5e/D&D Next:



 tccess.

If it is optional, the not a problem for me at all. But if it is core, its a big issue in terms of playability for me.

With merles in charge i have zero interest in the new edition, that guy has no fucking clue how to make a decent set of rules that arent tailored to the charop crowd.

I am surprised; that sounds terrible to me.



Why can't the fighter class have options like this:


Mighty attack, +2 damage, -2 ac
 
Evasive attack, +2 ac, -2 to hit

Flurry attack, -2 hit, -2 ac, -2 Damage; Attack everyone in reach once, can't use this if you have moved, can't move after using this

All out defend, +4 ac, no attacks

All out attack, +2 hit, +2 damage, -4 ac, can't use this if you have moved, can't move after using this

Fleet attack, -2 hit, -2 damage, -2 ac, may full move and attack once

etc...

Mearls is acting like a drug-addled cunt right now.

The biggest reason I don't like it?  I can see this slowing combat down waaaaaaay too much.  Giving someone a pool of dice that they can use for whatever (reducing damage, etc) is introducing yet a few more physical actions (rolling dice) and mental math (adding and subtracting modifiers) just to resolve your action.

I like quick combat resolution.  They are going in the opposite direction.

I don't know who said it, but I really like the idea of fighters having a better chance at critical attacks, and then being able to choose which critical option to inflict upon a creature.  That adds a uniqueness and extra power to a character without having to draw out combat resolution any more than before.

Strip this down to what it is.

Basically a damage bonus per level for fighters.

In the optional rule you can spend some of this extra damage on defence (suspect either reduce damage or when they think of it improve AC)

In the top level of complexity you will have some of the options tied to the fighters combat style - so archers might be able to fire 2 arrows at once  for 10 points (or 2 dice) and other combat options get tied to the cost in superiority.

In that regard it is just like a mechanic we were discussing on a design thread.

Its not terrible. Its just a way of pricing stuff that some classes have had for a while in a more specific way.

It is deliberately gamist because they want to appeal to the 4e gamist players. Now those players deserve to be represented somewhere so fair enough.
He is also looking for a signature mechanic something that can become 'the special thing figthers do' .

I don't a pool for tactical stuff for figthers. I think a random pool will become timecosuming to run, and I think a raw d6 per level damage bonus is hugely powerful even with HP inflation. But a set pool that increases per level that the fighter can spend on combat moves including increased attack and defence might be workable.

Playing with a stack of dice is likely to be too gamist for me.

I like the idea of a Fighter having some special combat options, but they should be relatively simple to implement.  I think a 'dice trading game' is a big step outside of 'simulation' and I'd personally find it rather distracting.  

I'm also concerned that this idea hasn't been thought through well.  Mearls gives the example of a shield specialist being able to reduce damage to an ally or[b/] negate a hit to an ally.  I don't know the relative damage we'd be talking about, but pretty much in every situation one option will be clearly superior - usually the 'negating' a hit.  If they try to add options but only one option is 'sensible', they haven't really added options - you're doing the same thing every round - it's just different from the other thing you were doing every round.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566294The biggest reason I don't like it?  I can see this slowing combat down waaaaaaay too much.  Giving someone a pool of dice that they can use for whatever (reducing damage, etc) is introducing yet a few more physical actions (rolling dice) and mental math (adding and subtracting modifiers) just to resolve your action.

I like quick combat resolution.  They are going in the opposite direction.

I don't know who said it, but I really like the idea of fighters having a better chance at critical attacks, and then being able to choose which critical option to inflict upon a creature.  That adds a uniqueness and extra power to a character without having to draw out combat resolution any more than before.

The critical attack option idea came from BT before his demise.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566276Mearls talks about a new martial mechanic designed to address complaints that fighters don't have enough options:

]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120730)

Personally I am not a fan of these sorts of subsystems, especially for fighters.

Sounds fine to me given it's practically a straight port of Fantasy Craft action dice except for a more specific purpose.

Quote from: Marleycat;566301Sounds fine to me given it's practically a straight port of Fantasy Craft action dice except for a more specific purpose.

No idea if its in FantasyCraft, but does seem to be a direct copy of the fighter mechanic from DCC that everyone was raving about in the last month or so.

Quote from: jadrax;566302No idea if its in FantasyCraft, but does seem to be a direct copy of the fighter mechanic from DCC that everyone was raving about in the last month or so.

Basically in Fantasy Craft you get a pool of dice dependent on level that lets you activate crits/errors and do all sorts of other things some class based some feat based etc. this mechanic pretty much does the same thing but looks limited to combat only maneuvers and Fighter class only.

No strong feelings one way or the other.

If they're determined to jazz up the fighter, at least they're staying away from the "Here, have a gigantic table of maneuvers to choose from!" approach. I'd call that a good sign.

If people had any imagination, they wouldn't call for more options.  It amazes me.  The options a fighter, or any other class has is limited only by your imagination.  Give me a 1e fighter.  He has more attacks, deals more damage, uses more weapons, has the best ac, and the most hit points.  That's not enough?

As someone who supports giving fighters a smidgeon of resource management while keeping them bog-simple I support this sort of experimentation, though I must echo Bill's sentiment that simple math manipulation might be enough. I've long thought many of the abilities that were feats in the previous editions should have been generic combat options available to any class. I use a chart a lot like Bill's on the DM side of the screen when adjudicating combat in Stars Without Number.

Remember that a lot of these base mechanics are designed so that classes will have something to "lose" in exchange for something else in the modularity system. So for example, people who want a more old school fighter will be able to subtract this Combat Superiority system and plug in a flatter set of bonuses while keeping the overall scaling of the game.

So his way of appeasing those of us who don't want fighters to be boring is to roll the design back to an era where everything is a different subsystem that doesn't interact with anything else.

If Mearsl wants to make fighters versatile and powerful, albeit with rules that are clunky and obtuse, he can just copypaste text from BECMI. Probably no one will notice.

5e is turning into some sort of example of Schopenhauer's idea of the worst of all possible worlds.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566319Remember that a lot of these base mechanics are designed so that classes will have something to "lose" in exchange for something else in the modularity system. So for example, people who want a more old school fighter will be able to subtract this Combat Superiority system and plug in a flatter set of bonuses while keeping the overall scaling of the game.

I think it is a lot harder to take elements out than to put them in. Anything divisive like this will benefit a lot by adding a simple "optional" tag on it. Personally I am willing to do a bit of surgery to make the game function for me, but now I have ot take out HD, fighter dailies, fighter dice pools, etc. It isn't simpy a matter of removing them, its the fact that once something is core players expect it to be there and it gets harder and harder to play the game you want.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566322It isn't simpy a matter of removing them, its the fact that once something is core players expect it to be there and it gets harder and harder to play the game you want.

First I want to say that I absolutely agree with you and what I'm about to say is actually sympathetic rather than antagonistic, but I can't help but laugh at sentences like this. Darn those players, wanting and expecting things out of a game they are potentially investing hundreds of hours in. :D

Sometimes getting modern players to try old school games feels like being the zen master trying to break an American consumer of his bad habits. You just keep thwacking his hand away from the remote control with your crooked walking stick while patiently droning "less is more."

Unfortunately a GM trying to pitch a game in this environment full of electronic alternatives increasingly has to make concessions to get players to pay attention.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566333First I want to say that I absolutely agree with you and what I'm about to say is actually sympathetic rather than antagonistic, but I can't help but laugh at sentences like this. Darn those players, wanting and expecting things out of a game they are potentially investing hundreds of hours in. :D

Sometimes getting modern players to try old school games feels like being the zen master trying to break an American consumer of his bad habits. You just keep thwacking his hand away from the remote control with your crooked walking stick while patiently droning "less is more."

Unfortunately a GM trying to pitch a game in this environment full of electronic alternatives increasingly has to make concessions to get players to pay attention.

I think it is more a case of "if its in the rules people expect it at the table". Almost doesn't matter what the mechanic is. I just find it easier if the core content of the game doesn't require me to make any deductions because then I don't need to make a case for altering the game in the first place. My GMing style is very much about working with the players to arrive at exoectations everyone agrees on. So i am not really a grog swatting hands or trying to convert anyone. At the same time, i do have my preferences and will select a system based on it aligning with those and not just by the logo on the cover. This is why I stopped running 3E a while back and switched to 2E. It offers the kind of play that interests me. I could run 3e, but i would either have to run it on its own terms (which i have done plenty of times) or make a serious effort to pair it down and get everyone on board.

It is getting harder and harder to keep an open mind about D&D Next.

Quote from: jeff37923;566335It is getting harder and harder to keep an open mind about D&D Next.

It does seem to near to 4.5 for my liking but we will see.

Quote from: jeff37923;566335It is getting harder and harder to keep an open mind about D&D Next.

This confuses me. Combat Superiority seems like a fairly minor and unobtrusive tempo mechanic. Heck, it kicks in every round, so it doesn't even commit the 'cardinal sin' of 4e's encounter/daily mechanics. If a minor innovation on 5e's part like this upsets you, then what kind of changes would be acceptable? Or if the only satisfactory product is a really close emulation of 1e or whatever edition is your preference, then why bother keeping an open mind since you already have products that meet those specs?

I guess what I'm asking is what were you hoping 5e would be if something like this is a deal breaker? How much room does WotC have to maneuver in?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566341This confuses me. Combat Superiority seems like a fairly minor and unobtrusive tempo mechanic. Heck, it kicks in every round, so it doesn't even commit the 'cardinal sin' of 4e's encounter/daily mechanics. If a minor innovation on 5e's part like this upsets you, then what kind of changes would be acceptable? Or if the only satisfactory product is a really close emulation of 1e or whatever edition is your preference, then why bother keeping an open mind since you already have products that meet those specs?

I guess what I'm asking is what were you hoping 5e would be if something like this is a deal breaker? How much room does WotC have to maneuver in?

The list of aspects of D&D Next that are not to my taste is getting longer and longer, which means my desire to purchase and try the game is getting smaller and smaller. You are right, I already have games which scratch my D&D itch, some of them are actually earlier versions of D&D or their retroclones.

So if WotC wants my money, they have to give me enough reason to buy their product. After all, it is my money to choose to do with as I please.

I'd like to give WotC the benefit of the doubt with D&D Next, but these sneak peeks chip away at that.

I'm amazed of the sheer amount of people who still have faith in this PoS system, out of purely nostalgic reasons.
"D&D Next"(fitting metaphor, btw) will fail as 4E did and will damage the brand further. Mearls and the other unfit designers should've even had designed any D&D to begin with, he will futher alienate the fanbase by implementing rules that contradict anything that's been established as "things being D&D" in the earlier editions of the game.

Quote from: Dimitrios;566310No strong feelings one way or the other.

If they're determined to jazz up the fighter, at least they're staying away from the "Here, have a gigantic table of maneuvers to choose from!" approach. I'd call that a good sign.

After reading Mearl's article, it looks like that's exactly where this is headed, except it's worse than that: "Here's a list of maneuvers and some extra dice you spend for them; you'll have to decide every turn which maneuvers you're spending them on."

I agree with Dimitrios; I'm gonna reserve judgement on this until I see more details. It could turn out to be interesting if it's done well, or it might just suck.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566341I guess what I'm asking is what were you hoping 5e would be if something like this is a deal breaker? How much room does WotC have to maneuver in?

I want 5e to be a very basic core set of rules -- confined mainly to things that were common to 0e to 3e -- that would play much like B/X. Then there would be lots of options for adding stuff to that -- some in the core books, others in supplements. Note that I don't care about minor differences -- for example, ascending AC or descending AC doesn't matter as they are mathematically equivalent. Such a core 5e system would give WOTC lots of room to maneuver in: start with what was common D&D from 1974-2007 (the stuff that defined D&D for most of its life, the sacred cows that D&D haters hate) and add whatever they thing a set of players wants as an option from there.

I do know that the more bad decisions from the WOTC editions that make it in 5e core, the less chance there is I will buy the game, let alone run or play it. Here is a partial list of those things I consider bad decisions from WOTC D&D designers:

* long tactical combats
* combat that really needs minis/battlemats to work
* too much bookkeeping in combat
* deck-building style charop
* system mastery
* Feats that limit "everyman abilities" to those who take the feat
* AEDU-like powers
* hit point inflation
* encounter-based design
* required magic items by level
* required wealth by level
* flavorless magic items
* excessive concern with balance
* removal of TSR-era limits on spell-casters which resulted in godlike casters
* designing classes to all be equal in combat
* skill challenges
* few long term consequences from damage and the like.

Any of these things in the core rules is a very bad idea, IMHO. As optional rules for those who want them, I would have no problem with them.

I am also against change/innovation just for the sake of change/innovation. Too much change and you end up with a game that will not be D&D to many people (as 4e demonstrated). If you want to kill sacred cows and have a lot of innovation (as opposed to incremental improvements for the basics), don't do it in the core rules. Better yet, create a new game line for it.

The fuck? If 4th Edition failed Hasbro wouldn't have given them the money for another one.

Also, this mechanic looks kind of terrible. It slows down combat something fierce unless the player knows exactly what they're going to do with the Superiority dice, and it's being introduced into the game created in response to a bunch of braindead fuckheads complaining that Marking--something that's been in D&D since Dragonlance--is 'unrealistic' and 'not D&D enough'. Marking is more D&D than this dice pool nonsense.

Just as well; getting my group to learn a new system is like pulling teeth anyway.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566341This confuses me. Combat Superiority seems like a fairly minor and unobtrusive tempo mechanic. Heck, it kicks in every round, so it doesn't even commit the 'cardinal sin' of 4e's encounter/daily mechanics. If a minor innovation on 5e's part like this upsets you, then what kind of changes would be acceptable? Or if the only satisfactory product is a really close emulation of 1e or whatever edition is your preference, then why bother keeping an open mind since you already have products that meet those specs?

I guess what I'm asking is what were you hoping 5e would be if something like this is a deal breaker? How much room does WotC have to maneuver in?

People didn't just object to 4E on believability grounds. There was also a playability issue of not wanting things like resource management with fighters. For some of us, it was just the fact that choosing your powers becomes its own kind of minigame. So here you have a dice pool system where I have to metagame a bit about the resources I am going to allocate (i.e. Putting points into defense or attack for example). It does raise some vague concerns about believability (for instance I wonder how this might break down in specific conditions) but more importantly it adds fiddliness and more rolls to the game when when just having a hardcoded damage bonus is simpler and more in line with how fighters tradiionally operate.

All I want is the fighter to be good at attacking and doing damage. I am not looking for more buttons that could slow down play.

I think there's room in the fighter for both the defendery 4E Weaponmaster with AEDU powers and a more basic 'just kill stuff' fighter, but Mearls is going about it in a way that's just very, very... obtuse? Adding a new subsystem to a game that's gone out of its way to oversimplify the the point of obfuscated rules? I don't get it.

Or rather, I do get it: there's no real design goal here as their was with 4E. Whether you like or hate that game, it at least had reasons for every choice they made. The Next team just seems to be throwing things at the wall and hoping they stick.

Well, if they wanted Fighters to be 'more special' without adding a bunch of complexity, WotC should take a lesson from the RC and add in Weapons Mastery. That is a simple, elegant system.

Quote from: RandallS;566366I do know that the more bad decisions from the WOTC editions that make it in 5e core, the less chance there is I will buy the game, let alone run or play it. Here is a partial list of those things I consider bad decisions from WOTC D&D designers:

I'm going to respond to a bunch of things on the list...  Basically a whole bunch of them are likely to be kept in because of the reveneue potential..

* combat that really needs minis/battlemats to work
Minis are a good source of revenue.  I don't buy the D&D minis, but if you have the money to spare, it's usually easier to convince someone to spend $2-$3 on an impulse purchase than $25-$35 for a new book...  Whatever the next version of D&D looks like, I expect them to 'strongly encourage' tactical-miniature play.

* deck-building style charop
* system mastery
And they're absolutely going to release splat books.  They're popular and they make money.  DMs aren't a large enough base to support the types of sales the D&D development team envisions.  That means they're going to try to appeal to players.  And the easiest way to appeal to players is to give them 'treats' that they can add to their character if they have the right book.  

* Feats that limit "everyman abilities" to those who take the feat
This one I think they COULD move away from, but probably won't.  When they talk about 'letting everyone have powers like the Fighter', but then backing away from that to make Fighters special seems to support the idea that 'things anyone could do' won't be possible because then you don't have 'role-protection'.

* required magic items by level
* required wealth by level
Required is a strong word...  But I take your meaning.  They're going to want to encourage 'toys'.  And if you have toys, PCs are either going to be 'better' than their challenges, or worse than their challenges.  Depending on the type of game you want to play, you're going to end up with some level of 'required' magical items to achieve the game you want - unless classes don't NEED magical items to be effective, but I can guarantee that's not changing.  

* flavorless magic items
Also unlikely to change.  Flavorless magical items are easy, and something of a sacred cow.  Worse, even if they tried to make 'flavorful' magical items, most people would probably 'object' to the flavor.  That's something that's really more easily added on the back end - but suggestions for how to do that would be REALLY helpful - you know, so people think that magic items SHOULD have flavor...  

* excessive concern with balance
I don't know what you mean by 'excessive', but balance is going to be a concern.  If one class is 'truly superior', than why would anyone play the other classes?  It's not D&D without a 'mix' of classes, so balance in some form is important.  

* designing classes to all be equal in combat
Not sure whether you mean 'all classes work the same in combat' or 'all classes contribute meaningfully in different ways'.  Either way, combat is going to be a big part of the game, so ensuring that all classes have things to do that MATTER is going to be a design goal.  Not sure they'll pull it off, but they're not going to be able to avoid making an attempt at 'relatively equal combat contributions'.  

* few long term consequences from damage and the like.
Not going to happen.  In this day and age where every game can be saved and 'continued' from the previous save-point, players today have no stomach for long-term consequences.  Losing a leg can 'ruin' a PC, and lots of players like the idea of fixing them rather than retiring them.  Permanent consequences are a big 'un-fun' experience for too many gamers.  They're not coming back.

I'll be fine with this as long as they don't get carried away with adding complexity. One additional decision per round shouldn't slow things down much.

It's when you have to consult a big list of maneuvers/feats, then tally up all of the conditions that are or aren't satisfied on the battlefield this round, then consider how each of your potential options interacts with those conditions....

That's when things really bog down. A simple "Do I want to be more offensive or more defensive this round?" or "Do I want a better chance to hit or to do more damage if I do hit?" shouldn't be too bad.

It sorta reminds me of action points in 3e.

(Maybe because I looked at them, shrugged, and didn't use them, so it may not be an apt comparison)

Actually I feel bad for Mearls.  To be so enthusiastic for this stuff and be so doomed to hideous failure.

Want to improve D&D's sales?  Get a solid, complete, version back in the toy stores in a box that's  packed with miniatures and a cool cardboard castle and pirate ship.  (Look, I'm sorry, I know, but in the toy store, toy value matters.)

Want to bring back the old fans?  Make a solid core game that actually is D&D and doesn't so much try to fix it as tidy up the corners a bit.  Make it the best of what has gone before.

Want to please the 4e fans?  Keep 4e in print as a parallel line.  Change the name to avoid confusion.  It never was nor will be Dungeons & Dragons.

Want to get back the 3e fans, drive a truck load of money up to Paizo's door and offer to let them put Dungeons & Dragons on the cover of the books.

Quote from: jeff37923;566378Well, if they wanted Fighters to be 'more special' without adding a bunch of complexity, WotC should take a lesson from the RC and add in Weapons Mastery. That is a simple, elegant system.

Absolutely, this. In fact, I think Next's stated design goals would be served a lot better by using Basic as the design core instead of than this weird hodgepodge of 3E and dice tricks.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566442Absolutely, this. In fact, I think Next's stated design goals would be served a lot better by using Basic as the design core instead of than this weird hodgepodge of 3E and dice tricks.

It struck me a lot more like 4e than 3e, with things like healing surges, at-wills, etc.


And 4e failed because they said it failed.  Can't get more direct than when the people in charge of it admit it.

Am I really the only one here who's totally burnt out on the legends and lore column and related tinkering articles?

Each time I read one of these I can't help but think "these people do not understand Dungeons & Dragons; they're shooting shit at the wall hoping something sticks, instead of doing their homework." I honestly cannot believe a group of professional game designers can be THAT oblivious about what makes the D&D game actually tick.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566376Or rather, I do get it: there's no real design goal here as their was with 4E. Whether you like or hate that game, it at least had reasons for every choice they made. The Next team just seems to be throwing things at the wall and hoping they stick.

Keep in mind the design goal of 4E was toward a particular style of play, which is one of the things that split so many people off. The design goal of 5E, seems to be to cater to the broadest range of playstyles possible in order to bring evetyone back together...so i dont think the design choices will have the kind of focus as 4E simpy because they are trying to appeal to a broad range of tastes. That said I do agree this is becoming a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Right now it feels like they have succeeded in irritating everyone because playstyles and preferences have become so oppositional.

I think fundamentally on this fighter issue you have two camps: those who want more fighter options and those that want much simpler more classic styles (i am sure there are some in the middle as well). You cannot please both groups with the same mechanic. I think you have to offer up two different options in order to satisfy here (i would argue the same with HP). In places where this kind of division occurs maybe forking the system is the best option. That way they can go all out in providing fighter options for those who want them but not worry about losing the folk hoping for a simpler fighter.

Quote from: Benoist;566449Am I really the only one here who's totally burnt out on the legends and lore column and related tinkering articles?

Each time I read one of these I can't help but think "these people do not understand Dungeons & Dragons; they're shooting shit at the wall hoping something sticks, instead of doing their homework." I honestly cannot believe a group of professional game designers can be THAT oblivious about what makes the D&D game actually tick.

Even though I dont like all the design choices, and right now it isn't looking like 5E is going to be for me, I appreciate the tranparency these articles bring. They also give us a chance to voice our concerns. In the end wotc may go a different direction than I want but they are showing me what they are thinking and giving me the opportunity to speak.

I sent a message to mike mearls basically expressing what I have said here. I have to say his response was well thought out and the guy clearly has a thick skin (which earns my respect). Based on his response i think he definitely understands the game and is pasionate about it. He also understands the various concerns I raised an was able to offer his own thoughts on them. He didn't change my mind about this mechanic, but I can at least see e understands where I am coming from.

I don't think the issue is that mearls doesn't get what makes D&D tick, i think its that he is trying to make an edition that unites 4e, 3e, 1e, 2e and pathfinder fans. That is tough no matter how you slice it. Ad the end result is goin to be all over the place in a lot of ways.

I will say i agree with you benoist in that the final product of this design approach is increasingly more removed from what I think of as D&D.

Yes, I'll agree with you Brendan about Mike. I too sent some feedback and had a few back-and-forths with him about the game. I'm not a hater by any means, and actually like the man quite a bit. But at the same time, I have to be honest about it and say that I believe he's lost sight of what matters to the game. I think there's a case of mistaking the forest for the trees going on, and I seriously do believe that these guys (Mike, Rob, et al.) are missing the entire point of the D&D game, here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566447It struck me a lot more like 4e than 3e, with things like healing surges, at-wills, etc.

Most classes have always had At-Wills, so the only '4e' aspect of them is that Wizards can use them. As for healing surges (or really, hit dice, they're called now), they're certainly inspired by Surges, but they also completely miss the point. By making them 1 per level and variable, they can't serve the same function as healing surges, which is pacing the adventuring day so that fights can be hard without completely draining the party's resources.

But more importantly, there's almost none of the thought and reasoning that went into 4E. Wizards are back to strictly Vancian Dailies (except for Cantrips) just because... that's how it was before. Fighters have no Encounter Exploits of Daily Powers... because people on the internet complained. Without carefully thought out mechanics and goals, the Wizard once again seems to end up the class with a grabbag of tricks that make other classes redundant past level 10. 3.5, inspite of whatever it got right, is a basically terrible system mechanically. 4E, inspite of its missteps, has fundamentally sound mechanics.

5E builds a lot more on the paradigms that made 3E a bad game than it does on what made 4E a good tactical RPG. If you want to get rid of the tactical, then Basic would be a much better starting point than 3E

QuoteAnd 4e failed because they said it failed.  Can't get more direct than when the people in charge of it admit it.

They may have said something like 'it failed to capture the interest of some long-time players' but that's a very different thing than 'it's a financial failure'. It's not like Hasbro or WOTC needs Dungeons and Dragons, the tabletop game, so the fact that they're not discontinuing suggests that it's at least earning its keep. I think a bigger question is, if the forward-looking edition aimed at balance and making the game easier for new players to get into isn't making them as much as they'd like, then why do they think this mess they're calling Next would do them any better?

I'm constantly reminded of Penny Arcade's take on this situation:

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11

Mike Mearls and his crew are to be congratulated and pitied for having the foolhardiness to embark on this venture.

I always buy the current edition of D&D for the following reasons:

a) Curiosity
b) Completeness
c) Cannibalism
d) Support of the industry
e) It's the only thing a large non-forum-represented segment of the population will play

But in this case I'm adding:

f) To serve as a bouquet of roses to throw either at an incredible victory parade or on top of an era's coffin.

Quote from: Benoist;566449Am I really the only one here who's totally burnt out on the legends and lore column and related tinkering articles?

Each time I read one of these I can't help but think "these people do not understand Dungeons & Dragons; they're shooting shit at the wall hoping something sticks, instead of doing their homework." I honestly cannot believe a group of professional game designers can be THAT oblivious about what makes the D&D game actually tick.

That isn't the problem. The designers are all capable of reading...they know perfectly well how prior versions of D&D handled things.

The problem is that WotC is trying to do the impossible, which is to unite two hostile and diametrically opposed war camps. The edition wars have become ideological and dogmatic at this point, and it is more about the fight than actually winning or losing. There is simply NO middle ground in which the Pre-4E and Post-4E camps meet and compromise. None.

The only possible solution is to escalate the conflict to actual violence. I say that both camps should meet at gencon and just fight to the death, until one side is completely eradicated and a clear victor emerges. Then start the D&DN design process over again and align the new design goals accordingly.

D&D stopped being D&D as soon as it stopped being compatible with previous iterations, so they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.  It's a brand new game, and every version thereafter is a brand new game.  I'm not saying 3e or 4e are bad games, just that they are completely different than D&D.  More like GURPS, or Palladium--typical fantasy game with unique mechanics that aren't compatible with any other version.  Trying to create yet another version once you've split off into vastly different games is a futile effort.

I guess what I'm getting at could be explained with this analogy:

You start with Win 95.
Then you go to Win 98 and can still run Win 95 games with little fuss on Win 98
Then you get to Win XP, and can still run most of those old games.
Then WoTC buys you out, and releases Leopard.  Suddenly you find out that you can't run you previous games on Leopard.  Leopard is a completely different thing.  It can be good, it can be bad, but it can't be Windows.

Quote from: David Johansen;566415Actually I feel bad for Mearls.  To be so enthusiastic for this stuff and be so doomed to hideous failure.

Want to improve D&D's sales?  Get a solid, complete, version back in the toy stores in a box that's  packed with miniatures and a cool cardboard castle and pirate ship.  (Look, I'm sorry, I know, but in the toy store, toy value matters.)

Want to bring back the old fans?  Make a solid core game that actually is D&D and doesn't so much try to fix it as tidy up the corners a bit.  Make it the best of what has gone before.

Want to please the 4e fans?  Keep 4e in print as a parallel line.  Change the name to avoid confusion.  It never was nor will be Dungeons & Dragons.

Want to get back the 3e fans, drive a truck load of money up to Paizo's door and offer to let them put Dungeons & Dragons on the cover of the books.

Tremendous! :cheerleader:

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of "what is D&D", and everyone is dead sure that what THEY think is D&D is what is REALLY D&D. I'm not saying I'm any better, I do it to. And the people here? They are JUST AS SURE that THEY are the true arbiters of D&D. Personally half the posts in this thread come off ridiculously smug and arrogant.

Why can't people realize that there is a difference between "He doesn't get D&D" and "He doesn't get what I consider D&D"?

I feel sorry for the guy. Nothing he could do could really appeal to everyone they are trying to appeal to. Honestly they just need to identify the audience they want, and appeal to that audience.

Old school fans seem to just want another OD&D clone

3rd Edition fans seem to want back their ultimate wizard powers and for Fighters to no longer have "superpowers"

4th Edition fans want to retain tactical choice in combat and a consistent power format.

Who is right? Good lord I don't know. I think each edition has its advantages, but the wars between them have become the equivalent of Democrats vs Republicans in the US, no one cares who is right, they are just damned sure the other side is wrong, and will manipulate any argument into blaming that side.

Personally, I just want to see a well designed game. Even if its not to my taste, or doesn't match what I consider "D&D", I'm OK with it being someone ELSE'S D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566500You start with Win 95.
Then you go to Win 98 and can still run Win 95 games with little fuss on Win 98
Then you get to Win XP, and can still run most of those old games.
Then WoTC buys you out, and releases Leopard.  Suddenly you find out that you can't run you previous games on Leopard.  Leopard is a completely different thing.  It can be good, it can be bad, but it can't be Windows

That's an excellent analogy. I really feel like WOTC D&D is a completely different game than all the TSR D&Ds -- even at the 'just the core rules" level. It really is as different as Windows and MacOS -- and as incompatible software (aka adventure/supplement) wise.

Quote from: RandallS;566533That's an excellent analogy. I really feel like WOTC D&D is a completely different game than all the TSR D&Ds -- even at the 'just the core rules" level. It really is as different as Windows and MacOS -- and as incompatible software (aka adventure/supplement) wise.

Then learn the new software or just forgo updating. It's not like Wizards is going to force you to learn the new system and take away your old books. Or play a retroclone, whatever.

The problem is, old school gamers seem to want D&D to stay the same. But it can't do that. It can't do that because people, the culture that it came from, everything moves on*. They can't do that because the old rules are full of idiosyncrasies and weird decisions born from the fact that Arenson and Gygax were pioneering a new sort of tabletop game. They can't do that because their business model can't sustain itself eternally on splats for old rules**, and because eternal splats for old rules makes a messy game like 3.5 and 4E became in their later years. And frankly, while I greatly enjoy 4E, I sure as hell don't want it to stagnate forever at that level.

*Call of Cthulhu has stayed the same, but it's based on a finite set of stories within a single mythos and also basically got the mechanics right the first time.

**This is not a workable business model for a company the size of WOTC. Just because Pathfinder or small press companies can do it doesn't mean it would satisfy the corporate overlords at Hasbro.

#dndlast

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566489The problem is that WotC is trying to do the impossible, which is to unite two hostile and diametrically opposed war camps. The edition wars have become ideological and dogmatic at this point, and it is more about the fight than actually winning or losing. There is simply NO middle ground in which the Pre-4E and Post-4E camps meet and compromise. None.

I think this is the case.

Then again, during the span of 4E, it would not have taken much effort for WotC to come out and publicly say, "Hey guys, cool it down a bit. This 4venging doesn't help at all."

The situation was created by WotC and their marketting of 4E, and now WotC must reap what they have sown.

Quote from: jeff37923;566562The situation was created by WotC and their marketting of 4E, and now WotC must reap what they have sown.

No it wasn't. They marketed 4th Edition with a tongue in cheek ribbing of the eccentricies of older games. They marketed it with clearly stated design goals that happened not to jive well with some people. The 'situation' comes from the shrill hostility of detractors--from Enworld, from Paizo itself, from blogs. '4venging' is a direct response to the misinformation and temper tantrums those guys threw.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566552The problem is, old school gamers seem to want D&D to stay the same. But it can't do that.

No, that's not what a lot of old schoolers are saying.  We're saying that all variations should be somewhat compatible.  Something where I can run my old game (X-Com) and play it on my new OS (XP) with little fiddling.

QuoteThey can't do that because the old rules are full of idiosyncrasies and weird decisions born from the fact that Arenson and Gygax were pioneering a new sort of tabletop game.

Yes it can.  2e proved that.  It got rid of the idiosyncrasies of Gygax and put them into plain English while at the same time making it completely compatible with earlier editions.

QuoteThey can't do that because their business model can't sustain itself eternally on splats for old rules**, and because eternal splats for old rules makes a messy game like 3.5 and 4E became in their later years. And frankly, while I greatly enjoy 4E, I sure as hell don't want it to stagnate forever at that level.

That's pure guesswork.  Judging by their comments that 4e failed, the above seems like an unsupported guess.  2e TSR didn't fail because 2e failed.  It failed because they put out a shitload of novels and campaign setting sourcebooks that sold less than what they expected, so they had a TON of returned stuff, which ruined their financial model.  If they would have stuck to gaming stuff, and not spent a boatload of money on novels, they might not have run into nearly as much financial problems as they did.

But either way, my point was this.  I'm not saying 3e or 4e is good or bad, just like Leopard isn't good or bad--people have their own opinions and some people really like it, and some people don't.  My point was that 3e and 4e are completely different games that happen to have the D&D logo taped to the front because WoTC paid for it.  D&D (and pretty much every other game that has multiple revisions) has been largely compatible with older versions of itself.  3e and 4e are not.  To me that makes the difference, and why I don't consider either a true version of D&D.  3e and 4e can be great games individually, but they aren't really revisions.  They are completely built from the ground up.

I could put Chevy badging on my Fiat, but that doesn't make it a Chevy.  Two totally different cars.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566566No it wasn't.

Actually, yes it was.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566566They marketed 4th Edition with a tongue in cheek ribbing of the eccentricies of older games.

No, they flat out insulted a good 3/4 of D&D's fanbase with that. The "tongue in cheek ribbing" was made of fail based upon its reception.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566566They marketed it with clearly stated design goals that happened not to jive well with some people.

You mean like the GSL that WotC would not let anyone see because it turned out to be a poison pill for 3rd Party Publishers?

Or how about Gleemax? Or the Virtual TableTop?

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566566The 'situation' comes from the shrill hostility of detractors--from Enworld, from Paizo itself, from blogs. '4venging' is a direct response to the misinformation and temper tantrums those guys threw.

Yup, people got tired of being told that their taste in D&D sucks just because a new edition of the game was coming out. Many older edition fans got shafted when WotC pulled their PDFs off the market. Paizo was supporting WotC D&D with Dungeon and Dragon magazine then got the rug yanked out from under them, so they did the only thing they could and went their own way with Pathfinder.

The backlash is from the 4venging and is the effect, it didn't cause the 4venging to start.

Quote from: jeff37923;566562I think this is the case.

Then again, during the span of 4E, it would not have taken much effort for WotC to come out and publicly say, "Hey guys, cool it down a bit. This 4venging doesn't help at all."

The situation was created by WotC and their marketting of 4E, and now WotC must reap what they have sown.

There was no "4venging". There was only you and those like you becoming incensed that 4E fans had the gall to disagree when people criticized their game of choice...you know..like fans of any edition do.

If I say that AD&D 1st edition was a poorly designed piece of shit, then Dungeondelver and Stormbringer are going to chime in with their rebuttals, but do I get to call THEM fanatical, cultish lunatics? Apparently not...it only counts when it's 4E fans.

Quote from: jeff37923;566570No, they flat out insulted a good 3/4 of D&D's fanbase with that. The "tongue in cheek ribbing" was made of fail based upon its reception.

The only reason anyone in their right mind could be offended by that is if they were specifically looking for a reason to be offended.

If that bit about grappling in previous editions was enough to hurt your precious little feelings, then you are an oversensitive crybaby.

Or do you not see the hypocrisy inherent in berating 4E fans for seeing criticism as an insult tot he core of their identity, when treating the early 4E marketing the very...exact...same...way?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566571There was no "4venging". There was only you and those like you becoming incensed that 4E fans had the gall to disagree when people criticized their game of choice.

Nope, the 4venging started even before the game came out.

There was the constant moving of goalposts. You couldn't just saythat you were not interested in 4E, you had to buy and read the books, you had to try a dungeon delve, you had to try an adventure, you had to try a campaign. It never ended.

There were the derisive claims that if you didn't like 4E, than you were an old fart grognard who was stuck on nostalgia and couldn't advance to the New Coke of 4E.

You can try to not blame the 4vengers all you like, but you and TomatoMalone will both still be wrong.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566571The only reason anyone in their right mind could be offended by that is if they were specifically looking for a reason to be offended.

But wasn't that the intent? To be offensive for marketting?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566571If that bit about grappling in previous editions was enough to hurt your precious little feelings, then you are an oversensitive crybaby.

I don't know what part of your ass you pulled this from, but I've always hated the grappling rules in AD&D 1E, 3E, and 3.5E.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566571Or do you not see the hypocrisy inherent in berating 4E fans for seeing criticism as an insult tot he core of their identity, when treating the early 4E marketing the very...exact...same...way?

Dude, there is a difference between 4E fans and 4vengers. A 4venger sees a game (4E) as a part of his or her personal identity or religion.

Regarding 4venging and ...err ... grognarding, from my vantage point as someone who moves freely between the two it looked like a whole lot of people saw what they wanted to see and set the various online camps on fire accordingly. Meanwhile, in the real world, none of my (anecdotal) data indicated that people cared that much beyond the usual eternal struggle to find anyone to play with.

These edition wars sound like the struggles of the privileged who play at whim.

Quote from: jeff37923;566573You can try to not blame the 4vengers all you like, but you and TomatoMalone will both still be wrong.

Or it could be that you're still delusional. 4venging is a stupid buzzword created by the fact that a lot of 4E fans are understandably pissed off when people repeatedly lie about (or mouth off without understand, which has the same effect as lying) about the first mechanically sound D&D edition since the Rules Cyclopedia. "It's just WOW on the Tabletop" "You can shout wounds closed" "You can't roleplay".

Shit like that is still repeated today, four years after people have had every opportunity to get an informed opinion.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566579Or it could be that you're still delusional. 4venging is a stupid buzzword created by the fact that a lot of 4E fans are understandably pissed off when people repeatedly lie about (or mouth off without understand, which has the same effect as lying) about the first mechanically sound D&D edition since the Rules Cyclopedia. "It's just WOW on the Tabletop" "You can shout wounds closed" "You can't roleplay".

.

When you say stuff like this (emphasis mine), you come off less like a 4e fan and more like a 4venger.  It's kind of ironic, in a way.  In the very same sentence you complain about people making unreasonable comments about 4e while at the same time taking an unreasonable dig at other editions.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566579Or it could be that you're still delusional. 4venging is a stupid buzzword created by the fact that a lot of 4E fans are understandably pissed off when people repeatedly lie about (or mouth off without understand, which has the same effect as lying) about the first mechanically sound D&D edition since the Rules Cyclopedia. "It's just WOW on the Tabletop" "You can shout wounds closed" "You can't roleplay".

Shit like that is still repeated today, four years after people have had every opportunity to get an informed opinion.

Oh, I don't know.

I've just been annoyed at the 4venger's behavior and not the actual rules of 4E. 4E does not appeal to me, it is the fact that the game does not appeal to me that makes 4vengers angry enough to become unhinged.

On the actual Mearls article here, I'm not sure whether I love this or hate it. Is he implying that the bonus dice are a constant, at-will thing? Or is it going to be an X/encounter or X/day thing (in which case he and 5E can burn in hell)?

Having +damage dice which you can spend to do your super shield manuever doesn't seem super different to having two powers, one thats [2w] and one thats [1w+shield stuff], though it would seem to be a bit more streamlined and flexible, which is good.
I'm also not sure if creating a fighter option list is going to limit non-fighters too much in what they can do (either in play when they try and do something creative, or during character building). In part how this works out may depend on what the multiclassing rules look like, though - if at worst you can pick up some fighterness it might not be too bad.

Why can't you just give a set amount of dice which goes up in amount and type per level? Usable however you want that refresh daily. Just give them to everyone and if you must tie them to areas of focus per each overall archetype.

Quote from: Marleycat;566595Why can't you just give a set amount of dice which goes up in amount and type per level? Usable however you want that refresh daily. Just give them to everyone and if you must tie them to areas of focus per each overall archetype.

Well, you can, but then you have to come up with some other new feature to give to fighters exclusively.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566566No it wasn't.

Shut the fuck up. Of course it was.

Quote from: soviet;566597Well, you can, but then you have to come up with some other new feature to give to fighters exclusively.

Works fine in Fantasy Craft so I don't see the issue. There are other mechanics or perks each class gets but the basic idea is exactly the same.

Quote from: jeff37923;566335It is getting harder and harder to keep an open mind about D&D Next.

I don't bother.  I assume it's going to suck.  If it doesn't, I'll be (*VERY*) pleasantly surprised.

Saw the rpg.net version of this thread and OK, looks like the dice are per-round so I'm not hating it like I do 4E (and FantasyCraft ;) )
Looks like 3E and 4E people don't mind it, but not so much the older edition people.

Quote from: jeff37923;566573Nope, the 4venging started even before the game came out.

There was the constant moving of goalposts. You couldn't just saythat you were not interested in 4E, you had to buy and read the books, you had to try a dungeon delve, you had to try an adventure, you had to try a campaign. It never ended.

There were the derisive claims that if you didn't like 4E, than you were an old fart grognard who was stuck on nostalgia and couldn't advance to the New Coke of 4E.

You can try to not blame the 4vengers all you like, but you and TomatoMalone will both still be wrong.

Bullshit.

If I said that I didn't like 1st edition, then half of the fans would tell  me that I haven't played it right, or haven't experienced it with the right group, or that I'm too pampered and coddled to enjoy "real" gaming.

You aren't pissed that 4E fans defend their game incessantly...you are pissed that they defend their game at all.

Quote from: jeff37923;566576Dude, there is a difference between 4E fans and 4vengers. A 4venger sees a game (4E) as a part of his or her personal identity or religion.

Yet you're the one holding a grudge for 5 years because WotC apparently said mean things about your game of choice.

What is the difference between what you're doing here and what "4vengers" do?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566617You aren't pissed that 4E fans defend their game incessantly...you are pissed that they defend their game at all.

...and the reason you care enough to lie is that the 4vengers were striking originally against the 3.5ers who you hate with the fury of a thousand suns. ;)

Avaunt! White Knight!

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566617Bullshit.

If I said that I didn't like 1st edition, then half of the fans would tell  me that I haven't played it right, or haven't experienced it with the right group, or that I'm too pampered and coddled to enjoy "real" gaming.

Then that is their perogative.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566617You aren't pissed that 4E fans defend their game incessantly...you are pissed that they defend their game at all.

4E fans do not defend their game incessantly, 4vengers do.

4E fans understand that 4E has flaws, but they still like it. 4E fans are just not filled with the zealotry required to defend their game of choice from every possible imagined slight that comes along. In other words, they are rational.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;566292Mearls is acting like a drug-addled cunt right now.

Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566618Yet you're the one holding a grudge for 5 years because WotC apparently said mean things about your game of choice.

What is the difference between what you're doing here and what "4vengers" do?

I'm being honest and rational about it?

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566623Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

Look around you, I think you will find quite a few RPG professionals here...

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566623Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Curlyhoward.jpg/200px-Curlyhoward.jpg)

Quote from: jeff37923;566629Look around you, I think you will find quite a few RPG professionals here...

No, I mean real ones.  Ones who published books that actual game stores carry. Not jerks who self-publish a book through Lulu, sell it to their moms, and call themselves game designers.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566641No, I mean real ones.  Ones who published books that actual game stores carry. Not jerks who self-publish a book through Lulu, sell it to their moms, and call themselves game designers.

Hey now, my game is carried by Alliance Distributors and is in game stores, do I count?


Although I'd hardly call myself professional....Not mentally anyway ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566647Hey now, my game is carried by Alliance Distributors and is in game stores, do I count?


Although I'd hardly call myself professional....Not mentally anyway ;)

Same here, on both points. monkeyfaceratboy has no idea who posts on this forum.

RPG Professional, you mean like Dan White, Pete Nash, Lawrence Whitaker, James Desborough, Gareth Michael Skarka, Brendan Davis, Clash Bowley, Kevin Crawford, Simon Rogers, Jim Raggi, Johnathan Drake, Jeff Talanian, Tavis Allison, Rob Conley, Brett Bernstein, Pete Spahn?  This isn't even counting the people who don't produce their own hardcopy but still do top-notch work like Tim Kirk.

Or maybe you mean readers like Mike Mearls who is paying Pundit to consult on 5e.

Who the fuck are you?  Some little purple weasel sniping at his betters.

Apologies to the loads of people I missed, but that pissed me off, there's some good talent here.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566623Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

LOL Keep fucking that chicken, dude.

The reason why RPG enthusiasts and professionals (who are often the very same people, and ought to be in any case) do prefer it here is that at least here, they'll get honest, straightforward opinions, and will get the feedback they need to get aside from the uber-fandom "I love you professional" crowd. If we think a product is shit, or an idea of theirs is dumb, we have the balls to say it and argue about it. This is why this place is the web's first spot of actual, general tabletop RPG discussion on the internet.

Live with it.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566641No, I mean real ones.  Ones who published books that actual game stores carry. Not jerks who self-publish a book through Lulu, sell it to their moms, and call themselves game designers.

Boy, did you just fuck up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566568That's pure guesswork.  Judging by their comments that 4e failed, the above seems like an unsupported guess.  2e TSR didn't fail because 2e failed.  It failed because they put out a shitload of novels and campaign setting sourcebooks that sold less than what they expected, so they had a TON of returned stuff, which ruined their financial model.  If they would have stuck to gaming stuff, and not spent a boatload of money on novels, they might not have run into nearly as much financial problems as they did.

Never forget the TSR CCG boondoggle Spellfire! Or Dragon Dice, the world's first CDG "collectible dice game"!

Further I think the extra campaign settings were awesome on powdered toast. Overprinted, maybe. But just about everything was overprinted during those crazy boom cycles. Remember the comic boom/bust? Or the collectible comic cards before collectible card games? Those things sucked down ancient Baseball card producers, too.

Speculative demands from a larger market have only caused destruction to this hobbyist cottage industry. The sooner D&D is out of WotC/Hasbro hands and its ilk the better.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566623Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

Below are all the fucks I give about that bullshit kowtowing to others.  No one gets a pass.

I was going to say something to the effect of I am amused that Declan must be Mistwell or a pod copy. But you guys seem to have it well covered. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;566653RPG Professional, you mean like Dan White, Pete Nash, Lawrence Whitaker, James Desborough, Gareth Michael Skarka, Brendan Davis, Clash Bowley, Kevin Crawford, Simon Rogers, Jim Raggi, Johnathan Drake, Jeff Talanian, Tavis Allison, Rob Conley, Brett Bernstein, Pete Spahn?  This isn't even counting the people who don't produce their own hardcopy but still do top-notch work like Tim Kirk.

Or maybe you mean readers like Mike Mearls who is paying Pundit to consult on 5e.

Who the fuck are you?  Some little purple weasel sniping at his betters.

Apologies to the loads of people I missed, but that pissed me off, there's some good talent here.

A couple of those guys even like me. Just being Marley the Cat who knows nothing about rpg's. Foolish guys they are nonetheless.:D

I suspect that we also must have the highest ratio of 5e consultants to user-base of any board on the internet.

Quote from: Opaopajr;566680Never forget the TSR CCG boondoggle Spellfire! Or Dragon Dice, the world's first CDG "collectible dice game"!
.

Ah yes, absolutely correct.  And you're spot on about the particular era.  This was the dot com bubble too.  It seemed as if the 90s every company just spent shitloads of money on everything like it grew on trees, and TSR wasn't exempt.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566761Ah yes, absolutely correct.  And you're spot on about the particular era.  This was the dot com bubble too.  It seemed as if the 90s every company just spent shitloads of money on everything like it grew on trees, and TSR wasn't exempt.

Also, if what a lot of the former employees say is true, LW was making some very strange choices like ordering an insane amount of dragon dice. My understanding is DD were actually succesful, but they ordered more than they could ever have hoped to sell. But I have heard some conflicting things on this so who knows.

Quote from: Imp;566406It sorta reminds me of action points in 3e.

(Maybe because I looked at them, shrugged, and didn't use them, so it may not be an apt comparison)

The parallels between 5e and Earthdawn draw ever closer. Except in ED, all Adepts get "Karma Dice" which they can attempt to re-fill once a day. Oh, and spending Hit Dice and Recovery Checks are also a near parallel. We found a single pool of d6 (with an upgrade to d8s later in the game) was easiest to track.*

*see ED1 and different Karma Dice for each race. Cute, but not that cool in game.

Quote from: Marleycat;566595Why can't you just give a set amount of dice which goes up in amount and type per level? Usable however you want that refresh daily. Just give them to everyone and if you must tie them to areas of focus per each overall archetype.

See what I mean. ED has "Archer" and "Swordsmaster" archetypes...

Quote from: Marleycat;566595Why can't you just give a set amount of dice which goes up in amount and type per level? Usable however you want that refresh daily. Just give them to everyone and if you must tie them to areas of focus per each overall archetype.

Sure, great idea, but while we're at it let's increase the number of archetypes, get rid of stat blocks, make armor require the expenditure of a die to function, drop hit points and call it something other than Dungeons & Dragons.  And I mean it, it's a fine idea, it just has nothing to do with D&D's mechanics.  One could just as well add a stock market to Monopoly while stripping out the play money and scraping the community chest and chance cards for snakes and ladders.  It might be a better game but it would not be Monopoly.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566641No, I mean real ones.  Ones who published books that actual game stores carry. Not jerks who self-publish a book through Lulu, sell it to their moms, and call themselves game designers.

Hey!  My mom wouldn't buy my books!  I guess "jerks" is open to interpretation but somehow I'm guessing that individuals who aren't jerks but self publish on line don't get a pass on your scorn.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566647Hey now, my game is carried by Alliance Distributors and is in game stores, do I count?


Although I'd hardly call myself professional....Not mentally anyway ;)

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566641No, I mean real ones.  Ones who published books that actual game stores carry. Not jerks who self-publish a book through Lulu, sell it to their moms, and call themselves game designers.

What kind of jerk charges his mom for this? Mom always gets one of the free comp copies.

QuoteSure, great idea, but while we're at it let's increase the number of archetypes, get rid of stat blocks, make armor require the expenditure of a die to function, drop hit points and call it something other than Dungeons & Dragons. And I mean it, it's a fine idea, it just has nothing to do with D&D's mechanics. One could just as well add a stock market to Monopoly while stripping out the play money and scraping the community chest and chance cards for snakes and ladders. It might be a better game but it would not be Monopoly.

Hyperbole much? Action dice won't morph your precious Dnd into GURPS or that evil White Wolf game my mother said would make me go to hell.

Not if your stated goals are to reunite and expand the fan base.

But no, what they will do is create a new standard with the goal of unity.  Of course, creating a new standard never does anything more than creating another division.

But we can wait a few years and see who's right.  I mean if I magically come into a couple million dollars I promise to put Dark Passages into the mainstream market in the format I believe will work best and we could have a real contest to see if I'm right.

But as that's not likely to happen any time soon, we can wait three years and see how Mearl's latest catastrophe shapes up.

Quote from: Marleycat;566811Hyperbole much? Action dice won't morph your precious Dnd into GURPS or that evil White Wolf game my mother said would make me go to hell.

I like dice pools personally. So i have no objection to them at all (in fact I prefer dice pools). But what feels sloppy here to me is adding a dice pool mechanic to D&D. Also dice pool systems where you fiddle with the results rather than simply roll and see what the result is, just are not my cup of tea. To me it is like adding a hand of cards to the game so that i get distracted by the subgame of playing the hand.

Quote from: David Johansen;566818But no, what they will do is create a new standard with the goal of unity.  Of course, creating a new standard never does anything more than creating another division.

.

I think this is the heart of the problem here. This is why a much more stripped down core is the better way to go imo. They can make mechanics like this and tag them a optional. That is great because someone like marletcat gets this fantasy craft style mechanic she likes when she runs the new edition but someone like me wont take one look and say "wtf? My fighter has a dice pool resurce?"

I just feel they putting too much stuff into the core that willl backfire and create more division. They can say "no problem just take out x, y and z and you have old school style or take out y and you have 3.5" but that is really not much different from what people were suggestion during 4E (it seems like every complaint was met with "just remove this and that"). People wont mind adding in stuff. They will resent having to remove mechanics.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566819I like dice pools personally. So i have no objection to them at all (in fact I prefer dice pools). But what feels sloppy here to me is adding a dice pool mechanic to D&D. Also dice pool systems where you fiddle with the results rather than simply roll and see what the result is, just are not my cup of tea. To me it is like adding a hand of cards to the game so that i get distracted by the subgame of playing the hand.

Exactly.  On all counts.  I too like dice pools.  If I didn't, I'd be a huge hypocrite because I use a RISK-inspired version of dice pools in my own home brew Altus Adventum game.

But like you say, in D&D it just doesn't fit.  For me it's because it adds even more layers of complexity during the combat round, and that means more time.  Each version of D&D has taken longer to resolve combat than the previous one, and the way WoTC is going, you'll be lucky to do one encounter in 4 hours.  And like what we see in 4e, if you spend most of your time in combat, then you have to make every character an equal contributor in order to keep people involved.  In a system where combat moves quickly and more time is spent on exploration and role-playing, it's perfectly viable to have niche protection because each class has an opportunity to shine.

At present I foresee them regaining none of the old school crowd, and little of the 3e and 4e crowds.

To put it another way, they're trying to hit one out of the park when they need to bunt.  Incidentally the "new" fighter mechanic bears a resemblance to the task mechanics from Alternity.  Which was another Mike Mearls mess of tangled interacting mechanisms.

Quote from: JRR;566318If people had any imagination, they wouldn't call for more options.  It amazes me.  The options a fighter, or any other class has is limited only by your imagination.  Give me a 1e fighter.  He has more attacks, deals more damage, uses more weapons, has the best ac, and the most hit points.  That's not enough?

There ain't enough glowy buttons of differing colors on the character sheet to keep the attention of the ritalin crowd.

They wants their ADHDD&D.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566333First I want to say that I absolutely agree with you and what I'm about to say is actually sympathetic rather than antagonistic, but I can't help but laugh at sentences like this. Darn those players, wanting and expecting things out of a game they are potentially investing hundreds of hours in. :D

Sometimes getting modern players to try old school games feels like being the zen master trying to break an American consumer of his bad habits. You just keep thwacking his hand away from the remote control with your crooked walking stick while patiently droning "less is more."

Unfortunately a GM trying to pitch a game in this environment full of electronic alternatives increasingly has to make concessions to get players to pay attention.

Let those who would rather play videogames simply do so, and stay the hell away from tabletop.

Quote from: RandallS;566366I want 5e to be a very basic core set of rules -- confined mainly to things that were common to 0e to 3e -- that would play much like B/X. Then there would be lots of options for adding stuff to that -- some in the core books, others in supplements. Note that I don't care about minor differences -- for example, ascending AC or descending AC doesn't matter as they are mathematically equivalent.

If only it were equivalent. Ascending AC is workable but is designed to go hand in hand with bonus bloat. Descending AC featured the repeating 20 which flattened things out a bit.

Quote from: Benoist;566463Yes, I'll agree with you Brendan about Mike. I too sent some feedback and had a few back-and-forths with him about the game. I'm not a hater by any means, and actually like the man quite a bit. But at the same time, I have to be honest about it and say that I believe he's lost sight of what matters to the game. I think there's a case of mistaking the forest for the trees going on, and I seriously do believe that these guys (Mike, Rob, et al.) are missing the entire point of the D&D game, here.

The tripping point is the insane amounts of $$ the game has to produce to be considered "viable".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566500I guess what I'm getting at could be explained with this analogy:

You start with Win 95.
Then you go to Win 98 and can still run Win 95 games with little fuss on Win 98
Then you get to Win XP, and can still run most of those old games.
Then WoTC buys you out, and releases Leopard.  Suddenly you find out that you can't run you previous games on Leopard.  Leopard is a completely different thing.  It can be good, it can be bad, but it can't be Windows.

Man, don't be callin OD&D Windows 95.  That's fucked up. :p

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566552Then learn the new software or just forgo updating. It's not like Wizards is going to force you to learn the new system and take away your old books. Or play a retroclone, whatever.

The problem is, old school gamers seem to want D&D to stay the same. But it can't do that. It can't do that because people, the culture that it came from, everything moves on*. They can't do that because the old rules are full of idiosyncrasies and weird decisions born from the fact that Arenson and Gygax were pioneering a new sort of tabletop game. They can't do that because their business model can't sustain itself eternally on splats for old rules**, and because eternal splats for old rules makes a messy game like 3.5 and 4E became in their later years. And frankly, while I greatly enjoy 4E, I sure as hell don't want it to stagnate forever at that level.

*Call of Cthulhu has stayed the same, but it's based on a finite set of stories within a single mythos and also basically got the mechanics right the first time.

**This is not a workable business model for a company the size of WOTC. Just because Pathfinder or small press companies can do it doesn't mean it would satisfy the corporate overlords at Hasbro.

This simply means that D&D needs to be in a smaller company's hands.

Quote from: monkeyfaceratboy;566623Wow. And you people wonder why RPG professionals prefer RPG.net to this site...

Fuck off, cunt.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566822I think this is the heart of the problem here. This is why a much more stripped down core is the better way to go imo. They can make mechanics like this and tag them a optional. That is great because someone like marletcat gets this fantasy craft style mechanic she likes when she runs the new edition but someone like me wont take one look and say "wtf? My fighter has a dice pool resurce?"

I just feel they putting too much stuff into the core that willl backfire and create more division. They can say "no problem just take out x, y and z and you have old school style or take out y and you have 3.5" but that is really not much different from what people were suggestion during 4E (it seems like every complaint was met with "just remove this and that"). People wont mind adding in stuff. They will resent having to remove mechanics.

Yup. Its easier to add plugins than remove core.

Quote from: David Johansen;566848Incidentally the "new" fighter mechanic bears a resemblance to the task mechanics from Alternity.  Which was another Mike Mearls mess of tangled interacting mechanisms.

Alternity Task Resolution.

*shivers*

That is one of the main reasons I and others were turned off of that game.

Quote from: David Johansen;566818Not if your stated goals are to reunite and expand the fan base.

But no, what they will do is create a new standard with the goal of unity.  Of course, creating a new standard never does anything more than creating another division.

But we can wait a few years and see who's right.  I mean if I magically come into a couple million dollars I promise to put Dark Passages into the mainstream market in the format I believe will work best and we could have a real contest to see if I'm right.

But as that's not likely to happen any time soon, we can wait three years and see how Mearl's latest catastrophe shapes up.

Here you have a point. I would hope that it gets floated out there then streamlined if it's too clunky. I am just saying I don't mind the concept but the devil is in the details.

Does anyone else involved in playtesting get the feeling that the original skeleton for 5e was basically a smoothed out 1e, but then some players got nervous when the more 3e and 4e options weren't front and center enough for their comfort, so the design team is now trying to figure out how to make things "half-optional"?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566860Does anyone else involved in playtesting get the feeling that the original skeleton for 5e was basically a smoothed out 1e, but then some players got nervous when the more 3e and 4e options weren't front and center enough for their comfort, so the design team is now trying to figure out how to make things "half-optional"?

To me it is feeling like they are just throwing stuff into the core to satisfy the different camps, with the result that most are not satisfied. To me it is very simple: a clean neutral core on which you can add all the various options to taste. That is the only way something like this will work. Otherwise, as one poster pointed out, they just further divide the base (you can already see this happening as people argue over the various fixes).

Quote from: Marleycat;566859Here you have a point. I would hope that it gets floated out there then streamlined if it's too clunky. I am just saying I don't mind the concept but the devil is in the details.

But I'm afraid that's the whole point.  I can sit down and write my game In The Shadow of Dragons and I can make it as clever and brilliant and powerful as I like but it will never supplant D&D.

And that's what I see as the problem with trying to "fix" D&D.

If I had the rights to D&D and pasted it on to In The Shadow of Dragons it wouldn't make In the Shadow of Dragons D&D.  It never would and it never could.

Because D&D is bigger than the license.

When was the last time D&D had a clear point of entry that wasn't badly broken or deliberately crippled?

What would be wrong with a cleaned up Rules Cyclopedia one book solution?  If you say it's not a viable business model I beg to differ.

The supplement mill can still churn on, the dungeon tiles, miniatures, and board games can still flow.  But build a solid and complete core for once.

Make D&D a game people can get into for $36 or less.  (but I still want my big box with miniatures in toy stores).

There has never been a better time for D&D to broaden its fan base.  There has never been a riper market place.

The history of D&D has been a history of missed opportunities and bungled marketing and management and the game goes on despite it.

But a clear and concise game is the road to success.  Not another ridiculous pile of spaghetti code.

The simple fact is that Mearls cannot design an elegant system to save his life and never could.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;566850If only it were equivalent. Ascending AC is workable but is designed to go hand in hand with bonus bloat. Descending AC featured the repeating 20 which flattened things out a bit.

Bonus bloat can happen with Ascending or Descending AC. It is just more intuitive to allow it with Ascending because the math is "easier". The obvious solution is just to soft cap bonus as TSR D&D did. You will still get groups using stuff like the "Great Sword of the Insane Bonus +15, +25 vs GNPCs" and "Shiny Spell Bouncing Plate Armor +12". However, when official item lists and adventures top out with +5 bonuses, those games allowing the higher bonuses are going to stand out as Monty Haul games -- just as they did with TSR D&D was current.

The repeating 20 was only a feature of AD&D 1e. OD&D, B/X, BECMI/RC, and 2e managed without it. I always found the multiple 20s a bit clunky, but they a good job of making it harder to have an "impossible to hit" AC without going to a "natural 20 hits anything" system.

QuoteThe tripping point is the insane amounts of $$ the game has to produce to be considered "viable".

This is the downside of very large businesses with multiple divisions producing very different things, what is a nice profit for a small or medium-sized business becomes not profitable enough for the larger business. The ROI from selling that product is less that the ROI from dumping that money in a completely different product from another division. :(

Quote from: jeff37923;566622Then that is their perogative.

But it happens.

Shifting goalposts is not a 4venger thing. It's not even a gamer thing. Try telling an anime fan that you're not into anime. Go ahead...try.

Quote from: jeff37923;5666224E fans do not defend their game incessantly, 4vengers do.

4E fans understand that 4E has flaws, but they still like it. 4E fans are just not filled with the zealotry required to defend their game of choice from every possible imagined slight that comes along. In other words, they are rational.

4E fans don't defend their game anymore incessantly than fans of any other game. Not a single one of them would actually claim that the game is flawless. I have yet to see a single instance of a 4E fan acting like a zealot.

GURPS fans yes. 4E fans? No.

Your problem is that you don't like people disagreeing with you at all. You can't conceive of someone having a different opinion without trying to assign some sinister ulterior motive to it.

And again...you took PERSONAL offense at wotc poking fun at prior editions during the 4E announcements. How is this any more sane and rational than 4E fans getting defensive when someone criticizes their game? Or just admit that you are a giant hypocrite.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;566860Does anyone else involved in playtesting get the feeling that the original skeleton for 5e was basically a smoothed out 1e, but then some players got nervous when the more 3e and 4e options weren't front and center enough for their comfort, so the design team is now trying to figure out how to make things "half-optional"?

I think that is a pretty good summery of how it is supposed to be working, yes.

Interesting, I gave Fighters "Combat Feats," for Ogres & Oubliettes. Essentially the ability to do crazy wild things in combat by making a roll to do so.

Of course O&O uses only a d20, yet the idea I think is similar. My idea was to give everyone such tricks, focused on their niche.

Quote from: David Johansen;566872But I'm afraid that's the whole point.  I can sit down and write my game In The Shadow of Dragons and I can make it as clever and brilliant and powerful as I like but it will never supplant D&D.
And that's what I see as the problem with trying to "fix" D&D.

That has nothing to do with putting a simple dice mechanic in the game.

QuoteIf I had the rights to D&D and pasted it on to In The Shadow of Dragons it wouldn't make In the Shadow of Dragons D&D.  It never would and it never could.

Because D&D is bigger than the license.

Agreed.

QuoteWhen was the last time D&D had a clear point of entry that wasn't badly broken or deliberately crippled?

Before 1e if that.

QuoteWhat would be wrong with a cleaned up Rules Cyclopedia one book solution?  If you say it's not a viable business model I beg to differ.

Preaching to the choir sir.

QuoteThe supplement mill can still churn on, the dungeon tiles, miniatures, and board games can still flow.  But build a solid and complete core for once.

Make D&D a game people can get into for $36 or less.  (but I still want my big box with miniatures in toy stores).

There has never been a better time for D&D to broaden its fan base.  There has never been a riper market place.

I have nothing against that because it fits right into Marley's Rule of Five ethos.

QuoteThe history of D&D has been a history of missed opportunities and bungled marketing and management and the game goes on despite it.

But a clear and concise game is the road to success.  Not another ridiculous pile of spaghetti code.

The simple fact is that Mearls cannot design an elegant system to save his life and never could.

If wishes were fishes and I had a million dollars, just sayin'.

Quote from: Marleycat;566914Before 1e if that.
.

Not to be pedantic, but Rules Cyclopedia came out in 1991.

The problem with adding "simple dice mechanics" is that it doesn't stop there.

Want a more interesting fighter?

Allow base attack bonuses to be freely allocated between any number of opponents.  Got a +10 to hit?  You can attack up to 10 targets per round with only a +1.

Allow base attack bonus to be freely turned to defense.  Fighting a tenth level fighter?  Boost your AC!

Allow base attack bonus to be turned into damage.  Fighting a dragon?  Boost your damage!

Yes, it's basically the same thing without the dice or the extra chart.  But it's also good for everyone.  It's just better for fighters because they've got a better bonus to hit.

And yes, now that I think of it, the fundamental flaw in every 5e discussion I see is that they still want everyone to have the same chance to hit.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566917Not to be pedantic, but Rules Cyclopedia came out in 1991.

He was asking about entry points and your response proves mine. The book may have been out but so were other directly competing versions. I remember back then not having one clue where to actually start because it was so muddled.

Quote from: David Johansen;566918And yes, now that I think of it, the fundamental flaw in every 5e discussion I see is that they still want everyone to have the same chance to hit.

This is the real issue. They need to really go for it and do like LotFP and make it where it is ONLY the fighter that improves BAB or something similiar. They have to get off this everyone must be effective in a stand up fight mentality like some videogame. It is fine if a Rogue or Wizard sucks at physical combat because it just isn't their deal.

Quote from: Marleycat;566921He was asking about entry points and your response proves mine. The book may have been out but so were other directly competing versions. I remember back then not having one clue where to actually start because it was so muddled.

I'd say RC was a pretty good entry point that wasn't muddled at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566924I'd say RC was a pretty good entry point that wasn't muddled at all.

Heck yes it was. It's probably my favorite version of Dnd. What I am saying is that in the game shops at the time there on the shelves were BECMI/1e/2e and RC at the same time. That is what I call confusing for a new player.

Really though, it doesn't matter what I think.  What any of us think really.  They'll do what they do and it will succeed or fail on its merits.

I get just as mad that Steve Jackson didn't capitalize on the 3e / 4e D&D split with a good one book GURPS Fantasy entry point.  But of course, he discovered he could make more money for less work by openly mocking D&D and its tropes, so who can blame him.

Quote from: Marleycat;566923This is the real issue. They need to really go for it and do like LotFP and make it where it is ONLY the fighter that improves BAB or something similiar. They have to get off this everyone must be effective in a stand up fight mentality like some videogame. It is fine if a Rogue or Wizard sucks at physical combat because it just isn't their deal.

I like what LOTFP did, but it is drastic. I doubt they will take such a deep plunge.

One option would be to give fighters a modest hit advantage over other less martial classes. Modest; not scaling up to ginormous advantage at high level.

Combine that with fighters doing better damage in physical combat, and having more fancy options, and it should be fine.

I don't want Wizards, Thieves, and Clerics to be as good as fighters in pysical combat, but they do need to be able to hit.

Missing all the time is not fun.

Hitting all the time is probably fun, but there should be a modest chance to miss as well, in general.

Quote from: David Johansen;566848At present I foresee them regaining none of the old school crowd, and little of the 3e and 4e crowds.
 
To put it another way, they're trying to hit one out of the park when they need to bunt. Incidentally the "new" fighter mechanic bears a resemblance to the task mechanics from Alternity. Which was another Mike Mearls mess of tangled interacting mechanisms.

Gah, Alternity. The extra dice there basically applied to the 'hit roll' rather than the damage roll, but vaguely similar in that it was extra dice. However Alternity came out in 1998 (PHB for it was written by Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker), whereas Mearls didn't join WOTC until about 2005? I know he did freelance stuff prior to that for awhile, but a connection seems unlikely.

doh!  Well, my face is red, I'll have to stop hating Mearls for Alternity though I won't stop hating Alternity.

Quote from: David Johansen;566979doh!  Well, my face is red, I'll have to stop hating Mearls for Alternity though I won't stop hating Alternity.

That's fine! :)

At least I can spell Mearls...

:D

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566903Shifting goalposts is not a 4venger thing. It's not even a gamer thing. Try telling an anime fan that you're not into anime. Go ahead...try.

Not saying that shifting goalposts was unique to 4vengers, but as a commonly used tactic to convince people that 4E was great, it got annoying fast.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;5669034E fans don't defend their game anymore incessantly than fans of any other game. Not a single one of them would actually claim that the game is flawless. I have yet to see a single instance of a 4E fan acting like a zealot.

That is because they are 4E fans and not 4vengers. Two different things.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566903Your problem is that you don't like people disagreeing with you at all. You can't conceive of someone having a different opinion without trying to assign some sinister ulterior motive to it.

So now you can read my mind through the internet? See my innermost thoughts and feelings?

What am I thinking right now? I'll give you a hint, it involves bacon.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;566903And again...you took PERSONAL offense at wotc poking fun at prior editions during the 4E announcements. How is this any more sane and rational than 4E fans getting defensive when someone criticizes their game? Or just admit that you are a giant hypocrite.

Actually, I'm not the one becomming unhinged because someone just said they didn't like 4E - you are.

Sounds more like you have an lot of your own personal identity wrapped up in 4E. You wouldn't by any chance be a 4venger, would you?

Bacon?  What a typical guy thing.  What is the fascination with Bacon? Is it a "pig" thing?  Or just a guy thing? Or more likely an unholy combination of both?

Oh yeah, can I be a 4venger? I'm bored.

mmmm...bacon...

...what were we talking about?

Quote from: Marleycat;567161Bacon?  What a typical guy thing.  What is the fascination with Bacon? Is it a "pig" thing?  Or just a guy thing? Or more likely an unholy combination of both?

It's like chocolate for chicks.

Quote from: Marleycat;567161Oh yeah, can I be a 4venger? I'm bored.

Why not, with all the real 4vengers gone, that's what everyone else is doing. ;)

Quote from: David Johansen;567204mmmm...bacon...

...what were we talking about?

I think we were talking about how this site has the most 5E consultants per unit area, yet Mearls' Legend/Lore columns seem to show that he isn't listening to any of them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;566850There ain't enough glowy buttons of differing colors on the character sheet to keep the attention of the ritalin crowd.

They wants their ADHDD&D.

*tweeeeeeeeeeeet!*

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XMn2sTP85Vw/TKF0_H7tz-I/AAAAAAAAAD4/mu_HWux0p3U/s400/penalty-flag.jpg)

Personal foul, offense - unnecessary roughness and excessive celebration.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566456Based on his response i think he definitely understands the game and is pasionate about it.

Mike Mearls wrote a few genuinely - and for a game designer working for Whizbros, shockingly - ignorant things about D&D, particularly pre-2e D&D. Maybe he's gotten religion since then, but I seriously doubt it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;567238Mike Mearls wrote a few genuinely - and for a game designer working for Whizbros, shockingly - ignorant things about D&D, particularly pre-2e D&D. Maybe he's gotten religion since then, but I seriously doubt it.

I am not familiar with his statements about pre 2E D&D. It is entirely possible I am mistaken. All i am really going by is his response to a pm I sent to him which was critical of this new mechanic. I cant say that his response won me over (in fact it made it more clear that I probably wont enjoy 5E) but i did feel he understood where i was coming from as a 2E fan. I also was impressed by wllingness to respond to a very direct criticism in the way he did. While what you say might indeed be true (wotc of the coast in general has come across as not really understanding 1E or 2E very well in a lot of their website articles IMO) my feeling is this particular mechanic is driven entirely by a desire to bring in the 4E crowd, not by a failure to understand what 1e players want. In some ways that is why i am less optimistic because if it were just ignorance it would likely be corrected. Rather they seem to have made that calculation that they have to give the fighter buttons in the core to attract the number of sales they want. To me that is a bad sign.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;567238Mike Mearls wrote a few genuinely - and for a game designer working for Whizbros, shockingly - ignorant things about D&D, particularly pre-2e D&D. Maybe he's gotten religion since then, but I seriously doubt it.

Is there any way you could supply the quotes or article?

Because honestly, I'm generally seeing a lot of "He doesn't understand what D&D is like at my table" rather than "He doesn't understand D&D", and by association, a lot of whining from people who don't know the difference.

Bacon? Where!?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567247Is there any way you could supply the quotes or article?

Because honestly, I'm generally seeing a lot of "He doesn't understand what D&D is like at my table" rather than "He doesn't understand D&D", and by association, a lot of whining from people who don't know the difference.

WOTC D&D isn't actual D&D.

Quote from: Marleycat;567161Bacon?  What a typical guy thing.  What is the fascination with Bacon? Is it a "pig" thing?  Or just a guy thing? Or more likely an unholy combination of both?

Bacon and a love of it is one of the best parts about being human.

Quote from: Marleycat;567161Oh yeah, can I be a 4venger? I'm bored.

Request denied.

There are too many wannabee copycat 4vengers out there already.

Quote from: jedimastert;567216I think we were talking about how this site has the most 5E consultants per unit area, yet Mearls' Legend/Lore columns seem to show that he isn't listening to any of them.

So do we know if Mearls likes his bacon crispy or chewy?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;567255WOTC D&D isn't actual D&D.

I've played since the 80s (indicating I do have significant experience with pre3e) and honestly, I have yet to see a quote that shows that Mearls is ignorant of pre3e D&D. I've seen a lot of people pretending to be the "true arbiters" of what is D&D. And I've seen a lot of people who think that they should be the only audience that matters.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567247Is there any way you could supply the quotes or article?

Take a look at the design essay on the ogre mage - he completely misses the fact that the ogre mage isn't meant to be 'a bigger, badder ogre,' but rather a supernatural mastermind which relies on magical stealth and charm to manipulate others, like an oni (which is what the ogre mage really is) or a rakshasa.

I also exchanged posts with him on EN World where he wrote something so stupid about 1e magic-users that literally made my jaw drop when I read it; unfortunately that disappeared with the board crash some years ago.

His review of KotB, his design essay on the rust monster, and the many, many responses to his essays here document examples of him not understanding why things were done the way they were done in earlier editions. Or go read the Grumpy Dwarf at Tenkar's Tavern, which breaks down the design essays as well.

It's one thing to want to fix something which is genuinely broken, but from what I've seen of Mike Mearls, he's fixing things which aren't borked, he's just really ignorant of how they work in the first place.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567246... I cant say that his response won me over (in fact it made it more clear that I probably wont enjoy 5E) but i did feel he understood where i was coming from as a 2E fan... In some ways that is why i am less optimistic because if it were just ignorance it would likely be corrected. Rather they seem to have made that calculation that they have to give the fighter buttons in the core to attract the number of sales they want. To me that is a bad sign.

Again I am perplexed over how such minor rule alterations can be dealbreakers. We're a shrinking hobby in deep need of a clear banner to rally around and call newcomers to.

Forget all our tough and uncompromising talk on the internet, what happens when we're sitting in hobby stores and local gaming clubs or on skype trying to pull a group together? "My way or the highway," or "I already have the only rules I'll ever need," are fine stances for one's peace of mind, but I can't help but feel some compromise is necessary to maximize one's pool of good player candidates and bring in new blood.

When the compromise being discussed is as benign as this one (and still in testing and featured prominently in another old school product), can't we just hold our noses a little for the good of the hobby? Not for WotC, not for 4vengers, but for the hobby?

Quote from: jedimastert;567216I think we were talking about how this site has the most 5E consultants per unit area, yet Mearls' Legend/Lore columns seem to show that he isn't listening to any of them.

Perhaps he is realizing the the OSR movement wasn't nearly as large as what the internet made it out to be?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567266I've played since the 80s (indicating I do have significant experience with pre3e) and honestly, I have yet to see a quote that shows that Mearls is ignorant of pre3e D&D. I've seen a lot of people pretending to be the "true arbiters" of what is D&D. And I've seen a lot of people who think that they should be the only audience that matters.

Shhh..  Talk like that around here gets you labeled.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567268Again I am perplexed over how such minor rule alterations can be dealbreakers. We're a shrinking hobby in deep need of a clear banner to rally around and call newcomers to.

Forget all our tough and uncompromising talk on the internet, what happens when we're sitting in hobby stores and local gaming clubs or on skype trying to pull a group together? "My way or the highway," or "I already have the only rules I'll ever need," are fine stances for one's peace of mind, but I can't help but feel some compromise is necessary to maximize one's pool of good player candidates and bring in new blood.

When the compromise being discussed is as benign as this one (and still in testing and featured prominently in another old school product), can't we just hold our noses a little for the good of the hobby? Not for WotC, not for 4vengers, but for the hobby?

"The hobby" is something we do for enjoyment. Suggesting that someone 'just suck it up and play something they won't enjoy' for the good of the hobby is so much fucking bullshit.

I will play any system a friend would like to run. I will not run crap that I'm not all that interested in.

5E had better be a DMless system because as it stands now I don't see a large contigent of people excited to run it.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567268Again I am perplexed over how such minor rule alterations can be dealbreakers. We're a shrinking hobby in deep need of a clear banner to rally around and call newcomers to.

Forget all our tough and uncompromising talk on the internet, what happens when we're sitting in hobby stores and local gaming clubs or on skype trying to pull a group together? "My way or the highway," or "I already have the only rules I'll ever need," are fine stances for one's peace of mind, but I can't help but feel some compromise is necessary to maximize one's pool of good player candidates and bring in new blood.

When the compromise being discussed is as benign as this one (and still in testing and featured prominently in another old school product), can't we just hold our noses a little for the good of the hobby? Not for WotC, not for 4vengers, but for the hobby?

For me it is more about playing a game I like and the kinds of things emergin in 5e are just not my cup of tea. The hobby needs a game that appeals to the broadest possible audience, it doesn't need an audience forcing itself to play editions they don't like for the sake of unity. What I am seeing is a game that creates the same sorts of divisions we have had under wotc's watch. If they want to cater to a particular style that is fine, they should because they own the Ip and it is their business decision to make. But I dont have to play something just because D&D is pasted on the cover if it doesn't appeal to me.

This isn't tough talk. It isn't my way or the highway. It is just a matter of taste. I realize some people see a dice pool for the fighter as a small thing. Others see it as a desirable thing. That is fine. We all have different taste after all. But for me this is not a small thing and taken together with HD and fighter dailies it is quickly becoming a game I don't want to play.

All that said, i do think people should take these sorts of mechanics on a case by case basis, rather than reference it against their stated gaming ideolo to see if it pasts the test. If you like the fighter dice pool, the HD and other elements of 5E by all means play it. I am not saying these are bad things, they just are not for me.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567266I've played since the 80s (indicating I do have significant experience with pre3e) and honestly, I have yet to see a quote that shows that Mearls is ignorant of pre3e D&D. I've seen a lot of people pretending to be the "true arbiters" of what is D&D. And I've seen a lot of people who think that they should be the only audience that matters.

I don't believe in stuffing a game company's pockets in exchange for crap. Because of this I can accept that I don't matter to WOTC.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567277... What I am seeing is a game that creates the same sorts of divisions we have had under wotc's watch.

But don't you see, one of my points is that we're creating these divisions ourselves. Combat Superiority itself is (as currently described) such a tiny math-tempo mechanic that if some people are willing to use it as a "our style" vs. "their style" line of division then no compromise and no unification is possible. A sizeable chunk of our most experienced, wisest players and GMs are segregating themselves from the new blood over miniscule concessions.

This is especially baffling when we take into consideration that they've put Vancian magic back into the core and sidelined feats - much more radical acts of compromise and good will that should by all rights have brought many more old schoolers on board or at least kept their hearts open.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;567267Or go read the Grumpy Dwarf at Tenkar's Tavern, which breaks down the design essays as well.

Do you have a link?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567268Again I am perplexed over how such minor rule alterations can be dealbreakers. We're a shrinking hobby in deep need of a clear banner to rally around and call newcomers to.

Forget all our tough and uncompromising talk on the internet, what happens when we're sitting in hobby stores and local gaming clubs or on skype trying to pull a group together? "My way or the highway," or "I already have the only rules I'll ever need," are fine stances for one's peace of mind, but I can't help but feel some compromise is necessary to maximize one's pool of good player candidates and bring in new blood.

When the compromise being discussed is as benign as this one (and still in testing and featured prominently in another old school product), can't we just hold our noses a little for the good of the hobby? Not for WotC, not for 4vengers, but for the hobby?

The RPG industry may be in trouble by production of a crap product that people are not interested in and calling it D&D, but the RPG hobby seems to be doing just fine.

Also what is the point of being involved in a hobby segment that does not interest or entertain you? Better to just ignore or excise those parts of the hobby and stay with what is fulfilling for you.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567282But don't you see, one of my points is that we're creating these divisions ourselves. Combat Superiority itself is (as currently described) such a tiny math-tempo mechanic that if some people are willing to use it as a "our style" vs. "their style" line of division then no compromise and no unification is possible. A sizeable chunk of our most experienced, wisest players and GMs are segregating themselves from the new blood over miniscule concessions.

I like very fast combat. This combat superiority stuff looks like it will slow down combat. This might not be noticeable to people used to the very lengthy combats of WOTC D&D, but even an additional minute per fighter would be noticeable when most of your combats only last 5-10 minutes. I'm seeing a lot of minor but too annoying for me stuff like this apparently in the works for D&D Next.  One or two might be livable (although anything that makes combat longer probably would not be), but I'm seeing quite a few things like this in the plans for 5e.

I'm not willing to accept stuff like that in my campaigns just to unite the hobby so one publisher can make enough money to meet their corporate beancounter set income goals. I don't need to convert from something I know well that meets 95% of my needs to something new that only meets 85% or 90% of them just because a publisher decided to publish a new edition.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567282But don't you see, one of my points is that we're creating these divisions ourselves. Combat Superiority itself is (as currently described) such a tiny math-tempo mechanic that if some people are willing to use it as a "our style" vs. "their style" line of division then no compromise and no unification is possible. A sizeable chunk of our most experienced, wisest players and GMs are segregating themselves from the new blood over miniscule concessions.

This is especially baffling when we take into consideration that they've put Vancian magic back into the core and sidelined feats - much more radical acts of compromise and good will that should by all rights have brought many more old schoolers on board or at least kept their hearts open.

Who's segragating?  I welcome new blood to my table and would be happy to teach them actual D&D. Lets not lose sight of who exactly is refusing to play what.

Quote from: RandallS;567283Do you have a link?

Yup (https://www.google.com/).

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567282But don't you see, one of my points is that we're creating these divisions ourselves. Combat Superiority itself is (as currently described) such a tiny math-tempo mechanic that if some people are willing to use it as a "our style" vs. "their style" line of division then no compromise and no unification is possible. A sizeable chunk of our most experienced, wisest players and GMs are segregating themselves from the new blood over miniscule concessions.
.

Maybe for you this is a small change, taken together with some of the other core mechanics i produces a very different kind of game than I look for in D&D. Its not about segregating myself its about treating D&D like any other game out there and only playing it if it is what I am after. You could just as easily argue people should band around any other game for the sake of the hobby. If everyone put their tastes aside and played savage worlds we would all have a common entry point to the hobby.

More importantly I dont think we have to have one game that everyone plays. My first rpg was a variaion on battletech. Didn't play D&D until about a year of playing that. When I started getting into the hobby the thing that drew me to it wasn't D&D, it was the fact that there was a divserse range of games to explore. I bought a batman rpg, runequest, merp, tmnt, tales from the floating vagabond, D&D, etc. Sure D&D was always on the menu, but we were just as happy to introduce people to gaming with Call of Cthulu or GURPS.

The way to grow the hobby is to bring new people to the table and make great games. If 5E is good and has broad appeal it will excite people and bring in new blood. Whether I play it or not, I certainly hope they do well.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;567288Yup (https://www.google.com/).

Doesn't seem to be working

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567291Doesn't seem to be working

No, it goes exactly where I intended it.

;)

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;566288With merles in charge i have zero interest in the new edition, that guy has no fucking clue how to make a decent set of rules that arent tailored to the charop crowd.

If ANYBODY would have listened to "the CharOp crowd" i.e. FRANK TROLLMANN, everybody would know: mearls is not being succesful there either.

I think the mistake is trying to appeal to everyone.

Edition warring has turned into such a mess that you can't unfracture the D&D fanbase. No one is willing to give up any concessions.

Mearls: "Vancian Magic is back in core."
4venger: "OMG UNACCEPTABLE, FIFTEEN MINUTE WORKDAY RAAARRRR"

Mearls: "Fighters can do than attack without having to rely on GM Fiat."
Grognards: "OMG UNACCEPTABLE, ITS A VIDEO GAAAAAME THIS ISN'T D&D"

Mearls: "Feats are deemphasized and character creation is based more on stacking themes and class"
3tards: "OMG UNNACCEPTABLE, WHERE IS ALL MY CUSTOMIZATION."

Everyone is angry over everything. The idea that they can appeal to everyone is idiotic, not because of anything with the actual rules, but because the fanbase itself is filled with vitriol.

And let's be honest about it, this isn't just a WotC D&D vs TSR D&D thing. Its not like there isn't people who feel D&D got worse when they produced AD&D, or when 2e came out.

Personally, I would play in any edition of D&D. I'd probably only ever run 4e, 2e, or possibly Rules Cyclopedia. 3e is just too fiddly to run for me.

(Now, there are "D&Ds" that aren't D&D that I will play, like Fantasy Craft that I do really love.)

ADDENDUM: I'm not saying you have to like it, or even buy it. But letting other people like it is fine. I'm OK with 5e not being my D&D. I'm also OK with 5e being someone else's D&D.

Let us not forget that the 4e fracturization, the strongest one to boot, was utterly uncalled for and fabricated out of thin air and, one must assume, malevolence.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567306I think the mistake is trying to appeal to everyone.

Edition warring has turned into such a mess that you can't unfracture the D&D fanbase. No one is willing to give up any concessions.

Mearls: "Vancian Magic is back in core."
4venger: "OMG UNACCEPTABLE, FIFTEEN MINUTE WORKDAY RAAARRRR"

Mearls: "Fighters can do than attack without having to rely on GM Fiat."
Grognards: "OMG UNACCEPTABLE, ITS A VIDEO GAAAAAME THIS ISN'T D&D"

Mearls: "Feats are deemphasized and character creation is based more on stacking themes and class"
3tards: "OMG UNNACCEPTABLE, WHERE IS ALL MY CUSTOMIZATION."

Everyone is angry over everything. The idea that they can appeal to everyone is idiotic, not because of anything with the actual rules, but because the fanbase itself is filled with vitriol.

And let's be honest about it, this isn't just a WotC D&D vs TSR D&D thing. Its not like there isn't people who feel D&D got worse when they produced AD&D, or when 2e came out.

Personally, I would play in any edition of D&D. I'd probably only ever run 4e, 2e, or possibly Rules Cyclopedia. 3e is just too fiddly to run for me.

(Now, there are "D&Ds" that aren't D&D that I will play, like Fantasy Craft that I do really love.)

ADDENDUM: I'm not saying you have to like it, or even buy it. But letting other people like it is fine. I'm OK with 5e not being my D&D. I'm also OK with 5e being someone else's D&D.

I am fine letting other peope like it. And I think vitriol has definitely been too present in discussions around the rules. But i also think these divisions are around legitimate style and taste differences. There is nothing wrong with not liking a particular game (nor is there anything wrong with liking one). People are just trying to voice their preferences as wotc shapes the new edition. Personally I think that is good. It may not be the edition I want, but I am at least getting an opportunity to say very specifically what I dont like.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567310I am fine letting other peope like it. And I think vitriol has definitely been too present in discussions around the rules. But i also think these divisions are around legitimate style and taste differences. There is nothing wrong with not liking a particular game (nor is there anything wrong with liking one). People are just trying to voice their preferences as wotc shapes the new edition. Personally I think that is good. It may not be the edition I want, but I am at least getting an opportunity to say very specifically what I dont like.

I actually have a lot of respect for your approach, and you seem to have your head on your shoulders. I'm honestly not sure if I like the direction 5e is going either to be honest. And I think its ok to admit that, in the same way you are.

I just get tired of the level of insults towards Mearls, who has an honestly thankless and impossible job in front of him (reuniting all of "D&D's" fans). Or the constant "THIS IS NOT D&D" or "HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND REEEEAAAL D&D" the moment doesn't stand up to a person's arbitrary standards of what D&D is based on their individual experiences with the franchise.

I'm tired of the dumb posturing and pots and kettles calling each other black. Like crap upthread from ExploderWizard about how "Lets not lose sight of who exactly is refusing to play what."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;567267Or go read the Grumpy Dwarf at Tenkar's Tavern, which breaks down the design essays as well.

You sir, have earned your existence for the next 48 hours.  :hatsoff:

Quote from: Sommerjon;567272Perhaps he is realizing the the OSR movement wasn't nearly as large as what the internet made it out to be?

A similar statement could be made about 4E D&D. Hasbro must not think there are enough 4E players or they wouldn't be ditching it for D&D by Committee (er um Next).

The problem may be that no particular group is large enough to fill the corporate coffers to Hasbro's liking. Hence the attempt to unify us all into being their customers.

Quote from: jedimastert;567317A similar statement could be made about 4E D&D. Hasbro must not think there are enough 4E players or they wouldn't be ditching it for D&D by Committee (er um Next).

The problem may be that no particular group is large enough to fill the corporate coffers to Hasbro's liking. Hence the attempt to unify us all into being their customers.

Which will never happen, of course.  I wonder if 5e does worse than 4e, Hasbro will just say, "Screw this, Magic makes all the money anyway, anyone willing to buy the IP for D&D?"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;567320Which will never happen, of course.  I wonder if 5e does worse than 4e, Hasbro will just say, "Screw this, Magic makes all the money anyway, anyone willing to buy the IP for D&D?"

They could retain the rights to the 4e system and make the Magic: The Gathering Tabletop Roleplaying Tactical Collectable Minature Card Game

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567325They could retain the rights to the 4e system and make the Magic: The Gathering Tabletop Roleplaying Tactical Collectable Minature Card Game

Maybe I should get a t-shirt made that says, "I was tapping a wench in D&D long before Magic made tapping a core mechanic."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567314I

I just get tired of the level of insults towards Mearls, who has an honestly thankless and impossible job in front of him (reuniting all of "D&D's" fans). Or the constant "THIS IS NOT D&D" or "HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND REEEEAAAL D&D" the moment doesn't stand up to a person's arbitrary standards of what D&D is based on their individual experiences with the franchise.

I'm tired of the dumb posturing and pots and kettles calling each other black. Like crap upthread from ExploderWizard about how "Lets not lose sight of who exactly is refusing to play what."

i don't much like personal insults either (the same kind of stuff was being said by 4e fans against Monte Cook a while back...now it just seems the people who don't like 4e are attacking mearls). I just don't like attacking another human being, but I also get people are passionate and Mearls is the lead designer so its natural for him to catch some flak. My view is he seems like a nice guy, he appears to be taking the time to respond to people contacting him with criticism, and at the end of the day he is making design decisions, not decisions so it is good to keep this stuff in persepctive. i do think he is making choices that will further divide the fanbase and that don't appeal to me...but maybe I am wrong. Also after this round of criticism he may throw a bone to folks like us and make the fighter die pool optional (which is really all I think people are asking for along with HD and fighter dailies being optional).

Quote from: jedimastert;567317A similar statement could be made about 4E D&D. Hasbro must not think there are enough 4E players or they wouldn't be ditching it for D&D by Committee (er um Next).

The problem may be that no particular group is large enough to fill the corporate coffers to Hasbro's liking. Hence the attempt to unify us all into being their customers.

Could be.
I would hazard a guess at there being a lot of internal politicking going on at WotC

Personally I think D&D is old and tired.  It needs to go do that Odin Sleep thing for a while.  Brush it off in a decade or so.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;567314I'm tired of the dumb posturing and pots and kettles calling each other black. Like crap upthread from ExploderWizard about how "Lets not lose sight of who exactly is refusing to play what."

What crap? It isn't my fault that WOTC D&D markets to players, the end result being that everyone will play but no one wants to run anything.

I am willing to play anyedition of D&D including 4E. The WOTC fans around here, I cannot say the same thing for.

Really I don't have any serious hate for 5E, I'm just indifferent to its success or failure. The hobby will continue on its merry way, with or without it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;567336What crap? It isn't my fault that WOTC D&D markets to players, the end result being that everyone will play but no one wants to run anything.

I've not really seen a shortage of 3.x or 4e GMs honestly. (Despite the fact that I HATE running 3.x, there are still 3.x GMs everywhere, and probably 3-5x as many if you count PF GMs (And honestly you would be insane not to))

EDIT: Also, I haven't seen a shortage of people who refuse to play games either. I'll admit maybe the groups I am around are an aberration, but most of them are up for anything no matter the system as long as the GM sells a fun sounding setting/world to screw around in.

EDIT2: I apologize for mischaracterizing you specifically though. I've just seen a lot of TSR D&D fans who DO refuse to play anything newer. Or 3e fans who refuse to play 4e. But I've also seen 4e fans who will play OD&D, AD&D, 3e, or whatever, they just don't want to run it. It doesn't just go one way. There are people stuck in their ways on all sides who refuse to accept that maybe something else can be good, even if its not what they want.

Quote from: Sommerjon;567334Personally I think D&D is old and tired.  It needs to go do that Odin Sleep thing for a while.  Brush it off in a decade or so.

This is not going to happen while Pathfinder exists.

Quote from: jadrax;567354This is not going to happen while Pathfinder exists.

Nor would we want it to. For better or worse D&D and its closest clones are the heart that pump the lifeblood of the hobby. Should that fail our broader community will wither away like hex-based wargamers no matter how much we love our sub-niches.

Quote from: jadrax;567354This is not going to happen while Pathfinder exists.

Depends on how long Paizo can keep it up if WotC shelved D&D

If wizards or paizo went under i think another company would just step in and fill the void (most likely using d20 of some kind).

Quote from: CRKrueger;567315You sir, have earned your existence for the next 48 hours.  :hatsoff:

Just tryin' to do my part for the team, sir.

Quote from: jeff37923;567260Bacon and a love of it is one of the best parts about being human.



Request denied.

There are too many wannabee copycat 4vengers out there already.

Chocolate is better. Also you are no fun because of not letting me a 4venger!

It'll never happen, not just "because Pathfinder", but more broadly "because OGL". It's irrevocable and perpetual. If Pathfinder fails, something else is going to take its place at the top of the OGL pyramid. D&D haters can suck it. The game is immortal now.

Part of the problem is that D&D has a very broad appeal.  There's people who want to fight mass miniatures battles with it (AD&D 1e is very capable of doing so) and there's people who want a deep, immersive fable that raises their consciousness.  

From where I sit what's needed is a stripped down core with the warts burned off.  Which warts?  Well that depends on the edition.  For original D&D there's simply the stattershot approach that leads to inconscistancy between games.  For Holmes Basic, the 1d6 damage for every weapon and the limited role of stats / stat bonuses.  For advanced 1e there's level limits, pummelling, grappling, and the insane number of task specific subsystems in general each requiring a different column on the stat bonus table.  For Basic there's the limited number of character options.  For Second edition there's the weapon imbalances that make playing anything but an elf with a long sword and a long bow severely sub optimal and non-weapon proficiencies that clearly show the character should have stayed home and been a blacksmith.  Third edition has feats that should just be combat options or part and parcel of the various classes.  Also a character build paradim that spoils the game.  Forth edition, well, let's just say that it's extremely divisive and only caters to a single style of play.

Strip it to the core and avoid tacked on subsystems in the core like the plague.  If you have to tack it on it shouldn't be in the core in the first place.

I want to play 4venger too!
I don't like 4E at all, which makes this problematic, but from a business standpoint - I think it would've made more sense for WOTC to accept that when they left the top of the OGL pyramid, there was no going back. They should've kept refining and improving 4E (maybe made a 5E that was a successor to that) and cashing in on the splatbook buyers and DDI subscribers. Anyone can build D&D retroclones, but they have exclusive control of 4E material.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;567426They should've kept refining and improving 4E (maybe made a 5E that was a successor to that) and cashing in on the splatbook buyers and DDI subscribers. Anyone can build D&D retroclones, but they have exclusive control of 4E material.

Which would indicate an unprecedented level of panic and pressure from Mearl's taskmasters. Perhaps they are perilously close to mothballing the D&D brand for a few years, or at least the actually roleplaying game part of it (keeping the board and video games going). This is what Ryan Dancey said he feared all those years ago when they took over from TSR, and his major secret motivation for the OGL in the first place.

My concern is that D&D as an eternal rule set is not enough, and that we might be about to find out what happens to a hobby that loses its flagship.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567513My concern is that D&D as an eternal rule set is not enough, and that we might be about to find out what happens to a hobby that loses its flagship.

I'm not worried.  I think people wanting to play (and purchase) RPGs is the  engine that drives the hobby, and if the D&D brand goes into the Hasbro vault, then other games will fill the void.  Would you stop playing?  Would you stop buying RPGs?  Would you stop introducing the game to friends?  Do you think Paizo will say "Ah well, D&D went under so I guess we should pull Pathfinder out of the game stores...hobby is dying..."

Also, I'd say the hobby has been "losing its flagship," for some time, now.  That's what the "fragmentation" of D&D has been: people rejecting the flagship's course and charting their own.  The truth is that if WotC/Hasbro mothballed D&D, tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my gaming at all.

Even if your fears are absolutely justified and the hobby contracts, that doesn't mean the hobby is in danger.  For example, even though it's smaller than it used to be (and not *nearly* as big a business), the hex wargame hobby continues today: new games (including some excellent ones), web forums, and even new forms of playing board wargames (e.g. Vassal, etc).  It's adjusted to demand.

I don't think the disappearance of D&D, as a brand, would be a hobby-killing event.  Not at this point, anyway.  As long as enough people want to play tabletop RPGs, the hobby will be around.  I see player demand, not game-company supply, as the *REAL* heart that pumps the blood of the hobby.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;567527I don't think the disappearance of D&D, as a brand, would be a hobby-killing event.  Not at this point, anyway.  As long as enough people want to play tabletop RPGs, the hobby will be around.  I see player demand, not game-company supply, as the *REAL* heart that pumps the blood of the hobby.

Given the number of retroclones out there and the OGL, I think it is pretty obvious that traditional D&D can't be killed off by WOTC failing to print it. If WOTC retired D&D for a decade or two, the only think really retired would be the trademark on TTRPGs. Playing traditional D&D would not really affected at all. The OGL allows other companies and fan publishers to step into the void -- just as Paizo did with Pathfinder for 3.x fans, as Goblinoid Games has done with Labyrinth Lord for B/X fans, etc.

This doesn't even consider the fact that almost every D&D product ever published by TSR and WOTC is apparently available for free download from various torrent sites and the like. If WOTC stops making D&D, I suspect use of these pirate copies would simply become more acceptable amongst D&D fans who want to play the real thing. There's a "you are hurting the hobby" stigma attached to these in many circles today that would mostly disappear if WOTC pulled D&D at the behest of their corporate masters at Hasbro.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;567527I'm not worried.  I think people wanting to play (and purchase) RPGs is the  engine that drives the hobby, and if the D&D brand goes into the Hasbro vault, then other games will fill the void.  Would you stop playing?  Would you stop buying RPGs?  Would you stop introducing the game to friends?  Do you think Paizo will say "Ah well, D&D went under so I guess we should pull Pathfinder out of the game stores...hobby is dying..."

Also, I'd say the hobby has been "losing its flagship," for some time, now.  That's what the "fragmentation" of D&D has been: people rejecting the flagship's course and charting their own.  The truth is that if WotC/Hasbro mothballed D&D, tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my gaming at all.

Even if your fears are absolutely justified and the hobby contracts, that doesn't mean the hobby is in danger.  For example, even though it's smaller than it used to be (and not *nearly* as big a business), the hex wargame hobby continues today: new games (including some excellent ones), web forums, and even new forms of playing board wargames (e.g. Vassal, etc).  It's adjusted to demand.

I don't think the disappearance of D&D, as a brand, would be a hobby-killing event.  Not at this point, anyway.  As long as enough people want to play tabletop RPGs, the hobby will be around.  I see player demand, not game-company supply, as the *REAL* heart that pumps the blood of the hobby.

Yarp. Too many people confuse the industry with the hobby. In reality, the hobby needs very little commercially produced product to sustain itself.

When industry folks worry about the hobby 'dying', all they really mean is the loss of fucktons of cash rolling in from people who could keep enjoying what they do while spending little to nothing.

There is money to be made in the tabletop rpg market, just not the kind of money that a company the size of Hasbro cares about.

I should note that, never mind "5e consultants per capita"; theRPGsite has more RPG designers and publishers per capita than RPG.net by far.  For a significant part of the industry, tangency.net is useless at best, poisonous at worst.

As for the statement upthread that "based on the L&L stuff it seems Mearls isn't listening to the OSR people/his consultants", I don't think that's the case either.   He's not JUST listening to them, but you'd have to be stupid to expect that; the whole point here is to figure out a way to be able to give some attention to all sides. I certainly feel I'm being listened to, regardless of whether or not all my advice is always being followed.

Finally, regarding this "combat superiority" mechanic, I think that if we can get to it so that in the version of the 5e rules meant for old-school play, this mechanic ends up being something very similar to the DCC game's "deed die", then there's no big problem with it. And in that context, its funny to me to see some of the people freaking out about this mechanic who are also some of the same people gushing over the innovations in the DCC game.

The bigger issue is not the mechanic itself, but how it can be applied in different levels of play; the trick is going to be for this mechanic to be made into something that taps into maneuvers and feats and powers and all that stuff at the level of the game where those are included, and that ends up being a much more straightforward combat bonus for fighters (possibly with a more freeform setup for "heroic deeds", again almost precisely in the same way the DCC game does it in my understanding) at the level of the game meant to work for the more old-school style of play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;567824He's not JUST listening to them, but you'd have to be stupid to expect that; the whole point here is to figure out a way to be able to give some attention to all sides.

I think Pundit's post overall is excellent and reflects a lot of what I've noticed, but this specific sentence really highlights what I think: A lot of people seem to think that they should be the sole audience for 5e, and get really angry at even the slightest evidence that anyone else is getting anything.

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.

        --- Bill Cosby

Quote from: jeff37923;567150Not saying that shifting goalposts was unique to 4vengers, but as a commonly used tactic to convince people that 4E was great, it got annoying fast.

Shifting goalposts is a commonly used tactic for convincing people that ANYTHING is great. This is an asshole thing...not a 4E thing.

Quote from: jeff37923;567150That is because they are 4E fans and not 4vengers. Two different things.

The difference being that if someone placidly accepts your antagonism, then they are "one of the good ones", but if the bother to argue with your bullshit, then they are "frothy-mouthed psycho cult members out to silence any and all criticism".

Riiigght.

Quote from: jeff37923;567150So now you can read my mind through the internet? See my innermost thoughts and feelings?

What am I thinking right now? I'll give you a hint, it involves bacon.

Your innermost thoughts and feelings are ludicrously transparent.

Quote from: jeff37923;567150Actually, I'm not the one becomming unhinged because someone just said they didn't like 4E - you are.

Sounds more like you have an lot of your own personal identity wrapped up in 4E. You wouldn't by any chance be a 4venger, would you?

Yeah...I'm not a 4E guy. 4E bores the fuck out of me. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that tactic isn't going to work on me.

Also, you're the one who decided to feel butthurt just because WotC poked a little fun at your precious grapple rules. So whose personal identity is tied up in their game of choice again?

Or you can just keep dodging the question everytime someone calls you on your bullshit.

See, I think they should be aiming at the broadest possible audience: non-gamers.

I'm not likely to go back to D&D unless they slip a copy of Rolemaster Standard System between the covers.  And I recognize that would kill the game dead for a lot of people.  If I was mega rich and bought D&D I'd do it just to piss off the D&D fans.  Keep that in mind.

But I want the hobby to flourish and grow and I believe we're in the best possible time for that if we can just make D&D accessible.

I believe quite strongly that D&D has proven itself to be the superior point of entry to the hobby.  And thus I argue that what is needed is not a 'fixed' D&D that's more like the rest of the gaming industry.  But a tight, cleaned up D&D that makes getting into it easy and inexpensive.

So yes, I get very angry when I see WotC throwing away the system that made the industry.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;567936Shifting goalposts is a commonly used tactic for convincing people that ANYTHING is great. This is an asshole thing...not a 4E thing.

So you agree that 4vengers are assholes.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;567936The difference being that if someone placidly accepts your antagonism, then they are "one of the good ones", but if the bother to argue with your bullshit, then they are "frothy-mouthed psycho cult members out to silence any and all criticism".

Riiigght.

It is not antagonism to point out what you do not like about a game, or its very vocal and zealous 4venger fans. It is antagonism when your unemotional views cause an emotional reaction from those very vocal and zealous 4venger fans.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;567936Your innermost thoughts and feelings are ludicrously transparent.

So what am I thinking now?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;567936Yeah...I'm not a 4E guy. 4E bores the fuck out of me. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that tactic isn't going to work on me.

So then what white knight tendency is making you have this arguement?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;567936Also, you're the one who decided to feel butthurt just because WotC poked a little fun at your precious grapple rules. So whose personal identity is tied up in their game of choice again?

Or you can just keep dodging the question everytime someone calls you on your bullshit.

You don't bother to read things, do you? I've already said that I do not like the grappling rules from AD&D 1E, 2E, and 3E. My personal identity is not involved.

Now tell me what idiot question of yours I'm dodging while you remain unhinged.

EDIT: Unless this all just an attempt by you to derail D&D Next conversation, which it is beginning to look like.

Quote from: jeff37923;568007So you agree that 4vengers are assholes.

I disagree that 4vengers are something that exist as you describe them.

Quote from: jeff37923;568007It is not antagonism to point out what you do not like about a game, or its very vocal and zealous 4venger fans. It is antagonism when your unemotional views cause an emotional reaction from those very vocal and zealous 4venger fans.

You're partially correct here. It is not antagonism to point out your unemotional view on what you do not like about a game.

However, YOUR views are anything but "unemotional". As far as I've seen, your arguments are deliberately vindictive and antagonistic.



The truly troubling part to me, is whether or not you realize it and are just lying, or if you are completely oblivious to the fact that you take potshots at 4E fans whenever you get a chance, and actually believe that you are engaging in rational discussion.

Quote from: jeff37923;568007So what am I thinking now?

You are thinking of counterarguments, and ineffective ones at that.

Quote from: jeff37923;568007You don't bother to read things, do you? I've already said that I do not like the grappling rules from AD&D 1E, 2E, and 3E. My personal identity is not involved.

Now tell me what idiot question of yours I'm dodging while you remain unhinged.

I'm unhinged. I'm a white knight. I'm a 4venger. I'm a troll. Do you have anything better than ad hominems?

You really are trying very hard to weasel out of having to actually defend your position, aren't you?

Earlier in this very thread, you said:

Quote from: jeff37923;568007The situation was created by WotC and their marketting of 4E, and now WotC must reap what they have sown.

and

Quote from: jeff37923;568007No, they flat out insulted a good 3/4 of D&D's fanbase with that. The 'tongue in cheek ribbing' was made of fail based upon its reception.

So I'm to understand that when WotC jokingly ribs on older editions, it's an insult to fans and they deserve any derisive reaction they get.

However, if someone jokingly says that "4E is WoW" and a 4E fan gets upset, then they are an irrational "4venger" with their identity tied too closely with their game of choice.

I'm asking you to stop splitting hairs like a chickenshit and explain to me how the above is NOT a double standard.

Quote from: David Johansen;567937See, I think they should be aiming at the broadest possible audience: non-gamers.

I'm not likely to go back to D&D unless they slip a copy of Rolemaster Standard System between the covers.  And I recognize that would kill the game dead for a lot of people.  If I was mega rich and bought D&D I'd do it just to piss off the D&D fans.  Keep that in mind.

But I want the hobby to flourish and grow and I believe we're in the best possible time for that if we can just make D&D accessible.

I believe quite strongly that D&D has proven itself to be the superior point of entry to the hobby.  And thus I argue that what is needed is not a 'fixed' D&D that's more like the rest of the gaming industry.  But a tight, cleaned up D&D that makes getting into it easy and inexpensive.

So yes, I get very angry when I see WotC throwing away the system that made the industry.

Trying to simplify systems to make them more appealing to the new generation of non-tabletop rpg gamers has been tried already, and it didn't go well (I'm thinking specifically of RTG; after Mike went to work for Microsoft for a couple years, he came back and came out with the pustular garbage that was Cyberpunk 3.0)

I think that they really should be going back and reassessing what they're trying to do.  Using what they've already talked about as being their primary goals, they should be

1) Designing their core mechanic to be streamlined and easy to understand
2) Developing a gradient series of additions that, when placed on the core system, emulate the feel of the specific systems that their player base they're trying to unify love.
3) Developing their monsters and plugins to take advantage of this.

So.. if they look at the core mechanic of D&D, it boils down to 'Roll a d20 to hit the monsters.  If you succeed at hitting their AC, deal damage' along with all the base assumptions that go with it.  Then, dependent on what you want to have 'turned on', you could make it more or less complex.

So.. the core longsword = Longsword, 1d8 damage
1e ruleset longsword = Longsword, 1d8/1d12 enc 7
2e ruleset longsword = Longsword, 1d8/1d12 enc 7 spd 5 S/P
3e ruleset longsword = Longsword, 1d8 (19-20/x2) S/P

(I don't know 4e and don't own any books for it so i'll just stick with what I have here)

When it's laid out, you can keep all the feel of any given edition by just adding aspects or taking them away.  1e and 2e use the 'damage vs large' aspect.  3e doesn't, but 3e uses the 'critical and threat' aspect.  Only 2e uses the 'weapon speed' aspect.  

But you should be able to take a character that's made under one of the other versions, and by simply stripping aspects off or adding them, be able to pretty quickly play your character in someone's game.  Will the feel of your character change?  Of course.  You might not have access to your Great Cleave/Improved Critical combo anymore.  Or all of a sudden you find out  that this game is using Weapon Speed so your Polearm has you losing initiative all the time.  But that's an aspect of customizing the specific system that we do anyway, mostly through selection of our particular system and ruleset, combined with house rules.  As a business, they want to take advantage of that, and build it into their system so that the support is already there for it.

All that said, I don't think it's going to work.  Plugins have been tried before, and they never seem to take off.  And they're going to wind up with the same kind of elitism build-fetish and dismissiveness that they have already.  They might not mind then, though, as long as everyone is buying their current works in print.

Quote"Psh, my Elite War Orc Blood-Mage Warlord would mop the floor with you."

"I can already tell from the description that you're using the Monster PC and 4th edition plugins, n00b.  Strip all that down to core and let's stand up a duel and see who wins!"

"Who uses plain core anymore, gr0gn3rd! Get with the times."

But the basis behind it would allow for their model.  

Want to play the game?  Buy the core book.

Want to play 4e?  Here's the 4e sourcebook.  Add this stuff to your corebook characters.

Want to play in Forgotten Realms late-term with sorcerers and stuff? Setting book.  Add these aspects to your core characters from whatever sourcebook stuff you're using.

Monster entries would probably have a graded list of abilities that are progressively used as you add to your complexity, and they could even come out with monster addendi for their specific Sourcebook/Settingbook releases.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040I disagree that 4vengers are something that exist as you describe them.

At least now you acknowledge that 4vengers exist.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040You're partially correct here. It is not antagonism to point out your unemotional view on what you do not like about a game.

Glad you agree with me.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040However, YOUR views are anything but "unemotional". As far as I've seen, your arguments are deliberately vindictive and antagonistic.

ALL of my arguements or just the ones that you disagree with?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040The truly troubling part to me, is whether or not you realize it and are just lying, or if you are completely oblivious to the fact that you take potshots at 4E fans whenever you get a chance, and actually believe that you are engaging in rational discussion.

Why does this trouble you if you are not a 4E fan? You claim to not have any stake in this, but you sure are emotionally involved with it.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040You are thinking of counterarguments, and ineffective ones at that.

No, I was thinking about having chili for dinner.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040I'm unhinged. I'm a white knight. I'm a 4venger. I'm a troll. Do you have anything better than ad hominems?

Not when they are a good description of how you are posting.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040You really are trying very hard to weasel out of having to actually defend your position, aren't you?

Earlier in this very thread, you said:

"The situation was created by WotC and their marketting of 4E, and now WotC must reap what they have sown."

and

"No, they flat out insulted a good 3/4 of D&D's fanbase with that. The 'tongue in cheek ribbing' was made of fail based upon its reception."


So I'm to understand that when WotC jokingly ribs on older editions, it's an insult to fans and they deserve any derisive reaction they get.

Yes.

Why? Because if you want to sell a new product to your customers, you do not deliberately insult and disinfranchise those same customers of 35+ years, then try to cover your ass by saying "It was all just a joke!". It is common sense. No proof needed for the obvious.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040However, if someone jokingly says that "4E is WoW" and a 4E fan gets upset, then they are an irrational "4venger" with their identity tied too closely with their game of choice.

Gross Conceptual Error here. The two things do not equate. People do not earn the 4venger label by just getting upset over one thing, they earn it by beating the dead horse into the ground that 4E is awesome and has no flaws whatsoever and that every other version of D&D out there sucks. You know, argueing incessently and irrationally like you are doing right here.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568040I'm asking you to stop splitting hairs like a chickenshit and explain to me how the above is NOT a double standard.

And I will tell you right here, go fuck yourself.

The splitting hairs that you are bitching about is how I have been posting on the subject for awhile now. Deal with it.

I am indifferent to 4E as a game, but 4vengers have my complete derision.

Okay, R Talsorian Games was never in a position to reach non-gamers.  Liscences for Dragon Ball and Votoms not withstanding they didn't have the budget it would take and Fuzion was a disaster by all standards, no matter how much I personally wanted to like it.

But we need to step back a bit.  Mechanically stripped down doesn't need to mean stripped of content.  I want classes and races and monsters and treasure in there with the simple, straightforeward core rules.

As for simple has never worked, what about Star Wars by WEG or I dunno, Basic Dungeons & Dragons by TSR?  The thing about simplicity and consistency (and let's face it, inconsistant methods aren't simple) is that they still need to do the job in play.

Quote from: David Johansen;568058Okay, R Talsorian Games was never in a position to reach non-gamers.  Liscences for Dragon Ball and Votoms not withstanding they didn't have the budget it would take and Fuzion was a disaster by all standards, no matter how much I personally wanted to like it.

But we need to step back a bit.  Mechanically stripped down doesn't need to mean stripped of content.  I want classes and races and monsters and treasure in there with the simple, straightforeward core rules.

As for simple has never worked, what about Star Wars by WEG or I dunno, Basic Dungeons & Dragons by TSR?  The thing about simplicity and consistency (and let's face it, inconsistant methods aren't simple) is that they still need to do the job in play.

The key is to be simple in an elegant manner which has a broad footprint and allow for expansion. That is why WEG Star Wars and Basic D&D worked. You have to have a solid core for that expansion to be allowed.

Quote from: David Johansen;568058But we need to step back a bit.  Mechanically stripped down doesn't need to mean stripped of content.  I want classes and races and monsters and treasure in there with the simple, straightforeward core rules.

I agree, so the model I was thinking would have pretty much everything from the rules cyclopedia in the core book.  Then the (let's call them) Edition Sourcebooks would give additional information for how to play the game to emulate the feel of a specific edition, so plugins like Weapon Speed and such.

Quote from: David Johansen;568058As for simple has never worked, what about Star Wars by WEG or I dunno, Basic Dungeons & Dragons by TSR?  The thing about simplicity and consistency (and let's face it, inconsistant methods aren't simple) is that they still need to do the job in play.

I was talking about plugins, specifically.  Like in Fuzion, which was the specific example that came to mind.

Quote from: jeff37923;568054ALL of my arguements or just the ones that you disagree with?

You're right. That was a misnomer...you don't make arguments. In fact, you seem to avoid doing so at all costs.

Quote from: jeff37923;568054Why does this trouble you if you are not a 4E fan? You claim to not have any stake in this, but you sure are emotionally involved with it.

How do YOU react when you see someone being bullied?

Quote from: jeff37923;568054Yes.

Why? Because if you want to sell a new product to your customers, you do not deliberately insult and disinfranchise those same customers of 35+ years, then try to cover your ass by saying "It was all just a joke!". It is common sense. No proof needed for the obvious.

Actually...you DO need to supply proof. What exactly did they say that hurt your delicate little feelings so, pollyanna?

Quote from: jeff37923;568054Gross Conceptual Error here. The two things do not equate. People do not earn the 4venger label by just getting upset over one thing, they earn it by beating the dead horse into the ground that 4E is awesome and has no flaws whatsoever and that every other version of D&D out there sucks. You know, argueing incessently and irrationally like you are doing right here.

I don't believe that anyone has ever said that 4E has no flaws and every other version sucks. I think this is either a deliberate lie on your part, or a paranoid delusion.

Also, you're dodging the question AGAIN.

Why are pre-4E players allowed to express anger when their edition is insulted, when 4E players are not? How is this NOT a double standard?

Quote from: jeff37923;568054I am indifferent to 4E as a game, but 4vengers have my complete derision.

There's no such thing as a "4venger". There's only you throwing childish temper tantrums and holding a grudge whenever someone disagrees with you.

Quote from: David Johansen;567937See, I think they should be aiming at the broadest possible audience: non-gamers.

:rotfl:


Dude, whatever you're paying your dealer, it's either way too little or way too much, 'cause you're smokin' some bad shit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568081:rotfl:


Dude, whatever you're paying your dealer, it's either way too little or way too much, 'cause you're smokin' some bad shit.

I think he's on to something.

Best thing WotC could possibly do for the brand is to discontinue the tabletop game, mothball the brand for ten years, then bring it back as a saturday morning cartoon, or a videogame, or a breakfast cereal.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077You're right. That was a misnomer...you don't make arguments. In fact, you seem to avoid doing so at all costs.

Damn that chili was tasty.

What were you saying?

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077How do YOU react when you see someone being bullied?

Bullied? WTF?

OK, assuming that I observe 'bullying' on the Internet, I ask myself "Does this shitbag deserve the treatment they are recieving?" In the case of 4vengers, it is always responded to with a "YES!"

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077Actually...you DO need to supply proof.

I just gave it.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077What exactly did they say that hurt your delicate little feelings so, pollyanna?

Oh, you can do better than this.
"How long ago did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077I don't believe that anyone has ever said that 4E has no flaws and every other version sucks. I think this is either a deliberate lie on your part, or a paranoid delusion.

Obviously, your head has been up your ass the past 4 years.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077Also, you're dodging the question AGAIN.

No, it was answered. You just don't like the answer.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077Why are pre-4E players allowed to express anger when their edition is insulted, when 4E players are not? How is this NOT a double standard?

Look at your wording here. You assume that the people who play a game, own that game and derive their personal identity from that game.

As heretical as this thought may be to you, not everyone gets their personal identity from the games that they play.

So, you need to get a life.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077There's no such thing as a "4venger".

The Internet disagrees with you.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568077There's only you throwing childish temper tantrums and holding a grudge whenever someone disagrees with you.

I understand that the air is rarefied up there on your horse O White Knight and you may have trouble thinking from a lack of oxygen, but you are the one who has become totally unhinged over my dislike of 4vengers and 4E and WotC marketting.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568091I think he's on to something.

Best thing WotC could possibly do for the brand is to discontinue the tabletop game, mothball the brand for ten years, then bring it back as a saturday morning cartoon, or a videogame, or a breakfast cereal.

Yup because nobody ever started gaming.  Not once, you were either born a gamer or not.  It's like a Hindu caste or something.

Seriously, it's all well and good to sell games to the diminishing customer base of people who've been gaming for years.  But there are plenty of people out there who would game if it was packaged right.  Which is to say being able to get into it with a relatively complete rule set (WotC has yet to produce any such thing) for a reasonable price.  There's a lot more to marketing, for instance art work aimed at the target market.  That's a place where I think WotC's doing pretty well.  Me I'd much prefer some old school art, but I'm not a thirteen year old boy who's guided by the rule of cool.

What I can tell you about most thirteen year old boys is that more rules and more time spent making characters is not a selling point.

Quote from: David Johansen;568115It's like a Hindu caste...

Racist!

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;566292Mearls is acting like a drug-addled cunt right now.

That's not very nice to say with ladies on this forum.

Quote from: flyingcircus;568119That's not very nice to say with ladies on this forum.

He meant it in the British sense. :p

Quote from: CRKrueger;568116Racist!

Oh come now, that can't be, I'm 1 /3600 rhinocerus on my mother's side.

Quote from: David Johansen;568128Oh come now, that can't be, I'm 1 /3600 rhinocerus on my mother's side.

Black (http://www.awf.org/files/3782_file_rhinos_artwolfe.jpg) or White (http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/sevcik/white-rhinoceros--ceratotherium-simum.jpg) Rhinoceros? :D

Brown you bigoted ass!

Quote from: CRKrueger;568132Black (http://www.awf.org/files/3782_file_rhinos_artwolfe.jpg) or White (http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/sevcik/white-rhinoceros--ceratotherium-simum.jpg) Rhinoceros? :D

Black links to White, and White links to Black. What are you trying to do here, start a flamewar? On behalf of all the White Rhinos who feel entitled to defend the Black Rhinos as well, I am offended for everyone.

Quote from: Benoist;568155Black links to White, and White links to Black. What are you trying to do here, start a flamewar? On behalf of all the White Rhinos who feel entitled to defend the Black Rhinos as well, I am offended for everyone.

Hehe I did that on purpose, I found the lightest Black Rhino picture and darkest White Rhino picture I could.  I'm either supporting miscegenation or denying each color rhino it's identity, depending on how you want to be offended.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568159Hehe I did that on purpose, I found the lightest Black Rhino picture and darkest White Rhino picture I could.  I'm either supporting miscegenation or denying each color rhino it's identity, depending on how you want to be offended.

Is it wrong that I wasn't offended? Did I ruin your master plan?

I'll just shift to Plan B. Muahaha!

Quote from: David Johansen;568115But there are plenty of people out there who would game if it was packaged right.

No, there really aren't.

Tabletop roleplaying games have been around for forty years. They are not an unknown quantity, waiting to be discovered by a new audience. It is a niche hobby which happened to enjoy a brief period of faddish popularity.

And that, my young apprentice, is why you fail.

Quote from: David Johansen;568219And that, my young apprentice, is why you fail.

(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/d1Zxa.gif)

Huh...what's the Tangency ape doing here?

Quote from: jeff37923;568092Bullied? WTF?

OK, assuming that I observe 'bullying' on the Internet, I ask myself "Does this shitbag deserve the treatment they are recieving?" In the case of 4vengers, it is always responded to with a "YES!"

Because you consider it a personal affront when someone disagrees with you?

You are clearly not well.

Quote from: jeff37923;568092I just gave it.

No...you claimed it was self-evident, while refusing to provide an actual example of what WotC said that was sooo mortally offensive to fans of prior editions.

What EXACTLY did they say about your favorite game that got you so butthurt?

Quote from: jeff37923;568092Obviously, your head has been up your ass the past 4 years.

Or the "4vengers" that you keep pointing at only exist in your narcissistic delusions.

4E has it's vocal and argumentative fans. So does every single game out there.

So what you're essentially saying here is that fans of SOME games, i.e. games that you enjoy, are allowed to express their opinions and argue against criticism, while fans of games that you do not enjoy are fanatics for acting in the exact same way. So the real difference between a 4venger and one of your buddies is the game they play.

The thing is, I can't tell if you are oblivious to this dichotomy, or if you are just willfully lying.

I don't even play 4E and you accuse me of being a 4venger just for pointing out your ridiculous double standards. However, The Dungeondelver actually believes that AD&D 1st edition is a sacrosanct text that has never been improved on and is utterly without flaw and you say nothing to him.

Why don't you just admit that this all about your personal preferences and has nothing to do with the behavior of 4E fans, assuming of course that you are merely a liar and not actually delusional.

Quote from: jeff37923;568092Look at your wording here. You assume that the people who play a game, own that game and derive their personal identity from that game.

As heretical as this thought may be to you, not everyone gets their personal identity from the games that they play.

Yet YOU are the one who is crying foul because WotC insulted your precious game.

How do you reconcile this statement with your own actions?

Quote from: jeff37923;568092I understand that the air is rarefied up there on your horse O White Knight and you may have trouble thinking from a lack of oxygen, but you are the one who has become totally unhinged over my dislike of 4vengers and 4E and WotC marketting.

I don't know what you mean.

Clearly you're the one who's getting upset here...and probably a little turned on.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305Because you consider it a personal affront when someone disagrees with you?

Hardly.

I do consider that someone being an asshole deserves the same treatment in return.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305You are clearly not well.

You're probably right. Hey, why don't you pay for my medical treatment so that I can get "better".

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305No...you claimed it was self-evident, while refusing to provide an actual example of what WotC said that was sooo mortally offensive to fans of prior editions.

It is self-evident that you do not insult your customer base. That you cannot comprehend this tells me a lot about you.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305What EXACTLY did they say about your favorite game that got you so butthurt?

Oh, the whole attitude from WotC marketting that if I was enjoying a previous edition of D&D that I was stuck in nostalgia and afraid of change. That every previous version of D&D was shit compared to 4E. How that same process helped to cultivate and grow the 4vengers into the annoying shits they are now.

You know, the obvious crap to anyone who has been paying attention.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305Or the "4vengers" that you keep pointing at only exist in your narcissistic delusions.

Reality disagrees with you.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;5683054E has it's vocal and argumentative fans. So does every single game out there.

Once again, a 4E fan is not a 4venger. A 4venger must go above and beyond acting like a shithead, similar to what you are doing in this thread, to be recognized as such.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305So what you're essentially saying here is that fans of SOME games, i.e. games that you enjoy, are allowed to express their opinions and argue against criticism, while fans of games that you do not enjoy are fanatics for acting in the exact same way. So the real difference between a 4venger and one of your buddies is the game they play.

No, this is what the voices in your head are saying.

I have been saying that 4vengers are not just fans, but fanatics who have so much personal identity wrapped up in 4E that it has become their religion and like Scientology it has created a lot of irrationality.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305The thing is, I can't tell if you are oblivious to this dichotomy, or if you are just willfully lying.

Yup, because I have to be doing something sinister besides just having a different opinion that I am willing to defend.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305I don't even play 4E and you accuse me of being a 4venger just for pointing out your ridiculous double standards. However, The Dungeondelver actually believes that AD&D 1st edition is a sacrosanct text that has never been improved on and is utterly without flaw and you say nothing to him.

He hasn't been a complete asshole about his preferences, unlike 4vengers.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305Why don't you just admit that this all about your personal preferences and has nothing to do with the behavior of 4E fans, assuming of course that you are merely a liar and not actually delusional.

Because the problem is that my personal preferences in gaming are seen as reasons to be an asshole by 4vengers. You know, like you are doing right now.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305Yet YOU are the one who is crying foul because WotC insulted your precious game.

Again, and you really need to work on that reading comprehension here, I am offended that WotC chose to insult their entire D&D fanbase with their marketting when 4E came out.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305How do you reconcile this statement with your own actions?

Well, for starters, I'm a bigger Traveller fan than I ever was a D&D fan.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568305I don't know what you mean.

Clearly you're the one who's getting upset here...and probably a little turned on.

Not nearly as much as you'd like.

What's up with all the "White Knighting" for 4e lately?  Is it because 5e is coming?  Or Lolz?

Quote from: Marleycat;568344What's up with all the "White Knighting" for 4e lately?  Is it because 5e is coming?  Or Lolz?

I think it's because D&D Next has every indication that it's going to suck, and it's going to suck because it insists on emulating the worst edition of D&D (3E) and ignoring every lesson learned in 4E. It's not really white-knighting so much as dumping on Mearls incompetence.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568353I think it's because D&D Next has every indication that it's going to suck, and it's going to suck because it insists on emulating the worst edition of D&D (3E) and ignoring every lesson learned in 4E. It's not really white-knighting so much as dumping on Mearls incompetence.

As you know I think 4e is a steaming turd but it definitely got a couple things right.  Monsters and the DMG are among those.

You mean those monsters with a single paragraph of description, and a quarter page stat block?  An AD&D monster's stats fit into parentheses in the text.

oooookay

You mean the DMG that doesn't contain the magic items list, naval and siege battles?

uhm no...

Quote from: David Johansen;568414You mean those monsters with a single paragraph of description, and a quarter page stat block?  An AD&D monster's stats fit into parentheses in the text.

oooookay

You mean the DMG that doesn't contain the magic items list, naval and siege battles?

uhm no...

Actually the monsters are simple to use and clear in purpose.  Not my preference on the writeups but highly functional for casual or new DM's. Flat out 1e and even 2e have the best DMG's but 4e does the most important thing about such a book.  It's clear and simple while being full of functional and useful advice for the nonexperienced.

Quote from: Marleycat;568427Flat out 1e and even 2e have the best DMG's

Seriously? The only good bits in the 2e DMG are the bits that were carried over from the 1e DMG.

Quote from: David Johansen;568414You mean the DMG that doesn't contain the magic items list, naval and siege battles?

uhm no...

I'm not sure what naval and siege battles have to do with anything, but the magic item lists are in the PHBs, Adventure Vaults, and other supplements.

The 4E DMG (and especially DMG2) has a lot of good advice for managing player expectations and goals and simply running the game. There's some good general stuff that you can use in any RPG, not just 4th.

IMO the best dmgs were the 1E and 3E DMGs. 2E dmg, though i love the system, was mising critical stuff. 4E DMG didn't do a whole lot for me either.

The first edition DMG was an actual rule book, not a self help book.  Really my ideal split would be a DMG that contained all the rules and a PHB that covers character creation and combat.  So the DM only needs one book and it's complete and well organized and the players only need the cheaper book.

Siege and Naval and Aerial combat are things that come up and add interest and variety to the game.  As the rules are simple enough to run big battles it doesn't need to be a separate game.  Similarly strong holds and domains are in the DMG because AD&D was actually pretty complete in the core book set.  You didn't need a special book on playing underwater adventures, it was in the core.

Magic items should never be in the players book.  In fact, as far as I'm concerned most should never be available for sale in town.  A few low level scolls or healing potions but that's about it.  The only way a PC should be able to just pick their items is by making them themselves.

Mind you, my campaigns tend to run on hierocentric exchange and barter, not cash.

Quote from: soviet;568433Seriously? The only good bits in the 2e DMG are the bits that were carried over from the 1e DMG.

Yeah, I agree: the 2e DMG sucks.  I remember sitting down with my shiny new 2e books and reading the (very thin, it seemed to me) DMG and going "What the hell did they do -- take out *everything* that was cool and useful?"

Well, there was the much neglected character class creation system in the 2e DMG.  I used it as the basis for the Dark Passages class creation / multiclassing system.  IRRC, there were a number of other neat things in the book but it had gone from a core book to a book with the magic items, DM advice, and optional rules.

Quote from: jeff37923;568331A bunch of evasive bullshit from a coward.

Yeah...you keep stating that the fanaticism of the 4E fanbase, and the insulting nature of WotC's 4E marketing campaign are "obvious to anyone who was paying attention", but I have been paying attention and I have not seen any of what you describe.

In fact, for all the accusations that you hurl around, you have yet to cite a single concrete example of this marketing, or of fanatical behavior from 4E fans.

The truth is that 4E fans act exactly like the fanbase for any other game out there. They are no more fanatical and aggressive than fans of FATE or Call of Cthulhu or Mutants & Masterminds.

The only difference is that 4E fans have been under a constant barrage of assault from fans of prior editions for the last few years. Any mainstream news article about D&D released over the last few years is guaranteed to have people blasting 4E in the comments section. Anything D&D post on their Facebook wall will probably have aggressive 4E bashing.

It looks to me like a subset of fans from previous editions of the game have been on an unrelenting campaign of bullying against 4E fans since 2007...is it any wonder that 4E fans are called upon to refute criticism more often? No fan of any other game would placidly accept that kind of constant antagonism without comment.

Jeff8675309 is one of those bullies. He likes pushing around people who don't defend themselves...even if it's only over the internet. Only, when people push back...he gets butthurt and throws a childish temper tantrum about it, which is why he invented his whole "4venger" thing.

See, Jeff90210 is fine when no one is throwing his bullshit back into his face. But when someone stands up to him...then suddenly THEY are the guilty party. "They must be a craaazzzy fanatic if they dare to state that their game isn't a pen & paper MMO, or that it isn't dumbed down for babies! I mean, what's wrong with thee people? Why can't they stand to see their game criticized?"

No one calls him on it here, because 4E isn't terribly popular on this board and Jeff1138, though an embarrassing blowhard and all around sleazy cat, is mostly harmless as long as you don't like 4E...but this kind of bullshit is probably why he doesn't post anywhere else.

Quote from: David Johansen;568455Well, there was the much neglected character class creation system in the 2e DMG.  I used it as the basis for the Dark Passages class creation / multiclassing system.  IRRC, there were a number of other neat things in the book but it had gone from a core book to a book with the magic items, DM advice, and optional rules.

I didn't neglect them, those character class creation rules were gold to me.

Quote from: Marleycat;568427Actually the monsters are simple to use and clear in purpose.  Not my preference on the writeups but highly functional for casual or new DM's. Flat out 1e and even 2e have the best DMG's but 4e does the most important thing about such a book.  It's clear and simple while being full of functional and useful advice for the nonexperienced.

See, the monsters was one of the things that turned me off of 4E. They were too limited in scope. I like my monsters flaxible enough so that I can use them in more than a single specific role. I like my monsters to help create the immersion of my setting, not just be a set piece on a gameboard for combat.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568467Yeah...you keep stating that the fanaticism of the 4E fanbase, and the insulting nature of WotC's 4E marketing campaign are "obvious to anyone who was paying attention", but I have been paying attention and I have not seen any of what you describe.

In fact, for all the accusations that you hurl around, you have yet to cite a single concrete example of this marketing, or of fanatical behavior from 4E fans.

The truth is that 4E fans act exactly like the fanbase for any other game out there. They are no more fanatical and aggressive than fans of FATE or Call of Cthulhu or Mutants & Masterminds.

The only difference is that 4E fans have been under a constant barrage of assault from fans of prior editions for the last few years. Any mainstream news article about D&D released over the last few years is guaranteed to have people blasting 4E in the comments section. Anything D&D post on their Facebook wall will probably have aggressive 4E bashing.

It looks to me like a subset of fans from previous editions of the game have been on an unrelenting campaign of bullying against 4E fans since 2007...is it any wonder that 4E fans are called upon to refute criticism more often? No fan of any other game would placidly accept that kind of constant antagonism without comment.

Jeff8675309 is one of those bullies. He likes pushing around people who don't defend themselves...even if it's only over the internet. Only, when people push back...he gets butthurt and throws a childish temper tantrum about it, which is why he invented his whole "4venger" thing.

See, Jeff90210 is fine when no one is throwing his bullshit back into his face. But when someone stands up to him...then suddenly THEY are the guilty party. "They must be a craaazzzy fanatic if they dare to state that their game isn't a pen & paper MMO, or that it isn't dumbed down for babies! I mean, what's wrong with thee people? Why can't they stand to see their game criticized?"

No one calls him on it here, because 4E isn't terribly popular on this board and Jeff1138, though an embarrassing blowhard and all around sleazy cat, is mostly harmless as long as you don't like 4E...but this kind of bullshit is probably why he doesn't post anywhere else.

Wow, that is a lot of whargarble butthurt for you to hold in Declan, I'm glad that you were finally able to find a way to release it. Now maybe this thread can stop getting derailed with your whining White Knight bullshit. May the healing begin.

I'm a bully, huh? I kinda like that.

Where the fuck is Abyssal Maw, anyways? Now there was a 4venger I could respect.

Quote from: jeff37923;568492Wow, that is a lot of whargarble butthurt for you to hold in Declan, I'm glad that you were finally able to find a way to release it. Now maybe this thread can stop getting derailed with your whining White Knight bullshit. May the healing begin.

I'm a bully, huh? I kinda like that.

Where the fuck is Abyssal Maw, anyways? Now there was a 4venger I could respect.

Why do you do this? Come up with silly names to disparage people who... try and correct other people who make inaccurate criticisms of a tabletop game? And patterning it after a famous superhero team with a recent kickass blockbuster movie to boot.

Like, if someone posted a big huge rant about how 2E doesn't allow you to roleplay or how it's dumbed down stupid shit for Final Fantasy crowds, or fundamentally misunderstood the mechanics and based on that misunderstanding blanekty decided that it sucked... would 2E fans not respond? Well, no, they probably wouldn't because there hasn't been a constant stream of such invective since before the game even came out.

But we see it all the time: anytime someone brings up problems with other editions, fans of those editions respond and correct mistakes. Yet fans (or even non-fans) respond to criticism against that and they're '4vengers'. Which is apparently an insult.

At least the Gaming Den's '4rry' thing actually compares 4ed fans to something terrible.

Quote from: jeff37923;568492Wow, that is a lot of whargarble butthurt for you to hold in Declan, I'm glad that you were finally able to find a way to release it. Now maybe this thread can stop getting derailed with your whining White Knight bullshit. May the healing begin.

I'm a bully, huh? I kinda like that.

Where the fuck is Abyssal Maw, anyways? Now there was a 4venger I could respect.

He's waiting for 5e to come out, so he can play the new relevant version of D&D again, and turn on the 4vengers who play an outdated edition.

Until then, he's too busy playing the current version of D&D to talk about how it is soon going to be retired.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568499Why do you do this? Come up with silly names to disparage people who... try and correct other people who make inaccurate criticisms of a tabletop game? And patterning it after a famous superhero team with a recent kickass blockbuster movie to boot.

Why? Because with 4vengers the mere mention of the fact that 4E is not to my taste and that I didn't like how WotC marketting handled its rollout of 4E is enough to get every douchebag here White Knighting like you and Declan McMuffin are.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568499Like, if someone posted a big huge rant about how 2E doesn't allow you to roleplay or how it's dumbed down stupid shit for Final Fantasy crowds, or fundamentally misunderstood the mechanics and based on that misunderstanding blanekty decided that it sucked... would 2E fans not respond? Well, no, they probably wouldn't because there hasn't been a constant stream of such invective since before the game even came out.

Well, that and the claim would be an obvious lie.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568499But we see it all the time: anytime someone brings up problems with other editions, fans of those editions respond and correct mistakes. Yet fans (or even non-fans) respond to criticism against that and they're '4vengers'. Which is apparently an insult.

That is because 4vengers lie as well in their zealotry to defend their religion of game.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568499At least the Gaming Den's '4rry' thing actually compares 4ed fans to something terrible.

4vengers do not need to be compared to anything terrible since they are douchebags enough on their own.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568502He's waiting for 5e to come out, so he can play the new relevant version of D&D again, and turn on the 4vengers who play an outdated edition.

Until then, he's too busy playing the current version of D&D to talk about how it is soon going to be retired.

I'll tell you what though, I have never encountered so many psychological breakdowns over a company doing a new version of its RPG than I have with WotC and 4E.

All I've noticed with the edition wars is a bunch of dickbags yelling at each other like idiots personally.

No side is really better than the other. All the sides have decent reasonable people, and enraged douchebags who make shit up and straight up lie about the other side.

Pretending otherwise is ignorant.

In summary: Edition Wars are like politics. Some people talking rationally, while a few nutjobs run around waving their dicks about and getting it in our faces.

Quote from: jeff37923;568503Why? Because with 4vengers the mere mention of the fact that 4E is not to my taste and that I didn't like how WotC marketting handled its rollout of 4E is enough to get every douchebag here White Knighting like you and Declan McMuffin are.

This is a thread about a 5th edition mechanic. In my first post in this thread, I said, basically, I don't like this mechanic and also that I hate the way Next is looking backward, I don't want another 4th, 3rd, Basic, or anything else: I want a new edition that takes the lessons learned from all of them. And that was it until people started saying stupid, inaccurate things about 4E (not statements of preference, which I don't give a shit about.)

QuoteWell, that and the claim would be an obvious lie.

Which is exactly my point.

QuoteThat is because 4vengers lie as well in their zealotry to defend their religion of game.

What the hell? Religion?

Quote4vengers do not need to be compared to anything terrible since they are douchebags enough on their own.

As long as we get to be as cool as Tony Stark in our douchebaggery, I'm fine with this.

Quote from: jeff37923;568491See, the monsters was one of the things that turned me off of 4E. They were too limited in scope. I like my monsters flaxible enough so that I can use them in more than a single specific role. I like my monsters to help create the immersion of my setting, not just be a set piece on a gameboard for combat.

Simply not my experience.

I was able to run a 4E game for two years, and the monster entries are better suited to what you describe than the bloated entries of 3E+

Set piece for combat? I didn't even use a grid.

The immersion of my setting was just fine, thanks.


4E is not my prefered version of dnd; I prefer 1E.

But the monsters are well handled in 4E.




Healing....not so great :)

Quote from: Bill;568512Simply not my experience.

I was able to run a 4E game for two years, and the monster entries are better suited to what you describe than the bloated entries of 3E+

Set piece for combat? I didn't even use a grid.

The immersion of my setting was just fine, thanks.


4E is not my prefered version of dnd; I prefer 1E.

But the monsters are well handled in 4E.




Healing....not so great :)

See, we had a lot of trouble seperating the monsters from their defined roles. When you have a combat, we were used to the idea that a monster or character had abilities which could be used in combat as are needed, which caused them to have very fluid combat definitions in which an "artillary" could become a "solo" at a moment's notice depending on what actions it took. That flexibility seemed to be lacking from the defined monsters of 4E.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568511And that was it until people started saying stupid, inaccurate things about 4E (not statements of preference, which I don't give a shit about.)

And then you jumped upon your mighty steed, and rode off as a White Knight.

Quote from: jeff37923;568519See, we had a lot of trouble seperating the monsters from their defined roles. When you have a combat, we were used to the idea that a monster or character had abilities which could be used in combat as are needed, which caused them to have very fluid combat definitions in which an "artillary" could become a "solo" at a moment's notice depending on what actions it took. That flexibility seemed to be lacking from the defined monsters of 4E.

Most monsters in 4E have a few versions for that reason. All I can say is i never once during my campaign felt I could not grab monsters from the manual for whatever I needed. I did reskin them fairly often, such as describing a 'Yuan ti' as a 'Mage with a serpent staff'


What perplexes me is that I found 4E breeze to DM. I am not sure why many people found it problematic. My main issue was the healing is too effective.

Quote from: Bill;568523Most monsters in 4E have a few versions for that reason. All I can say is i never once during my campaign felt I could not grab monsters from the manual for whatever I needed. I did reskin them fairly often, such as describing a 'Yuan ti' as a 'Mage with a serpent staff'


What perplexes me is that I found 4E breeze to DM. I am not sure why many people found it problematic. My main issue was the healing is too effective.

I had a big problem with the ability to immerse myself in the game. It was too geared towards combat encounters and not geared enough to represent a fully realised world to game in. 4E just didn't work for me.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568467The truth is that 4E fans act exactly like the fanbase for any other game out there. They are no more fanatical and aggressive than fans of FATE or Call of Cthulhu or Mutants & Masterminds.

Wow, I have met some FATE fans and they are a bunch of loons by god, avoid at all cost, holy shit are they freakin' insane or what?  They remind me of the dudes in the airports back in the late 70's, the Harrikrishnas or however its spelled.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;568510All I've noticed with the edition wars is a bunch of dickbags yelling at each other like idiots personally.

No side is really better than the other. All the sides have decent reasonable people, and enraged douchebags who make shit up and straight up lie about the other side.

Pretending otherwise is ignorant.

In summary: Edition Wars are like politics. Some people talking rationally, while a few nutjobs run around waving their dicks about and getting it in our faces.

Speaking of dicks, all dicks need to go here then;  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgWgEoaAYDY

Quote from: jeff37923;568505I'll tell you what though, I have never encountered so many psychological breakdowns over a company doing a new version of its RPG than I have with WotC and 4E.

You think that the only reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are a religious 4venging zealot.

You were personally upset by comments WotC made about 3e's grappling rules, and still can't stop talking about it 4 years later.

I think it's clear who is having the real psychological breakdown.

Quote from: soviet;568527You think that the only reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are a religious 4venging zealot.

No.

Quote from: soviet;568527You were personally upset by comments WotC made about 3e's grappling rules, and still can't stop talking about it 4 years later.

Also, no.

See, this is one of the bigger misconceptions floating around right now. I do not like the rules for grappling in 3E, I still do not like them, and any derision they recieve is well-earned. I feel the same way about the grappling rules in AD&D 1E, which are actually worse than those in 3E.

Quote from: soviet;568527I think it's clear who is having the real psychological breakdown.

It is OK, we'll get you the help that you need to get "better".

Quote from: jeff37923;568492Wow, that is a lot of whargarble butthurt for you to hold in Declan, I'm glad that you were finally able to find a way to release it. Now maybe this thread can stop getting derailed with your whining White Knight bullshit. May the healing begin.

Ad hominem.

That the best you've got, or are you too busy masturbating to underage snuff porn?

Quote from: jeff37923;568492I'm a bully, huh? I kinda like that.

Of course you do. It makes you feel big and powerful to dogpile a minority, whereas everyday life makes you feel small and insignificant.

I can tell that you're exactly the kind of guy that blames ALL of his shortcomings on others. You're essentially a 50 year old teenager.

Quote from: jeff37923;568492Where the fuck is Abyssal Maw, anyways? Now there was a 4venger I could respect.

From what I've seen, he was pretty hardcore. But that's one guy...one guy who lashed out when an entire forum full of people took turns kicking him.

This lone individual probably birthed all of your ridiculously exaggerated 4venger claims, just like one little comment about arcane grappling rules accounts birthed all of your ridiculous claims about WotC's marketing.

Do you sell shitty used cars for a living, by chance? I just mean that you are SO full of shit, and SO sleazy, and SO dishonest that you must do something utterly disreputable for a living.

Quote from: jeff37923;568530No.

Then where are all of these supposed 4E zealots? They aren't here? I don't see them on TBP. Where are they?

Quote from: jeff37923;568530Also, no.

See, this is one of the bigger misconceptions floating around right now. I do not like the rules for grappling in 3E, I still do not like them, and any derision they recieve is well-earned. I feel the same way about the grappling rules in AD&D 1E, which are actually worse than those in 3E.

Then what did they say that you found so offensive, specifically?

Can you provide even ONE example of WotC marketing that you found to be insulting? Can you cite even a single line of WotC copy that was an insult to fans of prior editions?

Or will you just finally admit that you've been making this up?

Quote from: jeff37923;568530It is OK, we'll get you the help that you need to get "better".

He's right. It's pretty clear that you are the one who is getting frazzled here.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539Ad hominem.

Not if it is true.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539That the best you've got, or are you too busy masturbating to underage snuff porn?

This actually made me laugh. You so completely do not know who I am.

Not to mention, if you hadn't lost any moral high ground you thought you had before, you sure lost it with this comment.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539Of course you do. It makes you feel big and powerful to dogpile a minority, whereas everyday life makes you feel small and insignificant.

If you are in the minority of assholes, then sure.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539I can tell that you're exactly the kind of guy that blames ALL of his shortcomings on others. You're essentially a 50 year old teenager.

Yup, you got me. Your armchair psychology is more powerful than I can ever hope to defeat. I shall now fall to my knees and beg forgiveness of every 4venger that I have righteously humiliated over the years. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539From what I've seen, he was pretty hardcore. But that's one guy...one guy who lashed out when an entire forum full of people took turns kicking him.

Again, you have no clue.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539This lone individual probably birthed all of your ridiculously exaggerated 4venger claims, just like one little comment about arcane grappling rules accounts birthed all of your ridiculous claims about WotC's marketing.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568539Do you sell shitty used cars for a living, by chance? I just mean that you are SO full of shit, and SO sleazy, and SO dishonest that you must do something utterly disreputable for a living.

This coming from someone who has insinuated that I get my kicks from watching kiddie snuff porn?

Face it, you're not even in my league.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568540Then where are all of these supposed 4E zealots? They aren't here? I don't see them on TBP. Where are they?

There are none so full of shit as those who dissemble falsely.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568540Then what did they say that you found so offensive, specifically?

Can you provide even ONE example of WotC marketing that you found to be insulting? Can you cite even a single line of WotC copy that was an insult to fans of prior editions?

Or will you just finally admit that you've been making this up?

Keep fucking that chicken, dude.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568540He's right. It's pretty clear that you are the one who is getting frazzled here.

Yeah, I am. My pizza should have arrived 15 minutes ago....

Quote from: jeff37923;568581This actually made me laugh. You so completely do not know who I am.

Not to mention, if you hadn't lost any moral high ground you thought you had before, you sure lost it with this comment.

Actually, that line was funny. As it was entirely meant to be a ridiculous ad hominem, the exact thing he was accusing you of, it was purposeful irony. I know explaining the joke ruins it and all, but sometimes I suppose it has to be explained for the slower of us.

The thing is, I don't think you are among the slower of us, while I think he is going a bit over the top in dismissing that 4vengers were a real thing (which they were, but no more prevalent than 3tards, or whatever silly name we want to come up for any other edition warrior), I think you are also willfully misinterpreting the point of what he is writing just to "win".

Are we done with the dick waving so we can actually talk about what the thread was supposed to be about in the first place?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;568587Actually, that line was funny. As it was entirely meant to be a ridiculous ad hominem, the exact thing he was accusing you of, it was purposeful irony. I know explaining the joke ruins it and all, but sometimes I suppose it has to be explained for the slower of us.

The thing is, I don't think you are among the slower of us, while I think he is going a bit over the top in dismissing that 4vengers were a real thing (which they were, but no more prevalent than 3tards, or whatever silly name we want to come up for any other edition warrior), I think you are also willfully misinterpreting the point of what he is writing just to "win".

Are we done with the dick waving so we can actually talk about what the thread was supposed to be about in the first place?

Actually, I have no reason to believe that Declan MacManus is not serious instead of being "ironic" as you claim.

Am I mocking him? Yes. I think he is being an asshole and treating him like the asshole that he is being.

So, fuck you if this little spat bores you, but then again I understand your boredom since nobody has claimed that you get off on kiddie snuff porn either.

Quote from: soviet;568433Seriously? The only good bits in the 2e DMG are the bits that were carried over from the 1e DMG.

The character creation thing was pretty fun. I preferred the 2e version only because of the layout and writing style. 1e's version was far better in its purpose though.

Quote from: Marleycat;568636The character creation thing was pretty fun. I preferred the 2e version only because of the layout and writing style. 1e's version was far better in its purpose though.

Lets all just admit 1E is just better at it all and be done with it, it was an Icon of a game and will never be duplicated again, no matter how hard they attempt to.

Quote from: flyingcircus;568704Lets all just admit 1E is just better at it all and be done with it, it was an Icon of a game and will never be duplicated again, no matter how hard they attempt to.

I can't say that given to me 1/2e are basically interchangable. I do freely admit 1e has far better style though.

Quote from: flyingcircus;568704Lets all just admit 1E is just better at it all and be done with it, it was an Icon of a game and will never be duplicated again, no matter how hard they attempt to.

1e is clearly the better DMG, but I think 2e wins out on the PHB and the MC/MM.

Quote from: soviet;5687121e is clearly the better DMG, but I think 2e wins out on the PHB and the MC/MM.

I don't agree either in their case. The 1e PH presents all the information you need to play, and just that. It involves page 100+ which is an excellent primer of game play. The MM is also better, especially if we are talking about the physical organization of the material and the way the binder and loose monster sheets idea were just a nightmare in actual play management, sheets ripped apart because the paper was too thin, and so on. IMHO, YMMV etc etc.

Quote from: Benoist;568714I don't agree either in their case. The 1e PH presents all the information you need to play, and just that. It involves page 100+ which is an excellent primer of game play. The MM is also better, especially if we are talking about the physical organization of the material and the way the binder and loose monster sheets idea were just a nightmare in actual play management, sheets ripped apart because the paper was too thin, and so on. IMHO, YMMV etc etc.

I like the 1e MM for its simplicity and its completeness, but the 2e MC has a lot more fluff and also a decent picture for almost every entry (I know the art went to hell when they started doing supplemental MCs for specific settings). I thought one of the many criticisms of 4e (not perhaps from yourself) was that it lacked proper monster fluff and thus wasn't 'grounded' enough in the gameworld?

Quote from: soviet;568719I like the 1e MM for its simplicity and its completeness, but the 2e MC has a lot more fluff and also a decent picture for almost every entry (I know the art went to hell when they started doing supplemental MCs for specific settings).

I love it because it manages to pack a lot of information about the creatures it describes in a relatively short page count. Bits about the organization, numbers and leaders of highwaymen, or how subdue a dragon to your service, those kinds of things. It manages to make the creatures come alive to me.

Quote from: soviet;568719I thought one of the many criticisms of 4e (not perhaps from yourself) was that it lacked proper monster fluff and thus wasn't 'grounded' enough in the gameworld?

I have not checked out the 4e MM for a few months. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of its monsters is not just about what is and isn't described, but also how it's described. It's the language of the rules themselves, the way abilities are put into words. It's cold and mechanical, sanatized and flavorless. It's just not fun to read or use, to me.

QuoteI have not checked out the 4e MM for a few months. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of its monsters is not just about what is and isn't described, but also how it's described. It's the language of the rules themselves, the way abilities are put into words. It's cold and mechanical, sanatized and flavorless. It's just not fun to read or use, to me.

This quite possibly is my biggest issue with  4e. Even if the game is good the presentation and language is an utter turnoff to me.

Quote from: Benoist;568723I have not checked out the 4e MM for a few months. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of its monsters is not just about what is and isn't described, but also how it's described. It's the language of the rules themselves, the way abilities are put into words. It's cold and mechanical, sanatized and flavorless. It's just not fun to read or use, to me.

Interesting. As a longtime 'Magic: The Gathering' player I found the format easy to use in play and a great way to concentrate a lot of extremely interesting ideas in a minimum of space. I regularly use the 4e Monster Manuals for inspiration in my Stars Without Number campaign and I will likely use them extensively in my Labyrinth Lord game. Those who fixate negatively on the most complex mechanics are missing a treasure trove of subtle designs.

Yes the monsters weren't 'grounded' in the gameworlds as much by the spartan flavor text, but old schoolers should actually appreciate that that was actually to the edition's advantage (and a stated design goal). It forced people to provide their own flavor. That is what grognards want, right? More Do It Yourself and less hand holding, right?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568728Interesting. As a longtime 'Magic: The Gathering' player I found the format easy to use in play and a great way to concentrate a lot of extremely interesting ideas in a minimum of space. I regularly use the 4e Monster Manuals for inspiration in my Stars Without Number campaign and I will likely use them extensively in my Labyrinth Lord game. Those who fixate negatively on the most complex mechanics are missing a treasure trove of subtle designs.

Yes the monsters weren't 'grounded' in the gameworlds as much by the spartan flavor text, but old schoolers should actually appreciate that that was actually to the edition's advantage (and a stated design goal). It forced people to provide their own flavor. That is what grognards want, right? More Do It Yourself and less hand holding, right?

Personally I want flavor text that inspires me. I don't cpnsider that hand holding, i just think creativity is something that works better with good fuel.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568728Yes the monsters weren't 'grounded' in the gameworlds as much by the spartan flavor text, but old schoolers should actually appreciate that that was actually to the edition's advantage (and a stated design goal). It forced people to provide their own flavor. That is what grognards want, right? More Do It Yourself and less hand holding, right?

Yes but that includes the crunch too. I don't really need four paragraphs of fluff to "ground" the monster to a particular world.

I also don't need "wall of powers" for the combat stats either.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568728Interesting. As a longtime 'Magic: The Gathering' player I found the format easy to use in play and a great way to concentrate a lot of extremely interesting ideas in a minimum of space.

Maybe your habit using MtG is part of your interest in the language of 4e, I do not know. I was playing MtG for some time myself, back when the original Legends and Antiques could still be found relatively easily. I must have quit playing around the Ice Age expansion set, back when the all-made competition decks were released, in fact (I still have the pure red deck of Ben something, which was awesome to play). I think the language of the MtG rules is fine and clear and appropriate... for MtG.

I remember that even before WotC acquired TSR, given the immense popularity of the game in those days, many of us French hobbyists feared the influence of the card game and how it could possibly shape the role playing game hobby from there. When WotC did consume TSR and started talking about 3rd ed, there were a lot of rumors about D&D becoming MtG in some fashion or other. And when it was released, obviously, many cried that it was in fact the case, though I was not one of them (I quite enjoyed 3rd ed initially, run four full campaigns with it and played many more until 2006-7 when my first Ptolus campaign ended. I still play occasionally - with the right people).

I guess 4e managed to accomplish what 3rd ed did not in my eyes: turn the game into Magic the Gathering, the RPG. Something I honestly didn't think would happen - I thought, back in the day, that the designers of WotC were too smart for that. Maybe have a MtG setting using D&D, sure, that kind of synergy seemed smart in my eyes, but turn the rules themselves into an erzatz of the card game, using the same logic and language? No way man. They were not that dumb. Guess I was wrong, retroactively. 20/20 hindsight and all that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;568738Yes but that includes the crunch too. I don't really need four paragraphs of fluff to "ground" the monster to a particular world.

I also don't need "wall of powers" for the combat stats either.

I definitely love flavor text it is why I think the Hacklopedia of Beasts for the new Hackmaster is the best monster manual I have ever seen. But different strokes and all.

Quote from: Marleycat;568762I definitely love flavor text it is why I think the Hacklopedia of Beasts for the new Hackmaster is the best monster manual I have ever seen. But different strokes and all.

I don't "need", that doesn't mean I don't like. I have the HOB too and its awesome!

Quote from: Benoist;568742Maybe your habit using MtG is part of your interest in the language of 4e, I do not know...

I remember that even before WotC acquired TSR, given the immense popularity of the game in those days, many of us French hobbyists feared the influence of the card game and how it could possibly shape the role playing game hobby from there.

Heh, I find it interesting that "WoW" is always the first bash-comparison that leaps to people's typing fingers when talking about 4e even though I always thought M:TG's influence was much more obvious. Either way it never bothered me; I thought it was high time D&D took ideas from video games and CCGs and those "insults" didn't make sense to me. What eventually pushed me away from the system was its bulk and slowness in play, not its presentation or fundamental mechanics.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568769Heh, I find it interesting that "WoW" is always the first bash-comparison that leaps to people's typing fingers when talking about 4e even though I always thought M:TG's influence was much more obvious. Either way it never bothered me; I thought it was high time D&D took ideas from video games and CCGs and those "insults" didn't make sense to me. What eventually pushed me away from the system was its bulk and slowness in play, not its presentation or fundamental mechanics.

I think comparisons with WoW and MMORPGs in general are accurate in some respects, when talking about the aesthetics of the game, or some ways in which gamers think about the game, but it's more of a big picture thing, it's not WoW in particular - it just happens to be a super known game - it's more of a general cross-polinization of CRPGs and hobby games. The fact that you have now some fans of the WotC D&D game talking about it in terms of absolute balance, damage output and all these things is in direct relation with the rise of CRPG gaming online. I think there's just no denying it. But there are multiple influences at work with 4e, not just WoW. There's MtG, there are Eurogames, the fantasy that is embraced now through the anime medium (the recent talk about Avatar as being relevant to D&D gaming somehow is very telling IMO), and on and on.

The 4e designers talked about these influences extensively, and how they shaped their vision of the game and the "new audience" it ought to appeal to. It's really no secret, nor is it something that's made up by the people who don't like the game, really. I just think that these elements are so ubiquitous now in some quarters of the hobby that it's just not possible for WotC to step entirely away from it.

I found the 5e design process and the various discussions it's spawned to be very telling, not just in terms of 4e versus the others, but more generally - look at the fighter v. wizard discussion and consider the denners don't like 4e themselves, and yet use a language that is very similar to the logic that sustained the creation of 4e itself - in terms of the cultural fracture between the different fans of the game.

I think it's irreparable at this point. There's no middle ground to be found. Each decision WotC makes alienates some fan somewhere. I don't think there's a majority of people sitting neatly in the middle. I think most people who drive the hobby (the GMs who give their time running their games regularly, the people participating to organized play, the people who introduce newbies to the game to this day, etc. the people that create the word of mouth and excitement around the game and the hobby it supports) are more and more entrenched in their preferences, and what's more, you've got more and more variants of the D&D game out there to choose from with each day that passes. The end results is that I think most people have their game by now. Surely, some do not, or will migrate from one version of the game to the new one, but I don't think it'll be enough to make Next a success, much like appealing to one single segment of the player base wasn't enough to make 4e a commercial success.

I know I can just speak of myself, and all that stuff above is just assumptions and hypothesis on my part - and it is, I might be completely wrong, for all I know. But with each update I read about 5e, I'm losing interest in the game. I just don't want to bother with stuff I don't like at this point, even if they're options. Look. I have a game I really like, and it's basically the D&D game of the 70s to mid-80s. O/AD&D. That's it. Why would I bother with hit dice that are not hit dice, abilities for the fighter I really don't need to have fun with the game, and all that baggage of stuff that's really built for other people than myself? I don't want to bother with this shit anymore. I don't want to relearn yet-another-variant-of-the-D&D-game that doesn't directly appeal to my own tastes and inclinations. I will surely check it out in the end in spite of all this, because I love the game, I want to keep up with its legacy, and understand how other people talk about it - and who knows? Maybe it'll just rock my world and I don't know it yet - but at this point... I'm very skeptical about WotC's efforts to say the least.

Well, I think the logic is somewhat flawed, but the goal of 4e openning up a new market is a good one.

The flaw in the logic is that they want to get people who like mmporgs into Dungeons & Dragons by changing Dungeons & Dragons.  It's a marketing and presentation problem, not a rules problem.

I think 5e's stated goal of appealing to fans of all editions is also laudable but equally flawed.  Again the mind set is to make Dungeons & Dragons more appealing you have to change Dungeons & Dragons and, again I think it needs more of a marketing solution and less of a rules one.

So what would I do in the first case?  Make D&D at least as cool looking and exciting as WOW and market it in a format that makes it a better deal.  Most MMPORGS have moved to a cash store and free to play, which says to me that making people pay a monthly subscription isn't the way to go.  Actually there is a monthly subscription you could do, DRAGON MAGAZINE in print on paper and back to being the linchpin of the industry like it was before.

And to appeal to fans of all editions?  Well, I keep saying tight core that only uses mechanics found in OD&D - 2e.  Which I believe would sell more games to non-gamers as well, in my experience, they're generally scared off by huge stacks of fat rule books.  And then give people the tools to houserule the heck out of it.  The do it yourself aspect of D&D is one of its greatest appeals.  Stop being scared of it and market it.

Quote from: Benoist;568775I think most people who drive the hobby (the GMs who give their time running their games regularly, the people participating to organized play, the people who introduce newbies to the game to this day, etc. the people that create the word of mouth and excitement around the game and the hobby it supports) are more and more entrenched in their preferences, and what's more, you've got more and more variants of the D&D game out there to choose from with each day that passes... But with each update I read about 5e, I'm losing interest in the game. I just don't want to bother with stuff I don't like at this point, even if they're options.

Here again is what initially drew me to this thread, the shockingly low level of openness to even minimal experimentation and compromise that seems to be crystalizing in the people who drive the hobby. There are several people here who once expressed almost eager interest in 5th, who should have been thrilled that things like Vancian were brought back in, and yet are ready to ditch the whole thing over something like Combat Superiority.

Are WotC really failing to re-centralize and save the hobby because they are fools, or because we are becoming too reactionary?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791Are WotC really failing to re-centralize and save the hobby because they are fools, or because we are becoming too reactionary?

Neither. They are likely to fail because we have options. Lots and lots of options. And that's thanks to a number of developments:  OGL, pdf ebooks, Creative Commons, etc.

We can cherry pick the rules we want, typically at near-zero cost, and don't have to even consider tolerating a system we don't like.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791Are WotC really failing to re-centralize and save the hobby because they are fools, or because we are becoming too reactionary?

I said at the very beginning when I first heard of WOTC's "unite everyone" plans for 5e that I would only be willing to switch to 5e if it did my style of play much better than my what I am playing now. If it does it my style of play worse, there is obvious no reason to bother with it at all. If it just does my style as good or a small amount better, there is no reason to spend the time and money to convert everything either.

At the time, I doubted it would be "better enough" to get me to switch, however, as I said then, I hoped it would be close enough to TSR D&D that I would be able to buy 5e adventures and run them with no advance conversion work as I can all the TSR-era D&D adventures I own. The rules for the various editions of TSR D&D are close enough that they can easily be converted between those editions as one runs the adventure.  Sadly, it is beginning to look like 5e may be too different even for this.

The hobby, BTW, is doing just fine. It does not need to be "re-centralized" to continue doing fine. Nor does it need to be "saved." "Re-centralizing" the hobby on one new edition of D&D would certainly help the WOTC end of the industry and might even "save" parts of the industry. However, the industry is not the hobby. Therefore the onus is on WOTC to make an edition of D&D that truly is better for every style of play than every player's current favorite edition if they want to "re-centralize" the hobby on their new edition. Gamers who are happy with what they are now playing now, don't need to accept all sorts of compromises they don't like in 5e as they have zero to lose by not doing so.

WOTC is really the only one with much to lose if 5e does not convert a sizable majority of D&D players from their current favorite edition. WOTC could disappear tomorrow and have little or no effect on all pre-4e fans. 4e fans would admittedly be more affected say many depend on WOTC's online 4e tools.

I think that's a very good point.  At this point the failure of 5e, like the failure of 4e would be a failure to compete.

Think about that for a moment, because for the first time in its history D&D must actually compete or die.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to look back on the previous editions of D&D and ask why nothing better ever mangaged to out compete a game that was so mismanaged that the original publisher went out of business while it still absolutely dominated the market.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791Here again is what initially drew me to this thread, the shockingly low level of openness to even minimal experimentation and compromise that seems to be crystalizing in the people who drive the hobby. There are several people here who once expressed almost eager interest in 5th, who should have been thrilled that things like Vancian were brought back in, and yet are ready to ditch the whole thing over something like Combat Superiority.

Are WotC really failing to re-centralize and save the hobby because they are fools, or because we are becoming too reactionary?

In my case, it's that I found out first-hand that the design team is utterly incompetent and ignorant of the game's past, and not that willing to fill those holes in their knowledge, so I have no faith that D&D5 is worth a damn anymore.

Quote from: mcbobbo;568797Neither. They are likely to fail because we have options. Lots and lots of options. And that's thanks to a number of developments:  OGL, pdf ebooks, Creative Commons, etc.

We can cherry pick the rules we want, typically at near-zero cost, and don't have to even consider tolerating a system we don't like.

This. Wizards of the Coast is no longer the sole source for D&D.  There's a lot of places to get D&D now, and thus there is a D&D for damn near anyone that wants it.

Quote from: Declan Macmanus;568583Then where are all of these supposed 4E zealots? They aren't here. I don't see them on TBP. Where are they?

Quote from: jeff37923;568583There are none so full of shit as those who dissemble falsely.

That isn't an answer. Why are you dodging the question?

Quote from: Declan Macmanus;568583Can you provide even ONE example of WotC marketing that you found to be insulting? Can you cite even a single line of WotC copy that was an insult to fans of prior editions?

Quote from: jeff37923;568583Keep fucking that chicken, dude.

Still obfuscating. You can't provide example one of WotC's supposedly antagonistic marketing because you are full of shit here. Your outrage over this and the supposed crusade of "4vengers" is entirely manufactured and you are a liar.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;568811This. Wizards of the Coast is no longer the sole source for D&D.  There's a lot of places to get D&D now, and thus there is a D&D for damn near anyone that wants it.

This is a great point. I think D&D Next is going to under-perform, because it's primary goal is at best pointless, and probably impossible. They should be looking for ways to innovate, to give us an edition that doesn't already exist instead of trying to figure out what pure strain D&D is. It's too diverse a game for any sort of reasonable consensus. I love me some Dragonborns and Planescape, but lots of people find Planescape too weird and out there, or just freak out when non-traditional races are introduced.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568814This is a great point. I think D&D Next is going to under-perform, because it's primary goal is at best pointless, and probably impossible. They should be looking for ways to innovate, to give us an edition that doesn't already exist instead of trying to figure out what pure strain D&D is.

I think they should just make all the previous edition material available as PDFs and via POD for those who want hardcopies. They would make a lot of players happy and be making money off of their huge collection of currently unavailable material. Then and only then should they try to be innovative -- as they seem to be really bad at being innovate with D&D and actually pleasing wide segments of the D&D market with those innovations. To be honest, they are also bad at testing their innovative new rules before publication to get them right in print as the quick publication of 3.5 after 3.0 and the rapid (and constant) revision of 4e during publication demonstrates.

I see what you're getting at, but there's always a conflict here: what may some fans happy is not neccearily what's best for the D&D brand.

Look at it this way: suppose there's a cadre of old school Mario fans. They think Mario Bros was a good start and Super Mario Bros was the pinnacle of game design. They're happy to play it for their Mario fix indefinitely. Nintendo can throw them bones, appeal to their nostalgia, but that isn't a viable business model in its own right. They need to be making their next Mario Galaxy or New Super Mario Bros, regardless of the availability of Super Mario Bros, because sales of past titles can't sustain the Mario brand. If that's all they'd do with it, they'd be better off leaving product all digital and only getting money from licensing the Mario RP.

That's where Wizards and Hasbro are right now, but instead of making the new Mario Galaxy, they're ineptly trying to fuse it with all past editions of Mario into one big frankengame that won't completely satisfy anybody.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791There are several people here who once expressed almost eager interest in 5th, who should have been thrilled that things like Vancian were brought back in, and yet are ready to ditch the whole thing over something like Combat Superiority.

For the record, I can take Combat Superiority or leave it. It's not a deal breaker or anything to me. I rather don't care whether it's in the game or not, to tell you the truth. I rather like the Deed Die mechanic of DCC RPG's Warrior, but then again, DCC RPG isn't D&D in my mind.

I don't know. I'm glad to have tons of variants and ideas out there. I guess I could live without worrying about yet another D&D edition, personally. I kind of burnt out on the whole thing.

Quote from: RandallS;568816I think they should just make all the previous edition material available as PDFs and via POD for those who want hardcopies.

THIS I would go for. Some print-on-demand modules and supplements, I would totally buy a shitload of those. I will NOT take a DDI subscription just to be able to look at some electronic scan of those products though. Never in a million years. I want physical print.

Quote from: Benoist;568848THIS I would go for. Some print-on-demand modules and supplements, I would totally buy a shitload of those. I will NOT take a DDI subscription just to be able to look at some electronic scan of those products though. Never in a million years. I want physical print.

I need PDFs because I have an agreement with my wife. For every new physical RPG product I buy, I have to get rid of an old one that takes up the same or greater space. My RPG collection takes up far too much of the house for her now.

However, while I will buy PDFs when the price is right, I will not do a monthly subscription for ANY RPG. I want to own the things I pay for. TTRPGs as a monthly service aren't for me.

Quote from: RandallS;568816I think they should just make all the previous edition material available as PDFs and via POD for those who want hardcopies. They would make a lot of players happy and be making money off of their huge collection of currently unavailable material.

Thank you. Go for the easy money and leave us alone. When you keep fucking up doing things the best solution is to stop doing more.

If they want new "unified D&D" product the best hope they have is making modules with a decoder appendix for each of the 3~4 major versions of D&D. But I think modules tend to suck ass, and WotC is particularly egregious about them, so whatever. All they have to do is just sit still with their licensed back catalog and shut up and take my money. Not a hard solution.

They instead have chosen to go the hard way. Be it greed or stupidity or both, well, they're welcome to their world of hurt trying to undo their Gordian knot.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791Are WotC really failing to re-centralize and save the hobby because they are fools, or because we are becoming too reactionary?

Damn those pesky customers with their preferences and the freedom to choose what they like!  Don't they know they're killing the hobby!

Quote from: Declan MacManus;568812That isn't an answer. Why are you dodging the question?






Still obfuscating. You can't provide example one of WotC's supposedly antagonistic marketing because you are full of shit here. Your outrage over this and the supposed crusade of "4vengers" is entirely manufactured and you are a liar.

Awww, but I thought you were hunting for proof of the Anti-4E Hate Cult. I guess when you can't find it, you just have to create it by acting like an asshole. Remember, it isn't 4E that is an asshole, it is the 4vengers.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20421509.jpg)

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;568791Are WotC really failing to . . .  save the hobby . . . ?

:rotfl:

The hobby's doing just fine, soybean.

Fine, you guys stay sanguine. I hope you're right that everything will work out, but as for me, I see what happened to the wargamers and the model train collectors and I still see a crossroad coming up in the headlights.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569031Fine, you guys stay sanguine. I hope you're right that everything will work out, but as for me, I see what happened to the wargamers and the model train collectors and I still see a crossroad coming up in the headlights.

Did a plague wipe them out or something? As far as I know, they are still out there. I don't personally know any train collectors but our FLGS has constant wargamers playing stuff. Warhammer, Flames of War, Malifaux, Warmachine, and possibly others and I'm in a fairly small town.

The hobby will be just fine. The industry, of course, may get a reality check.;)

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569031Fine, you guys stay sanguine. I hope you're right that everything will work out, but as for me, I see what happened to the wargamers and the model train collectors and I still see a crossroad coming up in the headlights.

I can still get wargames -- perhaps fewer a year than when SPI and AH were churning them out, but there are some very nice wargames published each year and the cost isn't much higher than they were in the 1970s after adjusting for inflation. Wargaming was always a niche hobby.  As for model railroading, I believe it is a one-billion dollar a year industry. Not bad for being "dead."  Trains will probably decline as they do not draw a lot of new blood. Real trains aren't the attraction they once were either, which explains a lot of the decline in interest in model trains.

However, unlike model trains (and more like wargames), TTRPGs really do not require much of an industry to support them. Also, once players have found a TTRPG they like, they really don't need to ever buy much else to be able to enjoy their hobby indefinitely. OD&D still works, AD&D 1e still works. Classic Traveller still works. Chaosium Runequest 2 still works. Etc.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568843I see what you're getting at, but there's always a conflict here: what may some fans happy is not neccearily what's best for the D&D brand.

Look at it this way: suppose there's a cadre of old school Mario fans. They think Mario Bros was a good start and Super Mario Bros was the pinnacle of game design. They're happy to play it for their Mario fix indefinitely. Nintendo can throw them bones, appeal to their nostalgia, but that isn't a viable business model in its own right. They need to be making their next Mario Galaxy or New Super Mario Bros, regardless of the availability of Super Mario Bros, because sales of past titles can't sustain the Mario brand. If that's all they'd do with it, they'd be better off leaving product all digital and only getting money from licensing the Mario RP.

That's where Wizards and Hasbro are right now, but instead of making the new Mario Galaxy, they're ineptly trying to fuse it with all past editions of Mario into one big frankengame that won't completely satisfy anybody.

This is a bad comparison.  Computer/video games literally get better because of technological concerns in between editions. RPGs do not, they can get better or worse, depending on how they are written.  So your example is flawed, and assumes that there's no value in using the old rules.

A better comparison might be with Chess.  If a company sets out to do "Ultimate Action Chess" or "Multiplayer Team Chess" or "Non-patriarchal anti-imperialistic Chess" with different rules, and hopes to get the same number of people playing as those that actually play the original chess, they'd be out of their minds.
The strategy for any company that wants to be in the "Chess business" is NOT to try to make new versions of the chess rules, but to try to make new and interesting presentations of chess; new pieces and boards; be they affordable plastic sets, travel chess, electronic chess, chesspieces with special themes, chessboards made to look like castles or weird landscapes, chess sets made of solid titanium, whatever.

Now, D&D is not exactly like chess either, its not nearly as rigid or tradition-bound yet; but the principle still applies.  In my opinion, D&D's mistake the last while has not been in trying to appeal to existing fans (make your fans happy, how crazy is that, right?), but in failing to maintain a consistent game and making the innovations be something that fits within the framework of what the game is.  1e/2e/RC, 3e, and 4e are too different in essence from each other, and now the problem is trying to make the fans of what amounts to three different RPGs all agree on the same thing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569031Fine, you guys stay sanguine...but as for me, I see what happened to the wargamers...

I *am* a wargamer.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;569054I *am* a wargamer.

I forgot the "hex based" adjective, but it's moot at this point (and you probably are a hex based wargamer anyway).

Whatever, I'm surrendering the point to fret alone in my anxiety booth.

Perhaps I'm just too loyal to WotC to wish them ill or write off their troubles. I never felt they let me down completely.

I love rpg's and wargames.

So what happened to me? should I be scared?

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569063Perhaps I'm just too loyal to WotC to wish them ill or write off their troubles. I never felt they let me down completely.

I don't wish WOTC ill. However, that does not mean I have to buy and/or use their current version of D&D.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569063I forgot the "hex based" adjective, but it's moot at this point (and you probably are a hex based wargamer anyway).

Whatever, I'm surrendering the point to fret alone in my anxiety booth.

Perhaps I'm just too loyal to WotC to wish them ill or write off their troubles. I never felt they let me down completely.

Perhaps the mistake is equating WOTC with "the hobby".

They are one company that makes products for the hobby, not the hobby itself.

Quote from: RandallS;569038Trains will probably decline as they do not draw a lot of new blood.

The place I work contains a small model train exhibit, from what I have seen half the volunteers are 18.

Quote from: RPGPundit;569049In my opinion, D&D's mistake the last while has not been in trying to appeal to existing fans (make your fans happy, how crazy is that, right?), but in failing to maintain a consistent game and making the innovations be something that fits within the framework of what the game is.  1e/2e/RC, 3e, and 4e are too different in essence from each other, and now the problem is trying to make the fans of what amounts to three different RPGs all agree on the same thing.

I'm curious about your development on this issue.  Years ago, it seemed like you had a lot of praise for D20 and True20, and praise for WotC for saving D&D from the Lorraine Williams era of TSR.  Here, you sound like you're suggesting that 3e was a mistake despite its commercial success - and that they should have gone with something closer to 1e/2e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;569049A better comparison might be with Chess.  If a company sets out to do "Ultimate Action Chess" or "Multiplayer Team Chess" or "Non-patriarchal anti-imperialistic Chess" with different rules, and hopes to get the same number of people playing as those that actually play the original chess, they'd be out of their minds.

RPGPundit

Well, I've played Living Card Game Chess (Knightmare Chess!) and Multiplayer (and teamed multiplayer) Chess (Chess 4). I've done speed chess with clock timer online and off, while drinking Mountain Dew, so I guess you could call that Ultimate Action Chess. Even tried to sit through Star Trek 3D chess at a con (got bored, overall I'm just not a chess fan at heart). Granted none of these companies expected their game to equal chess in popularity.

But Non-Patriarchal Anti-Imperialistic Chess is a completely new idea and sounds like a niche market opportunity. I totally want to see what that is. Nothing but pawns and rooks? How many genders are supported?

Quote from: jhkim;569091I'm curious about your development on this issue.  Years ago, it seemed like you had a lot of praise for D20 and True20, and praise for WotC for saving D&D from the Lorraine Williams era of TSR.  Here, you sound like you're suggesting that 3e was a mistake despite its commercial success - and that they should have gone with something closer to 1e/2e.

I think in fairness this pattern doesn't really become clear until 4E (and it really didn't become a problem for the company until that point either): maybe just a hair before 4E. In my experience lots of folks were happy to play using 3E even they had some gripes about the feats or multiclassing. At heart I was still always a 2E player even while I was playing 3E so some of the concepts never felt comfortable for me as a Gm or player...but it was still recognizeable as D&D to me. The spells were there. The basic classes were there. The skills seemed like a natural outgrowth of NWPs (which I had adopted earlly on). I had one or two issues, for example skills like diplomacy always bothered me. For me it wasn't until late 3.5 that I started noticing things which turned me off significantly. Much of it was aesthetic. But it seemed like there was this increasing view of adventures as a series of encounters with some flavor wrapped around them (this probably started long before but i didn't notice it until around 2006). When 4E was announced I was pretty excited because I had more than a few complaints about 3E. But as the previews came out, i could tell it just wasn't the game for me. I will fully admit that roles just created an irrational angry reaction form me that I can't fully explain. It seemed to be just more reduciton of the game to cobat encounters and having a spot on the team (i always saw these as growing more organically from the specific combo of characts and personalities I guess). I got the books but the end product was just too different for me. I seriously had to ask myself, why does this game even interest me? If it hadn't had D&D on the cover there is just no way I would have bought it. Everything from the art to the text tobe mechanics was the opposite of what I wanted, especially from D&D.

So after some time of just not playing D&D at all, i went back to 2E. I think a lot of folks went back to earlier editions at this point. I found it met my needs more than 3E had and I guess I sort of became an old school player at that stage. I still played savage worlds and other newer games so i don't think the label is a good fit. But when it comes to D&D, its AD&D for me now.

If 4E hadn't come out, or if 4e had been more in line with 3e but just done some cleaning up, I am not sure I would have gone in this direction. I also don't know that I would have given 2e as much of a second look. Yes its true there had always been peope who stuck with 1e and with 2e but there was also a big exodus to AD&D following the release of 4E in my opinion. So I think pundit is onto something about there being this series of jumps between editions where the game divides and loses parts of its core identity, but that just doesn't crystalize until quite recenlty I think.

I don't know for sure. This is all very vague and incomplete. But that is my honest impression.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;569063I forgot the "hex based" adjective, but it's moot at this point (and you probably are a hex based wargamer anyway).

I'm working in both Field of Glory: Renaissance and Under the Lily Banners - tabletop miniature and hex-and-chit wargames, respectively - into my Flashing Blades campaign.

Relax, soybean - none of this is going away anytime soon. :)

Quote from: jeff37923;569021Awww, but I thought you were hunting for proof of the Anti-4E Hate Cult. I guess when you can't find it, you just have to create it by acting like an asshole. Remember, it isn't 4E that is an asshole, it is the 4vengers.

So we've established that you have absolutely nothing on this issue and are utterly full of shit.

Now let's look at the root of the problem.

Are you a liar, or just delusional?

Quote from: jadrax;569086The place I work contains a small model train exhibit, from what I have seen half the volunteers are 18.

I have long suspected that those who call the model train industry yet are underestimating the generation that's coming up.  A generation that was raised on Thomas the Tank Engine.  I really think trains will be bigger than anyone expected in a few years.

Quote from: Bill;569064I love rpg's and wargames.

So what happened to me? should I be scared?

Someone killed you and took your hexes thirty years ago.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;569096When 4E was announced I was pretty excited because I had more than a few complaints about 3E. But as the previews came out, i could tell it just wasn't the game for me.

For me, it was entirely the splat within the 'core books'.  Has D&D ever released a PHB in multiple parts?  Having already messed up the alignment of my spine with 3/3.5 splat book weight, I was in no mood to start all over again.

Really dividing it up into fans of editions is oversimplifying it, because there are two big categories that it leaves out:

Fans who don't really give a shit and play whatever/like multiple editions, and people who like 4E because it has 'good design' insomuch as their opinions on the primary goals of an RPG should be and would like anything just as well as long as it has Good Design(tm) (Not to knock that category or sound disparaging, as I consider myself a member of that latter camp; though I suppose copping to that may sound elitist.)

The point being that while Camp 4 (the noncombatants in the edition war) may simply pick up the new game out of brand inertia and Camp 3 (Fans of 4E specifically) may continue to subscribe to D&D Insider as long as it supports 4th, Camp 5 is likely going to move to other games. The old school vs new school mentality is irrelevant because these are the people who'll play Old School Hack or FantasyCraft before either AD&D or Patfhinder. It's not old school playstyles that are objectionable, but bad mechanics that you see early in any nascent game genre.

What you're not getting Malone is that what you consider "Good Design(tm)" others here will consider utter shit. That doesn't make you objectively wrong, as far as what YOU consider fun and what you want to play with goes, but neither does your opinion on the matter make the people you are talking to objectively wrong themselves.

Quote from: Benoist;569151What you're not getting Malone is that what you consider "Good Design(tm)" others here will consider utter shit. That doesn't make you objectively wrong, as far as what YOU consider fun and what you want to play with goes, but neither does your opinion on the matter make the people you are talking to objectively wrong themselves.

But he isn't saying that. Fact is I disagree with a majority of what TM says and supports but he is flat out describing my position in these silly edition wars. I know what I prefer and recent Dnd refuses to give me that option. Hence my money goes to simulcra end of story.  But does that mean I won't play/buy Dnd if they throw me bone? You serious? The issue is how much is optional.  Personally I want something like 2e where nearly everything is "greyboxed".

But dividing up into editions is important because you know you can easily cater to. Group 4 go-alongs are a waste of time because, well, they're gonna go along anyway. And Group 5 "I want Elegance... and I'll know it when I see it!" are going to go their own way anyway if they don't like your new product. And making a new, elegant product is far more energy than other already said solutions.

So why fixate on pleasing them to the exclusion of your existing fan base?

If you modulate the shit out of everything and dump it into one box, what's one more 15-30pg module? 1e is already lovingly reprinted, so just create a base core with modular rules adjuncts tossed into the box: RC/3e/4e/Next!, boom, done. And the really funny thing, a lot of this could still be avoided by opening up PDF/POD for the back catalog...

A "Quick Start" core rules that advertises in box optional modular overlays available online? Gets the $20 Toys R Us gift set (Now with cardboard Castle!) out there for the Christmas season new blood and simultaneously pleases/displeases all veterans involved. Score! By keeping RC/3e/4e online available, and an advertisement in the "Quick Start" box set, you a) service existing fans, b) prevent market confusion & over-saturation, c) direct those interested where to get more material (edit: and d) leave open the option of D&DNext without having to step on anyone's toes)

Keep the parents of new players clear and happy, keep persnickety grognards happy, avoid internecine edition strife. Win-win-win.

Quote from: jhkim;569091I'm curious about your development on this issue.  Years ago, it seemed like you had a lot of praise for D20 and True20, and praise for WotC for saving D&D from the Lorraine Williams era of TSR.  Here, you sound like you're suggesting that 3e was a mistake despite its commercial success - and that they should have gone with something closer to 1e/2e.

3e did save D&D, and it was a commercial success; but I do think that there were some errors in how the design of the system was changed that ultimately created a different game.
Note the ultimately; 3.0 when the first core books came out was still very much closer to what one expects from D&D; the problem is that some of the changes led to a shift in the game, and this shift was encouraged by WoTC, into the game being about "character building" and "optimizing"; the feats and prestige classes both in particular went absolutely overboard, pushed along by the supplement treadmill. By the time 3.5 came out, you could say it was very much a different game.

I've always championed D20 as a game; but within that I feel that D&D in particular (in its D20 iteration) had some serious problems after a while.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TomatoMalone;569148Really dividing it up into fans of editions is oversimplifying it, because there are two big categories that it leaves out:

Fans who don't really give a shit and play whatever/like multiple editions, and people who like 4E because it has 'good design' insomuch as their opinions on the primary goals of an RPG should be and would like anything just as well as long as it has Good Design(tm) (Not to knock that category or sound disparaging, as I consider myself a member of that latter camp; though I suppose copping to that may sound elitist.)

The thing is, the former aren't relevant to the problem because as you say they'll buy whatever; and the latter, if it even exists (given that all previous versions of D&D are clearly "Good design" I think that what you really mean here is a certain type of game, which just throws your pseudo-category right back to being plain old 4e-fanatics) is irrelevant due to being a tiny group that probably can't be convinced in any way shape or form to adopt the new edition unless its a mirror-image of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;5694323e did save D&D, and it was a commercial success; but I do think that there were some errors in how the design of the system was changed that ultimately created a different game.
Note the ultimately; 3.0 when the first core books came out was still very much closer to what one expects from D&D; the problem is that some of the changes led to a shift in the game, and this shift was encouraged by WoTC, into the game being about "character building" and "optimizing"; the feats and prestige classes both in particular went absolutely overboard, pushed along by the supplement treadmill. By the time 3.5 came out, you could say it was very much a different game.

I've always championed D20 as a game; but within that I feel that D&D in particular (in its D20 iteration) had some serious problems after a while.

RPGPundit

This is a very key insight, and something I've just come across while reading/converting Greyhawk material (and comparing my pre3.x experience with the 3.x experience).

It seems that the "long game" in 3.x changed to CharOp, often 5-10 levels in advance. Players would pore over various splatbooks looking for "just the right feat/prestige-class/etc".

The long game in pre3.x seems much more about the place of the character in the world (the benefits that come with Name Level, amassing Treasure and then using it as leverage on NPCs, etc).

This generated a different feel, both during a session and outside of game.

After reading this

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/08/09/dd_next_qa_89

I'm getting a little bit concerned. I've enjoyed playtesting Next because, just like when we play Basic Fantasy, my players use their heads for tactics and not their character sheets. When they wanted to take the snow speeder approach to toppling a bone golem, we managed it without rules. When one of them wanted to pin a guard's foot to the wooden floor with an arrow, he rolled to hit and pinned the poor dude's foot to the floor. I'm not sure how the addition of special dice routines can improve upon that. I certainly hope that it's not because rolling dice is fun.

Quote from: Orpheo;570073After reading this

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/08/09/dd_next_qa_89

I'm getting a little bit concerned. I've enjoyed playtesting Next because, just like when we play Basic Fantasy, my players use their heads for tactics and not their character sheets. When they wanted to take the snow speeder approach to toppling a bone golem, we managed it without rules. When one of them wanted to pin a guard's foot to the wooden floor with an arrow, he rolled to hit and pinned the poor dude's foot to the floor. I'm not sure how the addition of special dice routines can improve upon that. I certainly hope that it's not because rolling dice is fun.

It isn't the rolling of the dice particularly, that WOTC style fans want. Its the availability of pre-chosen brightly lit buttons on the character sheet that can be pressed for a number of predictable effects. Gameplay for these people has little to do with the fictional setting. Everything meaningful is connected to a wire-frame model via the rules. The campaign world is a background overlay that isn't objectionable so long as it has low to no impact on the functioning of the wire-frame model.

The players want to know that when they press the red button, effect X happens. They have been conditioned like good little sheep to believe that if they were meant to be able to do something, it would be on the character sheet. After all, if WOTC wanted them to think for themselves a brain would have been provided in the rules.

Quote from: Orpheo;570073After reading this

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/08/09/dd_next_qa_89

I'm getting a little bit concerned. I've enjoyed playtesting Next because, just like when we play Basic Fantasy, my players use their heads for tactics and not their character sheets. When they wanted to take the snow speeder approach to toppling a bone golem, we managed it without rules. When one of them wanted to pin a guard's foot to the wooden floor with an arrow, he rolled to hit and pinned the poor dude's foot to the floor. I'm not sure how the addition of special dice routines can improve upon that. I certainly hope that it's not because rolling dice is fun.

I think that there are a couple basic ideas behind this mechanic...

One is part of a greater effort to give each class it's own unique gimmick within the rules. The Fighter's schtick is that he's the undisputed master of armed combat, and the combat superiority rules are supposed help support that archetype.

Another is to create a maneuver system for the fighter that appeals to both fans of Pre-WotC D&D openness AND 4E's structured power system, while improving on the shortcomings of the various systems...

AD&D basically had weapon type vs. armor type tables and DM fiat. DM fiat can be great because it encourages creativity, immersion and a deeper level of engagement with the players, but can be inconsistent.

Also, if you don't find a way to somehow limit overly effective tactics you get round after round of "called shot to the neck". Penalizing attack rolls isn't the best choice for this because it tends to disincentivize anything but plain old basic sword attack.

RC D&D has Weapon Mastery rules, which grant benefits when you spend proficiency slots on weapons.

It's pretty simple and way better than a boring + whatever to attack and damage. Also, I like damage increasing in die steps better than static bonuses. The drawback is that to gain the full benefit you must commit all of your proficiency slots to one or two weapons (not weapon groups...specific weapons) which leads to the same effect being spammed again and again.

3rd Edition builds these things out of feats. So if you want you can focus on being bad ass at archery, or being badass at charging, or being badass at tripping...probably not on all three though.

The problem with 3rd edition is that it assumes that you suck at everything by default, and you only become good at them by having the right words on your character sheet. AD&D assumed that you sucked at everything when you were a level 1 peon dirt farmer with a rusty sword...but eventually through guile, cunning and luck you became good at these things. In 3.x you need the right combination of feats. So fuck that.

4th Edition just has a suite of powers for each class with very specific and codified effects.

It works I guess, but is ultimately really boring in practice. Also, when we picture melee combat in various media, it has this fast and frenetic, almost improvised feeling...a specific martial power with a specific effect that works the exact same way fight after fight after fight doesn't really capture this spirit.

I can get behind the idea of damage dice being a kind of currency for extra effects instead of the traditional to-hit penalty maybe, but for me the problem isn't resource management...I don't really give a shit if fighters have daily powers...just don't make them boring slide 3 squares, area burst 3 1(W) + dazed and gain temporary hit points equal to con modifier until the end of your next turn affairs.

I would prefer a simple list of basic maneuvers like trip attack, bash attack, whirlwind attack, etc. with well defined consequences for the target that characters can use in place of their basic attacks on top of a multiple attack scheme (AD&D, not 3E) so that fighters can chain combos together, or just hit foes with standard attacks again and again.

It all depends how the maneuvering options end up being presented. If we have an open list of options, with broad strokes and mechanics you can expand upon creatively as you play the game, that could be actually very neat.

If we have closed, anally quantified options that turn into "either do one of those written on the page or you can't do it" with "powers" spelled out in everything single detail like push/pull effects and the like, then it's going to suck.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;570087It isn't the rolling of the dice particularly, that WOTC style fans want. Its the availability of pre-chosen brightly lit buttons on the character sheet that can be pressed for a number of predictable effects. Gameplay for these people has little to do with the fictional setting. Everything meaningful is connected to a wire-frame model via the rules. The campaign world is a background overlay that isn't objectionable so long as it has low to no impact on the functioning of the wire-frame model.

The players want to know that when they press the red button, effect X happens. They have been conditioned like good little sheep to believe that if they were meant to be able to do something, it would be on the character sheet. After all, if WOTC wanted them to think for themselves a brain would have been provided in the rules.

This is a mischaracterization.  

Let's take the 'shooting an arrow to pin the guard's foot' example.  

Did the shot do normal damage in addition to pinning the foot?  

Did the attack require a penalty because it was aimed at a particular spot?  

What options can the guard use to get his foot free?  Can he break the arrow (strength check)?  Could he pull his foot along the length of the arrow (taking extra damage)?  Would the injury to his foot continue to slow him down?

Are there special abilities already in the game that either allow a character to make a pinning shot or make it easier for them to do so?  

Does the terrain matter?  Is it easier to pin a foot to dirt than a stone floor?  

These are all questions that I like to ask when someone wants to do something 'unusual'.  

If the DM allows the shot to do the pinning effect in addition to normal damage, without a penalty, players will always try to do it.  

If the DM allows the attack with a penalty (to pin a foot), why not allow an attack (with penalty) to shoot through the eye (or other vulnerable place)?  What consequences would that have on the game?  Why is shooting a foot okay, but shooting an eye not?  

This could be explained by saying 'when you shoot to do damage, you always aim at the most vulnerable place, so you're always 'trying to hit the eye'.  But then, pinning the foot probably shouldn't do damage (since you're trying to shoot in a place that is LESS vulnerable).  

So what would I do if I were the DM?  

With the lack of better guidelines, I'd go with the following:

You may make a pinning attack with a ranged attack, provided that your opponent is in contact with a surface to which they can be pinned (including the gorund).  The attack is made at a -4 penalty, and if you hit, you do not apply damage to the target.  Instead, roll against the hardness of the object to which you intend to pin them to (for example, hardness 5 for wood).  If your damage exceeds the hardness of the object, your projectile pins them.  They cannot move from that spot unless they succeed on a Strength check (DC 10 + your strength modifier).  If there is a feat for pinning people, it instead removes the -8 penalty and gives you a +4 on the DC (ie DC 14 + Str instead of 10 + Str).  

Now what do we have?  

We have a rule.  That I can apply consistently in my game and is likely to be balanced in most situations.  It won't be terribly effective against really strong creatures (like the Tarrasque) and anyone can do it, but with the attack penalty, it's not always going to be the best option (but it could be great if you're trying to escape from your opponents - slowing them down enough to get away).  

Now, I've just made a rule that would work at my table.  But what about at your table?  

Maybe you make a rule that doesn't require a penalty, does damage as normal, and the person is stuck 'if the DM thinks it should work'.  Now that might work at your table...  

But players between the two tables won't know how that kind of thing should work.  At a third table someone else might say 'you can't do that - it's not in the rules'.  

The point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.  At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.  

Because if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?  

I like rules because it helps people know what they can reasonably expect to try.  I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.  If you have a ton of houserules and somethings not working, how can we know if it is BECAUSE of the houserules or a failing in the game?  

Baseline assumptions are great for finding out how the game works in a 'default mode'.  It gives you a point of comparison to the changes that you make to accomodate your personal play style.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119With the lack of better guidelines . . .

It sounds like you already have sufficient guidelines from the existing rules. You have guidelines for handling called shots and hardness of objects, so really all you're doing is extrapolating from those. Cakewalk.

In fact, this is the ideal situation for me. If the rulebook tries to include every corner case - like pinning someone to something with a missle - then it's going to be a cumbersome mess by the time it's done.

If it gives me some general guidelines from which I can extrapolate quickly, then the rules are far more useful to me.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119The point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.

If you prioritize portability above customisation, then it's a fair point.

However, I greatly prefer to play in campaigns where the referee has taken the basic rules and honed them to a sharp edge for that campaign. I value customisation above rules portability.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.

Because if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?

So your presumption is that most players are such helpless, unimaginative dolts they can't come up with the idea of pinning someone's cape to a door with a crossbow bolt unless someone specifically tells them they can try it?

'splains so much.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.

And I like to talk with other players about how they've folded, spindled, and mutilated their rulebooks to make their campaign unique, like Tékumel and Arduin.

Can I mention that Mike has basically recreated the Earthdawn Karma system with his Combat Superiority dice (Wait... you can "skin" you fighter to be an Archer or a Swordsmaster/Fencer??? LOL)..... Only, y'know, in Earthdawn _every_ PC-power-level character gets a pool to spend on their specialty (and it's a resource that refreshes on a daily timeframe, not a combat-round-to-combat-round timeframe). The parallels are getting eerie.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119Now, I've just made a rule that would work at my table.  But what about at your table?

Unless players are taking their characters from your table to mine, why should you even care? I honestly have never gotten why standard rules that apply to all tables, all settings, all play-styles seem so important to some players. What does it matter what other tables do or what rules they use to handle similar situations?

This is one of the things I always enjoyed about early D&D, each group had its own version of the rules, customized by their GM for his setting and that particular group's needs. I'm not interested in standardized rules because those who play in tournaments or in other forms of organized play need standard rules for such events to run well. I have little to no interest in tournament play or organized play -- nor do about 99 out of 100 players I've gamed with over the last 35+ years.

QuoteThe point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.  At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.

I believe in that all RPG rules should be customized to the setting, the play-style, and the desires of the specific group. Standard rules are a very low priority for me. If standard rules are a high priority for you, we'll just have to agree that we have different priorities.

QuoteBecause if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?

In my experience, truly new players -- those who are not used to playing in a RPG where the rules are seen as describing all you can do -- have seldom had a problem coming up with things like pinning someone to the wall with a arrow through the target's over sized shirt. Or swinging from a rope. Etc. The players aren't looking to the rules to see what they can do, they are imagining themselves there as their character, saying what they would do, and allowing the GM to figure out how to do that rules-wise. This is my preferred mode of play: I prefer players who describe what they do in game world terms and don't worry about the rules.

QuoteI like rules because it helps people know what they can reasonably expect to try.  I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.

I've never had a problem talking about what works and doesn't work in very games even when they are loaded with very different house-rules. Perhaps that's because that's simply what I'm used to dealing with so I've learned to expect it.

QuoteIf you have a ton of houserules and somethings not working, how can we know if it is BECAUSE of the houserules or a failing in the game?

If something isn't working for my game, I'm going to fix it -- and not waste time and effort worrying about whether my house rules are the cause or whether the original rules are the cause. Assigning blame is far less important than making it work ASAP.

QuoteBaseline assumptions are great for finding out how the game works in a 'default mode'.  It gives you a point of comparison to the changes that you make to accomodate your personal play style.

No matter how many house rules I have or how many RAW I ignore, the RAW are still there for me to compare things to.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;570087It isn't the rolling of the dice particularly, that WOTC style fans want. Its the availability of pre-chosen brightly lit buttons on the character sheet that can be pressed for a number of predictable effects.

You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

Honestly, if that is what you think, why have any codified abilities? Why not just give everyone a d20 and say "OK, I'll just make up everything as I go along. Describe your character, anything he sounds like he could reasonably do you can roll, high is good, low is bad."

Every single time I see this complaint, all I see is a problem with GMs and Players. If they can't think outside the box, that isn't the games fault. Hell even 4e (that I only played like 2-3 times, and never ran) which is apparently [sarcasm]IMPOSSIBLE to improvise ANYTHING[/sarcasm] in had Pg 42 in the DM's Guide that covered improvised maneuvers/attacks.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;570169You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

A lot of TSR spells have quite a few variables, allowing some player customization, and others are quite loose thus open to GM interpretation.

I honestly just do not see your point here in comparison.

Quote from: Opaopajr;570230A lot of TSR spells have quite a few variables, allowing some player customization, and others are quite loose thus open to GM interpretation.

I honestly just do not see your point here in comparison.

Quote from: AD&D FireballFireball (Evocation)

Level: 3
Range: 10" + 1"/level
Duration: Instantaneous
Area of Effect: 2" radius sphere
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 3 segments
Saving Throw: ½

Explanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level of the magic-user who cast it, i.e. 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster. Exception: Magic fireball wands deliver 6 die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs, and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 + 4) of damage. The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]. Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected. The magic-user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball. If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point damage from the blast. Those who make saving throws manage to dodge, fall flat or roll aside, taking ½ the full hit point damage - each and every one within the blast area. The material component of this spell is a tiny ball composed of bat guano and sulphur. [1E PHB, p. 73]

Things I can expect from this spell if I use it at level 5 with most DMs:

It will do 5d6 damage at a range of up to 15", it will affect a 33,00 cubic feet of area (man if there are low ceilings that is hellishly large). Enemies will get a save for half damage, and anything that is flammable will catch fire unless it makes a roll.

This is all codified. If I use it today, it does exactly that. If I use it tomorrow, surprise it does the same thing. Can a GM change it? Yes, he can. But for the most part, the Magic User's player will know the approximate effectiveness of his "shiny button" before he casts it. Sounds like a shiny button of precodified maneuver that I can press to make stuff happen to me.

This is actually, in my opinion, the biggest advantage of at least having a base of codified fighting maneuvers in a game. An experienced fighter SHOULD know how effective a maneuver would be before he performs it. But unlike the 1st edition AD&D Magic User's spells, he can't know how easy or hard even the most basic maneuver such as disarming an opponent will be.

Players need to be able to understand the difficulty and effectiveness in their options. Now, not all their options, because you can't possibly cover every option, but enough that they know reliably what they can accomplish. Why? Because their CHARACTER is an experienced combatant. And an experienced combatant should know.

Am I saying that 4e Power style, or even the combat maneuver stuff they are talking about with the Combat Superiority dice thing is better? Eh, Idk. 4e suffered from problems in execution, and I haven't seen the 5e maneuver rules so I couldn't say, but really some guidelines and rules for physical combat maneuvers are not a bad idea.

But even in this singular fireball example, to go with it for now, there's still both player management of variables and GM adjudication of results. Player decides target distance and height -- and by foreknowledge of location the expected shape of flaming area -- and GM determines success of trajectory, NPC & item saves, and further ramifications in later rounds. It's more than ExploderWizard's complaint of "pressing a button"; player finesse and setting luck/consequences leaves its mark upon the results.

Fireball was often excitingly dangerous to use, because it was not a fixedly banal sure thing. It could be used in really creatively risky ways. Wanna aim through a door's keyhole to the middle of the next room? Player's risky targeting choice, GM judgment for setting resolution (which could be anything from OK to rolling % chance). GM uses optional 2e group/individual initiative + individual speed mod? The tide of melee battle might end up with a new target disrupting your line-of-sight. Long, dark, narrow, areas -- like tunnels or chimneys? Might hit something early and risk fiery flashback, or might extend really far and do something useful.

High ceiling with sparkly chandeliers or other large suspended objects? How much damage does the suspending material suffer, and if it does fail does it fail how you want, falling where you want? Igniting nearby combustibles: did your fireball reach the target uninterrupted? did the area effect expand to your expected shape (were you firing it into a less known space)? were the combustibles within such variables igniting as you expected? Were there unexpected combustibles caught up in the area? How does all this complicate the upcoming fires?

Fireball wasn't a good example of a push-button, point-and-shoot mechanic because it was so open to messing with, as ExploderWizard calls, the wire-frame system. You have a defined idea of what it can do, as you describe it well. But the spell is more than that. In the hands of player finesse and solid Gm adjudication of consequences, it became quite exciting because of the lack of tight mechanical control. The system did not tie it down so hard that consequences became predictable. Choosing the 'button' did not always deliver the same result; there was considerably more fluidity. And that fluidity many people want to have returned.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119This is a mischaracterization.  

Let's take the 'shooting an arrow to pin the guard's foot' example.  

Did the shot do normal damage in addition to pinning the foot?  

Did the attack require a penalty because it was aimed at a particular spot?  

What options can the guard use to get his foot free?  Can he break the arrow (strength check)?  Could he pull his foot along the length of the arrow (taking extra damage)?  Would the injury to his foot continue to slow him down?

Are there special abilities already in the game that either allow a character to make a pinning shot or make it easier for them to do so?  

Does the terrain matter?  Is it easier to pin a foot to dirt than a stone floor?  

These are all questions that I like to ask when someone wants to do something 'unusual'.  

If the DM allows the shot to do the pinning effect in addition to normal damage, without a penalty, players will always try to do it.  

If the DM allows the attack with a penalty (to pin a foot), why not allow an attack (with penalty) to shoot through the eye (or other vulnerable place)?  What consequences would that have on the game?  Why is shooting a foot okay, but shooting an eye not?  

This could be explained by saying 'when you shoot to do damage, you always aim at the most vulnerable place, so you're always 'trying to hit the eye'.  But then, pinning the foot probably shouldn't do damage (since you're trying to shoot in a place that is LESS vulnerable).  

So what would I do if I were the DM?  

With the lack of better guidelines, I'd go with the following:

You may make a pinning attack with a ranged attack, provided that your opponent is in contact with a surface to which they can be pinned (including the gorund).  The attack is made at a -4 penalty, and if you hit, you do not apply damage to the target.  Instead, roll against the hardness of the object to which you intend to pin them to (for example, hardness 5 for wood).  If your damage exceeds the hardness of the object, your projectile pins them.  They cannot move from that spot unless they succeed on a Strength check (DC 10 + your strength modifier).  If there is a feat for pinning people, it instead removes the -8 penalty and gives you a +4 on the DC (ie DC 14 + Str instead of 10 + Str).  

Now what do we have?  

We have a rule.  That I can apply consistently in my game and is likely to be balanced in most situations.  It won't be terribly effective against really strong creatures (like the Tarrasque) and anyone can do it, but with the attack penalty, it's not always going to be the best option (but it could be great if you're trying to escape from your opponents - slowing them down enough to get away).  

Now, I've just made a rule that would work at my table.  But what about at your table?  

Maybe you make a rule that doesn't require a penalty, does damage as normal, and the person is stuck 'if the DM thinks it should work'.  Now that might work at your table...  

But players between the two tables won't know how that kind of thing should work.  At a third table someone else might say 'you can't do that - it's not in the rules'.  

The point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.  At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.  

Because if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?  

I like rules because it helps people know what they can reasonably expect to try.  I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.  If you have a ton of houserules and somethings not working, how can we know if it is BECAUSE of the houserules or a failing in the game?  

Baseline assumptions are great for finding out how the game works in a 'default mode'.  It gives you a point of comparison to the changes that you make to accomodate your personal play style.

So what you're saying is it works in practise, just not in theory?

Quote from: Telarus;570147Can I mention that Mike has basically recreated the Earthdawn Karma system with his Combat Superiority dice (Wait... you can "skin" you fighter to be an Archer or a Swordsmaster/Fencer??? LOL)..... Only, y'know, in Earthdawn _every_ PC-power-level character gets a pool to spend on their specialty (and it's a resource that refreshes on a daily timeframe, not a combat-round-to-combat-round timeframe). The parallels are getting eerie.

ED's karma dice doesn't refresh on a daily basis, you have a finite amount(depending on your race[1&2E I don't play 3E it's shit]) until you do more karma rituals to regain karma.

Quote from: RandallS;570150Unless players are taking their characters from your table to mine, why should you even care? I honestly have never gotten why standard rules that apply to all tables, all settings, all play-styles seem so important to some players. What does it matter what other tables do or what rules they use to handle similar situations?

Expectation of play?
You introduce me to D&D, I play with you for 4 years, I find another group(for whatever reason), and I have to relearn another D&D, I play there for a year, move and have to relearn another D&D, etc.  What worked in "your D&D" didn't work in other's D&D, what was 'hard' in "your D&D" isn't in others, what was easily in "your D&D" is 'hard' in others, and so on...
Personally from listening to you talk about your games, I wouldn't recognize what you do as D&D.  I would call it a homebrew system based on D&D.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;570169You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

Honestly, if that is what you think, why have any codified abilities? Why not just give everyone a d20 and say "OK, I'll just make up everything as I go along. Describe your character, anything he sounds like he could reasonably do you can roll, high is good, low is bad."

Every single time I see this complaint, all I see is a problem with GMs and Players. If they can't think outside the box, that isn't the games fault. Hell even 4e (that I only played like 2-3 times, and never ran) which is apparently [sarcasm]IMPOSSIBLE to improvise ANYTHING[/sarcasm] in had Pg 42 in the DM's Guide that covered improvised maneuvers/attacks.

Never understood the idea that new players should start off with a fighter.  That class that has no button pushing it's all think on your feet.  Unless that player is gregarious they ain't gonna be all that[corners cases not withstanding].  I used to follow that directive until someone mentioned to me why I gave the new guy the fighter who has nothing to fall back on besides "I use my weapon".   I thought about it and yeah it doesn't really make sense.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570303ED's karma dice doesn't refresh on a daily basis, you have a finite amount(depending on your race[1&2E I don't play 3E it's shit]) until you do more karma rituals to regain karma.

I never claimed it was an automatic refresh. Doesn't matter how many Karma Rituals you do in a day, tho. You can only get so many Karma Points back per day ("refreshes on a daily timeframe").


You're the only person I've ever run across who would play ED2e over ED3e....

Any specific reasoning?

Quote from: Orpheo;570280So what you're saying is it works in practise, just not in theory?

I'm saying that I can make my own rules, and they might actually be good, but that's not why I buy an RPG.  I want the designers to cover things like this.  That way it tends to be consistent.  Guidelines are great because how do you KNOW if something is overpowered if you don't have anything to compare it to?  

If I use those rules and players use a lot of pinning shots, is that a good thing or a bad thing?  If it's much better than normal attacking, you'd expect to see it used INSTEAD of normal attacks - so I've tried to make it useful in different ways (like not allowing it to do damage).  But as I explained in my post, there are lots of other ways to implement it in a game.  If it's implemented differently, than a player that comes from your game to mine might not try it (since they didn't think it was good the way you did it).  

Better to have good rules that are pretty comprehensive, and then individual DMs can stray from them if they want, but they don't have to (because the rules are already good).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570358Better to have good rules that are pretty comprehensive, and then individual DMs can stray from them if they want, but they don't have to (because the rules are already good).

sometimes I want comprehensive, but the longer I have been gaming the more I really just want some light rules and rough guidelines. Totally fine with different Gms amd groups implementing those rough guidelines in different ways. I just find it frees the game up to focus more on other things. I think there is room for both approaches though. I'd rather have a wide selection of rules heavy, rules light and medium games than have a single approach in terms of how these things are handled in all games.

Quote from: Telarus;570338I never claimed it was an automatic refresh. Doesn't matter how many Karma Rituals you do in a day, tho. You can only get so many Karma Points back per day ("refreshes on a daily timeframe").

"Refreshes on a daily timeframe" isn't technically true.  Yes you can refresh karma daily, but with 1&2e the amount you could have compared to how much you could get back daily weren't equal.

Quote from: Telarus;570338You're the only person I've ever run across who would play ED2e over ED3e....

Any specific reasoning?

My reasoning: They advanced the timeline, they didn't change the way the game functions, no drama.

I'll preface with: I totally respect your opinions there. The following are simply opinions also.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570362Yes you can refresh karma daily, but with 1&2e the amount you could have compared to how much you could get back daily weren't equal.

(Still holds true with ED3e) Sure, I said they were parallel concepts, not identical ones. I personally prefer the daily refresh time-frame (and the time-cost of a half-hour to perform the ritual) as Karma is an actual resource you have to manage over the course of an adventure.

I see CS dice as part of the same shift in focus as D&D3.x/4e's "Encounter basis" (moving away from managing strategic resources into purely short-term tactical play), even though "the Adventure" (or "the adventuring day") was supposed to be the focus of D&D Next.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570362My reasoning: They advanced the timeline, they didn't change the way the game functions, no drama.

I GM'd a ED1e campaign up to 8th circle (over a couple of years). We then switched to ED2e (in the middle of Blades + Prelude to War). I then ran the entirety of Living Room Games (ED2e) Barsaive At War.

Let's just say that I don't agree with your second point, ED2e play was definitely different mechanically from ED2e (especially with a group of 8-9th Circle Adepts). Some of the ED3e changes were more radical (like the new Advancement system), but IMO that was a good evolution of the game system (it addressed the "cookie cutter Adept" syndrome).

Also, having spoken briefly with Lou Prosperi about the events of Barsaive At War/Barsaive in Chaos, I don't agree with how LRG handled the FASA notes for that portion of the timeline (and neither did my players, although at the time we didn't have anything else to compare it to, so were unsure why it didn't "feel quite right" when we played through both books).

[Note, this discussion happened on a dev forum and is probably covered under my NDA... although I fairly sure Lou has made similar comments in pulbic, so if I find an open discussion with the same points I'd be willing to discuss it further. ;) ]

Thanks, tho!

It's always nice to hear that someone _likes_ playing Earthdawn (no matter which edition).

I like the idea that they're going with. Fighting is far more thoughtful than just "I swing my sword". It's also about for what purpose (to protect your allies? protect yourself?
Look at deeply 'realistic' games like Riddle of Steel (http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/RTC.htm), which uses a pool of dice to represent your fighting skill, and how you spend it is your focus on attack/defense and special maneuvers. In comparison D&D fighters look like they stepped out of a 1980's arcade machine (mash the 'attack' button until your hit points run out. hope you spent your quarters on an extra life! :p)


But in EXECUTION, is combat superiority dice a good idea?
No, I don't think so. More dice to keep track of get annoying.
They are focusing on the HOW instead of the WHY.

WHY did 3.X fighters focus so much on tripping? Because it was one of the only non-magical ways to keep the orc from walking past you to stab the wizard.

WHY did 4e Fighters have those push/pull/shift abilities? Because it keeps the orc from walking past you to stab the wizard, and you can unleash a steel tornado of carnage once a day so you want it to hit a lot of guys.



It can be done simpler. It should be more about general stances/poise than specific maneuverings. I have put these together to be less specific so you can flavor in the details as you like.

Something like... declare what stance you take on your initiative pass.
Assault:
You engage your foe in relentless pursuit/like a hungry wolf/follow them like a deadly shadow
you gain a bonus to hit/damage. When the target of your attack moves, you can follow them using your next turn's movement (in addition to whatever disengagement/opportunity attack rules are being used).

Defensive Fighting/Fighting Withdraw:
You raise your arms in a defensive posture, your foes will be hard pressed to bypass this web of steel
you gain a bonus to your defenses and can make a fighting withdrawl. You can choose to forgo making attacks but instead use it as a 'parry' in response to an enemy striking you (roll attack, it counts as your AC against that attack)

Cover:
You interpose yourself before the beast and your less hardy allies. It shall not pass
Enemies within your reach are penalized to attack your allies. You can spend your next turn's movement action to intercept an enemy trying to engage an ally within your movement range. If your allies make a withdraw action and you are in reach of the monster, they make their attack against you.

and for the Simple Fighter Crowd, your default stance:
Poised:
You are in a ready stance, ready to spring into action
You have a bonus to damage/AC and don't ever need to adjust it if you never want to.

*can't leave Bow fighters out in the dark!
Disruptive Shot:
"When the robed guy begins flapping his arms I'm sending an arrow through his face, or maybe his foot, or maybe I knock his hat off and it spooks him, HP's are abstract right?"
Declare a target. You delay your turn until that target acts. You can shoot at them to disrupt spellcasting, penalize movement, penalize attacks, etc. to some degree greater than a normal delayed action.


These options I'm giving aren't about "I trip the guy" or "I push him 5ft", it's about general maneuvers that you've seen countless times in your favorite heroic tales.

Seriously, hit points are already so abstract we're not sure if 'arrow through the foot' is going to do more or less damage than 'sword through the gut'

I have found that the Called Shot penalty (usually -4atk, -1 init) often led to players not bothering with maneuvers. I hated that. My solution was keeping the Called Shot penalty to get the effect, but if your attack roll succeeds a regular hit but misses the called shot, you still get your regular hit (basically those 4 points in between were still a success). Kinda risky when you want to do non-lethal strikes, but helped people get over their fear of maneuver penalties as you aren't really wasting a strike.

I say this because I dig OgreBattle's ideas and think we could implement several of those maneuvers by ruling Called Shots this way and using other available maneuvers like Hold Action, Parry, Full Parry, etc in dynamic combinations.

For example, Disruptive Shot would be during Action Declaration (before initiative) to Hold Action to "ranged" Parry said target. If you roll faster initiative you then wait until target attacks and then roll your attack roll to see if you parry it (possible maneuver penalty of -4atk). If you succeed, you parry that attack, if you succeed regular attack but failed the maneuver you just do a regular attack.

Assault in 2e is simply ruled as attacker following up your melee target. When they move, you are assumed to follow the movement with them. They don't get to disengage unless they turn and flee (which leaves them open to a free attack, but they then get full move IIRC), or there's another monster engaging your attacker allowing them to disengage up to around a quarter move -- which essentially is Cover. The bonus to atk/dmg for half move + attack following up your melee opponent is an interesting twist, though.

Defensive Fighting/Withdraw is roughly a blend of Full Parry, which is make no attacks or move and gain 1/3 lvl bonus AC, and Parry, which is declared against a target and if target successfully hits you trade in an attack for a to-hit roll to Parry.

All interesting ideas and I think doable without new mechanics if we cleaned up presentation of already available mechanics and figured new ways to combine them. It would be something I would find preferable to fiddling with new dice pools and Powers and POW meters and the like. I just want a DMG guideline for players to take complicated maneuver without fear of too many penalties wasting their actions. Granted it de facto introduces "degree of success" to AD&D to-hit rolls, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing, especially since it's not as notably conspicuous a mechanic.

I approve of OB's ideas but then again I find myself in agreement with a majority of his ideas concerning 3x. At least until he does what I did and just move on to Fantasy Craft. Because it's already done and proven to work.:)

The bonus is you can customize it because it already does what they're attempting with 5e. Modular game plugins.

In response to some of the ideas in this thread, I have never been a fan of AOO.


To allow Fighters to protect people, I prefer the following.


An Adjacent Fighter should provide some AC boost to the person he is protecting.

When an enemy ignores an adjacent fighter (does not attack the fighter, or attacks the protected ally)

The fighter should get a huge bonus to hit, and huge bonus to damage, the next time he attacks the enemy that ignored him.

Quote from: Telarus;570372I'll preface with: I totally respect your opinions there. The following are simply opinions also.



(Still holds true with ED3e) Sure, I said they were parallel concepts, not identical ones. I personally prefer the daily refresh time-frame (and the time-cost of a half-hour to perform the ritual) as Karma is an actual resource you have to manage over the course of an adventure.

I rewrote that response, but I left out that from an outsiders PoV 'refreshing on a daily timeframe' sounds like you get it all back everyday, when in ED it doesn't work that way.

Quote from: Telarus;570372I see CS dice as part of the same shift in focus as D&D3.x/4e's "Encounter basis" (moving away from managing strategic resources into purely short-term tactical play), even though "the Adventure" (or "the adventuring day") was supposed to be the focus of D&D Next.

D&D has always been based around short term tactical play, why spells are daily, why other abilities are mostly x/day(yes some are x/week).  

Quote from: Telarus;570372Let's just say that I don't agree with your second point, ED2e play was definitely different mechanically from ED1e (especially with a group of 8-9th Circle Adepts). Some of the ED3e changes were more radical (like the new Advancement system), but IMO that was a good evolution of the game system (it addressed the "cookie cutter Adept" syndrome).

Yes 2E was different, but the differences were minor compared to all of the changes 3E made.  It parallels what happened in D&D between 1,2,&3E.  I really didn't like that atmosphere coming from RB(more the 'fans' then RB, though they really didn't discourage it).  

Quote from: Telarus;570372Also, having spoken briefly with Lou Prosperi about the events of Barsaive At War/Barsaive in Chaos, I don't agree with how LRG handled the FASA notes for that portion of the timeline (and neither did my players, although at the time we didn't have anything else to compare it to, so were unsure why it didn't "feel quite right" when we played through both books).

[Note, this discussion happened on a dev forum and is probably covered under my NDA... although I fairly sure Lou has made similar comments in pulbic, so if I find an open discussion with the same points I'd be willing to discuss it further. ;) ]

Thanks, tho!

It's always nice to hear that someone _likes_ playing Earthdawn (no matter which edition).

Never been a fan of modules, but I really like how LRG did Barsaive At War/Barsaive in Chaos.  Wish all modules were done like that.

Quote from: Opaopajr;570401I say this because I dig OgreBattle's ideas and think we could implement several of those maneuvers by ruling Called Shots this way and using other available maneuvers like Hold Action, Parry, Full Parry, etc in dynamic combinations.
....
All interesting ideas and I think doable without new mechanics if we cleaned up presentation of already available mechanics and figured new ways to combine them. It would be something I would find preferable to fiddling with new dice pools and Powers and POW meters and the like.

Yeah, I think that's the crux of it. A lot of the things I've listed have already been done before in older editions, it's just not explicitely stated or it's scattered about. If... if they could just organize it as neatly and succinctly as spell lists are done (but put it in different borders or something to make it visually look different and more fighty, like a diagram that radiates out, with 'poise' in the middle)

Quote from: Marleycat;570411I approve of OB's ideas but then again I find myself in agreement with a majority of his ideas concerning 3x. At least until he does what I did and just move on to Fantasy Craft. Because it's already done and proven to work.:)

Thanks!
I've moved in the opposte direction and am playing Adventurer Conquerer King right now. It's play by post so expedience in combat is preferable.

I've just read the rules for combat superiority in the new playtest packet and I'm disappointed.

First off I don't approve of classes being given abilities that should be possible for any class to attempt. IMO the actions and effects granted by the manoeuvres Knock Down, Push, Parry and Tumble should be available for all characters to attempt. The only difference should be that some classes might be better at it than others. If one of my players (playing a cleric, a rogue or even a wizard) states that as part of his melee attack he'd like to try to push his enemy back, move through his enemies space to get behind or knock his enemy down I will reply with, "yes you can try that and this is what you have do do ... " I will not reply with, "no, only fighters can do that." Nor will I tolerate the player of the fighter complaining that only he is allowed to do such things, because he's got words on his character sheet that say as much.

Secondly, I can't quite figure out why the expertise die mechanic even exists. Take cleave for instance (sorry, I don't think the terms of the playtest agreement allow me to post the text from cleave), it allows you to "spend" your expertise die to attack another enemy when you have dropped another. It could well be written like this:

Cleave                  Fighter Utility
At-Will * Martial, Combat Manoeuvre
Free Action              Personal
Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer.
Effect: You make a melee attack on a creature within your reach.

Spending the die is surpluss to requirements.

Deadly strike allows you to spend your dice to deal extra damage. It could well be written like this:

Deadly Strike                  Fighter Utility
At-Will * Martial, Combat Manoeuvre
Free Action              Personal
Trigger: You hit a creature with a succesful weapon attack.
Effect: You deal 1d6 extra damage.
  Level 3: 1d8 extra damage.
  Level 5: 2d8 extra damage.

Spending the dice is pretty much surplus to requirements.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570359sometimes I want comprehensive, but the longer I have been gaming the more I really just want some light rules and rough guidelines. Totally fine with different Gms amd groups implementing those rough guidelines in different ways. I just find it frees the game up to focus more on other things. I think there is room for both approaches though. I'd rather have a wide selection of rules heavy, rules light and medium games than have a single approach in terms of how these things are handled in all games.

In a game I was dming yesterday I experienced a great example of game mechanics getting in the way of the actual game.

I was using a battlemap (That was my first mistake, but the players like using the map)

The plot was a duel between two members of a tribe to determine who would be chief. Started out with great roleplay.

Then the game mechanics ganked the roleplay.

The player starts wracking his brain how to squeeze bonuses from the battlemap and lapsed into gamespeak about aoo, reach weapons, flanking, flatfootedness, etc...etc...etc...

Totally ruined the roleplay flow.

And that's why I prefer rules light systems.

A rules light system lets you keep playing without 'attack of the gamespeak'

Right after the duel was resolved, the game flowed back into excellent roleplay.




"Conan slashes with his broadsword, brutally cutting down his enemy"
VS
"Conan might use power attack, but that could make his secondary attack miss, so maybe Conan will take a 5 foot step back, or charge, but wait, might lose his full attack....etc...etc..."



While the game session was great fun, and roleplay heavy, the lapse into "game mechanics mode" added nothing to the fun factor.


Rules light for the win.

Quote from: Orpheo;571157First off I don't approve of classes being given abilities that should be possible for any class to attempt. IMO the actions and effects granted by the manoeuvres Knock Down, Push, Parry and Tumble should be available for all characters to attempt. The only difference should be that some classes might be better at it than others. If one of my players (playing a cleric, a rogue or even a wizard) states that as part of his melee attack he'd like to try to push his enemy back, move through his enemies space to get behind or knock his enemy down I will reply with, "yes you can try that and this is what you have do do ... " I will not reply with, "no, only fighters can do that." Nor will I tolerate the player of the fighter complaining that only he is allowed to do such things, because he's got words on his character sheet that say as much.

Couldn't agree more. Chapeau, mate.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Orpheo;571157Deadly Strike                  Fighter Utility
At-Will * Martial, Combat Manoeuvre
Free Action              Personal
Trigger: You hit a creature with a succesful weapon attack.
Effect: You deal 1d6 extra damage.
  Level 3: 1d8 extra damage.
  Level 5: 2d8 extra damage.

Spending the dice is pretty much surplus to requirements.

My reading of the expertise dice is that you don't have to spend them all at once.  So say you're level 5 and have 2d8 expertise dice.  You could spend 1d8 on deadly strike to kill an opponent, and then the other d8 to activate cleave

Quote from: Sacrosanct;571237My reading of the expertise dice is that you don't have to spend them all at once.  So say you're level 5 and have 2d8 expertise dice.  You could spend 1d8 on deadly strike to kill an opponent, and then the other d8 to activate cleave

You are correct and I understood that before my post, but even that could be simply given as a number of uses per turn rather than a number of dice to spend. The dice are an unnecessary addition.

Quote from: Bill;571209A rules light system lets you keep playing without 'attack of the gamespeak'

Yarp. Without all the  jargon, players just actually relate what they are doing-what a concept!

I actually love detailed tactical combats when playing systems designed to handle them such as GURPS. Applying that level of crunch fixation on a combat system as abstract at its core as D&D is silly.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;571657Yarp. Without all the  jargon, players just actually relate what they are doing-what a concept!

I actually love detailed tactical combats when playing systems designed to handle them such as GURPS. Applying that level of crunch fixation on a combat system as abstract at its core as D&D is silly.

This is kind of how I feel about it. I prefer to have one or the other, not a mix of the two.

Quote from: Bill;571209"Conan might use power attack, but that could make his secondary attack miss, so maybe Conan will take a 5 foot step back, or charge, but wait, might lose his full attack....etc...etc..."

While the game session was great fun, and roleplay heavy, the lapse into "game mechanics mode" added nothing to the fun factor.

Rules light for the win.

Yeah. Magic users could really be improved if their world of warcraft toolbar (9 tiers of spells? HOW many spells per level? HOW many supplements?! fucking endless!) was just plain removed.
Like Shield, Blur, Mirror Image, Mage Armor, those are all basically "I am tougher to hit". Just give a generic boost and let the players flavor it as they want.
Or fireball and sleep. Both are spells that take people out. Do they really need to be different spells? No, it's just "game mechanics mode" that takes you from just roleplaying

What is the anti-fun of RPG's? Rules lawyers. How do you get rid of them? Take away their precious 'rules' and force them to 'role'.

Quote from: OgreBattle;571659Yeah. Magic users could really be improved if their world of warcraft toolbar (9 tiers of spells? HOW many spells per level? HOW many supplements?! fucking endless!) was just plain removed.
Like Shield, Blur, Mirror Image, Mage Armor, those are all basically "I am tougher to hit". Just give a generic boost and let the players flavor it as they want.
Or fireball and sleep. Both are spells that take people out. Do they really need to be different spells? No, it's just "game mechanics mode" that takes you from just roleplaying

What is the anti-fun of RPG's? Rules lawyers. How do you get rid of them? Take away their precious 'rules' and force them to 'role'.

I definitely can get behind this there are way too many spells that could be combined into one spell and if you want some granularity just use dice thresholds like Mage or other games. Shadowrun goes the right direction in that alot of the spells are multifunctional it's still too many but it is far better than any version of Dnd has ever done past 1e at best.