TheRPGSite

The link below takes you to an interesting article about the future marketing plans for D&D. I think it's a fascinating read, especially as it reveals how WotC plan to make D&D popular once more, and it's _not_ to do with coming up with an awesome game system:

Exclusive Interview on D&D (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26417.html)

Some key quotes:

Quote"Wizards of the Coast is launching Dungeons & Dragons:  The Sundering, a transmedia gaming event that spans game and fiction products, aggressively integrates organized play and mobile gaming into product development, and incorporates a licensing stream tied to the event.  The Sundering was first announced almost a year ago at Gen Con as a storyline for Forgotten Realms that would include six novels by different authors and two game products.  But as the full scale of the event unfolds, it's clear that those are only two aspects of a much bigger program leading to the Next edition of Dungeons and Dragons."

Quote"One of the things that's really exciting about this campaign is  players are going to have the opportunity to impact and shape the future of The Forgotten Realms and make their stories legend.  And so the way that these products all interact, the players, through their play at D&D Encounters will be able to go in and play and then report back the outcome of their play.  We're going to be collecting that data over the course of the campaign. "

Quote"This is the first campaign that we're aware of that is announced as being compatible with 3.5E, 4E and Next rules.  Can you explain why you expanded the types of rules that can be used with the Encounters program, and are those all in the book or are those in separate materials?

Schuh:  We really wanted to make sure that all D&D players could engage with this great adventure story and so we know that some people are playing with the playtest rules, some are diehard 4th Edition players, and we also wanted to open it up to people who may still be using 3.5 rules.  We think it really expands out the audience and lets all D&D players enjoy the fun.

A big part of this is shifting our emphasis away from the rules we're delivering to the great stories that we're delivering.  This is a great Sundering adventure; it lets people participate in the future of the Forgotten Realms; and for us, whatever rule set is their favorite rule set, that's great and we don't want to get in the way of that decision.  We want them to participate in this great story."

So...Living Greyhawk 2.0?

From stressing the rules to stressing organized play. Given the declining number of  game stores, I can't really see organized play as a way bring D&D to the masses.

Of course, my opinion may be colored by the fact that  I dislike organized play even more than I dislike the rules of the published WOTC editions of D&D.

Quote from: RandallS;678303From stressing the rules to stressing organized play. Given the declining number of  game stores, I can't really see organized play as a way bring D&D to the masses.

Of course, my opinion may be colored by the fact that  I dislike organized play even more than I dislike the rules of the published WOTC editions of D&D.

I would never do it. Sitting in a shop roleplaying competitively with a bunch of strangers? No thank you. I've seen the sorts of people who hang out in those shops.

Being very familiar with the example of the Legend of the Five Rings franchise, I wish WotC good luck in a strategy that will commit them to orchestrate an epic world-chundering interactive participatory cosmic crisis every 2 years or so.

Whenever there are these 'interactive' events that dictate a story in something, usually a TV series, I always cringe. It's like asking, "What is the worst possible idea that we could implement?"

I never gave a crap about FR, so all this article does is make me wonder what if anything they're doing with/about Greyhawk. :(

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678353I never gave a crap about FR, so all this article does is make me wonder what if anything they're doing with/about Greyhawk. :(

Yeah, pretty much.

My dream setting would be one like AD&D Greyhawk, where you can take any published adventure and just plop it down anywhere in the world, or even in your own homebrew world.  I was not a fan of having to read hundreds (or thousands) of pages of text just to play the game in FR and not risk major continuity issues.

Greyhawk easily allowed you to just use the map and maybe a few outline style references without needing to actually read up on Gary's personal way he populated the world.  Fighting the giants in G1-3?  Ok, these mountains over here look like a good place to do it.

If WOTC has no plans for Greyhawk I wish they would license it out and let a company who cares produce material for it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678364Greyhawk easily allowed you to just use the map and maybe a few outline style references without needing to actually read up on Gary's personal way he populated the world.  Fighting the giants in G1-3?  Ok, these mountains over here look like a good place to do it.

It helps that it's an awesome map.:)

This is a failure of a role playing game design. It's all about the franchise, not about the game, and it is likely to generate some revenue for Assbro. I'm just glad to have AD&D 1e to play with.

It's sad to see the Forgotten Realms tail wagging the D&D dog. However, from what I've seen WotC did show with Nentir Vale (http://nentirvale.wikidot.com/setting) that they're capable of creating a decent, unlicensed default setting. I hope they do something similar with Next - a small-scale region to place some published adventures in with enough support material to work with to flesh out with your own material.

As for shifting emphasis away from rules, Mearls has stated on several occasion that Next is moving away from the rules-crunch model, and that future material will be more about supporting stories and adventures. This, of course, caused the system-wanks and char op contingent to go nuts and claim that it just proves WotC doesn't care about design.

One of the things that interested me was that this will allow players to use 3.5, 4E and Next for their games. That's a lot of extra design work, so no wonder the development of Next is taking so long.

It also makes me wonder what they will do *after* Next is launched. Will events and/or modules be designed just for Next, or as multi-system supplements? Perhaps post-Next products will have a similar approach, but instead of proving information for several different rules sets, they will provide information of several different modular rules options?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678353I never gave a crap about FR, so all this article does is make me wonder what if anything they're doing with/about Greyhawk. :(

I think the sad thing is that the initial release of 3e made Greyhawk integrate into the D&D system itself, therefore blurring it's identity as a campaign world all its own.

We might see an original boxed set reprint or they'll do something to keep the trademark, but I suspect we won't see Greyhawk as an active campaign setting.

I just hope FR doesn't suffer the same fate.

Greyhawk was integrated in the rules (as fluff, anyway) as far back as AD&D: spell names, magic items, magic artifacts, (and this persisted into 2e when GH had been defenestrated) and most of the modules concerned themselves with Greyhawk locations.

All I saw as a "default integration" of GH into 3e was the campaign setting getting some love and GH deities and worship thereof being the focus of clerical matters, so it wasn't that much more integration.

To my mind the worst thing about that was that for some reason WotC felt compelled to try and make all post-Gygax Greyhawk material work also, instead of rightly ignoring it and picking up at '85 and moving forward.  So we wound up with a lot of (for example) Carl Sargent's work.

Being fair to him and others they were working against the best efforts of early post-Gygax TSR's attempts to wreck the GH campaign setting and trying to build a world-mythology that was as attractively rich as Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance.  I can't fault them for at least trying.  Regarding 3rd edition, to my mind, Paizo's heart was always in the right place even though there was some wonky stuff here and again.  I'm no "Greyhawk - regardless of edition!" guy, but Paizo working with Rob & Gary (more Rob, tho) to try and get some Greyhawk goodness out there was always a welcome effort...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678426All I saw as a "default integration" of GH into 3e was the campaign setting getting some love and GH deities and worship thereof being the focus of clerical matters, so it wasn't that much more integration.

Well, it's when they started making changes to GH deities regardless of their background that IMO it started to come apart slowly, and not publishing anything for it.  It slowly devalued the campaign setting in consumers and the developers eyes.  I also think the factionalized nature of the fan-base makes it less likely to get a reboot.

Like I said, we might get a reprint of classic GH, I wouldn't expect anything more than that.

Quote from: Glazer;678404One of the things that interested me was that this will allow players to use 3.5, 4E and Next for their games. That's a lot of extra design work, so no wonder the development of Next is taking so long.

My familiarity with 4E is spotty at best, but I would have thought it and 3E irreconcilable. Unless the material they plan to release is as vague and mechanic-less as possible..."In the trees behind the village are 1d6 goblins that are...pretty mean. You know. Slightly meaner than they averagely are. Tougher, I suppose...I don't want to offend anybody with this description."

//Panjumanju

I suspect we'll see Next stat blocks in the printed/pdf material, with stats for the other editions available online.

Quote from: Haffrung;678469I suspect we'll see Next stat blocks in the printed/pdf material, with stats for the other editions available online.

I can hear the gnashing of teeth already.  Christ, with this new packet, they changed some of the monsters from having the spell description included as a power like in 4e, to just a list of spells per level/typical spells memorized and people are losing their shit over it.

No fiction, I've seen people say that they can't play as a DM if a dark cleric has:

"Spells: 3/2: inflict wounds, cure wounds, silence, sanctuary, aid"

instead of:

Power: inflict wounds.  Target within 25' suffers 9 (2d8) points of damage on failed constitution save vs. DC 15."


I guess looking up the spell description is too hard.  I'd think you'd learn them eventually and not have to keep looking them up.  And I suppose a high level monster caster would have to be 5 pages long with nothing but spell descriptions.   Waste of paper and space, IMO

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678472I guess looking up the spell description is too hard.  I'd think you'd learn them eventually and not have to keep looking them up.  And I suppose a high level monster caster would have to be 5 pages long with nothing but spell descriptions.   Waste of paper and space, IMO

Coming from 3e, the simplified, self-contained monster stat blocks were the best thing about 4e, IMO.

Quote from: hexgrid;678501Coming from 3e, the simplified, self-contained monster stat blocks were the best thing about 4e, IMO.

Coming from 2e the complex, Byzantine stat-blocks were the worst thing about 3e.

So I guess we agree ;)

There is a happy medium.

I don't want designers to not give NPC mages a wide selection of spells because they take up to much space to reprint he rules. But having summaries of the most common attack is helpful.

Quote from: hexgrid;678501Coming from 3e, the simplified, self-contained monster stat blocks were the best thing about 4e, IMO.

Actually, I agree. One thing I dislike about 3E is the format where every monster is a fully stated NPC. Do I really need to know that the hobgoblin guard has a +2 skill in animal handling? I much preferred the 4E approach of monsters being monsters, and listing their relevant abilities in the stat block. And I was happy when I saw Next was taking the same approach. For example, the Asmadi Cultist in Next has a flaming weapon ability for 3d6. The cultist leader also has a beguiling ability that's explained right in the description. Cool. I don't need them all to be 3rd level clerics with a bunch of generic lvl 1 cleric spells. I frankly don't see why any monster short of a demon or a dragon needs more than two or three special abilities.

So chalk it up to another case of WotC veering back and forth and listening to whoever has their ear most recently.

While I agree on the stat blocks, I would still like to see monster descriptions go back to the 2e model. Will I always use the ecology of the monster? No, but it's nice to have it so as to have a generally accepted idea of where the monster should fit into the milieu.

Also, random monster encounter tables, dammit!

Quote from: hexgrid;678501Coming from 3e, the simplified, self-contained monster stat blocks were the best thing about 4e, IMO.

I personally find stat blocks to be the least useful part of a monster's description. I'd love it if WoTC took a cue from the recent Hacklopedia:

(http://www.kenzerco.com/images/rpg/hackmaster_adv/owlbeast.png)

http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf (http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf)

Quote from: TristramEvans;678658I personally find stat blocks to be the least useful part of a monster's description. I'd love it if WoTC took a cue from the recent Hacklopedia:

(http://www.kenzerco.com/images/rpg/hackmaster_adv/owlbeast.png)

http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf (http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf)

I like that. Reminds me of WFRP's Old World Bestiary.

Quote from: Haffrung;678662I like that. Reminds me of WFRP's Old World Bestiary.

Indeed, another one I liked, even if it was way too little for too much money at the time.

Actually my favorite "monster manual" isn't an rpg product at all but DiTerlizzi's (of Planescape fame) Spiderwick's Field Guide

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JTZ41N1EL._SX_.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VKGNHG5KL._SX_.jpg)

(http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/books/promos/a-plus/spiderwick.manticores.jpg)

Quote from: The_Rooster;678328Whenever there are these 'interactive' events that dictate a story in something, usually a TV series, I always cringe. It's like asking, "What is the worst possible idea that we could implement?"

Maybe it would work if they did the opposite of what people voted for?

Quote from: Piestrio;678508Coming from 2e the complex, Byzantine stat-blocks were the worst thing about 3e.

So I guess we agree ;)

Complexity of stat blocks slows play and puts the emphasis on the wrong things.  It also led to all sorts of oddities (polymorph, anyone) since the focus was on the mechanics and not the way that the creature makes the adventure interesting (aka ecology).  

I did like how 4E managed to work in all of the relevant material.  I do know that I am starting to find Pathfinder stat blocks hard to work with now that it is getting too hard to memorize all of the different feats and they are scattered across many books.  I'd almost rather lose the space than need to make extensive notes for half of the encounters in an adventure path.

Quote from: Votan;678689Complexity of stat blocks slows play and puts the emphasis on the wrong things.  It also led to all sorts of oddities (polymorph, anyone) since the focus was on the mechanics and not the way that the creature makes the adventure interesting (aka ecology).  

I did like how 4E managed to work in all of the relevant material.  I do know that I am starting to find Pathfinder stat blocks hard to work with now that it is getting too hard to memorize all of the different feats and they are scattered across many books.  I'd almost rather lose the space than need to make extensive notes for half of the encounters in an adventure path.

I went from liking pathfinder to loathing it the more I ran it. Why?

Useless overly complicated stat blocks.

I prefer simple statblocks.

Memorizing feat combinations and all that crap, multiple attacks, etc...is just a distraction from the actual game.

Th stat block was most sublime as a stat line. It is hard to improve upon elegance.

Quote from: Opaopajr;678906Th stat block was most sublime as a stat line. It is hard to improve upon elegance.

Yup.  I like the "Stat blocks" in G1, myself: This room contains 12 trolls (HP: 36, 29, 27, 25, 21, -) (and so on)...and then notes their treasure.  A quick glance at the Monster Manual during game prep tells you what you need to know : regenerate 3hp/round after the 3rd round, don't regenerate acid and fire damage, can reattach severed limbs, are 6+6hd monsters...and you're alls et.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678913Yup.  I like the "Stat blocks" in G1, myself: This room contains 12 trolls (HP: 36, 29, 27, 25, 21, -) (and so on)...and then notes their treasure.  A quick glance at the Monster Manual during game prep tells you what you need to know : regenerate 3hp/round after the 3rd round, don't regenerate acid and fire damage, can reattach severed limbs, are 6+6hd monsters...and you're alls et.

I dislike referring to the MM in play. I prefer the method used in adventures like Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, where the body of the adventure only shows your troll format above, but there's a page at the back of the book with the full stats for all of the monsters in the adventure. Then you can tear out or copy that page and have it as a handy one-stop reference.

Quote from: Haffrung;678917I dislike referring to the MM in play. I prefer the method used in adventures like Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, where the body of the adventure only shows your troll format above, but there's a page at the back of the book with the full stats for all of the monsters in the adventure. Then you can tear out or copy that page and have it as a handy one-stop reference.

Me as well.  That was one thing I didn't like about the old modules.  After a while you have everything memorized anyway, but I didn't like having to flip to a different book.  I much prefer the key stats of a monster to be included in the adventure encounter.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;678913Yup.  I like the "Stat blocks" in G1, myself: This room contains 12 trolls (HP: 36, 29, 27, 25, 21, -) (and so on)...and then notes their treasure.  A quick glance at the Monster Manual during game prep tells you what you need to know : regenerate 3hp/round after the 3rd round, don't regenerate acid and fire damage, can reattach severed limbs, are 6+6hd monsters...and you're alls et.

Say what?

You mean you're not a fan of :

TROLL HOBBITHUMPER (Large Perverted Humaniod)

AC 26,  FORT 23,  REF 16, WILL 13 HP 225

At-Will Claw 1d12 +6

Encounter Bite 3d10+4

Encounter Rear violation (Recharge 1-2) : 1d10 +STR modifier damage and target is appalled. Save ends.

Biggest thing that will make me ignore a new module is if it does not have essential monster data in the module.

I get really annoyed when I see "3 Trolls; MM page 101"  Gee thanks.

My optimal preference is how some of the AD&D modules did

trolls, 2ea (HP: 36, 39   AC: 5   AT: 3   Dmg: 1d8/1d8/1d12   SA: n/a   SD: regen 3 hp/rnd   SA: F6,   XP: 450)



I just made those numbers up, but you get the point.  Nothing huge or space wasting, but having key stats right there.

BROMUTH THE ORC: SZ M; MV 90 ft.; AC 6; HD 1; HP 7; #AT 1; DMG 1-6 spear. 12 GP, 15 SP carried.

Can't beat that, IMO.

Agreed, that format is perfect.

Quote from: Benoist;678929BROMUTH THE ORC: SZ M; MV 90 ft.; AC 6; HD 1; HP 7; #AT 1; DMG 1-6 spear. 12 GP, 15 SP carried.

Can't beat that, IMO.

Yep. Back when GMing 2e I found writing up monster stats to be incredibly fast and Easy whereas 3e had me looking up the MM (and other books) all the time, not to mention that creating scenarios for 3e was way more work (and the fact that 3e's balance issues Are completely different from 2e's (wich I don't have an issue with)).

The FR clusterfuck aside, it'll be interesting to see how the "adventures designed for multiple systems" works out for them. I know that, IME, the mechanical differences between pre-4E and 4E made it very difficult to run adventures designed for the former in the latter (and vice versa) without a significant loss of quality.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;678472I can hear the gnashing of teeth already.  Christ, with this new packet, they changed some of the monsters from having the spell description included as a power like in 4e, to just a list of spells per level/typical spells memorized and people are losing their shit over it.

That's unsurprising. Including all the information necessary to use a monster in the monster's stat block is a huge boon to utility.

The mistake is believing that you have to choose between:

(a) Not including that information, or
(b) Making every monster power a unique, special snowflake

The correct course of action is to reuse common abilities (so that they can be learned and mastered across multiple creatures) while also including all the immediately pertinent information in the stat block.

Quote from: The Ent;679037Yep. Back when GMing 2e I found writing up monster stats to be incredibly fast and Easy whereas 3e had me looking up the MM (and other books) all the time, not to mention that creating scenarios for 3e was way more work (and the fact that 3e's balance issues Are completely different from 2e's (wich I don't have an issue with)).

This, of course, is just nonsense. I will never comprehend the mindset that in AD&D you could just use the default orc out of the Monster Manual, but in 3E the WotC Gaming Police would break your kneecaps if you didn't fully customized ever stat block in your home campaign.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;679108This, of course, is just nonsense. I will never comprehend the mindset that in AD&D you could just use the default orc out of the Monster Manual, but in 3E the WotC Gaming Police would break your kneecaps if you didn't fully customized ever stat block in your home campaign.

I find that it's better not to put words that are only visible to you between the words that you're quoting. Works wonders.

Unless you're pissed of course, then it's fair game.

Quote from: The_Rooster;678328Whenever there are these 'interactive' events that dictate a story in something, usually a TV series, I always cringe. It's like asking, "What is the worst possible idea that we could implement?"

From Where No Man Has Gone Before, the (unlicensed) d20 RPG for Classic Star Trek:

Ratings And The Rule Of Those Who Must Be Obeyed.
After every episode, roll a die to find out how the show did in the ratings war, or simply assign one based on a snap value
judgment or show of hands: 1d6, 1 - Terrible (-4), 2 - Poorly (-2), 3 - 4 Average, 5 - Successful (+2), 6 - Smashing Success (+4). Then roll again with a d20 to find out if the Network Executives plan to do something about it, adding in the bonuses given in parentheses.
If the roll is greater than 19 or less than 2, roll on the table (d20) below to see what dreadful changes are
wrought. If the ratings were good, the players have veto power on the first roll (but must accept the second result).

Monkey sidekick.
Crew member fired and replaced by (roll d6: 1-2 member of opposite sex, 3-4 member of different ethnic group, 5-6 new species). New crew member will be as nearly identical to original character as possible, save for the different race/sex/ethnic group.
Costume changes.
Kid sidekick.
Laugh track added/removed.
Show needs more cowboys.
New love interest for random character.
Show too confusing--narrator added.
Budget cuts--scripts now recycled from old Shakespeare plays and "I Love Lucy" episodes
for the next 1d6 episodes.
More budget cuts--for the next d6 episodes, sets will be recycled from (roll randomly each episode, 1d6: 1 Roman set, 2 cowboys and Indians, 3 war movies, 4 "modern" 60's era set, 5
gangster movie, 6 H. R. Puf'n'stuff).
Show not sexy enough--short skirts and bulging chests for everyone.
Show too sexy. Tone it down or face the consequences.
Networks demand that every episode have an explicit moral.
Hot shot actor/actress makes cameo. Choose one at random. Bonus points for bad caricatures and impressions.
Show not British enough.
Show too British, make it more French.
Show needs to be more educational.
Show not religious enough, Jesus added as new character.
Annoying robot sidekick added.
Roll twice.

Quote from: The Ent;679037Yep. Back when GMing 2e I found writing up monster stats to be incredibly fast and Easy whereas 3e had me looking up the MM (and other books) all the time, not to mention that creating scenarios for 3e was way more work (and the fact that 3e's balance issues Are completely different from 2e's (wich I don't have an issue with)).

After writing the revised Thieves of Badabaskor for Goodman Games I never want to write another 3e style stat block again. Talk about being picky and detailed obsessed. Hell even GURPS doesn't have as complicated stat blocks as 3e.

Quote from: estar;679312After writing the revised Thieves of Badabaskor for Goodman Games I never want to write another 3e style stat block again. Talk about being picky and detailed obsessed. Hell even GURPS doesn't have as complicated stat blocks as 3e.

The statblocks in 3X slowly converted me from somone who liked 3X to someone who can't stand to gm it now. I can play it but all that useless extra crap statblock stuff made gming it a chore for me.

Quote from: Bill;679313The statblocks in 3X slowly converted me from somone who liked 3X to someone who can't stand to gm it now. I can play it but all that useless extra crap statblock stuff made gming it a chore for me.

My road to Castles & Crusades and then on to OSR games started out with me, as a DM, getting burned out on stating things up for 3e. I was initially enthusiastic about all the options and customizability, but that wore off as the extra work began to make DMing less fun and more of a chore.

Quote from: Dimitrios;679317My road to Castles & Crusades and then on to OSR games started out with me, as a DM, getting burned out on stating things up for 3e. I was initially enthusiastic about all the options and customizability, but that wore off as the extra work began to make DMing less fun and more of a chore.

I also started comparing the 'chore' factor to HERO.

I realized that HERO requires up front work, but once you have that done it is a breeze.

3X has slightly less up front chore work, but straps a huge weight on your back forever; the chore remains all the time.

Quote from: estar;679312After writing the revised Thieves of Badabaskor for Goodman Games I never want to write another 3e style stat block again. Talk about being picky and detailed obsessed. Hell even GURPS doesn't have as complicated stat blocks as 3e.

There was a prolific reviewer back in the day who used to review lots of 3E adventures, including the Necromancer Games stuff I was using. An essential part of his reviews was analyzing the stat blocks to make sure all the feats, stats, and numbers jibed and were legal. If they didn't, the adventure was more or less 'broken' in his eyes.

That's when I realized the emergent playstyle of WotC D&D was hostile to my preferences.

The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

Quote from: Haffrung;679328The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

Adventure paths perhaps?

It would be interesting to see some data on the number of Pathfinder GMs who primarily use  APs vs those who mostly homebrew.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679334Adventure paths perhaps?

It would be interesting to see some data on the number of Pathfinder GMs who primarily use  APs vs those who mostly homebrew.

Yeah, I think Paizo definitely sells the game via the APs. But I've actually seen admissions on the part of Paizo's brass that a lot of people don't play out the APs to conclusion because  they find high-level play onerous. And that's where everything in the campaign - the adventures, maps, NPCs, stats, etc. - is already laid out on a platter for the DM.

Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

Quote from: Bobloblah;679336Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

So that suggests they're doing well at attracting new DMs to fill the ranks.

Quote from: Haffrung;679335Yeah, I think Paizo definitely sells the game via the APs. But I've actually seen admissions on the part of Paizo's brass that a lot of people don't play out the APs to conclusion because  they find high-level play onerous. And that's where everything in the campaign - the adventures, maps, NPCs, stats, etc. - is already laid out on a platter for the DM.

It's surprised me how persistent the "every campaign will run the full gamut from level 1 to level 36 (or 100, or 1 billion or whatever)" idea has been since WotC introduced it with 3e. It was the one thing that I houseruled right out of the box to achieve the older "speed through levels 1-3, slower through levels 4-8, really slow down from level 9 on up" sort of progression.

There are all sorts of issues that only become problems in high level play, which is why the default was to make it rare. Slowing down the level progression seems like such an easy fix compared to the various other things people have tried (such as revising the game beyond recognition...;)).

Quote from: Haffrung;679328The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

I know there are at least a couple of long running Pathfinder games run locally where the DM has ended up really simplifying a lot of rules and have started basically building NPCs by just eyeballing them.

Quote from: Bobloblah;679336Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

I burned out on Pathfinder.

After my last Dark Sun setting game using Pathfinder I finally realized the system was not for me.

Quote from: Dimitrios;679342There are all sorts of issues that only become problems in high level play, which is why the default was to make it rare. Slowing down the level progression seems like such an easy fix compared to the various other things people have tried (such as revising the game beyond recognition...;)).

If I was in charge of D&D Next, I'd make the standard game levels 1-10 and have an optional rules package for high-level play. My guess is no more than about 20 per cent of groups play past 10 anyway (not counting 4E, which like everything else, has a different leveling model). Even with a very rapid leveling pace of every second session, no TPKs, and weekly sessions, it would take half a year of real time to max out. At leveling every third session, and sessions twice a month, it's a year and a half.

Quote from: Haffrung;679379If I was in charge of D&D Next, I'd make the standard game levels 1-10 and have an optional rules package for high-level play. My guess is no more than about 20 per cent of groups play past 10 anyway (not counting 4E, which like everything else, has a different leveling model). Even with a very rapid leveling pace of every second session, no TPKs, and weekly sessions, it would take half a year of real time to max out. At leveling every third session, and sessions twice a month, it's a year and a half.

I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679395I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still ;)

I think there is a whole lot more building and theorizing about level 20 than there is actual play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679395I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still ;)

It is weird.

I don't know anybody IRL that's reached level 20. the closest I got was 18 before the campaign ended... mainly because D&D frankly does not really work at those sort of levels.

Quote from: jadrax;679411It is weird.

I don't know anybody IRL that's reached level 20. the closest I got was 18 before the campaign ended... mainly because D&D is frankly does not really work at thous sort of levels.

So maybe the 2 editions should be called:

"Actual Play Edition"
 
and

"Internet Theory Edition"


:D

Quote from: jadrax;679411It is weird.

I don't know anybody IRL that's reached level 20. the closest I got was 18 before the campaign ended... mainly because D&D frankly does not really work at those sort of levels.

It can work just fine. We played Basic D&D well into the 20's. After 14-15th level or so, the game became largely about domain management, leading armies, with the occasional "adventure" featuring the exploration/combat dynamic of lower levels.

If you just keep running dungeons at those levels, yeah it kind of falls apart. 3E didn't really provide much for domain style play. It was just bigger numbers and more of the same. The focus was still on personal abilities,and gear building instead of politics & larger world issues.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678658I personally find stat blocks to be the least useful part of a monster's description. I'd love it if WoTC took a cue from the recent Hacklopedia:

(http://www.kenzerco.com/images/rpg/hackmaster_adv/owlbeast.png)

http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf (http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf)

That's a 7 page document for one monster, with 1.5 pages devoted to stats, and 3.5 pages devoted to a short story involving the monster.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679430It can work just fine. We played Basic D&D well into the 20's. After 14-15th level or so, the game became largely about domain management, leading armies, with the occasional "adventure" featuring the exploration/combat dynamic of lower levels.

If you just keep running dungeons at those levels, yeah it kind of falls apart. 3E didn't really provide much for domain style play. It was just bigger numbers and more of the same. The focus was still on personal abilities,and gear building instead of politics & larger world issues.

I got my Pathfinder campaign to 20th-21st level... and the amount of rule-bending, and custom house-ruling to make it work in context was pretty massive.

We had everything - Armies smashing into one another, Gods dying, interplanar travel, genocide (drow), tons of political intrigue, summoning Asmodeus, dirty sex with Glasya, raising a pantheon from the ashes, slaughtering Lich-queens, genocide(Gold dwarves), almost had a third genocide but the players were on the ball and saved these halflings (who secretly caused the first two genocides, ironically) - really really epic shit that just came about naturally.

It wasn't easy, but it was cool as hell.

I'll never use that ruleset for that level of play *AGAIN*. *EVER*.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679430It can work just fine. We played Basic D&D well into the 20's. After 14-15th level or so, the game became largely about domain management, leading armies, with the occasional "adventure" featuring the exploration/combat dynamic of lower levels.

One of my big disappointments in 3+e was the removal of the "elder game".  Though I guess that goes hand-in-hand with the presumption of "campaign = these four characters" vs. "campaign = a whole bunch of characters run by a bunch of players within the same world".

Quote from: Mistwell;679439That's a 7 page document for one monster, with 1.5 pages devoted to stats, and 3.5 pages devoted to a short story involving the monster.

Yes, glorious isn't it? I could do without the short story, but the rest is wonderful. And the stats really take up .5 of one page, there are three variations of the monster presented

Latest Hacklopedia of Beasts is simply the best Monster Book ever made.

"Glorious" is dead-on, no hyperbole.

Quote from: TristramEvans;678658I personally find stat blocks to be the least useful part of a monster's description. I'd love it if WoTC took a cue from the recent Hacklopedia:

(http://www.kenzerco.com/images/rpg/hackmaster_adv/owlbeast.png)

http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf (http://www.kenzerco.com/free_files/owlbeast.pdf)

That's much the same as RuneQuest. Very good!

Sounds OK, except who the fuck wants to read a 3 page short story? Game fiction is almost always terrible.

Quote from: TristramEvans;679500Yes, glorious isn't it? I could do without the short story, but the rest is wonderful. And the stats really take up .5 of one page, there are three variations of the monster presented

Oh I like it! But, I am imagining how big that monster manual would have to be, and wondering if the binding, or my bookshelf, could take it.  I am willing to risk it though.

Quote from: jadrax;679411It is weird.

I don't know anybody IRL that's reached level 20. the closest I got was 18 before the campaign ended... mainly because D&D frankly does not really work at those sort of levels.

I've been in several 3.x campaigns that have gotten to 20th or beyond - trying to count it, I get three that I played in, and two I GMd. One of the ones I GM'd in 3.0 went to about level 27.
Most of those started with about level 5 characters, though; the epic level one I ran started with recycled characters from other campaigns of about 8th-11th level at the time, though most of those had started much lower.  One of the others I played in had a montage where the GM skipped the PCs from 10th to 15th or so, also. I get the impression a lot of people play 3E starting at higher levels.

Quote from: Bill;679313The statblocks in 3X slowly converted me from somone who liked 3X to someone who can't stand to gm it now. I can play it but all that useless extra crap statblock stuff made gming it a chore for me.

The piece that breaks it for me is the feats.  I can't just use published monsters to fix this problem, either, because they keep expanding the range of material from which feats and magic items are coming from.  They don't even give things like the value of magic items to make it easy to swap them around.  

As the number of sourcebooks increases, I can no longer keep what everything does in my head.  I have actually been a lot more successful with 3.5E core only because I am quite capable of memorizing the feats, common spells and common magic items from that book.  Pathfinder adds complexity, and it only increases as splat book material leaks into the adventure paths.

And I did the Serpent's Skull one from start to finish with a pretty patient group but it was getting tricky by book six. I did one and two of Rise of the Runelords but the 3.5E one has a likely TPK in book 2 if the opponent is intelligent and the players aren't forewarned.

Quote from: Haffrung;679328The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

A wealth of quality support material. The same with GURPS and several other detailed RPGs (mechanics or settings).

Aside from the page count bloat I feel that 3.5/pathfinder style stat blocks works well as a playing aid. A compact method of conveying a complete set of statistics about a creature or NPCs. I don't think it necessary by any means but it works for its intended purpose.

My feeling on creating one however is a different story.