Over at Amazing Stories.
I think the first section about what went wrong with D&D is most interesting bit.
http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/ (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/)
Quote"What we found through the playtest process, though, was that people like quick fights. They like them a lot, it turns out. A battle is part of the game, a point of resolution in the grander scheme of things, not the entire point of the game. That kind of philosophical revelation has been really big for us in working on the game. We might've ended up spending weeks adding detail to the combat system, never realizing that the typical D&D player simply wasn't interested in that level of detail."
Yes, yes, yes.
I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with just about everything he said. Right on target. Especially this part:
QuoteSo, how did we get here? My belief is that RPG creators have lost touch with what makes our games so interesting. In the rush to create new rules, we've lost sight of the fact that the rules aren't the point of the game. The interaction around the table, the give and take between players and DMs, the randomness supplied by a half-dozen people and the vagaries of the dice, are what make D&D, and RPG play in general, interesting.
Yeah, the folks at WotC finally seem to have recognized how D&D veered into a rut in the last 10 years. The RAW tactical system-wonks held the game hostage for too long. But it's still going to be a struggle tearing it out of their clammy hands.
[QUOTE: Mearls from article]
So, how did we get here? My belief is that RPG creators have lost touch with what makes our games so interesting. In the rush to create new rules, we’ve lost sight of the fact that the rules aren’t the point of the game. The interaction around the table, the give and take between players and DMs, the randomness supplied by a half-dozen people and the vagaries of the dice, are what make D&D, and RPG play in general, interesting.[END QUOTE]
This is the fucking money quote right here. I'm still waiting on any of this lip service to make an appearance in a playtest packet.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;642530This is the fucking money quote right here. I'm still waiting on any of this lip service to make an appearance in a playtest packet.
I can only speak for myself of course, but I found it pretty easy to ignore all the movement rules and just play like we do in AD&D and wing it.
FWIW.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;642532I can only speak for myself of course, but I found it pretty easy to ignore all the movement rules and just play like we do in AD&D and wing it.
FWIW.
Its easy enough to also skip the ponderous crap and just play AD&D. If WOTC wants to sell a new edition then a packet full of stuff that is largely good for ignoring isn't a strong sell.
For once I would just like to see the product match the lip service.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;642535Its easy enough to also skip the ponderous crap and just play AD&D. If WOTC wants to sell a new edition then a packet full of stuff that is largely good for ignoring isn't a strong sell.
For once I would just like to see the product match the lip service.
So what, specifically, would you expect to see in D&D Next to demonstrate this commitment?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;642535Its easy enough to also skip the ponderous crap and just play AD&D. .
Except there are things about Next that I may like better than AD&D. Being able to houserule a system doesn't mean that AD&D is the default best game out of that pool. Now, I really do like AD&D1e (my preferred edition), but there are aspects of Next that I like better. Specifically backgrounds and specialties. For example, I have my halfling fighter who has stealth abilities without the need to multi-class. I like that.
Quote from: Haffrung;642538So what, specifically, would you expect to see in D&D Next to demonstrate this commitment?
Some exploration rules that weren't a regimented turn-taking, die rolling wankfest would have been good start.
I want the idea that if you're not making a success roll for something then it has no real value/meaning in the game to die in a fucking fire.
Until that happens its all gum flapping.
Quote from: Haffrung;642538So what, specifically, would you expect to see in D&D Next to demonstrate this commitment?
I want to see a "basic" or "default" system that:
1. Doesn't presuppose a grid (although grids may be helpful from time to time).
2. Supports a relatively smooth transition from exploration & scouting to combat and back again.
3. Is easy to learn and teach.
4. Allows for DM discretion.
5. Avoids "featlocking."
6. Encourages player imagination and creativity in problem-solving.
7. Builds complexity from the ground up, so that individual groups can add things on to their tastes, rather than trying to selectively ignore or hack apart more complex "default" systems.
Mostly, I want them to get the more complicated rules sets the hell out of my way.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;642542Except there are things about Next that I may like better than AD&D. Being able to houserule a system doesn't mean that AD&D is the default best game out of that pool. Now, I really do like AD&D1e (my preferred edition), but there are aspects of Next that I like better. Specifically backgrounds and specialties. For example, I have my halfling fighter who has stealth abilities without the need to multi-class. I like that.
It's easy enough to houserule back in 1e. Thedungeondelver and I really liked the themes (now "backgrounds") of Next and talked about using them in AD&D. It's totally feasible to do just that.
Quote from: Benoist;642559It's easy enough to houserule back in 1e. Thedungeondelver and I really liked the themes (now "backgrounds") of Next and talked about using them in AD&D. It's totally feasible to do just that.
Yeah but are they still in, like they were in the early playtest? I've gotta say the last three or four playtests were utterly alien to me.
Quote from: Saplatt;642556I want to see a "basic" or "default" system that:
1. Doesn't presuppose a grid (although grids may be helpful from time to time).
2. Supports a relatively smooth transition from exploration & scouting to combat and back again.
3. Is easy to learn and teach.
4. Allows for DM discretion.
5. Avoids "featlocking."
6. Encourages player imagination and creativity in problem-solving.
7. Builds complexity from the ground up, so that individual groups can add things on to their tastes, rather than trying to selectively ignore or hack apart more complex "default" systems.
Mostly, I want them to get the more complicated rules sets the hell out of my way.
Have you actually read the D&D Next playtest rules? Because they seem to hit on all points.
Quote from: Haffrung;642601Have you actually read the D&D Next playtest rules? Because they seem to hit on all points.
I've read a couple versions of the rules and I'm fine with most of what they've done. Would I chose a more polished version of what they are doing over 4e? Yes. Over Pathfinder or 3.5? Yes. Over AD&D? Probably. Over BECMI? Maybe. Over Castles & Crusades? Maybe.
A lot of that depends on the packaging. If I wind up having to buy tons of advanced rules that I'll never use just in order to get the basics, I might pass.
But they don't seem to be in any rush and neither am I. So I'll just wait and see.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;642570Yeah but are they still in, like they were in the early playtest? I've gotta say the last three or four playtests were utterly alien to me.
I have nooo idea. I haven't been following the latest playtest packets. I just assumed they're still there under the name "backgrounds". Aren't they?
Quote from: Benoist;642642I have nooo idea. I haven't been following the latest playtest packets. I just assumed they're still there under the name "backgrounds". Aren't they?
They are. E.g., my halfling fighter is a bounty hunter background, with a skulker specialty. An added feature I like about the fighter's maneuvers you can choose from is that because my fighter wears only light armor, one of his maneuvers is a parry where he can add his expertise dice to his AC if needed. It's a mechanical way to allow me to play an archetype (lightly armored halfling assassin) without having to worry about multi-classing or sacrificing potency.
Quote from: Benoist;642642I have nooo idea. I haven't been following the latest playtest packets. I just assumed they're still there under the name "backgrounds". Aren't they?
There are Backgrounds (skill packages) and Specialties (feat packages). The latter were called Themes in the first playtest. Backgrounds were in all the playtests as well and were called Backgrounds througout.
Quote from: Mike MearlsSo, how did we get here? My belief is that RPG creators have lost touch with what makes our games so interesting.
Heh, he must not play a lot of RPGs outside of D&D :)
Quote from: Mike MearlsIn the rush to create new rules, we've lost sight of the fact that the rules aren't the point of the game. The interaction around the table, the give and take between players and DMs, the randomness supplied by a half-dozen people and the vagaries of the dice, are what make D&D, and RPG play in general, interesting.
Wow, I guess that DOES make Talisman, Arkham Horror, and every other boardgame equivalent to an RPG, cause it's about the people baby! But why stop there, as anything with interaction, conversation, and randomness is just as good.
D&D Next is doomed.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642685Wow, I guess that DOES make Talisman, Arkham Horror, and every other boardgame equivalent to an RPG, cause it's about the people baby! But why stop there, as anything with interaction, conversation, and randomness is just as good.
D&D Next is doomed.
You're either really dumb or really reaching.
Quote from: Piestrio;642703You're either really dumb or really reaching.
No reason why it can't be both.
Quote from: 1of3;642667There are Backgrounds (skill packages) and Specialties (feat packages). The latter were called Themes in the first playtest. Backgrounds were in all the playtests as well and were called Backgrounds througout.
In the first
public playtest, you mean. During the friends and family closed playtest, there were no "Specialties" or what was called "Themes" with the first public playtest, and what was called "Backgrounds" in the first public playtest was instead known as "Themes" at the time.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;642528I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with just about everything he said. Right on target. Especially this part:
Preach it brother!
Quote from: Benoist;642725In the first public playtest, you mean. During the friends and family closed playtest, there where no "Specialties" or what was called "Themes" with the first public playtest, and what was called "Backgrounds" in the first public playtest was instead known as "Themes" at the time.
Yeah; I'd consider allowing Themes (as they were in the earliest playtests) in to AD&D.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642685Heh, he must not play a lot of RPGs outside of D&D :)
Wow, I guess that DOES make Talisman, Arkham Horror, and every other boardgame equivalent to an RPG, cause it's about the people baby! But why stop there, as anything with interaction, conversation, and randomness is just as good.
D&D Next is doomed.
We should light that giant strawman you just built, and call it Burning Man.
Quote from: Mistwell;642763We should light that giant strawman you just built, and call it Burning Man.
Which one? The one that rules are not the 'point'? That doesn't even make sense. The point of an RPG (if there can be said to have one) is to socialize over a shared activity, but Mearls has done nothing to actually
define what that activity IS, and basically added that defining that activity is not the point.
I'm sorry so many here seem to feel so marginalized by having rules, but if D&D Next doesn't clearly define itself with its rules, then you guys are gonna be the only ones playing (or more likely complaining about) it.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642949Which one? The one that rules are not the 'point'? That doesn't even make sense. The point of an RPG (if there can be said to have one) is to socialize over a shared activity, but Mearls has done nothing to actually define what that activity IS, and basically added that defining that activity is not the point.
I'm sorry so many here seem to feel so marginalized by having rules, but if D&D Next doesn't clearly define itself with its rules, then you guys are gonna be the only ones playing (or more likely complaining about) it.
The
system is defined by its rules.
The
game is defined by the people running/playing it.
The
system is merely a tool used to facilitatate the game. It is not in itself, the game.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642949Which one? The one that rules are not the 'point'? That doesn't even make sense. The point of an RPG (if there can be said to have one) is to socialize over a shared activity, but Mearls has done nothing to actually define what that activity IS, and basically added that defining that activity is not the point.
I'm sorry so many here seem to feel so marginalized by having rules, but if D&D Next doesn't clearly define itself with its rules, then you guys are gonna be the only ones playing (or more likely complaining about) it.
I'm guessing the core game alone will have at least 40 pages of rules. That will make it a more complex game than 95 per cent of the boardgames on the market.
No, it doesn't look like it will be tailored to power-gaming fetishists who take the books home to parse for weeks to come up with half-broken combos and then complain that the game is half-broken. And it's not aiming for the OCD, antisocial RAW misfits who find it impossible to improvise and compromise around a table with friends. Those two groups have proven detrimental to the game, and WotC has wisely turned its back on them.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642949Which one? The one that rules are not the 'point'? That doesn't even make sense. The point of an RPG (if there can be said to have one) is to socialize over a shared activity, but Mearls has done nothing to actually define what that activity IS, and basically added that defining that activity is not the point.
I'm sorry so many here seem to feel so marginalized by having rules, but if D&D Next doesn't clearly define itself with its rules, then you guys are gonna be the only ones playing (or more likely complaining about) it.
The game has rules. Clearly defined rules. He didn't say the game would not have rules. You took a small part of what he said, exaggerated it to extreme and ridiculous levels, and then bashed your extremist reinterpretation of it.
And what he said was based on feedback they are getting in overwhelming amounts. You're feeling marginalized, which I understand. It explains why you'd exaggerate like that, and why you'd react like this when people call you on it.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642685D&D Next is doomed.
Yes, but for different reasons than you have stated.
Quote from: Haffrung;642959Those two groups have proven detrimental to the game, and WotC has wisely turned its back on them.
Power gaming fetishists and OCD RAW misfits have made Paizo #1. I don't know if there are enough gamers left around for D&D Next to cater to.
Quote from: Mistwell;642974The game has rules. Clearly defined rules. He didn't say the game would not have rules.
Cool, then you can tell me how those rules
support Mike Mearls' stated goals for D&D Next.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643020Cool, then you can tell me how those rules support Mike Mearls' stated goals for D&D Next.
If you read the context of what you're responding to (which I know runs counter to your intent, which was to take it out of context and pretend it was something it was not) he explains what he means in the very next sentence as "The interaction around the table, the give and take between players and DMs, the randomness supplied by a half-dozen people and the vagaries of the dice"
He then gives an example:
Quote from: MearlsWhat we found through the playtest process, though, was that people like quick fights. They like them a lot, it turns out. A battle is part of the game, a point of resolution in the grander scheme of things, not the entire point of the game. That kind of philosophical revelation has been really big for us in working on the game. We might’ve ended up spending weeks adding detail to the combat system, never realizing that the typical D&D player simply wasn’t interested in that level of detail.
I am sure you will somehow not see the word "entire", and decide this quote is again something it's not, but there you have an example.
Quicker battles means both more battles per gaming day, and also more non-battle encounters, all of which adds up to more opportunities for give and take between the participants and variation for the group. It means less of the same thing per minute of gaming time - and by same thing I don't even necessarily mean combat in general, as it could be "combat against the same creature who is using the same tactics and abilities over and over again". The more encounters and opportunities for interaction you have in a gaming day, the better, is what he is saying.
Quote from: Haffrung;642959I'm guessing the core game alone will have at least 40 pages of rules. That will make it a more complex game than 95 per cent of the boardgames on the market.
No, it doesn't look like it will be tailored to power-gaming fetishists who take the books home to parse for weeks to come up with half-broken combos and then complain that the game is half-broken. And it's not aiming for the OCD, antisocial RAW misfits who find it impossible to improvise and compromise around a table with friends. Those two groups have proven detrimental to the game, and WotC has wisely turned its back on them.
This. Those power-gaming fetishists probably (it can be argued) entered the fray with 2E Skills & Powers and 3.x. Mearls wants to attract newer players, younger players. I tried Pathfinder a few times. But because I was not on-board with 3.x when that came out none of it made sense.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643020Cool, then you can tell me how those rules support Mike Mearls' stated goals for D&D Next.
Because if there isn't a rule for it, hell! It's bad game design. What are WoTC paying him for! /sarcsam
The more responses I read, the more I am convinced that Anon is just trolling the site. Pay no heed.
From Mearl's Interview: (bold is mine)
QuoteMy first character was a thief named Barnabas Bladecutter. Poor Barnabas wasn't much of a character. I stole his name from a D&D supplement called The Shady Dragon Inn, and he was basically an excuse to beat down monsters and get a taste of the power and autonomy that I think every kid longs to have. For my friends and I, we loved the game but we also liked that we were allowed to play in the grown-up section of the public library, away from the kids our own age who were sequestered to the children's section in the basement.
Mearls hit on factors of D&D's previous success that are far more important than any iteration of rules.
Quote from: Spinachcat;643060From Mearl's Interview: (bold is mine)
Mearls hit on factors of D&D's previous success that are far more important than any iteration of rules.
really you think pretending to be an elf makes you more grown up .....
The days when D&D had any sort of mature kudos are long since lost. Those self same kids these days are ripping the crap out of semi-pro CoD players on line or writing their own andriod apps.
Quote from: Mistwell;643026The more encounters and opportunities for interaction you have in a gaming day, the better, is what he is saying.
OK, then which rules in Next
reflect this goal? Does Next actually do better under this metric than its predecessors (let alone all the other RPGs out there which I honestly don't think Mike has read based on the things he's said)?
Quote from: jibbajibba;643073really you think pretending to be an elf makes you more grown up .....
The days when D&D had any sort of mature kudos are long since lost. Those self same kids these days are ripping the crap out of semi-pro CoD players on line or writing their own andriod apps.
Probably true.
Funny story, I was thrown out of a gaming group for suggesting that the 18+ rule was unwarranted, and explaining how important it was for me to have been able to play under that age. Well actually, it was due to me questioning the authority, but that's the cover story :)
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643472OK, then which rules in Next reflect this goal? Does Next actually do better under this metric than its predecessors (let alone all the other RPGs out there which I honestly don't think Mike has read based on the things he's said)?
Having played it myself, and having read tons of playtest reports, I can say yes absolutely Next has more rapid combat, and you get more encounters per gaming session than in 3e and 4e. I never played 2e, so I don't know about that, but it seemed about as many as 1e, but with more variation in what was happening.
As for "all the other RPGs", I don't think that matters much. Seriously, indie RPGs are cool and fun for the niche crowd (myself included), but their player base is so infinitesimally small as to be inconsequential for D&D numbers.
I'm not going to run down all the rules that support concept in Next - I suggest you play it yourself and give it a try.
I don't think D&D is any more or less mature than any other RPG; one of the big plusses of D&D has been, for me, that it doesn't pretend to be, the way certain other games do. Those certain others try to claim that D&D can't be used to run intelligent campaigns, and that's where I disagree.
The thing about Old-school D&D is that it can be used to run a wacky pointless dungeon-crawling game (like I'm doing), or it can be used to run a sophisticated game full of characters, intrigue, and plot (like I'm also doing). That's its magic. It fails when someone says "D&D is meant only for setpiece-combat" or dungeon-crawls, or, for that matter, profound stories with heavy roleplay and mature themes.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Mistwell;643480Having played it myself, and having read tons of playtest reports, I can say yes absolutely Next has more rapid combat, and you get more encounters per gaming session than in 3e and 4e. I never played 2e, so I don't know about that, but it seemed about as many as 1e, but with more variation in what was happening.
.
We don't focus on exact movement in our combats; generalities are good enough. And I can validate that combat in Next is pretty much the same as combat in AD&D, time-wise, using that houserule.
Quote from: Mistwell;643480Having played it myself, and having read tons of playtest reports, I can say yes absolutely Next has more rapid combat, and you get more encounters per gaming session than in 3e and 4e.
That's excellent, and why I didn't take issue with that statement. But when you say rules aren't the 'point', go on about 'rulings not rules', or make vague statements about how "it's the people who matter", then yes, I have serious doubts as to your ability to design.
Quote from: Mistwell;643480As for "all the other RPGs", I don't think that matters much. Seriously, indie RPGs are cool and fun for the niche crowd (myself included), but their player base is so infinitesimally small as to be inconsequential for D&D numbers.
It doesn't matter what the player base is, how wacky and broken the rules are, or even if the ideas are any 'good'. What matters is that they provide new ways of looking at things. And if you're a game designer and not looking at other games to see how they do things, then sorry, you're a bad game designer.
As for the niche thing, well, I've found those indie games are more popular with 'non-gamers' than things like Pathfinder and D&D. And I believe the only reason they're not more popular is because they're still taking gamers from the same market AS Pathfinder & D&D. Remember the breakout hit Vampire? That's because it targeted people other than your traditional gamers.
Quote from: RPGPundit;643490I don't think D&D is any more or less mature than any other RPG
It's not. The point however is that RPGs
as a medium are no longer seen as adult enough to warrant 'mature kudos'. Hell, cracking the DRM on RPG PDFs is probably worth more street cred than actually playing them.
"Street creed"
If there is zero innovation in next, but it works as a d&d adventure game I'll be thrilled.
Quote from: RPGPundit;643490I don't think D&D is any more or less mature than any other RPG; one of the big plusses of D&D has been, for me, that it doesn't pretend to be, the way certain other games do. Those certain others try to claim that D&D can't be used to run intelligent campaigns, and that's where I disagree.
The thing about Old-school D&D is that it can be used to run a wacky pointless dungeon-crawling game (like I'm doing), or it can be used to run a sophisticated game full of characters, intrigue, and plot (like I'm also doing). That's its magic. It fails when someone says "D&D is meant only for setpiece-combat" or dungeon-crawls, or, for that matter, profound stories with heavy roleplay and mature themes.
RPGPundit
Agree, D&D's flexibility is its strength and 4e lost sight of that but Next looks to be getting it back.
I would still argue that a sophisticated game with plots and intrigue and depth of character is still a bunch of geeks sitting round a table playing lets pretend sometimes with dice so you are only ever going to get a certain level of maturity. This is why everyone else in the world laughs at us and we are the butt of even the computer nerd's jokes, shit even the magic players laugh at roleplayers, we only get to laugh at the Larpers who think they look like Vigo where as infact they are much more Virgo.... if you get my drift :)
(I used to love Larping by the way and still get dressed up whenever possible - See avatar :D)
Quote from: jibbajibba;643522Agree, D&D's flexibility is its strength and 4e lost sight of that but Next looks to be getting it back.
I would still argue that a sophisticated game with plots and intrigue and depth of character is still a bunch of geeks sitting round a table playing lets pretend sometimes with dice so you are only ever going to get a certain level of maturity. This is why everyone else in the world laughs at us and we are the butt of even the computer nerd's jokes, shit even the magic players laugh at roleplayers, we only get to laugh at the Larpers who think they look like Vigo where as infact they are much more Virgo.... if you get my drift :)
(I used to love Larping by the way and still get dressed up whenever possible - See avatar :D)
Yes. We aren't the goons, we are the goonies.
The 'maturity' street cred that DnD (and RPGs) used to have was always that of children wanting to be adolescents, and 16 year olds wanting to be 'adults'. 'Adult' as in Iron Maiden covers, x-rated horror movies, first-person shooters. Sophistication is the tweens' pretension, maturity the veteran gamer's illusion. :p
Quote from: jadrax;642518Over at Amazing Stories.
I think the first section about what went wrong with D&D is most interesting bit.
http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/ (http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2013/03/interview-with-a-wizard-mike-mearls/)
Wow, I think he is actually getting it. This gives me some hope for 5e.
The risk is that 3E and 4E were what they were for a reason and changing direction for Next results in the Pathfinder and 4E players staying put and the Next customer base not being enough to support the brand.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;643565The risk is that 3E and 4E were what they were for a reason ...
And a poor one, I might add. One that we're all seeing the results of.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;643569And a poor one, I might add. One that we're all seeing the results of.
Pathfinder is the #1 RPG right now. I'm talking about both editions in combination, not just 4E.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;643570Pathfinder is the #1 RPG right now. I'm talking about both editions in combination, not just 4E.
Pathfinder is big because 3e was such a hit. That interview reads exactly like 4e fluff pieces though. It reads like 3e fans are still fired as customers.
If "Next" is going to try to be it's own game in the same way that 4e did, then chances are 4e and 3e players will just keep playing 3.5, PF, 4e and move onto things like 13th Age or whatever 4e-lite/clones are in the works in the years to come.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;643612Pathfinder is big because 3e was such a hit. That interview reads exactly like 4e fluff pieces though. It reads like 3e fans are still fired as customers.
If "Next" is going to try to be it's own game in the same way that 4e did, then chances are 4e and 3e players will just keep playing 3.5, PF, 4e and move onto things like 13th Age or whatever 4e-lite/clones are in the works in the years to come.
That was more or less entirely my point.
I've read the first few paragraphs of that, and frankly have no idea what the hell this Mearl guy is talking about. I had to click off of it after the bit about the hill giant "example" , which made no sense to me whatsoever.
4e players staying put...with what? The edition of braindead GMs running pre-packaged set piece encounters and players splatting power cards with noone now to make encounters and cards. They'll switch, or stop playing.
Quote from: CRKrueger;6439354e players staying put...with what? The edition of braindead GMs running pre-packaged set piece encounters and players splatting power cards with noone now to make encounters and cards. They'll switch, or stop playing.
I get it's not your edition of choice. I don't get that you can't deal with people liking games you don't, so much that you choose to bash your peers with insults based purely on the fact they like a game you don't. I hate it when nerds bash nerds like that. What, were you picked on so much in school to feel the need to return to the cycle of abuse and treat your peers the same way you were mistreated? What drives you to not just be a dick, but that bully kind of dick?
Quote from: Mistwell;644147I get it's not your edition of choice. I don't get that you can't deal with people liking games you don't, so much that you choose to bash your peers with insults based purely on the fact they like a game you don't. I hate it when nerds bash nerds like that. What, were you picked on so much in school to feel the need to return to the cycle of abuse and treat your peers the same way you were mistreated? What drives you to not just be a dick, but that bully kind of dick?
You got all that from "brain dead"? I realize at this point you're going to jump in at anything I say that is negative(I'll leave the overwhelming psychological needs for your therapist to deal with though), but you're going overboard even for you. The idea that 4th edition isn't exactly the edition of the doityourselfers shouldn't be a surprise. WotC didn't target the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps and design a world" crowd, they fired them as customers.
TCO's a proven 4venging troll, and the idea that a game supported mainly through an online subscription at this point is going to keep up a "Neo-OSR" game after the online support and GSL has been pulled is laughable. It's "listen to me or I walk" when we all know you ain't walkin' anywhere. The only reason he drives by here every time there's a new play test packet is because since there's at least three paid WotC consultants who are regular posters here, someone at WotC might be watching.
Now maybe Wizards has had a hallelujah moment and realized "Hey, let's sell all the D&Ds!", but it doesn't change the fact that the current 4e player base is a carefully groomed group of consumers, not producers, and the number of 4vengers, no matter how loud, is small. So unless some old school 4th DMs like Spinachcat and Abyssal Maw are gonna spend 40 hours a week supporting them, the majority is just going to roll with the next edition and join in the new organized play events.
You know, initially my original thought was that 4e players would be just like fans of every other edition. Some would quit playing all together and feel some sort of odd betrayal (?), some would move on to Next, and many would just keep playing 4e.
But then some comments in the other tread made me think. It seems that a lot of 4e players use the online character creation tool, and have made comments that they'd never make a character without it. Not being able to make a character for a tabletop game without computer support seems alien to me. If WotC gets rid of that, what happens to all of those players? Even at TBP when Next was announced, all the 4e fans got upset when the rest of us said, "welcome to the club, you still have your books." because they implied that without online support, their world would come crashing down. All the other editions had players just keep playing because there wasn't a dependance on an online program to do so. Do the 4e players just shrug and start making the characters manually? Does WotC release the character generator as a one-time purchase software program (like it should be)? Is 4e the edition that will see the fewest amount of players remain because of this dependance?
Or is it even that big of an impact?
Quote from: CRKrueger;644153You got all that from "brain dead"? I realize at this point you're going to jump in at anything I say that is negative(I'll leave the overwhelming psychological needs for your therapist to deal with though), but you're going overboard even for you.
Hey, I am listening. If you got a defense for the bullshit you spewed, I am willing to hear it. Or if I am misinterpreting it, I am open to that too.
QuoteThe idea that 4th edition isn't exactly the edition of the doityourselfers shouldn't be a surprise. WotC didn't target the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps and design a world" crowd, they fired them as customers.
True, many are not do-it-yourselfers using 4e (some are - I was, and so is one of my DMs). That makes them brain dead? Would you call all board-gamers brain dead too? Is everyone who plays a game, where they didn't personally craft the challenges players face, brain dead? Hey, how about all those brain dead chess players! Fucking stupid Kasparov, all he does is throw out pre-carved pieces on a square!
The overwhelming majority of those DMs who I know who chose that route did so because they now have families, and simply don't have the time it takes to do it themselves anymore. So they take these pre-packaged set pieces, and because they are so easy to run on the fly, that's what they do, and they give it as much color and excitement as they can in that limited time they have. I don't see how that makes them brain dead for choosing that route. For many, it would be that, or no RPGs at all at this point.
QuoteTCO's a proven 4venging troll,
You made a blanket statement about all players of 4e, not just TCO. If you were trying to take down a particular troll, you did a horrible job at it. Just made you look like an ass.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;644159You know, initially my original thought was that 4e players would be just like fans of every other edition. Some would quit playing all together and feel some sort of odd betrayal (?), some would move on to Next, and many would just keep playing 4e.
But then some comments in the other tread made me think. It seems that a lot of 4e players use the online character creation tool, and have made comments that they'd never make a character without it. Not being able to make a character for a tabletop game without computer support seems alien to me. If WotC gets rid of that, what happens to all of those players? Even at TBP when Next was announced, all the 4e fans got upset when the rest of us said, "welcome to the club, you still have your books." because they implied that without online support, their world would come crashing down. All the other editions had players just keep playing because there wasn't a dependance on an online program to do so. Do the 4e players just shrug and start making the characters manually? Does WotC release the character generator as a one-time purchase software program (like it should be)? Is 4e the edition that will see the fewest amount of players remain because of this dependance?
Or is it even that big of an impact?
If they are not terrible cocks, they will release the software. The premium model was really (alongside 4e mechanics in general, as was pointed often enough but why not point again) trying to get some sort of a tabletop MMORPG.
Maybe fans will write their own programs, and just pirate them across the Internet, if Wizard does not pull through. Who knows. And some people will just shrug and continue to make the characters without the online program.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;644159You know, initially my original thought was that 4e players would be just like fans of every other edition. Some would quit playing all together and feel some sort of odd betrayal (?), some would move on to Next, and many would just keep playing 4e.
But then some comments in the other tread made me think. It seems that a lot of 4e players use the online character creation tool, and have made comments that they'd never make a character without it. Not being able to make a character for a tabletop game without computer support seems alien to me. If WotC gets rid of that, what happens to all of those players? Even at TBP when Next was announced, all the 4e fans got upset when the rest of us said, "welcome to the club, you still have your books." because they implied that without online support, their world would come crashing down. All the other editions had players just keep playing because there wasn't a dependance on an online program to do so. Do the 4e players just shrug and start making the characters manually? Does WotC release the character generator as a one-time purchase software program (like it should be)? Is 4e the edition that will see the fewest amount of players remain because of this dependance?
Or is it even that big of an impact?
Based the all the posters on various messageboards who took pride in bragging about how they didn't buy any books, and just ran with the DDI sub, we might have quite a large group that can't or won't just play the game without continued electronic support.
Even if WOTC did take all the DDI stuff and make a standalone product, there would still be groaning from some fans because the electronic support would be "dead" , a closed system. Without constant new additions of powers, feats, and fiddly bits and the endless tweaking and rebalancing of such things the software wouldn't hold thier attention that long. We are talking an MMO mentality for tabletop play here. New content must keep streaming or the game gets "boring".
Quote from: Exploderwizard;644176New content must keep streaming or the game gets "boring".
Isn't that, roughly, the same sort of argument used as justification for the existence of retroclones, though?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;644176New content must keep streaming or the game gets "boring".
If this is a true assessment, then that makes me a sad face. As a kid, the doors to my imagination were wide open. D&D (as well as other rpgs) gave me the tools to bring that imagination to life with the rest of my friends. As long as I could imagine, there was always new content.
And I really think WotC should offer a standalone character generator to existing DDI subscribers for free (then charge a flat one time purchase price) going forward. Just the right thing to do IMO
Quote from: GnomeWorks;644178Isn't that, roughly, the same sort of argument used as justification for the existence of retroclones, though?
For those who only run adventure modules there is a similarity sure. Fans of all kinds of old games like to see new offerings for thier favorites.
If WOTC were to make 4E usable for 3rd party publishers to write adventures do you think the playerbase would be satisfied?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;644180And I really think WotC should offer a standalone character generator to existing DDI subscribers for free (then charge a flat one time purchase price) going forward. Just the right thing to do IMO
They used to at first, but it was pirated so extensively that they moved to a server-side solution to protect the revenue stream. If they were to offer it for sale again - well, they may as well just give it away, since it would get pirated all to hell again. An iPhone or Android app might be a workable option.
Quote from: Rincewind1;644163Maybe fans will write their own programs, and just pirate them across the Internet, if Wizard does not pull through.
That already exists. Fairly popular in fact. It's PCGen, which is legal, and then the 4e dataset, which is not (but can be found pretty easy on torrents).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;644159You know, initially my original thought was that 4e players would be just like fans of every other edition. Some would quit playing all together and feel some sort of odd betrayal (?), some would move on to Next, and many would just keep playing 4e.
But then some comments in the other tread made me think. It seems that a lot of 4e players use the online character creation tool, and have made comments that they'd never make a character without it. Not being able to make a character for a tabletop game without computer support seems alien to me. If WotC gets rid of that, what happens to all of those players? Even at TBP when Next was announced, all the 4e fans got upset when the rest of us said, "welcome to the club, you still have your books." because they implied that without online support, their world would come crashing down. All the other editions had players just keep playing because there wasn't a dependance on an online program to do so. Do the 4e players just shrug and start making the characters manually? Does WotC release the character generator as a one-time purchase software program (like it should be)? Is 4e the edition that will see the fewest amount of players remain because of this dependance?
Or is it even that big of an impact?
My thinking is that a third party like Hero Lab will take over the character creation support. Of course, it relies upon data from WotC, so if Wizards pulls the plug on support they utility of Hero Lab would be limited.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;643612Pathfinder is big because 3e was such a hit. That interview reads exactly like 4e fluff pieces though. It reads like 3e fans are still fired as customers.
Some 3E fans are being told that their preferred game style will no longer be supported. At least not in the core game.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;643612If "Next" is going to try to be it's own game in the same way that 4e did, then chances are 4e and 3e players will just keep playing 3.5, PF, 4e and move onto things like 13th Age or whatever 4e-lite/clones are in the works in the years to come.
But it's not trying to be its own game. It's trying to be a streamlined, generic D&D that is recognizable to people who played all previous editions. Though fans who prefer rules-heavy grid-based format will probably find less that they like than fans of other iterations.
Quote from: Mistwell;644162True, many are not do-it-yourselfers using 4e (some are - I was, and so is one of my DMs). That makes them brain dead? Would you call all board-gamers brain dead too? Is everyone who plays a game, where they didn't personally craft the challenges players face, brain dead? Hey, how about all those brain dead chess players! Fucking stupid Kasparov, all he does is throw out pre-carved pieces on a square!
Ok, I'll admit I turned the "Old Grognard Get off my lawn" up to maybe an 8, but 4vengers bring out the worst in me. Still, you can't be serious about comparing board and card games to RPGs. Even if braindead was uncalled for, that wasn't a valid comparison.
Quote from: CRKrueger;644279Ok, I'll admit I turned the "Old Grognard Get off my lawn" up to maybe an 8, but 4vengers bring out the worst in me. Still, you can't be serious about comparing board and card games to RPGs. Even if braindead was uncalled for, that wasn't a valid comparison.
Then again, if calling people braindead because they think boardgames=RPGs, it may give us WFRP 1e reprint, so I'm down with it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;644279Ok, I'll admit I turned the "Old Grognard Get off my lawn" up to maybe an 8, but 4vengers bring out the worst in me. Still, you can't be serious about comparing board and card games to RPGs. Even if braindead was uncalled for, that wasn't a valid comparison.
Wait wait wait...YEARS of hearing how 4e is a glorified board game from guys who hate 4vengers, and now I cannot accept the analogy and use it back against you? Screw that...live by the bash, die by the bash.
I agree slow fights are a problem, but as slow fights have been a part of the mechanical system for 25+ years, I am skeptical anything will be done about the issue.
Quote from: GrumpyReviews;644600I agree slow fights are a problem, but as slow fights have been a part of the mechanical system for 25+ years, I am skeptical anything will be done about the issue.
Oe and b/x have very quick fights. Both very popular for their time. No coincident that they both form the cornerstone of the osr.
Quote from: Monkey Boy;644606Oe and b/x have very quick fights. Both very popular for their time. No coincident that they both form the cornerstone of the osr.
Indeed.
(So does AD&D, really, unless you say use all the 2e extra fighting rules and whatnot in wich case, sloooow)
Quote from: The Ent;644652Indeed.
(So does AD&D, really, unless you say use all the 2e extra fighting rules and whatnot in wich case, sloooow)
AD&D did too, somewhat, if you played with all the rules. Nobody I knew did though
I ran an AD&D game for a reunion with a bunch of my buddies last year. We were all rusty, and spent much of the time joking and recounting old war stories, but in four hours we completed the following combat encounters:
3 frost giants
15 gargoyles
6 wererats
doppleganger
black pudding
8 mummies
deck of many things (a combat enounter of sorts)
Iron golem
Red dragon
Also explored and mapped a small two-level dungeon. In four hours.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;644664AD&D did too, somewhat, if you played with all the rules. Nobody I knew did though
Yeah, this...man, I've sometimes wanted to play 2e with my old buddies again
without all the [Class/Race]'s Handbook/Player's Option sillyness that, of course, we always used...
Quote from: HaffrungI ran an AD&D game for a reunion with a bunch of my buddies last year. We were all rusty, and spent much of the time joking and recounting old war stories, but in four hours we completed the following combat encounters:
3 frost giants
15 gargoyles
6 wererats
doppleganger
black pudding
8 mummies
deck of many things (a combat enounter of sorts)
Iron golem
Red dragon
Also explored and mapped a small two-level dungeon. In four hours.
Awesome. :cool:
You know, I read somewhere that that's the typical time spent at
ONE combat in 4e! :D
Quote from: The Ent;644685You know, I read somewhere that that's the typical time spent at ONE combat in 4e! :D
Heh. Depends on the combat. :)
When I was running a 4E campaign a typical encounter ran about 45 to 90 minutes.
Too long for my tastes for what is essentially still abstract combat (pools of hp, static defenses, etc).
Quote from: Exploderwizard;644692When I was running a 4E campaign a typical encounter ran about 45 to 90 minutes.
...the hell did you manage that?
My group wound up with a combat that went either 10 or 14 hours... it's been a few years, so I can't precisely recall if it went over two and a half sessions, or three and a half.
Most of our regular combats went at least two hours.
I want to say that particular game ran for four months. We were completely sick of it by then. Never went back to it after that ridiculous combat.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;644696...the hell did you manage that?
My group wound up with a combat that went either 10 or 14 hours... it's been a few years, so I can't precisely recall if it went over two and a half sessions, or three and a half.
Most of our regular combats went at least two hours.
I want to say that particular game ran for four months. We were completely sick of it by then. Never went back to it after that ridiculous combat.
The game was low level. The PCs were only around 6th level when I stopped running the game.
I used home brewed monster stats almost exclusively (this was when the offline monster builder was pretty good) and toned down hp totals and upped damage before WOTC caught on and started doing the same in later MMs.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;644698The game was low level. The PCs were only around 6th level when I stopped running the game.
I used home brewed monster stats almost exclusively (this was when the offline monster builder was pretty good) and toned down hp totals and upped damage before WOTC caught on and started doing the same in later MMs.
Ahh... okay, that makes sense to me.
We ran it exclusively by the book, shortly after it came out. As a group, we decided that doing any sort of modifications would sort of defeat the spirit of trying it out. Only exception to that we made was XP gain - in the interest of giving it a fair go in a reasonable amount of time, we did a level a session or so.
When we were done I want to say we were 21st, maybe 22nd, and had started at around 5th.
Our 4e battles last 20 to 35 mins. 90 minutes for the truly brutal longest one. Once everyone knows that the system works, knows how their powers work, and how they work with each other, it all runs much quicker. Now, 20 to 35 minutes is still too long for me, which is a major reason why 4e is no longer my preference for game systems. But, it's not these many hours long battles I sometimes hear about - not unless nobody knows their characters.
Quote from: Mistwell;644702But, it's not these many hours long battles I sometimes hear about - not unless nobody knows their characters.
I'll be honest, I have no idea why our end-of-run combat took as long as it did. We'd been playing the characters for a few months, we were familiar with the system... I don't know why it happened.
It does sound like it was an anomaly, but hot damn, that was one hell of an anomaly. Definitely not an experience I would ever like to repeat.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;644705I'll be honest, I have no idea why our end-of-run combat took as long as it did. We'd been playing the characters for a few months, we were familiar with the system... I don't know why it happened.
It does sound like it was an anomaly, but hot damn, that was one hell of an anomaly. Definitely not an experience I would ever like to repeat.
I didn't mean to imply that the problem you're highlighting did not exist. It did exist. WOTC admitted it, and drafted the MM3 and some errata to try and put a band-aid on the issue. They reduced monster hitpoints, but increased the damage those monsters dealt. They knew combats were taking longer than intended, particularly at higher levels.
Which is odd, because they capped the number of powers each character had. Eventually, you got a new power, and had to replace an old power. Which made no sense from a realism standpoint, but from a book-keeping standpoint it helped. Still, higher level combat took longer. Maybe the higher level powers were simply more complex. Maybe the formula for monsters was off. Maybe the higher end powers were not doing enough damage per hit, or were more focused on reducing the damage monsters did rather than taking those monsters down. I don't know, but something seemed off with higher level combat such that grind was more likely to kick in (though the worst we ever encountered was 90 minutes for a combat - that's too long).
Feels like a 2008 post from Mearls, with questions thrown in for courtesy effect to give the impression of an actual interview (observe the closing 'Editorial Note' - the site is owned by WotC, so this is PR).
Except for two things.
1. Harkening back to Leiber and Anderson & co., certainly not what 4e did (culture blind fun, let's leave iconic D&D lore - largely - behind).
2. Continuity of lore with internal house authors like Salvatore and Greenwood - sc. " It’s important that the characters and events you see in their work can function within the world of D&D." It wasn't possible for a 4e-player to read a pre-2007 novel, say by Kemp on FR, and see it as a novel with characters he could play - they had abilities, items, and interacted with stuff for which there was no analogue.
The all time low's seem to be,
- Mearls rages against how stupid DMs don't know how to use skill checks. I'm bored of reading this for the ump-teenth time after his 1. his posts right on this board, 2. his blog Keep on the Gaminglands and 3. several DDI articles. To use it as a selling point for ANY edition, let alone a new one ('never seen before' or, 'not seen in a long time, since 1998, honest!') is just downright stupid, especially when (as I recently read) LG/LFR adventures are 'roll a couple of skill checks to find where the action in town is, head over, and get out combat rolls'. And he was the main perpetrator of that trend, in the H-series for 4E and his own early RPGA stuff for 4E, including 'Across the Desert Waste' (LFR). The absence of 4e in the whole piece is really striking, he knocks 3e when it comes to detail (or the typical Mearl'esque approximation thereof), and washes his own hands clean.
- The 'people like short fights'. Well guess what, just dial hit point inflation back in ANY previous edition incl. 3e/4e and fights are gonna be over pretty quick too. As if THAT was the major selling point of going back.
- lack of customizabity. Has nothing to do with the system but its presentation. Still my major knock against 4e. Easy to houserule, but the rules told you (to use Frank Trollman's recent findings in DMG 2), 'if you remove necrotic energy from this system, THE WORLD IS GONNA COLLAPSE'.
Great to see you posting Windjammer. :)
Quote from: One Horse Town;644730Great to see you posting Windjammer. :)
Agreed. :)
Quote from: Windjammer;644714Feels like a 2008 post from Mearls, with questions thrown in for courtesy effect to give the impression of an actual interview (observe the closing 'Editorial Note' - the site is owned by WotC, so this is PR).
Except for two things.
1. Harkening back to Leiber and Anderson & co., certainly not what 4e did (culture blind fun, let's leave iconic D&D lore - largely - behind).
2. Continuity of lore with internal house authors like Salvatore and Greenwood - sc. " It's important that the characters and events you see in their work can function within the world of D&D." It wasn't possible for a 4e-player to read a pre-2007 novel, say by Kemp on FR, and see it as a novel with characters he could play - they had abilities, items, and interacted with stuff for which there was no analogue.
The all time low's seem to be,
- Mearls rages against how stupid DMs don't know how to use skill checks. I'm bored of reading this for the ump-teenth time after his 1. his posts right on this board, 2. his blog Keep on the Gaminglands and 3. several DDI articles. To use it as a selling point for ANY edition, let alone a new one ('never seen before' or, 'not seen in a long time, since 1998, honest!') is just downright stupid, especially when (as I recently read) LG/LFR adventures are 'roll a couple of skill checks to find where the action in town is, head over, and get out combat rolls'. And he was the main perpetrator of that trend, in the H-series for 4E and his own early RPGA stuff for 4E, including 'Across the Desert Waste' (LFR). The absence of 4e in the whole piece is really striking, he knocks 3e when it comes to detail (or the typical Mearl'esque approximation thereof), and washes his own hands clean.
- The 'people like short fights'. Well guess what, just dial hit point inflation back in ANY previous edition incl. 3e/4e and fights are gonna be over pretty quick too. As if THAT was the major selling point of going back.
- lack of customizabity. Has nothing to do with the system but its presentation. Still my major knock against 4e. Easy to houserule, but the rules told you (to use Frank Trollman's recent findings in DMG 2), 'if you remove necrotic energy from this system, THE WORLD IS GONNA COLLAPSE'.
:rotfl:
Mearls; the Damon Killian of D&D.
Quote from: Windjammer;644714- The 'people like short fights'. Well guess what, just dial hit point inflation back in ANY previous edition incl. 3e/4e and fights are gonna be over pretty quick too. As if THAT was the major selling point of going back.
I disagree.
A lot of time is wasted at game tables with players trying to figure out what to do, and looking up those abilities. If a spellcaster has a list of 50 spells they could cast, and each of them needs to be looked up in a book - or one of many books for that matter - before you know how to resolve the spell, that spends a lot of time. And, it has nothing at all to do with hit points.
4e ran into this problem a lot. Everyone had different abilities, those abilities would sometimes change each level (you would replace an old ability with a new one), and they did many things aside from damage. If you didn't have a card printed with the text of the power, you often just had to look it up.
Finally, attack and damage formulas that involve a lot of math, drag things out. 3e suffered from this often. You would hear people mumbling the formulas as they calculated hit and damage numbers. You could rarely tell if something hit just by looking at the dice - you had to know the details of the class and prestige class and feats and magic items and such before you knew. That all takes time.
So I disagree - the game can absolutely have faster combat, without it being about monster hit points. Reduce the quantity of "powers" (not everyone is like a spell-caster), reduce the lengthy math (all the modifiers everywhere), and that will save a lot of time. Both of these appear to be goals of the 5e design team.
With a few houserules, my group had AD&D 2e fights down to 5-10 minutes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;644781With a few houserules, my group had AD&D 2e fights down to 5-10 minutes.
With any version of TSR D&D (note, however, I never used the Player's Option stuff) and a few house rules I've never had combats average more that 15-30 minutes and that was with 15+ players. With groups of 10 players or less, 5-15 minutes was more common. These are the combat lengths I expect from a tabletop RPG. If a game takes longer, I'm either not going to play that game or I'm going to house rule combat until it is short enough. I don't want to have to play a long man-to-man tactical board or minis game every time combat happens in the campaign. I have plenty of non-RPG tactical wargames and sets of minis rules that I can play if I get the tactical combat game itch.
Quote from: RandallS;644790With any version of TSR D&D (note, however, I never used the Player's Option stuff) and a few house rules I've never had combats average more that 15-30 minutes and that was with 15+ players. With groups of 10 players or less, 5-15 minutes was more common. These are the combat lengths I expect from a tabletop RPG. If a game takes longer, I'm either not going to play that game or I'm going to house rule combat until it is short enough. I don't want to have to play a long man-to-man tactical board or minis game every time combat happens in the campaign. I have plenty of non-RPG tactical wargames and sets of minis rules that I can play if I get the tactical combat game itch.
Ditto that. I play wargames as well, but its like bacon and chcocolate. Love em both, but they do not compliment each other.
From a 4E standpoint, even as a 4e fan I found combat(mine tend to run 30-45 minutes) ran too long. The problem is that 5E is taking things way too far in the other direction, and my group is finding 5e combat boring because nothing interesting happens. Its just bang bang over, and that isn't good enough for us. 4E had some interesting give and take, and after playing years of 4e with 4e powers we find the actions PCs can take in 5E are very dull.
From a 3E standpoint, short combat isnt the big issue so much as the removal of deep character creation and advancement and to a lesser extent the feeling of progressing into superpheroes at high level that's the sticking point.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;6448124E had some interesting give and take, and after playing years of 4e with 4e powers we find the actions PCs can take in 5E are very dull.
I think this is because they're still establishing the baseline. I imagine that, as time progresses and core mechanics become more solidified, we'll start to see AEDU elements enter the picture, especially in regards to the fighter.
At least, I certainly hope so. While I hated the idea of daily martial powers, I really did like the concept behind fighters' encounter powers. They definitely gave the class interesting choices, which - well - made it more interesting to play.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;644866I think this is because they're still establishing the baseline. I imagine that, as time progresses and core mechanics become more solidified, we'll start to see AEDU elements enter the picture, especially in regards to the fighter.
At least, I certainly hope so. While I hated the idea of daily martial powers, I really did like the concept behind fighters' encounter powers. They definitely gave the class interesting choices, which - well - made it more interesting to play.
I'm not seeing where the space for such things is being built into the baseline. We've run the playtest rules, and overwhelmingly 5E has been a game based on cantrip/basic attack spam broken up by the occasional spell. There has been nothing like 4E encounter powers in the playtests, and there has been no groundwork laid for that sort of thing.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;644921I'm not seeing where the space for such things is being built into the baseline. We've run the playtest rules, and overwhelmingly 5E has been a game based on cantrip/basic attack spam broken up by the occasional spell. There has been nothing like 4E encounter powers in the playtests, and there has been no groundwork laid for that sort of thing.
Don't fighters have the dice mechanic thing? It's gone through so many revisions at this point I'm not sure what it looks like in the latest playtest, but that seemed like the groundwork for a more involved 4e powers-esque system.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;644921I'm not seeing where the space for such things is being built into the baseline. We've run the playtest rules, and overwhelmingly 5E has been a game based on cantrip/basic attack spam broken up by the occasional spell. There has been nothing like 4E encounter powers in the playtests, and there has been no groundwork laid for that sort of thing.
It won't be baseline it will be in the advanced options.
think
Basic Game = AD&D
Standard Game = 3e
Advanced Options = OD&D through to 4e
This is logical and I am sure WotC will not miss an opportunity for set of 4e-esque books to expand grid based play.
You don't need it to be baseline as its simple to add en masse to the game just overlay an encounter powers model on the exisitng classes.
Playing Basic & Advanced options int eh same game won;t be possible but I don't think it was ever an aim.
The aim is to be able to play a basic character in a standrd game. that is simple enough. Basic characters have class 'powers' , turn undead, lay on hands, tracking, etc which they gain at certain levels. There are in effect standard feats. In Standard you will get the same number of feats but pick em from a list. If they get the balance right then the basic characters will be playable, if not optimised.
The Advanced version will offer such wide variance that you will able to strip out all those class powers and use a pared down class list for OD&D play or you can add in daily and encounter powers and take it to a 4e level.
The base engine - roll d20 v target number doesn't change just what your options are and how many modifiers you want to stack on that pile.
Quote from: jibbajibba;644928It won't be baseline it will be in the advanced options.
think
Basic Game = AD&D
Standard Game = 3e
Advanced Options = OD&D through to 4e
This is logical and I am sure WotC will not miss an opportunity for set of 4e-esque books to expand grid based play.
You don't need it to be baseline as its simple to add en masse to the game just overlay an encounter powers model on the exisitng classes.
Playing Basic & Advanced options int eh same game won;t be possible but I don't think it was ever an aim.
The aim is to be able to play a basic character in a standrd game. that is simple enough. Basic characters have class 'powers' , turn undead, lay on hands, tracking, etc which they gain at certain levels. There are in effect standard feats. In Standard you will get the same number of feats but pick em from a list. If they get the balance right then the basic characters will be playable, if not optimised.
The Advanced version will offer such wide variance that you will able to strip out all those class powers and use a pared down class list for OD&D play or you can add in daily and encounter powers and take it to a 4e level.
The base engine - roll d20 v target number doesn't change just what your options are and how many modifiers you want to stack on that pile.
I don't really believe all of that. If it were true, they would have presented examples of how it is to be done, or given us a L&L article describing how it will be done. It's been about 15 months now and they haven't. That tells me that either their plan doesn't and never has truly included what you describe, or that they are so far behind in development that they're going to have to cut corners to release 5E on time, and the optional advanced rules are going to be what they skimp on.
Quote from: Mistwell;644736I disagree. [...]
Mistwell, thanks for your extensive reply! All your points are (characteristically) fair minded and spot on. I now see that simply cutting hp in half (as I usually do) is far from the only thing that could make fights faster in D&D. I also agree that option paralysis, and the math behind each option
once chosen (owing to the plethora of circumstantial modifiers on to hit and attack rolls) leaves lots of room for speeding things up.
That said, I want to offer something of my own experience, one from wargames, one from 4E, in response.
1. There's this card driven multiplayer game called 'Napoleonic Wars' by GMT games. One can either play the full scenario, which usually takes 4-6 hours, and is a 5 round game, or a shorter scenario, one round only (which sets up Napoleon's troop much closer to Russia). When I scheduled my group for the latter, we all expected the evening to be short ('it's gonna be over in 1 to 2 hours'), because we simply
divided the longer playing time by 5 (given how it's 1 round, not 5 you play). Boy were we wrong. Though each only had 6 or so cards to play (instead of 30 over the full scenario), all of us spent MUCH longer to reflect on how to implement them. Why? Because each single decision mattered much longer, it had to be absolutely right to implement a plan, whereas in the longer one, you sometimes spend a whole round (6 cards play) just to prepare something to occur later on, which is more relaxed and less pressured. - From this I conclude that the number of options, even under the same complexity, is not per se an indicator on the speed of gameplay. Analysis paralysis is rather (also) correlative to how many choices you'll be able to make, and how important they are towards a victory condition. That brings me to my other point.
2. In 4e, I ran a campaign (currently on hold) where we began at level 10 and leveled up to 16 over a year of play. So players were very familiar with their characters, we played frequently, and the changes when they leveled were fairly easy to integrate - few slow downs during the game. That's certainly different than what groups experience who play 4e only intermittently, and level up after a session or two. Finally, there's the whole thing on tracking dice modifiers on each round. We found that on certain rolls, it was obvious it wasn't worth the bother - if the roll is really low, no amount of modifier stacking is gonna hit that monster's AC. So that helps, to actually have the players roll first, and only look when you get to that margin. (Also, after round 1 in combat, players usually figure out what they roughly have to roll, and that makes subsequent rounds go much faster, because they themselves realize that some rolls won't merit doing the math.)
On a related note to 2. - I was recently re-reading the early Dungeon magazine adventures that came out when 4e was released. The authors are super relaxed about implementing the mechanics in certain situations - the type of mind set that, I felt, liberated the 3e mind set, where you'd always apply mechanics, no matter what. A good example is this advice by Noonan in the opening of 'Scales of War', where there's a bar fight, and some of the monsters will end up attacking NPCs. Noonan advises that, since that's combat interaction between DM controlled creatures, speed it up, and treat NPCs like you would minions, except even simpler. If the monsters attack the bar guests, go for this rule of thumb: on a d20 roll of 15 or higher, the person is dead, on a 10 to 15 they are heavily injured (another hit will take them out), and on a 10 or lower they get hit but are largely unscathed. That's easy to remember and keep track of, and it communicates the mentality I just described - first roll the die, then ask yourself if it even makes a difference. (The core reason why these bar NPCs are 'simpler' than minions is that their defense scores are not even statted up.)
(And as an aside, thanks to Drohem and Old Town Horse for your warm welcome. Sorry I'm not posting more regularly, but a) there's work and b) while I keep lurking and sometimes enjoy what I read, I rarely feel I got something worthwhile to add.)
On this point,
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;644950I don't really believe all of that. If it were true, they would have presented examples of how it is to be done, or given us a L&L article describing how it will be done. It's been about 15 months now and they haven't. That tells me that either their plan doesn't and never has truly included what you describe, or that they are so far behind in development that they're going to have to cut corners to release 5E on time, and the optional advanced rules are going to be what they skimp on.
I feel with tco, a bit. I actually suspect that WotC is deliberately holding back on putting more 4e-complexity into the ruleset for a reason, at least for the time being. The point of 5e is to acquisition the players they lost, so they have to tread that ground carefully. Already what's in the latest playtest packages seems to put some pre-3E people off (just look at this thread for evidence), so I guess you can see why they are reticent to offer more - even by way of outline, or making good on their promises (however vaguely) to provide more complexity later on. I see no principled obstacle for them to provide that later on, but I agree with tco that 15 months of open playtests could have done a lot more to show where they are actually going with this.
I still distrust the whole initiative behind 5e, and the 'feel good' PR initiatives like those linked in the OP only cement that skepticism, especially in their (useless) accumulation over the past months. I've not even looked at playtest packages beyond the first one, and instead prefer to see the final product, test run it myself, and then also see how people's reception of the game is on sites like this one. I'm also much more keen on the modules WotC will produce under 5e (and the recent trends in DDI are a promising turn of events - they abandoned the delve formats, and make for more dynamic/less encounterized dungeoneering) than the actual rule set.
Quote from: CRKrueger;6439354e players staying put...with what? The edition of braindamaged GMs running pre-packaged set piece encounters and players splatting power cards with noone now to make encounters and cards. They'll switch, or stop playing.
Fixed your spelling :D
Anyway, you know what has fast and engaging combats? Dungeon World. And while it has problems (at least for some of you), those problems can be
solved, and even with them still does most of what 5e seeks to do.
Another solution would be Blood & Treasure, an awesome osr game with some 3e stuff.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;644950I don't really believe all of that. If it were true, they would have presented examples of how it is to be done, or given us a L&L article describing how it will be done. It's been about 15 months now and they haven't. That tells me that either their plan doesn't and never has truly included what you describe, or that they are so far behind in development that they're going to have to cut corners to release 5E on time, and the optional advanced rules are going to be what they skimp on.
Dude, they gave a series of three L&L articles explaining how the basic/standard/advanced options breakdown would work, what more could you want on that front?
As far as presenting examples or reflecting this stuff in the playtest documents: I'm pretty sure they're deliberately not going to make the breakdown between those three things clear in the playtest documents because, duh, they actually want people to buy the products - if you could infer the Basic 5E core from the playtest docs then that'd sap sales of the core set.
Quote from: Warthur;645164Dude, they gave a series of three L&L articles explaining how the basic/standard/advanced options breakdown would work, what more could you want on that front?
As far as presenting examples or reflecting this stuff in the playtest documents: I'm pretty sure they're deliberately not going to make the breakdown between those three things clear in the playtest documents because, duh, they actually want people to buy the products - if you could infer the Basic 5E core from the playtest docs then that'd sap sales of the core set.
I dunno about that. Pathfinder released a beta that was pretty much the actual whole game and it didn't seem to cripple thier sales. Also keep in mind that to start with it was just a tweaked 3.5 that everyone already had.
Keeping secrets to protect sales can work out sometimes, but can also sink a product at release if doesn't land right on the money.
Quote from: Warthur;645164Dude, they gave a series of three L&L articles explaining how the basic/standard/advanced options breakdown would work, what more could you want on that front?
As far as presenting examples or reflecting this stuff in the playtest documents: I'm pretty sure they're deliberately not going to make the breakdown between those three things clear in the playtest documents because, duh, they actually want people to buy the products - if you could infer the Basic 5E core from the playtest docs then that'd sap sales of the core set.
My guess is the core game book(s) will include the Basic and Standard modes. The advanced stuff will come in supplements. Some of that advanced stuff will be more variety (feats, classes), some will be complex add-ons (gridded combat tactics, high-level play), some will be modules that you can sub out for standard mechanics (wounds, damage absorption for armor, maybe spell points instead of Vancian). I'd have to assume that published WotC adventures will only support the Basic and Standard modes.
Quote from: Haffrung;645187My guess is the core game book(s) will include the Basic and Standard modes. The advanced stuff will come in supplements. Some of that advanced stuff will be more variety (feats, classes), some will be complex add-ons (gridded combat tactics, high-level play), some will be modules that you can sub out for standard mechanics (wounds, damage absorption for armor, maybe spell points instead of Vancian). I'd have to assume that published WotC adventures will only support the Basic and Standard modes.
Largely agree.
Also remember they don;t have to relese all the advanced options at once. In fact they won't because that is their treadmill for future books.
I would expect standard to be released first then basic and an advanced core type book but of course that is total speculation.
then I would expect to see settings that supported standard play with some guidance about stripping them down or buildng them up.
Quote from: Haffrung;645187My guess is the core game book(s) will include the Basic and Standard modes. The advanced stuff will come in supplements. Some of that advanced stuff will be more variety (feats, classes), some will be complex add-ons (gridded combat tactics, high-level play), some will be modules that you can sub out for standard mechanics (wounds, damage absorption for armor, maybe spell points instead of Vancian). I'd have to assume that published WotC adventures will only support the Basic and Standard modes.
They've pretty much said that the Basic mode will be provided as a boxed set (or at least, that's how they envision doing it at the moment).
My guess of how the product line will look:
First Wave:
Basic core boxed set.
Standard set in three hardback rulebooks.
Starter adventures for Basic and Standard.
Second Wave:
Advanced books start coming out as supplements that need the Standard set to use. (There'll be no "Advanced core" because the different Advanced modules are meant to bolt onto the standard rules.)
More adventures come out for Basic and Standard. Some of the Standard adventures will have optional features tied to one or more of the Advanced books.
Supplements for Basic come out offering strip down Basic-ified versions of extra classes, monsters, PC races and so on from the Standard game or Advanced books. (Say, if the Advanced book on psionics includes a Psionicist character class, you might get a Basic supplement which, amongst a heap of other cool stuff, includes a stripped-down and simple version of the Advanced Psionicist.)
You'll probably see a campaign setting coming out at this point, perhaps multiple ones. A campaign setting for the Basic set would pretty much have to follow the Basic assumptions and is likely to be fluff heavy. You might also see a Standard campaign setting which is similarly generic but somewhat more crunchy. (Alternately, Basic/Standard could have the same setting.) You may also see Advanced campaign settings whose core setting assumptions deviate sharply from the norm for D&D campaign worlds, so the core book for the setting would be an Advanced supplement which, when bolted onto the Standard rules, implements the major differences of the campaign setting.
In that case they're probably going to lose everybody who isn't appy with the standard rules, who are going to look at 5E at launch, find it not to their liking, and as a result write D&D off.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645253In that case they're probably going to lose everybody who isn't appy with the standard rules, who are going to look at 5E at launch, find it not to their liking, and as a result write D&D off.
Well..................bye.
Quote from: jibbajibba;645245Largely agree.
Also remember they don;t have to relese all the advanced options at once. In fact they won't because that is their treadmill for future books.
I would expect standard to be released first then basic and an advanced core type book but of course that is total speculation.
then I would expect to see settings that supported standard play with some guidance about stripping them down or buildng them up.
Book Treadmill = Bill does not buy any 5E products.
If they have a players book, dm's guide, and monster manual, I would buy modules left and right. Setting books I would buy a few.
But no core book treadmill for me thanks.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645253In that case they're probably going to lose everybody who isn't appy with the standard rules, who are going to look at 5E at launch, find it not to their liking, and as a result write D&D off.
And do what, play 13th Age? More power to ya, have fun with other 4venging forum warriors while the rest of the "4e crowd" just moves on to the next edition like they would have no matter what the rules are.
Quote from: CRKrueger;645258while the rest of the "4e crowd" just moves on to the next edition like they would have no matter what the rules are.
I see what you did there. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;645258And do what, play 13th Age? More power to ya, have fun with other 4venging forum warriors while the rest of the "4e crowd" just moves on to the next edition like they would have no matter what the rules are.
...or play something that isn't D&D
...or leave the hobby altogether
...or decide that 5E isn't OSR enough and stick with what is already out there
...or decide that 5E isn't worth switching over from Pathfinder
...ect
It all adds up.
I seriously don't see what all the crying is about, especially with the most recent Q&A (http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/3/6/9/176369_slide.jpg?v=1).
To be honest, stuff like this is probably a reason why I don't take the 4venger crowd seriously. I mean, I know that there are legitimate complaints, but those get lost because people like this just make me shake my head. If these are the arguments the 4e side is trying to make, no wonder why I don't take you seriously:
Quote2 (regarding the statement to just start at level 4 if you don't like level 1-3): Oh really? Well then it's a stupid way of trying to achieve the result they want. Making first-level characters largely incompetent is not the way to "ease" new players into the game/class.
3: I...I don't fucking believe it. He's literally suggesting "Spend more sessions at 'starting' level if you feel like you're missing out on something."
That just...I don't even. It completely misses the point of why I'm upset that the tier system REQUIRES you to start at Level 3 if you don't want to play through incompetent tutorial levels.
Why are comments like this absolutely worthless? Because it clearly shows that these kneejerkers haven't even bothered to read Next or play the game. Let me explain how stuff like the above completely falls apart
1. Level 1-3 characters aren't incompetent. Nothing in Next implies so. The assumption that unless you have a lot of powers from the get go makes you incompetent is lazy and factually incorrect. In the most recent iteration of Next, a level 1 fighter will kill an average of almost 10 goblins before dying. (someone on the Next Google+ group created a program and ran the numbers). That's hardly incompetent.
2. This argument obviously didn't read the XP level chart. A level 4 character needs about 2,200 XP to reach that level. 250 to reach level 2. Level progression in Next is so fast at low levels that skipping the first 3 levels isn't really taking anything away from your "I don't want to miss out on part of the game" experience.
3. It makes
no sense to start the complexity of uber powers at level 1 and alienate that entire userbase who would be best served by using those levels to learn the game based upon item 2 above. You're getting what you want at level 4, and are being allowed to start there if you want without hardly missing out on anything. So why wouldn't you use level 1-3 as a novice tier?
So yeah, this is why I can't take a lot of the criticism from the 3e/4e crowd all that seriously when quotes like the above make up most of the complaints. My suggestion to those 4e fans who have legitimate complaints is to police your own group instead of ignoring baseless bitching like the above. Because since I don't hang out on 4e discussions often, I tend to make generalizations based on the majority of posts I see or hear (which are like the above). I don't think I'm unusual in that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;645268I seriously don't see what all the crying is about, especially with the most recent Q&A (http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/3/6/9/176369_slide.jpg?v=1).
To be honest, stuff like this is probably a reason why I don't take the 4venger crowd seriously. I mean, I know that there are legitimate complaints, but those get lost because people like this just make me shake my head. If these are the arguments the 4e side is trying to make, no wonder why I don't take you seriously:
Why are comments like this absolutely worthless? Because it clearly shows that these kneejerkers haven't even bothered to read Next or play the game. Let me explain how stuff like the above completely falls apart
1. Level 1-3 characters aren't incompetent. Nothing in Next implies so. The assumption that unless you have a lot of powers from the get go makes you incompetent is lazy and factually incorrect. In the most recent iteration of Next, a level 1 fighter will kill an average of almost 10 goblins before dying. (someone on the Next Google+ group created a program and ran the numbers). That's hardly incompetent.
2. This argument obviously didn't read the XP level chart. A level 4 character needs about 2,200 XP to reach that level. 250 to reach level 2. Level progression in Next is so fast at low levels that skipping the first 3 levels isn't really taking anything away from your "I don't want to miss out on part of the game" experience.
3. It makes no sense to start the complexity of uber powers at level 1 and alienate that entire userbase who would be best served by using those levels to learn the game based upon item 2 above. You're getting what you want at level 4, and are being allowed to start there if you want without hardly missing out on anything. So why wouldn't you use level 1-3 as a novice tier?
So yeah, this is why I can't take a lot of the criticism from the 3e/4e crowd all that seriously when quotes like the above make up most of the complaints. My suggestion to those 4e fans who have legitimate complaints is to police your own group instead of ignoring baseless bitching like the above. Because since I don't hang out on 4e discussions often, I tend to make generalizations based on the majority of posts I see or hear (which are like the above). I don't think I'm unusual in that.
I think what you are reading in those posts are a tangent of the real problem, just responding to the latest piece of garbage WotC craps out.
The problem is simply that WotC is trying its utmost to make 5E like AD&D, and we don't want to play AD&D. They pay lip service to modularity, but haven't shown us nothing specific and nobody believes it anymore, if they ever did in the first place.
They're trying to shoehorn everybody into one game when people want different games.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645273I think what you are reading in those posts are a tangent of the real problem, just responding to the latest piece of garbage WotC craps out.
The problem is simply that WotC is trying its utmost to make 5E like AD&D, and we don't want to play AD&D. They pay lip service to modularity, but haven't shown us nothing specific and nobody believes it anymore, if they ever did in the first place.
They're trying to shoehorn everybody into one game when people want different games.
Bolded part mine, and shows a huge part of the problem. Obviously you've never played AD&D, and you're just contributing to the problem because you're quick to throw out factually incorrect assumptions like this.
Next is closer to AD&D than 4e was, but it is most assuredly very different than AD&D.
AD&D doesn't have anything like:
* backgrounds
* specialties
* feats
* a skill resolution system like Next
* class customization on a tactical level (like Next's fighter maneuvers)
* ritual magic
* and a bunch of other stuff
No, Next is a lot closer to 3e or even 4e in the regards of tactical combat rules go. Right now, even without the advanced modules, is a fairly robust ruleset on how to handle grid based combat. There are feats/maneuvers that allow shifting and status effects that are
way more close to 3e and 4e than AD&D.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;645276Bolded part mine, and shows a huge part of the problem. Obviously you've never played AD&D, and you're just contributing to the problem because you're quick to throw out factually incorrect assumptions like this.
Next is closer to AD&D than 4e was, but it is most assuredly very different than AD&D.
AD&D doesn't have anything like:
* backgrounds
* specialties
* feats
* a skill resolution system like Next
* class customization on a tactical level (like Next's fighter maneuvers)
* ritual magic
* and a bunch of other stuff
No, Next is a lot closer to 3e or even 4e in the regards of tactical combat rules go. Right now, even without the advanced modules, is a fairly robust ruleset on how to handle grid based combat. There are feats/maneuvers that allow shifting and status effects that are way more close to 3e and 4e than AD&D.
They're trying to make it look and feel like AD&D. Are you saying that 5E looks and feels more like 3E/4E right now? If it feels more like 4E, why do 4E fans seem to be complaining as much they seem to be doing, in your opinion?
I guess the biggest problem, for where I can see it, is this:
TSR era players have largely said (with few exceptions): "I'm OK with 4e tactical combat and powers, as long as there are ways for me to ignore them when I play."
3e players have largely said (with few exceptions): "Unless I get my feats and char-op minigame, forget it. Otherwise I'm OK with it."
4e players have largely said (with few exceptions): "I want everything from 4e as the base core game or WoTC is stabbing me in the back."
TSR era and 3e players can for the most part play the same game based on the above. We've already seen this by WoTC saying that you can ignore specialties and feats if you want and just follow a predetermined path like in TSR era D&D. With 4e, there is no compromise. At all. Just look at the comment I quoted above. Even something that only impacts probably 1% of your total gaming experience 4efans are throwing a fit about.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645279They're trying to make it look and feel like AD&D. Are you saying that 5E looks and feels more like 3E/4E right now? If it feels more like 4E, why do 4E fans seem to be complaining as much they seem to be doing, in your opinion?
How does it look and feel like AD&D? I literally JUST explained to you how it's totally different
in the post you quoted. Stop being so 4eish and ignoring things that prove you wrong just to repeat the exact same thing that was just disproven.
With a d20 vs DC skill system, and with feats, it feels a lot more like 3e than any other edition with the exception that Next makes it MUCH easier to ignore those combat rules that 3e had so you can speed up combat to your liking.
And I've already said that 4e fans are bitching because it appears that 4e fans are completely unwilling to compromise at all, and demand that the core game be a 4e clone. Again, see the quote I just posted as a key example of this.
Great to hear our d20 CoC is still up to date! :D (points at sig)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;645268Why are comments like this absolutely worthless? Because it clearly shows that these kneejerkers haven't even bothered to read Next or play the game.
I utterly agree that only people emotionally invested enough in 5e after an intense playtest should comment on whether or not they are on board with this edition. That way, we get a healthy balance of opinion, sanely controlled by those well informed to pontificate on such matters.
Or, quoting the great Jeff Rients from back in 2008,
QuoteDo you know how many people have told me "Don't judge the game by the pre-release hype"? This despite the fact that Wizards obviously wanted people to judge the game based on their hype machine. And then a bunch of people said "You can't judge this new D&D by the text alone, you need to play it!" Now you're telling me I have to play several sessions before I judge the game AND that I can't use the adventure Wizard's obviously wants me to use.
Exactly at what point do I stop giving these guys a break? When do I get to trust my own instincts on this one? How many hoops do I have to jump through before I'm allowed to have an opinion? I'm starting to get a little tired of people who lay out prerequisites for me before I'm able to have my say. Again, I'm not trying to call you out, here. I'm just highlighting this annoying trend I see everywhere among 4e boosters.
http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/07/4e-reader-response.html
Quote from: Sacrosanct;642542Except there are things about Next that I may like better than AD&D. Being able to houserule a system doesn't mean that AD&D is the default best game out of that pool. Now, I really do like AD&D1e (my preferred edition), but there are aspects of Next that I like better. Specifically backgrounds and specialties. For example, I have my halfling fighter who has stealth abilities without the need to multi-class. I like that.
What is there to compromise on? We want to play a different game, and 5E isn't delivering that game.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645284What is there to compromise on? We want to play a different game, and 5E isn't delivering that game.
...then I guess 5e isn't for you?
*shrug*
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645284What is there to compromise on? We want to play a different game, and 5E isn't delivering that game.
Until we see the modular components they have been talking abut, I dint think this can be said with any amount of certainty. The core game looks quite simple so far, i can easily imagine layering on a 4E style module without any issues.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645279They're trying to make it look and feel like AD&D. Are you saying that 5E looks and feels more like 3E/4E right now? If it feels more like 4E, why do 4E fans seem to be complaining as much they seem to be doing, in your opinion?
I am really not seeing this. I think they are trying to reach the AD&D audience like they are trying to reach out to fans of other editions, but the game so far doesnt really look and feel like AD&D to me (though I do think they are careful to include AD&D expectations of things like exploration).
I have seen fans of every edition of the game say 5e "feels like [their favorite version of the game]".
Quote from: Windjammer;645283Great to hear our d20 CoC is still up to date! :D (points at sig)
I utterly agree that only people emotionally invested enough in 5e after an intense playtest should comment on whether or not they are on board with this edition. That way, we get a healthy balance of opinion, sanely controlled by those well informed to pontificate on such matters.
Or, quoting the great Jeff Rients from back in 2008,
http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/07/4e-reader-response.html
There's a big difference in trusting your gut feeling on something and actively ignoring part of the game rules that prove your opinion wrong. Certainly you aren't being that obtuse to try to equate the two as similar. I.e., I am not claiming that one should be an expert at playing the game before making a comment on it (and you can stop that strawman right now). But you should at the very least
skim the rules before saying how they are broken, especially when they clearly show how your opinion is wrong.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645284What is there to compromise on? We want to play a different game, and 5E isn't delivering that game.
I understand that. However, what I do not understand is why 4e fans expect an edition of D&D being purposely designed to bring back players who played previous editions to be like 4e. 4e is a very different game than previous editions. However, 4e has only been played for around 4-5 years of the 39-40 years D&D has been in print. And D&D's major popularity was in the early 1980s (B/X and 1e) and in the early 2000s (3.x). 4e was only played for 10-12% of the years D&D has been around. Why do 4e fans expect WOTC to build the game on 4e (10-12% of its roots) when the object is to enlarge the number of people buying/playing the game by attracting players who played previous editions but did not like 4e enough to switch to it? 0e-3.x are all similar to more each other than any of them is similar to 4e.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645284What is there to compromise on? We want to play a different game, and 5E isn't delivering that game.
Then keep playing 4e??
Quote from: RandallS;645293I understand that. However, what I do not understand is why 4e fans expect an edition of D&D being purposely designed to bring back players who played previous editions to be like 4e. 4e is a very different game than previous editions. However, 4e has only been played for around 4-5 years of the 39-40 years D&D has been in print. And D&D's major popularity was in the early 1980s (B/X and 1e) and in the early 2000s (3.x). 4e was only played for 10-12% of the years D&D has been around. Why do 4e fans expect WOTC to build the game on 4e (10-12% of its roots) when the object is to enlarge the number of people buying/playing the game by attracting players who played previous editions but did not like 4e enough to switch to it? 0e-3.x are all similar to more each other than any of them is similar to 4e.
Because as TCO has clearly illustrated, these young 4e players these days have an inflated sense of entitlement. Back in my day..... ;)
There is this big assumption that a majority of 4e players are not liking 5e.
I think that is false.
I think the majority of comments, either pro or con, are coming from 4e fans because they are the largest group that is still closely watching future WOTC products, and the ones most likely to be even interested in the early stages of the Alpha-test.
And the majority of comments I see from 4e fans are positive. The majority of negative comments are also from 4e fans, but I think the positive comments are well outnumbering the negative ones from 4e fans, and in general.
Quote from: Mistwell;645303There is this big assumption that a majority of 4e players are not liking 5e.
I think that is false.
I think the majority of comments, either pro or con, are coming from 4e fans because they are the largest group that is still closely watching future WOTC products, and the ones most likely to be even interested in the early stages of the Alpha-test.
I think you're right, but I think it's because the majority of players (of all editions) don't post on internet forums that much. We're all a group of whiners, mostly. :D
Quote from: Warthur;645164Dude, they gave a series of three L&L articles explaining how the basic/standard/advanced options breakdown would work, what more could you want on that front?
Well, to drop that specific modular demarcation for starters, as the designations basic/standard/advanced are anything but
meaningful. For example, would a tactical miniatures module be basic or advanced?
They need to define what is
core, and then how various other playstyles (miniatures, storytelling, simulations) can be integrated with it. But is that what they're doing?
Quote from: Bill;645257If they have a players book, dm's guide, and monster manual, I would buy modules left and right. Setting books I would buy a few.
But no core book treadmill for me thanks.
It's not a treadmill, it's a buffet. If you have no interest in certain features, then you don't have to buy those features.
At least that's what 'they' keep telling me.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645494Well, to drop that specific modular demarcation for starters, as the designations basic/standard/advanced are anything but meaningful. For example, would a tactical miniatures module be basic or advanced?
Advanced because it's not part of the rules in the basic set, not part of the expanded core rules in the standard set, and is an optional module.
In what respect is that difficult?
QuoteThey need to define what is core, and then how various other playstyles (miniatures, storytelling, simulations) can be integrated with it. But is that what they're doing?
As far as I can make it, it works like this:
- Basic offers a "core" which essentially involves taking the Standard rules and hard-coding in a particular set of options for character builds and so on.
- Standard offers the full core with all the standard options.
- Advanced consists of optional modules which expand or modify the core as expressed in Standard.
QuoteIt's not a treadmill, it's a buffet. If you have no interest in certain features, then you don't have to buy those features.
At least that's what 'they' keep telling me.
Yeah, I'm frankly looking forward to seeing how it pans out because the idea of a modular buffet approach to a game line is basically how I approach any game line in the first place.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;645263...or play something that isn't D&D
...or leave the hobby altogether
...or decide that 5E isn't OSR enough and stick with what is already out there
...or decide that 5E isn't worth switching over from Pathfinder
...ect
It all adds up.
There's no way WotC is going to completely undo the damage of 4e, that ship has sailed. However, they don't have to convert everyone in the OSR or everyone playing Pathfinder.
Who plays just one RPG? Sure some, but not all. Pick a person here (except you) who likes 4e. They play other games too.
The idea isn't to put out the D&D that will unite the clans, the idea is to put out a D&D that calls a peace treaty.
0-3.5ers players - WotC has realized these old bastards still have money and has gone back to happily selling them older versions of the game. They know they won't get all of them as customers, but if they stop pretending their playstyle doesn't exist, they will get some, perhaps a lot even if it's only one of the many games they play.
Pathfinders - Here is where WotC has trouble, because these guys have Paizo actually supporting their game, so it's not like they are only relying on old versions and do-it-yourself/OGL content. Still, 5e is new, and if 5e can support their playstyle, there's plenty of dollars to be had here, even if they don't become "Brand Converts" or whatever the marketing bullshit-speak for that is.
4e-ers - This group is made up of
1. People who play 4e as well as other games, even other versions of D&D
2. People who play 4e because it is the newest and currently supported version of D&D.
3. People who play 4e because it is not like 0-3.5 D&D.
Here's where WotC has some issues, because let's face it - 4e was the edition of D&D most unlike 0-2, and still substantially different from 3/3.5. The very vocal, forum-going, activist branch of players, the "4vengers", like 4e specifically because it is not like earlier versions of D&D. If WotC listens to this group when it comes to designing the "core" game, there is no point in 5th edition at all. None.
They have to construct a game where to get the D&D you want, you layer on options. If they make you remove to get the D&D you want, 30 years of game design as well as all logic and common sense says that doesn't work.
You start basic - you can sell to the OSR
You give options to add - you can sell to the 1e and 2e crowd
You give a lot more options to add - you can sell to the charop crowd
You give 4e options - you can sell to the 4e crowd
The idea here isn't to regain number one Uber-Alles position in the souls of the faithful. The idea is to sell to everyone and regain number one market position.
So, if they listen to people like TCO and his "squeaky wheel gets the grease my game or no game" bullshit, they may as well sell off D&D to Steve Jackson.
As far as the 4e players are concerned, I can see that they haven't unveiled or even talked about 4e modules yet.
However keep in mind the plan of start with a skeleton then tack everything on. It makes sense they would basically go in chronological order since as the game went from 0-3.5 it became more complicated.
The basic core has to be right. It has to be playable to the people who like minimalist D&D and it has to interface with the more complicated modules well or the whole thing is flushed from the get-go.
AFAICT, they're starting to play around with some of the advanced stuff, and seeing how well it interfaces. Make the core game character Conan at 1st level, you've failed in creating a minimalist core. So you start at Zero, and make sure you can get to non-Zero really frickin' fast.
Something like experience gain is a very easy adaptation for the Old-Schoolers, one they won't think twice about changing and one that isn't likely to be a deal-breaker.
If you're incapable of breaking out of console-kid mode and think of 1-3 as "tutorial levels", WotC has to bite the bullet and just ignore the hell out of you if they want this to work. They have to look at the whole and decide how difficult it is for someone to ignore or change something they don't like.
If you go from first to third in a couple nights or one long one, it's hard to take seriously that complaint versus starting off a hero and completely invalidating an entire fantasy theme.
People are going to whine like hell over every little thing that they don't like, WotC has to ignore everyone's whining and look at their playstyle and use the following flow...
"Is their playstyle POSSIBLE." if YES, then
"Do they have to subtract to get their playstyle." if NO, then
"Is the addition or change to get their playstyle something reasonable for that type of player or GM." If YES, then they are good to go.
D&D 4th edition players are upset because their game failed to capture a large enough audience and died.
I understand and sympathize as I've been through the same with many systems.
OTOH, 4e carried the name of a game that it bore no resemblance to, and I can't see ANY good reasons 4e fans should be upset that the next edition isnt going to resemble thei rgame, or that its making an attempt to emulate an earlier, more successful game.
Basically, 4e is New Coke.
If WotC sticks to their plan for modular development, 4e fans should eventually get the tools they need to play a game that's very similar and maybe even mechanically more appealing to them than the current 4e.
Unfortunately for them, that's probably quite a few months down the development road. Fans of other styles will probably get served first.
It's not the end of the world. There's no reason why they can't keep playing 4e to their hearts' content until the advanced options are published. And, even then, if it turns out they don't like the new system, no one is going to hold a gun to their heads to make them buy or play 5e.
I have a hard time seeing what the fuss is all about.
Quote from: Warthur;645550Advanced because it's not part of the rules in the basic set, not part of the expanded core rules in the standard set, and is an optional module.
In what respect is that difficult?
Not difficult, just
meaningless. Seriously, this is a perfect example of the empty rhetoric I'm talking about.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645666Not difficult, just meaningless. Seriously, this is a perfect example of the empty rhetoric I'm talking about.
What is meaningless about it? It's simple, are the rules in question:
a) Found in the Basic boxed set? If yes, they are Basic rules.
b) Found in the Standard core rulebooks (which I suspect will follow the PHB/DMG/MM breakdown for reasons of iconicness)? If yes, they are Standard rules.
c) Found in an optional supplement adding rules over and above those found in the Standard core? If yes, they are Advanced.
What
precisely is the confusion here?
Quote from: CRKrueger;645564Who plays just one RPG? Sure some, but not all./QUOTE]
I suspect this is highly regional (and possibly age-dependent). In the college town I grew up in, everybody played multiple systems, often simultaneously.
In the WASPy bedroom community I live in now, the gamers (rpg and mini) all pretty much play one game to the exclusion of all others. The only real exception is board games.