TheRPGSite

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?611467-I-m-pretty-unhappy-with-WotC-at-the-moment

I'm pretty unhappy with WotC at the moment.

"Not for announcing a new edition, for whatever reasons people have read into it. I can totally understand ditching a product that doesn't sell, no matter how much I loved it, and liked where I thought the line was going. It's not the "McDonald's" comment stupidity, though that does irk me (and really, why the fuck would I be looking for Narnia? Santa Claus showing up to hand out magic items? That shit goes in Gamma World, you jags). It's not even the implied follow up to "An edition for all D&D fans" being "...except 4th".

It's that, when faced with a dilemma of losing a large part of the established base, the response is to hit the reset button. I get that WotC's job as a publisher isn't to be fearless when it comes to innovation, but looking at what isn't working (assuming that's the situation with 4th), the reaction shouldn't be to take two steps back. Especially when it means rewarding the people who did show you brand loyalty with disdain for their preferred game.

I don't really feel like rewarding WotC for this kind of thinking. If we're getting a new edition, I want a new game. I'm willing to admit that I could be totally wrong here, and that we could very well see an innovative new system that incoporates what D&D excels at. Everything coming from them is just high minded talk until the playtest rules come out, so it's too soon to make any judgements on the quality of the game. However, if it is a blatant reversion to an earlier edition, I'm just going to stop supporting the D&D brand.

Especially if it's 3.5 all over again. In that situation, I'll be switching to Pathfinder."

(Emphasis mine.)

This made me laugh.

"We loved your 4e, WotC. Why are you abandoning us? Wah wah hwahwah. If you make 5e like older editions, I'll leave you forever and play Pathfinder. Wah wah wah hwahwhaw."

Too bad. So sad.

O, the hilarity.

They're just butthurt because they spent the last few years lording the superiority of 4e over folks who didn't like it, now they're feeling abandoned by their beloved WotC.

Hm, let's see if I can do this part right: Quit your bitching, it's not like your 4e books will stop working just because WotC is not supporting the line anymore. Fuck off to your little weblogs and niche websites to console each other, you stuck-in-the-mud fossils, and let the Kewl Kidz move on to bigger and better things - not our fault that you can't handle innovation and cutting edge RPG rulesets. Wah, wah wah!

The funnier comments are form the ones who cant seem to separate the online tools from the physical books anymore its as if the books they own are somehow unreadable unless there's an online source to tell them how.

Quote from: Werekoala;508082They're just butthurt because they spent the last few years lording the superiority of 4e over folks who didn't like it, now they're feeling abandoned by their beloved WotC.

That's exactly the situation. Warms the cockles of my heart, it does.

Every edition has these guys, it takes the announcement of a new edition to bring them out though. FWiW 4 e fans will have to work hard to catch up to the reaction the 3e fans had at the announcement of 4e.

Oh! Oh! Let me try!

(Ahem)

The only reason why you love 4E is because of nostalgia. You are not really having any fun with 4E, you are just afraid of change.


How was that?

Meh, it'll be on and on and on and on, until 5e comes around, and they become Grog v2.

But what really makes me confused is the "I won't be able to support my favourite edition anymore with my money."

Ke?

I thought people bought RPGs because they liked to play them, not to "show the support". Every RPG I bought was to get something, not to show support.

Quote from: 1989;508078This made me laugh.

"We loved your 4e, WotC. Why are you abandoning us? Wah wah hwahwah. If you make 5e like older editions, I'll leave you forever and play Pathfinder. Wah wah wah hwahwhaw."

Too bad. So sad.

O, the hilarity.

Sorry, I don't get it. Other than the whining, it seems like a reasonable statement.

Reads to me like "We loved your 4e, WotC. Why are you abandoning us? Wah wah hwahwah. If you stop publishing products we like, we'll just have to go to your competitors!"

Of course, let's not forget that Pathfinder is very much like an older version of D&D. I bet Mr Face will feel very spited when it parts company with Mr Nose.

Notice that he says that he'll switch to Pathfinder (=3.5) if they make 5e like 3.5. Oh, the irony. The hate.

Quote from: Aos;508088Every edition has these guys, it takes the announcement of a new edition to bring them out though. FWiW 4 e fans will have to work hard to catch up to the reaction the 3e fans had at the announcement of 4e.

I dunno, I cannot think of reading of any 3.x fans who made suicidal gestures upon the announcement.

Quote from: jeff37923;508101I dunno, I cannot think of reading of any 3.x fans who made suicidal gestures upon the announcement.

I'm sure someone did, really,  and there was lots and lots of "they lied to us and fired me as a customer!" going around- which still makes me laugh.

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/23

blah blah blah [edition X] blah blah bah [edition X+1].

WotC is going to lose lots of 4e fans to 5e and not get many Pathfinder fans to join 5e and very few OSR fans to join 5e. Their only hope is that 5e draws in RPGers who aren't attached to any edition and new RPGers.

Unless WotC does some amazing advertising to grab noobs, I see 5e having less success than 4e in the long run regardless how good the system may be.

The weird thing, though:

If they really want to INCLUDE any 4e-isms...they might manage to alienate EVERYONE at once.

Quote from: Spinachcat;508110WotC is going to lose lots of 4e fans to 5e and not get many Pathfinder fans to join 5e and very few OSR fans to join 5e. Their only hope is that 5e draws in RPGers who aren't attached to any edition and new RPGers.

Unless WotC does some amazing advertising to grab noobs, I see 5e having less success than 4e in the long run regardless how good the system may be.

I don't know if 4e fans actually exist. I think people that play 4e simply lack discernment and taste, and will play whatever is put before them, praising it as new and awesome.

4e fans are just 3e fans that went to the next edition. Are you going to tell me that all those 1e/2e fans that hated 3e  were just waiting for something awesome like 4e to come along? No. So, then, where did the 4e fans come from?

Pathfinder fans are 4e haters who want a supported system. OSR fans are 3e/4e haters that want a supported system.

WotC is going to bring back a gridless combat system, which we haven't had since 2e. The use of a board/grid is the single biggest difference in play style between TSR D&D and WotC D&D. It's a verbal theatre of the imagination vs. a board game, moving little figures around in squares. Huge difference. Ask any non-RPGer to watch a group playing 2e and a group playing 4e, and they will tell you they are doing two totally unrelated activities -- two different games.

WotC will capture the 4e haters by letting them have the 3e playstyle in a supported system called D&D. WotC will capture the 3e/4e haters by giving them a basic, barebones, gridless system (I'm a prime example, here).

WotC is going to do well with 5e, better than with 4e at least. Sure, everyone will complain about this or that, but a system that allows multiple playstyles (as did earlier editions) will be more successful in the long run.

The guy on rpgnet is upset why? Maybe he actually wants a wargame and doesn't know it.

Like, this guys loves 4e so much that he won't play anything else? Yeah, so what were you playing for the last 30 years???

Will WotC capture the 4e lovers? 4e is an anomaly in the history of D&D. An abomination. The more you make 5e look like 4e, which has failed, the more 5e will fail.

That goes for any 1e-isms, 2e-isms or 3e-isms as well.

But we will see. Next week is DDXP and we will soon learn how Mearls and Cook have magically created a system that appeals to everyone and appeases every edition warrior.

Quote from: 1989;508116I don't know if 4e fans actually exist. I think people that play 4e simply lack discernment and taste, and will play whatever is put before them, praising it as new and awesome.

4e fans are just 3e fans that went to the next edition. Are you going to tell me that all those 1e/2e fans that hated 3e  were just waiting for something awesome like 4e to come along? No. So, then, where did the 4e fans come from?

QuoteLike, this guys loves 4e so much that he won't play anything else? Yeah, so what were you playing for the last 30 years???

Out of everyone I know personally who played 3x, I know all of one person who switched. Had you considered the possibility that 4e got some brand new players somewhere along the line? Or the possibility that not all roleplayers are over 30?

QuoteWill WotC capture the 4e lovers? 4e is an anomaly in the history of D&D. An abomination. The more you make 5e look like 4e, which has failed, the more 5e will fail.

As I've said elsewhere, many of the things that bothered pre-4 players weren't explicit draws for those who played 4th, so much as they were non-issues (much like THAC0 is vaguely counterintuitive, but a non-issue for those already familiar... or like fractional save progressions for 3x fans). Matters of clean math and rules presentation could make it into the new edition, pleasing 4e fans and bothering no one in particular.

Main points of division are Vance, customization, and tactical combat. Vance will be a dealbreaker for the 4e crowd, while ditching Vance (as a rule) would be suicide after 4e. Customization seems to bother existing fans least, if 3x's history is to be believed (though it may not have been handled the best way). Tactical combat doesn't have to be gridded, but total absence would be a dealbreaker for 4e, must-have presence would be an annoyance for most pre-4e fans, and there are 3x fans that would be pushed either way regardless (we were sort of mixed in our thoughts on the grid).

Quote from: beejazz;508131Out of everyone I know personally who played 3x, I know all of one person who switched. Had you considered the possibility that 4e got some brand new players somewhere along the line? Or the possibility that not all roleplayers are over 30?

New players? All those would-be-RPGers that were out there, just waiting for the SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARD WARGAME THAT IS 4E to be created?

It's true, there could have been a few new players. Nothing of any significance, though. 4e still failed, and failed hard.

But this guy from RPGnet already was playing 3.5.

Quote from: 1989;508132New players? All those would-be-RPGers that were out there, just waiting for the SUPERHERO MINIATURES BOARD WARGAME THAT IS 4E to be created?

I know I wasn't waiting for 3e in particular as much as I was first exposed to D&D after 3e was released. I would imagine 3e wasn't the first edition to have that happen.

QuoteIt's true, there could have been a few new players. Nothing of any significance, though. 4e still failed, and failed hard.

We don't have good numbers on the player base. I don't think it brought in as much as other editions, but it also only had 4 years in which to do so. That while it was limping along with a damaged player base.

You know, people do exist who liked 4e, liked AD&D, but disliked 3e.

Pretty much everyone in my gaming group disliked 3e.  I've heard of no interest at all in Pathfinder.

Some of them disliked 4e as well, but on the whole most people were at least amenable to it.  The favorite edition around here would be AD&D 2e, actually.

So, yeah, if 5e looks like 3e, then there's a lot of people I know who won't touch it (of course, they won't be buying Pathfinder, either).  Though, honestly, most everyone around here is burnt out on the new edition treadmill so even if 5e was perfect they might not buy it at this point; WotC has really burned a lot of goodwill with crap moves like 3.5 and 4e essentials.

Quote from: jgants;508148You know, people do exist who liked 4e, liked AD&D, but disliked 3e.

This is interesting. Both 3e and 4e are grid-driven wargames. 2e is the polar opposite. Cook even said that 2e was designed to have a very abstract combat system, himself (don't have the link here with me, at the moment).

Maybe they were playing AD&D like a wargame with miniatures or something?

I'm not sure why someone considering Pathfinder over D&D4e wouldn't be playing Pathfinder, like, right now.

WotC would have to actually advertise to get new players. And I'm not talking about their website or other rpg websites. They need to be on Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc.

Quote from: 1989;508155This is interesting. Both 3e and 4e are grid-driven wargames. 2e is the polar opposite. Cook even said that 2e was designed to have a very abstract combat system, himself (don't have the link here with me, at the moment).

Maybe they were playing AD&D like a wargame with miniatures or something?

Or they liked the two games for something they had in common, or they liked them for different reasons and had some totally unrelated dealbreaker issue with 3e (character creation and prep times are a common complaint), or they liked a setting that got support with the two editions but not 3e (Dark Sun).

There are more types of player out there than you seem to be aware of.

Yeah, I like the grid- for 4e, but I wouldn't use it for anything else, and I never made it through character gen in 3.x. Neither game is really what I think of as D&D, but one I like the other I do not. Also the fluff in the 4e Dark Sun campaign guide is superior to the original box set, if only because it's not related in first person.

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;508083The funnier comments are form the ones who cant seem to separate the online tools from the physical books anymore its as if the books they own are somehow unreadable unless there's an online source to tell them how.

That's what you get when adolescent ADHD MMOG players are your target demographic (and yes, many quotes from 4e designers said exactly this.)

Quote from: 1989;508155This is interesting. Both 3e and 4e are grid-driven wargames. 2e is the polar opposite. Cook even said that 2e was designed to have a very abstract combat system, himself (don't have the link here with me, at the moment).

I recall playing most of 3rd edition (3.0 and 3.5) without a battle-mat except in rare cases where the DM needed to manage a great deal. 3.0 still had the players and DMs using common sense and reference drawing to determine things like cover (1/2, 3/4, 9/10). 3.5 introduced/played up the more codified systems dependent on squares.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;508187I recall playing most of 3rd edition (3.0 and 3.5) without a battle-mat except in rare cases where the DM needed to manage a great deal. 3.0 still had the players and DMs using common sense and reference drawing to determine things like cover (1/2, 3/4, 9/10). 3.5 introduced/played up the more codified systems dependent on squares.

5' step, attack of opportunity, all the fancy footwork feats related to movement -- 3e really need a mat to play as written. 3.5 came out and said it was flat out mandatory . . . and even included a mat for you in the book.

WTF. Who took my RPG and replaced it with a boardgame!?

Quote from: 1989;5081993e really need a mat to play as written.

Yep, I was lying all along. Clever of you to find me out.

Quote from: 1989;508116I don't know if 4e fans actually exist. I think people that play 4e simply lack discernment and taste, and will play whatever is put before them, praising it as new and awesome.

4e fans are just 3e fans that went to the next edition. Are you going to tell me that all those 1e/2e fans that hated 3e  were just waiting for something awesome like 4e to come along? No. So, then, where did the 4e fans come from?

Ludicrous to take this post as occasion for a serious reply, but off we go.

I like 4E for one thing: it makes DM'ing very easy on my time and brain. I find it physically (not mentally) exhausting to DM what I take to be a RPG session of a proper length - 5 hours and upwards. I have no problem with 'proper' RPG sessions when I'm just a player, because then I can just fade in and fade out, let other characters take over, let my own character hang out in the back and not participate in in- or out-character banter, and just let me mind wander off. I'm made that way, short intermittent phases of concentration and creative outbursts. And that's anathema for DM'ing. Because, as a DM you have to pay attention all the time. Court room intrigue? Players wanting their characters to do this, that, or anything? Pay attention! Respond! React. It's a high intensity game, and I love it for that. But it also means that, however much I love RPG sessions at 'proper length', I'm not really built for them. (Or, not anymore - like many of you I enjoyed many 10+ hour session during vacation many summers ago.)

And this where 4E comes in. Of course, out of combat, the RPG plays like any other I've played. But when combat breaks out, the game is fundamentally very simple. I'm not stupid, or lack the comprehension of complex rules system (FFS I play intricate wargames). But here's the catch: when it's combat time, the system runs like a perfectly oiled machine. It's not 'here, have 4 pages of rules, make up the rest' or 'here's a book with 200 tables, have fun consulting our charts!'. It occupies the odd space inbetween, being quantitatively enormous, but very easy to understand in its entirety. Ultimately, when a 4E combat starts, as a DM there are remarkably few things you got to pay attention to; play can go wildly off the rails (it regularly does in our group), but it's not that way All. The. Time. It's entertaining, funny, frequently unpredictable, tactically rewarding - it is all that and a lot more. And there's one thing it isn't - it isn't taxing on my brain. Coming out of DM'ing a 4E session I don't feel I've just been through a 3.x session, or a session of Here I Stand, which felt like work, very rewarding work, an intellectual challenge of the highest caliber - yes, it doesn't feel like that, because whatever else a 4E session delivered, it did so without taking a lot of my resources in the process.

So, when combat kicks off, the game suddenly becomes very relaxing for me as a DM. And I love it for that. I also love the tactile aspect, but that's a pure side effect. (And yes, 4E combat does work wonderfully as a board game! There, I said it.) No, the point is that the pacing which this game brings to my DM'ing experience (w.r.t to the non-/combat aspects) is as if it's made for hybrid minds like myself. Because the game itself, you see, is this curious hybrid. I'd go on replicating Spinachcat's well known review of the game, which did a lot to help me understand the game's 'drive' so to speak.

So there you have it. That's why I'm ultimately a fan of this system.

It's simple enough to house rule, and it got tons of crazy funny stuff that's there for the taking. (Last week a friend and I made up the ultimate Eberron NPC: he's a sentient metal dog, brain in char, except the char is a metal canine corpus, and the sentient thing is not a brain but one of Cyre's last regalia. And he's a companion to the PCs. I run his loyalty towards the PCs using the extant 4E system for artefacts. Ever noticed how great this subsystem is? 4E offers several great delightful surprises if you look beyond its vilified powers system. It vastly improved traps and diseases, and you can use the latter to model concussion hits (http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/11215.html).) And it's a joy to create custom content for. The system's basic chassis is so simple that even a simpleton like myself can grasp it, and  lot of the Official (TM) stuff published for it so amateurish, the adventures so trashy, the char sheets so butt ugly, that I feel instantly compelled to come up with something I prefer.

That doesn't make it a great system, or a great game - after all, a game's faults are hardly its merits, ey? - but it's a way of saying that 4E and I, we work well together.

Here's my parting shot: my hand drawn / Heroquest-pimped char sheet for 4E, which I use side by side with WotC power cards. Because I can.

(http://image-upload.de/get/csYZxk/92e0c10761.jpg)

Quote from: Windjammer;508208So, when combat kicks off, the game suddenly becomes very relaxing for me as a DM. And I love it for that.

I will say that this is my experience from the few times I DM'd 4th Edition. Once the work of actually setting up the encounter is done, everyone becomes a player, even the DM. Not a bad thing, IMO, but it seems to help reinforce the "D&D as boardgame" aspects a bit.

Quote from: Windjammer;508208Ludicrous to take this post as occasion for a serious reply, but off we go.

What's your favourite edition of D&D, and why?

Quote from: Werekoala;508211I will say that this is my experience from the few times I DM'd 4th Edition. Once the work of actually setting up the encounter is done, everyone becomes a player, even the DM. Not a bad thing, IMO, but it seems to help reinforce the "D&D as boardgame" aspects a bit.

Funny, because I had the very same feel GMing pretty much every system - I just try to fight with my NPCs as imaginative, as players are trying to fight with their PCs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508213Funny, because I had the very same feel GMing pretty much every system - I just try to fight with my NPCs as imaginative, as players are trying to fight with their PCs.

Yes, why indeed should it be more taxing on a human mind to concurrently control a cast of a thousand PCs than a single one of them? Plainly this was not an issue that ever needed resolving. :P

Quote from: 1989;508212What's your favourite edition of D&D, and why?

3.5. But ever since 2008 I've found myself playing (and DM'ing) it less and less in favour of 4E, for all the reasons outlined above. Let me be clear - I don't think 4E can hold a candle to 3.5 in its glorious splendour. But then all the factors related above kick in, and suddenly my de facto preference swings the other way. (And before you ask - 2E was my first foray into D&D, but that was after I'd been playing a BECMI hack (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21629) for years.)

Quote from: Rincewind1;508213Funny, because I had the very same feel GMing pretty much every system - I just try to fight with my NPCs as imaginative, as players are trying to fight with their PCs.

True, but since I never used mini's with any other version of D&D, after setting up the dungeon tiles and placing the figures, it FELT more like I was playing a game, if you catch my meaning.

Quote from: Windjammer;508217Yes, why indeed should it be more taxing on a human mind to concurrently control a cast of a thousand PCs than a single one of them? Plainly this was not an issue that ever needed resolving. :P

For me, it wasn't - and I play quite a lot of war/board games too. But when I play an RPG, I want RPG, not a wargame. When I'm GMing, my NPCs aren't fighting interesting, because they are using Attack #17, but because I devise interesting tactics/gimmicks for them - for example, if there's a mutant with tentacles, he jumps up and uses the tentacles to stick to the ceiling, then next round - falls on a hero. I love devising this shit for my encounters. Or the skeleton the party faces? He delivers a slash to the forehead, causing blood to fall over PC's eyes - -20 to attack rolls.

After a while, PCs also picked up an idea that imaginative and descriptive hits are better then just "I stick him with the sword." And that was done in Warhammer, so you had some skills (such as Strong Attack) to handle the invention for you.

Quote from: Werekoala;508218True, but since I never used mini's with any other version of D&D, after setting up the dungeon tiles and placing the figures, it FELT more like I was playing a game, if you catch my meaning.

I use minis a lot, Werekoala - they help me. Last Saturday, the PCs split into 3 parties, chasing 3 different groups of kobolds. But I mostly use minis (or well, paper cut - outs) as references - I don't use movement mechanics, for example. Just my arbitrary opinion if "you are in charge distance", or not.

Quote from: Werekoala;508218True, but since I never used mini's with any other version of D&D, after setting up the dungeon tiles and placing the figures, it FELT more like I was playing a game, if you catch my meaning.

Really? We commonly used minis with AD&D, and battlemats for Rules Cyclopedia. AD&D was built for minis, that's why all the ranges are in inches.

D&D was literally designed as a miniatures wargame, as add-on rules for Chainmail, a miniatures wargame.

3e didn't suddenly and randomly change the very core experience of D&D by adding (some) rules which are best applied with miniatures in play. D&D was always a miniatures-centric game.

People didn't always play it that way. We didn't always pull out the miniatures. But that's part of the game, and has been since the beginning of the hobby.

I get that, but as I've stated elsewhere, until 4e came out I played D&D since 1979 - without miniatures. Maps, certainly, but no minis.

YMMV, etc. etc.

Quote from: Windjammer;508208(http://image-upload.de/get/csYZxk/92e0c10761.jpg)

This reminds me of the character sheets in the most recent Gamma World game. I think the combo of a simple sheet with cards is a winner.  Sadly, i think there is so much hate and suspicion in regards to cards that it is an innovation that will never be all that popular.

Quote from: Werekoala;508226I get that, but as I've stated elsewhere, until 4e came out I played D&D since 1979 - without miniatures. Maps, certainly, but no minis.

That's cool. I'm not trying to jump down your throat or anything. I apologize if it seemed that way.

I was just responding to the general theme of "3e introduced minis to a game where they had never been before!" coming from some of the posters. (Not you, admittedly.) I just wanted to set the record straight.

Again, I apologize if it seemed like I was criticizing you unfairly.

EDIT: Though, sometimes we didn't use miniatures, just dice. Dice on a table, with cans and folded/crumpled pieces of paper for terrain.

Folks, that's gaming.

Prior to the release of 4e using minis was cool one way or the other, since then, however, we've all had to sign anti-mini purity oaths.

Quote from: Aos;508232Prior to the release of 4e using minis was cool one way or the other, since then, however, we've all had to sign anti-mini purity oaths.

I must've missed the memo then.

Quote from: Aos;508229This reminds me of the character sheets in the most recent Gamma World game. I think the combo of a simple sheet with cards is a winner.  Sadly, i think there is so much hate and suspicion in regards to cards that it is an innovation that will never be all that popular.

It's a damn pity, because RPG's can learn a lot from other types of games when it comes to accessibility. Out of any given book, a player probably only needs to know a couple of pages worth of text in play, and it's worth putting that essential information right in front of them to speed up play.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508231EDIT: Though, sometimes we didn't use miniatures, just dice. Dice on a table, with cans and folded/crumpled pieces of paper for terrain.

Folks, that's gaming.

Whenever I know I'll need minis for something, I make little cardboard box-shaped vehicles, or standup tri-fold tokens (Leading to a statement from one of my regular players, after we'd finished character gen and I got the felt pens out, "We have now entered the arts and crafts portion of the evening"). Stickmen are great, easy to draw, and plenty enough for a game; a stack of plain index cards, set of pens and some double-sided sticky tape comes to well under a tenner, and will last you ages. Maybe not as visually impressive, but given the price difference, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Ladybird;508234It's a damn pity, because RPG's can learn a lot from other types of games when it comes to accessibility. Out of any given book, a player probably only needs to know a couple of pages worth of text in play, and it's worth putting that essential information right in front of them to speed up play.

And I'd rather say it's damn good thing. When I'm RPing, all I want to see at table are a bunch of dice, paper sheets, character sheets, pencils & pens, and probably some miniatures & maps. And a laptop from which GM will be playing the music/show an occasional picture.

Everything else is a needless fiddly bit, that I want in my board games, but not in my RPGs. That's why I disliked Warhammer 3e so much - I could tolerate the dice system, which itself is good (just...not for the Warhammer, as it's much more "epic"), but the bajillion of tokens, cards and spines?

Too damn much.

The paper cut - out minis were nice though.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508235And I'd rather say it's damn good thing. When I'm RPing, all I want to see at table are a bunch of dice, paper sheets, character sheets, pencils & pens, and probably some miniatures & maps. And a laptop from which GM will be playing the music/show an occasional picture.

Everything else is a needless fiddly bit, that I want in my board games, but not in my RPGs. That's why I disliked Warhammer 3e so much - I could tolerate the dice system, which itself is good (just...not for the Warhammer, as it's much more "epic"), but the bajillion of tokens, cards and spines?

WFRP1 pretty much already puts all of a player's essential information right in front of them, though - character sheets are incredibly readable (Most d100 games are, BRP is even better just because of those % signs). We've got four-page sheets with the last two being an explanation of what our skills do, and checkboxes (Along with a text box for skills on the front page); there's literally nothing else I need to know in order to play (It's a bit different for our wizzie, but even then, five minutes with Paint Shop Pro and the PDF will print him a sheet of all his spells, and he's good to go).

The big problems come for characters/games with lists of Talents, Feats, Spells, intricate mechanics, Disciplines, what-have-you that don't fit easily on a character sheet. You need some sort of quick-reference for that, just to stop play slowing down while things are looked up; I've got quick sheets for most types of action in Shadowrun 3 and 4 lying around, for example.

I agree with you on WFRP3 being a bit too much, though - I really liked playing it, but it's just too much for where we play, we don't have the space.

Quote from: Ladybird;508245WFRP1 pretty much already puts all of a player's essential information right in front of them, though - character sheets are incredibly readable (Most d100 games are, BRP is even better just because of those % signs). We've got four-page sheets with the last two being an explanation of what our skills do, and checkboxes (Along with a text box for skills on the front page); there's literally nothing else I need to know in order to play (It's a bit different for our wizzie, but even then, five minutes with Paint Shop Pro and the PDF will print him a sheet of all his spells, and he's good to go).

The big problems come for characters/games with lists of Talents, Feats, Spells, intricate mechanics, Disciplines, what-have-you that don't fit easily on a character sheet. You need some sort of quick-reference for that, just to stop play slowing down while things are looked up; I've got quick sheets for most types of action in Shadowrun 3 and 4 lying around, for example.

Oh, then I agree that for such mechanics, cards would be useful. For me though, it means that I'm just picking another mechanic for tonight's game ;). But if you must use such a mechanic/prefer to use it - then cards or any other sort of quick references are good idea. But I like my RPGs to have as little elements outside the basics and the occasional surprise gimmick, as possible.

Honestly - the amount of informations needed for 3e NPC/PC is the core reason why I never tried to GM a campaign in it.

On clarification, though - I love props, and I love making them. In fact, for my current Cthulhu campaign, I am actually writing a 100 pages long actual King in Yellow, based on the few "excerpts" from Chambers' work. Right now, I'm on page 60.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508247On clarification, though - I love props, and I love making them. In fact, for my current Cthulhu campaign, I am actually writing a 100 pages long actual King in Yellow, based on the few "excerpts" from Chambers' work. Right now, I'm on page 60.

Cool!

For Ars Magica, we have a Spell Book containing the various scrolls we've had donated to our library, and a small chest containing actual tokens for all of our vis. It's much more readable to go to the chest and see five tokens than have to ask for whoever's got the group sheet, and look through to see how much we've got; it also adds weight to the action, that simply crossing something off a sheet doesn't have.

For playing a SR4 mage who smoked, I turned up to games with a pretty convincing packet of fake cigarettes (Chocolate cigarettes). Given that you haven't been allowed to smoke in pubs here for years, some of the confused looks I got were priceless.

Quote from: Windjammer;508208I run his loyalty towards the PCs using the extant 4E system for artefacts. Ever noticed how great this subsystem is? 4E offers several great delightful surprises if you look beyond its vilified powers system. It vastly improved traps and diseases, and you can use the latter to model concussion hits (http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/11215.html).).

The broken arm as a disease thing is interesting. I've never seen the "artefacts" subsystem, that I can recall - have to have a look.

Quote from: Ladybird;508259Cool!

For Ars Magica, we have a Spell Book containing the various scrolls we've had donated to our library, and a small chest containing actual tokens for all of our vis. It's much more readable to go to the chest and see five tokens than have to ask for whoever's got the group sheet, and look through to see how much we've got; it also adds weight to the action, that simply crossing something off a sheet doesn't have.

For playing a SR4 mage who smoked, I turned up to games with a pretty convincing packet of fake cigarettes (Chocolate cigarettes). Given that you haven't been allowed to smoke in pubs here for years, some of the confused looks I got were priceless.

That's true - and that's why I want my "fiddly bits" to be special on the table. Not a necessity for each character ;). But that's really mechanical preference.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508225...
D&D was literally designed as a miniatures wargame, as add-on rules for Chainmail, a miniatures wargame...

And yet, amazingly, Gygax himself did not use miniatures when running OD&D.  (In contrast to Arneson.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508225...
But that's part of the game, and has been since the beginning of the hobby.

And so has been playing D&D without miniatures.

Quote from: Akrasia;508276And so has been playing D&D without miniatures.

Which I said.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508225People didn't always play it that way. We didn't always pull out the miniatures.

This is a disagreement? Repeating every single thing I said, as if correcting me on it?

Couldn't you have just said "yes, everything you said is correct"?

Are you aware, though, that people have been playing the game without minis since the very beginning?

You know, this thread strikes me as being somewhat in bad taste.  That is, considering how pissed off people were at the triumphalism of the 4e-fanatics before the edition change announcement, and considering how some here seem to have been bothered by the SA guys posting things from this forum or others for the sheer purpose of mockery.

I think its a sign of being something of a "poor winner" in this case.  For my part, I obviously want the core of 5e to be something that works for the main fandom of D&D, something far far closer to the old school than what 4e was, but I hope that somehow they also manage to produce a game that most of the 4e fans would want to play too.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Aos;508286Are you aware, though, that people have been playing the game without minis since the very beginning?

Assuming you mean me, I have a hard time telling if this is a reasonable query or an attempt to troll.

Since one has mentioned the above referenced fact twice, in two different posts in this thread, as well as once in at least one other thread, it can safely be assumed that one is aware of the existence of said phenomenon.

Or has one been too convoluted in the language with which one has chosen to express himself?

Agreed. Not all of 4E was bad. Conceptually a lot of the classes like the Avenger and Warden were fun. Mechanically they stepped so far in the RPG Uncanny Valley for me to be obnoxious. But that didn't mean the concept of a holy assassin or nature powered shapeshifter warrior wasn't damn cool.

Quote from: RPGPundit;508290and considering how some here seem to have been bothered by the SA guys posting things from this forum or others for the sheer purpose of mockery.

Anyone really cares? I thought it was just a source of free amusement for most here.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508291Assuming you mean me, I have a hard time telling if this is a reasonable query or an attempt to troll.

Since one has mentioned the above referenced fact twice, in two different posts in this thread, as well as once in at least one other thread, it can safely be assumed that one is aware of the existence of said phenomenon.

Or has one been too convoluted in the language with which one has chosen to express himself?

It was a joke, genius.

Quote from: Aos;508299It was a joke, genius.

Jokes?????

On TEH INTERNET?!??!?!?!?!

PS - it wasn't a very good one, Aos. Your Humour skill needs more grinding, I am afraid.

Quote from: Aos;508299It was a joke, genius.

Well, that was the one possibility that never crossed my mind. Internet discussions being what they are an all.

I will apologize for the condescension, then.

EDIT: Though Rincewind was right. It wasn't a very good joke.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508302Well, that was the one possibility that never crossed my mind. Internet discussions being what they are an all.

I will apologize for the condescension, then.

Apologies????

ON TEH INTERNET?!?!?!?!?!?

Alright, I'll stop now :P.

Quote from: RPGPundit;508290You know, this thread strikes me as being somewhat in bad taste.  That is, considering how pissed off people were at the triumphalism of the 4e-fanatics before the edition change announcement, and considering how some here seem to have been bothered by the SA guys posting things from this forum or others for the sheer purpose of mockery.

I think its a sign of being something of a "poor winner" in this case.  For my part, I obviously want the core of 5e to be something that works for the main fandom of D&D, something far far closer to the old school than what 4e was, but I hope that somehow they also manage to produce a game that most of the 4e fans would want to play too.

RPGPundit

Yeah, I had a day or two of chortling, but at this point it's getting old.  SA has a bunch of losers who sit around and talk about what people are saying on real gaming sites.  Let's not do that here with the small, flaccid purple.  That place is such a trainwreck that it's like bad reality TV, just pure Schadenfreude mixed with a carnival freakshow.  Link on the rare occasion when they have something worth looking at, and leave the whining back there where it belongs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508300Jokes?????
 Your Humour skill needs more grinding, I am afraid.

I'm certain such is the case.

I think it is a little early for a victory lap anyway. The chance that they are going to grind out 600 pages of something playable is close to 0. I get this vibe that whatever cute GIMMICK they are putting together isn't going to float.

Quote from: Cranewings;508317I think it is a little early for a victory lap anyway. The chance that they are going to grind out 600 pages of something playable is close to 0. I get this vibe that whatever cute GIMMICK they are putting together isn't going to float.

You are just afraid of CHANGE.

As I said in Jonas's thread on rpgnet.  WotC must throw the 4e fans a bone.  If they simply screw them over they won't have a single D&D customer left.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508319You are just afraid of CHANGE.

That's his Cisgendered Privilege talking.

Quote from: RPGPundit;508290You know, this thread strikes me as being somewhat in bad taste.  That is, considering how pissed off people were at the triumphalism of the 4e-fanatics before the edition change announcement, and considering how some here seem to have been bothered by the SA guys posting things from this forum or others for the sheer purpose of mockery.

I think its a sign of being something of a "poor winner" in this case.  For my part, I obviously want the core of 5e to be something that works for the main fandom of D&D, something far far closer to the old school than what 4e was, but I hope that somehow they also manage to produce a game that most of the 4e fans would want to play too.

RPGPundit

I'm fine with edition warring, I guess. I'd just rather wait until we know what the damn thing looks like. Bashing 4e's fine too I guess, but we've heard most of it a few hundred times now.

For example, is there anyone here who missed the last five discussions on which editions need minis more?

I am 100% in agreement with the Pundit here.

The only games that fail are the ones that no one plays.

Quote from: Aos;508400The only games that fail are the ones that no one plays.

Can we expand that to games no one but 2 or 3 groups play? That way we don't have to include anything worse than Palladium.

Quote from: 1989;508155This is interesting. Both 3e and 4e are grid-driven wargames. 2e is the polar opposite. Cook even said that 2e was designed to have a very abstract combat system, himself (don't have the link here with me, at the moment).

I like AD&D1e and D&D4e. I never used miniatures with AD&D1e.

Is it not possible to like different styles of games, rather than just 1?

Oddly I seem to know quite a few people who play 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e and S&W and Lab Lord and C&C and like them all for different reasons. Oh, and FATE and Exalted and RuneQuest and Savage Worlds and a whole bunch of other rpgs, with and without minis.

But 2nd edition C&S was, of course, the BEST. [Best what?]

Quote from: tzunder;508415Oddly I seem to know quite a few people who play 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e and S&W and Lab Lord and C&C and like them all for different reasons. Oh, and FATE and Exalted and RuneQuest and Savage Worlds and a whole bunch of other rpgs, with and without minis.

Its really not that odd. Many people like a variety of tastes and seek out the best things to satisfy those tastes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;508290You know, this thread strikes me as being somewhat in bad taste.

Funny, I always thought Schadenfreude tasted like sweet, creamy divinity.

Quote from: Skywalker;508417Its really not that odd. Many people like a variety of tastes and seek out the best things to satisfy those tastes.

(http://fail.brm.sk/o_rly/no-shit-sherlock.jpg)

Quote from: Akrasia;508276And yet, amazingly, Gygax himself did not use miniatures when running OD&D.  (In contrast to Arneson.)

How very odd considering his wargaming background.

Quote from: RPGPundit;508290For my part, I obviously want the core of 5e to be something that works for the main fandom of D&D, something far far closer to the old school than what 4e was, but I hope that somehow they also manage to produce a game that most of the 4e fans would want to play too.

And I want a Magic Pony!!!

Who are the "main fandom" in 2012?

I love the OSR, but I don't see people buying OSR stuff much in stores. I see people buying 4e stuff and Pathfinder. And more importantly, I don't see any non-D&D RPGs like hotcakes selling off the shelves either.

So where this tsunami of 5e book buyers is going to come from?

Quote from: David Johansen;508359As I said in Jonas's thread on rpgnet.  WotC must throw the 4e fans a bone.  If they simply screw them over they won't have a single D&D customer left.

And if they don't throw 3e fans lots of bones, why would they return from Pathfinder? And those OSR fans want lots of bones too.

Is there really a universally appealing RPG in that pile of bones?

GURPS was the king of modularity and SJ Games' RPG side is essentially defunct so I am unsure if modularity is the answer to financial woes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;508429GURPS was the king of modularity and SJ Games' RPG side is essentially defunct so I am unsure if modularity is the answer to financial woes.

GURPS died? When did this happen?

The core will need to be very small and very tight but I think you can at least get four or five tents if you can't go back to the single tent.

The stats and bonuses go in the core, with fighters, magic-users, clerics, theives, halfings, humans, elves, and dwarves.  Attack roll vs armor class, damage by weapon type (or better still size), and hit points by hit die* go in the core.  I think I'd leave initiative to I go u go with PC side going first in any case other than an ambush.

The trick would be supporting the various play styles in the monster books without needing four stat blocks.  I think using templates would be the way to go.  A skulker in the stripped down core playstyle is counted as a theif of equal level.  In 3e style it gets a specific skill and feat block and in 4e style it gets a power set and hit points by encounter role.  The templates are in the style books so all you need to add to the monster book is the template title.

* 4e style option is HP = Con + Level x Class Amount for PCs only.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508432GURPS died? When did this happen?

It's not dead, but its become a PDF/POD supported game because SJ Games wasn't getting the deadtree book sales in the FLGS.

Probably because GURPS sucks.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;508432GURPS died? When did this happen?

It's technically not dead. It just gets maybe 10% of the support it used to get. SJG is all about Munchkin, these days.

Quote from: Spinachcat;508434It's not dead, but its become a PDF/POD supported game because SJ Games wasn't getting the deadtree book sales in the FLGS.

Well, they sure churn out the page count in .pdf's anyhow.

Quote from: B.T.;508435Probably because GURPS sucks.

Actually I'm a couple sessions into a GURPS 4e campaign and I haven't gotten a blowjob out of it yet.

Still it does remind me of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the system.  GURPS is a great system and it's a horrible system in a single breath.  I think part of the problem is that GURPS 4e is great for the GURPS fans and horrible for a new player.  Though I've complained about that before.

Yes GURPS is a lousy game if you want a balanced game with niche protection that favors fast character creation over flexability and isn't focussed on simulating details.

Side topic, but GURPS like (Hero) has the problem that it's a very complete game. It's been done, and refined. So there isn't much more to sell, given a fan base which is not growing. And the reason the fan base is not growing is not something that can be fixed by refining the game more or even by putting out truly awesome but niche supplements. The particular style of game just isn't going to grab legions of new fans these days.

So maybe it's not a side topic, because it's what has happened to the whole hobby. Maturity of the product, and lack of growth because the zeitgeist has simply moved on. It's just more pronounced in something like GURPS because of the comprehensiveness of the back catalogue and the unfashionable nature of the sub-niche (rules-heavy simulationism).

I really believe the product model is a bigger part of the GURPS problem.  The thing is that leaving vital parts of the game to various supplements approach is very much in evidence in 4e.

Take my current fantasy campaign's book requirements.

Basic Set Characters - character creation and basic combat
Basic Set Campaigns - healing, advanced map based combat
Magic - magic
Banestorm - fantasy races and monsters

Yes you could build your own races and monsters.  Yes you could use powers as magic though you'd need GURPS Powers as much as you need GURPS Magic.  Yes you could cut combat back and simplify healing.

I've said for a long time that they needed to roll the races and monsters from Banestorm and the magic rules from the Basic Set into a single GURPS Lite fantasy book.  But then of course there'd be little reason for anyone to buy Banestorm.  That may be taken as a value judgement of the setting.  I'm running it but that's more because it's there and requires little work from me than because it's wonderful.

I see SJG's failure to have a single book generic fantasy point of entry for GURPS as absolutely foolish.  And no, I'm sorry GURPS Myth and GURPS Discworld don't count.  But as they've got a new Discworld book Steve won't consider D&D 5e as a chance to pick up refugees from D&D 4e anymore than he saw D&D 4e as an opportunity to pick up refugees from D&D 3.5.

But really I don't think it's got anything to do with GURPS failing.  It's all about Munchkin being a huge success that takes a lot less work to put out.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508426(http://fail.brm.sk/o_rly/no-shit-sherlock.jpg)

Well, with the disbelief expressed by some posters to the idea, I thought it was saying despite being obvious.

Quote from: tzunder;508415Oddly I seem to know quite a few people who play 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e and S&W and Lab Lord and C&C and like them all for different reasons. Oh, and FATE and Exalted and RuneQuest and Savage Worlds and a whole bunch of other rpgs, with and without minis.

:eek:

What a bunch of weirdos!

Quote from: Akrasia;508593:eek:

What a bunch of weirdos!

:huhsign:
I know, right? Haven't they found the One True Way yet?

Quote from: David Johansen;508442Actually I'm a couple sessions into a GURPS 4e campaign and I haven't gotten a blowjob out of it yet.

Play GURPS Vampire.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508426(http://fail.brm.sk/o_rly/no-shit-sherlock.jpg)

Holy shit, is that John Turturro?

Quote from: The Butcher;508655Holy shit, is that John Turturro?

LOL No. It's Basil Rathbone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Rathbone)

Quote from: Benoist;508673LOL No. It's Basil Rathbone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Rathbone)

Oh well. There goes the only interesting thing on this thread...

Eh, sorry guys, this thread was probably in poor taste, as Pundit said. I've been outside the D&D tent for the last 13 years (since the advent of 3e), and just . . . yeah, just wanted them to have a taste, and . . . I felt vindicated or something. Sorry. Count of Monte Cristo or something.