Quote from: Peregrin;365407Er...what?

Sorry, old Chinese Menu joke when presented with multiple non-related choices.  

Quote from: Peregrin;365402I've also run into the issue of long-combats, with several groups, both with me in the GM chair and others, composed of people with differing levels of RPG experience.  The internet tells me I'm just crazy, though.  Or that the people I'm playing with are all retarded.  Depends on who I'm talking with.  

The conclusion I've come to is that there are some encounter builds that are prone to being "problem combats" that drag horribly, and I've seen other posts/accounts to justify this view.  It's not just the solo creatures either.  I'd ignore it, but with combat being such a central focus, it becomes an issue

Try dividing all HP by 1.5

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365416Try dividing all HP by 1.5

I'm not talking about solos, most of them were errata'd, anyway.  It's a factor of both AC and HP, as well as the proliferation of temporary disabling status effects across nearly all levels of play.

*edit*

Plus, shouldn't you also bump either damage or the attack bonus to compensate, since creatures would presumably be around for less rounds (thus less damage output overall)?  Wouldn't want to make the fights too easy/predictable.

Quote from: Benoist;365282So really, I don't think I suffer from "resistance to change".

I don't have anything against "change". I have something against "crap".

Then I stand corrected on that. Now, for all that I care is totally OK that you think that 4e is a sack of crap and say it. Heck, as far as I'm concerned you could start all your posts saying "First thing first, I feel that 4e is shit."

Not liking a game, even with a fiery dislike, is OK in my book.

What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

As far as anyone here know with certain, factual data, D&D 4e is doing quite well. We don't know if it's the most successful edition ever, because I don't think that anyone has data from all the editions, adjusted by inflation. AND specially given that buying a game =/= playing the game. But as long as 4e sells, the game is doing well to the publisher.

D&D doing well is good for the hobby. 4e doing well is good for the OSR. Any game doing well is good for the hobby, because as long people play any game, there are increased chances that they will be interested in trying other games. The more options we have, the better, even if we don't like those options.

Thing is, from time to time I get the feeling from some old-schoolers that they would REALLY love for WotC to get back and re-publish some olden version of D&D or AD&D, and then that would be the best thing for the hobby and we would have unicorns and rainbows and shit.

That would be a disaster. You cannot take a bath in the same river twice.

OD&D was a lightning in a bottle, as it was Vampire. The following editions of D&D were a product of the times, and obviously with any edition the disconnect with the 'old fanbase' is going to grow bigger. Of course, you can launch something like the OSR and do well, because there's a lot of people looking back with love that will support you, and you will find some new people that will also dig the old style. But you're not getting back your former success, ever.

That's bad for YOU, but good for the HOBBY. The people who doesn't like the new style will keep playing their old stuff (no one is preventing me and my crew from kicking ass using the 'dead' long ago RQ III), and new people can get games designed according to the times they live in. Overall, the number of gamers increases.

Now, from a corporate POV, I think that probably WotC has made some mistakes. What I would have done: I would have launched 4e and simultaneously launched a Classic D&D ruleset, highly customizable, offerig options to make your game more Red Box, more OD&D or more AD&D, with adventures and settings compatible across the spectrum. And I would have provided plenty of space (via OGL or something) for third party publishers to create shit for the game, because that's marketing and sales for free anyway. Also, every 4e product would publicize the Classic line, and the Classic line would publicize the 4e, to encourage people to jump the fence and play all versions of D&D and celebrat them.

Yeah, I understand that's not how corporate minds work, but there you hve it: you may rally all D&D lovers under your flag, as you provide for everyone. It doesn't matter which version of D&D we're talking about, you cater to it and provide for it. Everyone wins.

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down.

I dunno about these guys, but I wouldn't say that.

Our hobby survived such dreadful games as Cyborg Commando, Rifts and Vampire, it can survive D&D4e.

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

That's a fair call - from a certain point of view.

I would argue that 4E has traduced the concept of RPGs to the point that D&D will be subsumed into the next generation of online games and ever after be dismissed as a redundant relic of a past era.

I also argue that D&D was previously a pastime marketed to and designed for adults, but this is no longer the case.  See my related rant here.  While a fair swodge of teenagers may get into 4E for a 5-year period,  it has sold its lifetime value down the river.

Those are the reasons I believe it is poisonous to the hobby as a whole.

Quote from: Peregrin;365417I'm not talking about solos, most of them were errata'd, anyway.  It's a factor of both AC and HP, as well as the proliferation of temporary disabling status effects across nearly all levels of play.

*edit*

Plus, shouldn't you also bump either damage or the attack bonus to compensate, since creatures would presumably be around for less rounds (thus less damage output overall)?  Wouldn't want to make the fights too easy/predictable.

I said "all", I meant all...Including the PCs.

Drop all Defenses by 2, give a +2 to all Saves...That's the thing about RPGs (Even 4e) - They're "Flavour to taste".

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

There is certainly an element of Internet distortion involved, but I would also point to the descent of the majority of furry fandom from mildly annoying to full blown furverts.  I am sure at the time, letting a few 'free spirits' hang out and talk about sex seemed like a good idea, but now furries are almost universally reviled because that small number spread and started drawing giant horse-people masturbating all over a village, and now that is what people think being a furry is all about - nearly to the point that adding anthropomorphic races to a game is almost courting disaster.

Similarly, when you start basing more and more of your rules around how the combat plays out on a battlemat, you are moving closer to D&D branded Heroquest, only somewhat more complicated.   Oh, and the mild suggestion that you pretend your plastic mini is doing things between combat, when you can speak in a funny voice and maybe buy a mule.  As Caesar Slaad mentioned early on: "Read the text there, about not needing no gameboard? Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it."

D&D and AD&D had a fair number of drastic differences, but the transition wasn't terribly difficult.  The biggest change, really, was that not all elves were automatically multi-classed.  For the new set, I can't see too many reasonable simplifications before they are too different to make an easy transition.  Drop the grid/battlemat?  All the powers have to be re-written.  Stick with the classic four races/classes?  The  4e balance is so delicate, it would require massive overhaul to re-balance for a simpler game.

I predict that when this new boxed set comes out, it won't be a simpler version of D&D, as it was in days gone by.  I predict it will be a more compressed version of D&D.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;365305Couldn't be because they enjoy it. No, not possible. It's solely to vex you.

Well...to be fair I actually DO play it for the sole purpose of vexing Stormbringer.

I actively recruit new 4E players, simply to vex the rest of you.

Not because I hate you all...mind...but simply because it's lonely all the way up here at the top and I just want you to know that I'm thinking about you!

Enjoy obsolescence! Cheers!

Quote from: StormBringer;365433There is certainly an element of Internet distortion involved, but I would also point to the descent of the majority of furry fandom from mildly annoying to full blown furverts.  I am sure at the time, letting a few 'free spirits' hang out and talk about sex seemed like a good idea, but now furries are almost universally reviled because that small number spread and started drawing giant horse-people masturbating all over a village, and now that is what people think being a furry is all about - nearly to the point that adding anthropomorphic races to a game is almost courting disaster.

Dude, that's not even remotely comparable. I find it quite absurd, truth be told.

We're talking about diferent playing styles, nothing more. I see how many people may not dig that a battlemat becomes mandatory, but comparing it with furry sex perversions is frankly off the mark.

QuoteD&D and AD&D had a fair number of drastic differences, but the transition wasn't terribly difficult.  The biggest change, really, was that not all elves were automatically multi-classed.  For the new set, I can't see too many reasonable simplifications before they are too different to make an easy transition.  Drop the grid/battlemat?  All the powers have to be re-written.  Stick with the classic four races/classes?  The  4e balance is so delicate, it would require massive overhaul to re-balance for a simpler game.

I predict that when this new boxed set comes out, it won't be a simpler version of D&D, as it was in days gone by.  I predict it will be a more compressed version of D&D.

Well, time will tell. I don't see how that should be a bad thing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365423I dunno about these guys, but I wouldn't say that.

Our hobby survived such dreadful games as Cyborg Commando, Rifts and Vampire, it can survive D&D4e.

Heck, it even survived Gurps and Basic Roleplay. Clearly it's resilient.

To hearken back to the OP's questions (and being horribly lazy to read the pages beforehand; sorry, out of town all weekend and all of that):

Eh.  Wizards trying to package their game [again] in a similar (yet even more limited) format smacks of laziness and a dearth of marketing ideas.  One wonders about the line itself due to their seeming attempt to make a grasp at the OSR crowd to sell their materials by relying upon nostalgia and warm fuzzies.

Note, I have zero opinion of 4th, wish them luck, and so on.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365435Well...to be fair I actually DO play it for the sole purpose of vexing Stormbringer.

I actively recruit new 4E players, simply to vex the rest of you.

Not because I hate you all...mind...but simply because it's lonely all the way up here at the top and I just want you to know that I'm thinking about you!

Enjoy obsolescence! Cheers!

Just remember, being "at the top" of a pile of shit just means you're sitting on a big pile of shit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365441Heck, it even survived Gurps and Basic Roleplay. Clearly it's resilient.

The hell is wrong with BRP?  It's the only ruleset I know of that's still relatively "clean" by modern standards.

Oh, and I'd say currently Exalted is one curse that won't go away.  At least on the internet.  I thought we'd be done with metaplot-heavy White-Wolf games by now with people getting all hot and sweaty over signature characters and impossible-to-beat NPCs, but apparently Exalted has to stick to being the last WW game to actively jack off to itself about how awesome it is.  It can be fun if you cherry-pick shit, but the line as a whole is just beyond ludicrous, both in terms of mechanics and fluff.

*edit*

Also, I think this thing goes a bit deeper than drawing on video-game tropes (something I consider to be an overstated complaint) or focus on the grid (3.x explicitly told you you needed a grid.  It's no more or less playable without a grid than 4e is, in terms of balance).  

I think the main problem is they chucked the baby out with the bathwater, even when they said "Yeah mom, I'll be careful!"  Multiple times, they said it, even when I didn't give a shit one way or the other.  It's like someone telling you that the new Battlestar Galactica is just a digitally enhanced version.  It's going to look better, it's going to sound better, but it's still the same show.  But that's most definitely not the case, even if the new show is, to some people, really good, or much better than the original.

Quote from: Imperator;365437Dude, that's not even remotely comparable. I find it quite absurd, truth be told.

Why is it absurd?  A small group with wildly different ideas about the fandom managed to turn the focus in an entirely different direction, and alter the perception as a whole at the same time.

QuoteWe're talking about diferent playing styles, nothing more. I see how many people may not dig that a battlemat becomes mandatory, but comparing it with furry sex perversions is frankly off the mark.

It's not a comparison, it's an analogy, and it isn't just a play style issue.  That would assume a fairly open-ended set of mechanics that promoted different play styles.As the focus becomes enmeshed in finer and finer details of the mechanics, so the overall experience becomes an increasingly complex board game.  No one really talks about the 'play styles' for Monopoly or Risk.  There may be different strategies, perhaps a house rule or two, but there is just the one play style, and that is what is contained in the rules for those games.  The interaction with the rules is strictly in relation to the pieces on the board, which is what happens when you restrict the allowable actions in the game to only that.  Which is what is being pointed out in these kinds of discussions; the more rules you have, the less room for creativity and 'outside the box' thinking.

Another analogy is Legos; as your design skill becomes more dependent on the specific shapes and outcomes that result from using Legos, the less able it becomes to envision smooth surfaces or rounded designs.  Everything is built in terms of 2x6 half blocks, or 2x4 stacks, starting at the bottom and building up.

Which isn't to say people are incapable of breaking out of that.  There are some amazing designs with Legos out there.  For the vast majority, however, it becomes a crutch which allows atrophy, until they are virtually unable to get started without it.  Especially with the proliferation of 'activity' sets, often licensed properties.  Like the comedian said, "I remember when you could build more than one thing with a set of Legos".

QuoteWell, time will tell. I don't see how that should be a bad thing.

Because it won't be an introductory set, like B/X was.  It will just be a more compressed version of 4e, meaning it won't be particularly easier to introduce players, and you will shell out (or more likely won't) $20 or whatever for essentially the same rules you already paid over $100 for.  B/X was a similar game to AD&D, but it was quite distinct nonetheless.  Groups could certainly run their B/X campaign on Saturdays and their AD&D campaign on Sundays, and you would really have two different campaigns going on.  If this new boxed set is just the 4e rules compressed into fewer pages, then you will have the same game going on two days in a row.  Why hand over $20 for a compressed set of rules to do that?