Quote from: tenbones;904432Coming full-circle - this, as much as anything else I've criticized 5e for, is *exactly* why I want 5e to stand on its own two feet instead of being this Edition-hodge-podge. Fish or cut bait.

There's that timidity to recognize the mutual exclusivity now inherent between editions which I feared would strangle WotC's development of 5e's modularity. Look, I am an adult, if you're gonna make a 4e friendly splat variant within the 5e chassis, I'm all for that. I likely won't buy it or run it, but it bothers me none. But this fear to speak plainly and design boldly in support of the divergent editions is really starting to tick me off. Gutlessness is not an endearing trait.

The problem comes from trying to be all things to all people simultaneously and ending up being nothing to nobody routinely.

That isn't even isolated to WotC here, it's a humanity-wide problem that often ends with the abject lesson (because it often all ends in tears): choose your audience! Timing people, this isn't that fucking hard! And the aggravating thing here is this is about RPGs, like THE pre-eminent media where variation from table to table is not only anticipated, it's almost expected (except tournament style organized play). So the capacity to make this modular shouldn't be such an impossible task.

Instead we get an insistance of trying to have everyone play everything divergent on the same table. This is an exercise in courting disaster... and unnecessarily, too. A solid shared chassis for a toolbox of modular development shouldn't be this hard of a task. And there's nothing wrong with being explicit either, such as labeling certain optional widgets within new material as being "More Compatible with X Edition Playstyle!"

There's no risk in design. There's no courage in categorization. There's no equanimity in resource development.

Quote from: tenbones;904432Edit - Opaopajr is like the nihilist version of me. My SHADOW!!!!!! So dark. So dark!

We are the children of concrete and steel/
This is the place where the truth is concealed/
This is the time when the lie is revealed/
Everything is possible, but nothing is real

Living Colour - "Type"

Hi, how ya doin'!
:cool: /sips mimosa on patio overlooking piss-stained alley during the witching hour.

Quote from: Baulderstone;904717Man, you want gaming vitriol, you should have seen the grognards playing Star Fleet Battles in the back of the FLGS I went to in the early '80s. One of my earliest gaming memories was those guys waving their three ring binders of rules at each other and having screaming arguments. That is when they weren't being of the dismissive of the damn kids with these newfangled RPGs that were ruining the purity of the wargaming scene.

Oh, no kidding: it's why I stopped playing SFB and Squad Leader, an equally lovely game upon its initial release, screwed up with a similar problem of an incessant flow of new rules.  There weren't games after a time so much as they were hour-long arguments of "Well, I'm using rolling three-quarters' strength ESGs off of a pre-Y178 Lyran War Destroyer, so I should be able to foo fah bleh blee ..." / "No, I've got an existential blue crayon gun set to suicide overload with EM support from a Federation LC scout conversion, and it's a post-Y179 scenario, so you can't bleh blee, you hoser!"  Punctuated by much flipping through binders, and fist shaking.

Drop in panzerfausts and partisan commandos, and that's a fit for Squad Leader.

Fuck that.

Reading this thread, I have to wonder it WotC has its release of games in the right order. Looking back at the 3rd edition era, people seemed most impressed with that Star Wars Saga game. I never played it, but a lot of people tell me it was a solid refinement of the 3E system. Upthread, there was a comment saying that Gamma World was a 4E variant that fixed some of its problems.

Rather than bringing out new experimental forms D&D and then putting out other RPGs that gradually refine it, WotC might have been better off being more experimental with its non-D&D games, then bringing out a new D&D edition that is a refinement of those games. Using your prime house brand as the guinea pig just seems backwards to me.

I suppose part of the issue is that "one system to rule them all" philosophy that came in with 3E and D20. All games WotC made during the 3E era had to be a 3E variant to prove that it was the one true system, then all games of the 4E era had to be 4E variants.

They might be better off if they just went back to doing the TSR thing of letting their other games have their own systems. They can at least see how some new ideas work in the marketplace before putting them in their main product.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904767There's that timidity to recognize the mutual exclusivity now inherent between editions which I feared would strangle WotC's development of 5e's modularity. Look, I am an adult, if you're gonna make a 4e friendly splat variant within the 5e chassis, I'm all for that. I likely won't buy it or run it, but it bothers me none. But this fear to speak plainly and design boldly in support of the divergent editions is really starting to tick me off. Gutlessness is not an endearing trait.

The problem comes from trying to be all things to all people simultaneously and ending up being nothing to nobody routinely.

That isn't even isolated to WotC here, it's a humanity-wide problem that often ends with the abject lesson (because it often all ends in tears): choose your audience! Timing people, this isn't that fucking hard! And the aggravating thing here is this is about RPGs, like THE pre-eminent media where variation from table to table is not only anticipated, it's almost expected (except tournament style organized play). So the capacity to make this modular shouldn't be such an impossible task.

Instead we get an insistance of trying to have everyone play everything divergent on the same table. This is an exercise in courting disaster... and unnecessarily, too. A solid shared chassis for a toolbox of modular development shouldn't be this hard of a task. And there's nothing wrong with being explicit either, such as labeling certain optional widgets within new material as being "More Compatible with X Edition Playstyle!"

5E has been quite successful and well received. It certainly doesn't look like a mistake, let alone a disaster. Maybe it hasn't set the online RPG-theory crowd on fire, but as a game played at the table it works just fine. It allows people to make stories and adventures using mechanics that are familiar to long-time players, but which have been freshened up with some modern features. I don't see why D&D has to be any more than that. This isn't high art here. It's just a game. I doubt more than a fraction or RPGers give a toss about boldness and innovation.

As for modularity, the problems is WotC has cut the resources for D&D to the bone after disappointing results from 4E. Does the development team even have time to draft and test new sub-systems and options?

And when it comes down to it, at the table the mechanics don't really matter all that much to most players. As long as they don't get in the way people can play a D&D campaign based on tactical combat, or a focussed on intrigue and roleplaying, or dungeon exploration, all using the same system. You don't need special mechanics beyond what 5E already offers to support any of those playstyles.

Quote from: tenbones;904646That kind of fearlessness is what I want in 5e. And I fully admit - it could still happen.

Given how well 5th edition is apparently selling, you're one of the rare few who want change.  So it's not going to happen.  Players have spoken and they're not budging.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904813Given how well 5th edition is apparently selling, you're one of the rare few who want change.  So it's not going to happen.  Players have spoken and they're not budging.

So this is how I look at it... Take it with a grain (or cow-lick sized block) of salt.

People change.

My long-view theory is that most of the folks that got introduced to 3e were likely new players, or lapsed players coming back into the game. 3.x ran its course split into PF and then they dropped 4e. Coupled with the "gamey" mindset that was influenced by MMO's, I might even toss in some influence from boardgames, it's created a different breed of player. Essentially, as has been pointed out in many threads, it's an effectively fractured playerbase based around a singular franchise.

But I'm a believer that there is a process in tabletop that gamers go through over the long haul. You go through phases of min-maxing, Monty Hauling, then tons of RP, and sandboxing, and you might have some debaucherous dalliances with narrative gaming (you degenerate!!) and then you get into the weird shit that borders on narrative boardgaming... at some point you have a blowout. Then you go back to where you had the most fun. That might take you into the OSR, or some other stable position where you feel you can do any or all of these things in bits or pieces without having to sacrifice the fun you're looking for.

For me - it's bog-standard sandbox play with elements of "themepark" as needed, but the PC's are in deep in the mix. It's a simply syncretic style that I'm confident that no one on this forum would find objectionable (worth fighting over). So I'm not too worried about having to come around to 5e. I think it might be that 5e will come around to me - or not.  While it might not be my cuppa right now - I certainly like it more than 3.x/4e and it's got room to grow. And that's okay with me!

Because just like people change - so do games. And there's a *lot* of good games out there these days. But I'll always honor D&D. Always.

Quote from: tenbones;904820So this is how I look at it... Take it with a grain (or cow-lick sized block) of salt.

People change.

Yes, when they feel they don't have a choice, or don't notice.  In terms of gaming, this is why people went from one edition to another, they felt that if they wanted to play 'D&D' they had to go to a new edition (minus the few holdouts that would cling to their game, sometimes desperately.)  This is why why 4e failed miserably.  Suddenly there was a choice, and a good chunk of players resisted it, both vocally and monetarily.  5th edition is WoTC realizing that even if there are players who claim to want to rock the boat, they don't really.

Quote from: Ravenswing;904771Oh, no kidding: it's why I stopped playing SFB and Squad Leader, an equally lovely game upon its initial release, screwed up with a similar problem of an incessant flow of new rules.  

Have you tried Combat commander from GMT Games?  It's a squad level WWII game that feels very like a simplified, streamlined, less arcane spiritual successor to Squad Leader with GMT adding their own twist.  It gives a lot of the feel of Squad Leader without the nitpickery, fiddly turn order mechanics and general cruft that built up in Squad Leader over time.
Review
[video=youtube;Q7LV890hz2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LV890hz2Y[/youtube]
It uses a lot of simple yet clever tricks to simplify things and streamline play.  Stacking limits are done by simply counting the number of people depicted on the chit.  Heavy weapons chits are slightly smaller and designed to be placed offset so you can see the unit's stats and the weapon's adjustment without picking the chit up.  GMT's wrinkle is that it is card driven rather than dice and chart driven.  GMT likes card driven mechanics and uses them in a lot of their games.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904840Yes, when they feel they don't have a choice, or don't notice.  In terms of gaming, this is why people went from one edition to another, they felt that if they wanted to play 'D&D' they had to go to a new edition (minus the few holdouts that would cling to their game, sometimes desperately.)  This is why why 4e failed miserably.  Suddenly there was a choice, and a good chunk of players resisted it, both vocally and monetarily.  5th edition is WoTC realizing that even if there are players who claim to want to rock the boat, they don't really.

Yeah exactly! But there is a bit of maturity (that I fully concede seems to be missing in the tabletop community based on a lot of these discussions) that is required to be able to "let it go" and be happy with what you got.

I'm willing to believe Mearls and Co. that they believed they could thread this needle of making 5e all things to all players of all editions. Taken that as a starting point (and ending point) perhaps they largely succeeded from that perspective. But is it good? I think the jury is still out on whether it is going to be this gigantic "success" in that regard. There is a mechanical focus that is lost *because* of the original premise of "being all things to all people" which seems to be novel to people that didn't get to do the 1e/2e thing or did but forgot about it as they descended into 3.x/4e. I'm sure they'll figure it all out, one way or another. In the meantime it appears I'm sitting this one out for now.

Quote from: tenbones;904820So this is how I look at it... Take it with a grain (or cow-lick sized block) of salt.

People change.

My long-view theory is that most of the folks that got introduced to 3e were likely new players, or lapsed players coming back into the game. 3.x ran its course split into PF and then they dropped 4e. Coupled with the "gamey" mindset that was influenced by MMO's, I might even toss in some influence from boardgames, it's created a different breed of player. Essentially, as has been pointed out in many threads, it's an effectively fractured playerbase based around a singular franchise.

But I'm a believer that there is a process in tabletop that gamers go through over the long haul. You go through phases of min-maxing, Monty Hauling, then tons of RP, and sandboxing, and you might have some debaucherous dalliances with narrative gaming (you degenerate!!) and then you get into the weird shit that borders on narrative boardgaming... at some point you have a blowout. Then you go back to where you had the most fun. That might take you into the OSR, or some other stable position where you feel you can do any or all of these things in bits or pieces without having to sacrifice the fun you're looking for.

For me - it's bog-standard sandbox play with elements of "themepark" as needed, but the PC's are in deep in the mix. It's a simply syncretic style that I'm confident that no one on this forum would find objectionable (worth fighting over). So I'm not too worried about having to come around to 5e. I think it might be that 5e will come around to me - or not.  While it might not be my cuppa right now - I certainly like it more than 3.x/4e and it's got room to grow. And that's okay with me!

Because just like people change - so do games. And there's a *lot* of good games out there these days. But I'll always honor D&D. Always.

ok first off cool post tenbones cool post

now as a younger rpg player i agree with you.
i find that i lean toward rpgs that are more gamish in feel and build.
though i have in an interesting turn of life been through most of the other phases you describe.
even more i was thru them before i even thought of table top rpgs as a thing.
from creative story telling to ultra light games to board games to rpgs.
and you are right it defiantly has an effect on how you view the whole rpgs concept.
well thats the best i can do to put it in words (not worthy a damn) so take it with a grain of salt.

Quote from: yosemitemike;904843Have you tried Combat commander from GMT Games?  It's a squad level WWII game that feels very like a simplified, streamlined, less arcane spiritual successor to Squad Leader with GMT adding their own twist.  It gives a lot of the feel of Squad Leader without the nitpickery, fiddly turn order mechanics and general cruft that built up in Squad Leader over time.
Review
[video=youtube;Q7LV890hz2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LV890hz2Y[/youtube]
It uses a lot of simple yet clever tricks to simplify things and streamline play.  Stacking limits are done by simply counting the number of people depicted on the chit.  Heavy weapons chits are slightly smaller and designed to be placed offset so you can see the unit's stats and the weapon's adjustment without picking the chit up.  GMT's wrinkle is that it is card driven rather than dice and chart driven.  GMT likes card driven mechanics and uses them in a lot of their games.

Combat Commander is great. But it's not a game for bean counters. You have to understand that you're giving up control in the face of the fortunes of war, and just go along with the narrative.

Quote from: tenbones;904851I'm willing to believe Mearls and Co. that they believed they could thread this needle of making 5e all things to all players of all editions. Taken that as a starting point (and ending point) perhaps they largely succeeded from that perspective.

5e was never going to be everyone's favorite edition of D&D, the goal was more to make it no one's least favorite edition of D&D.  If they're everyone's second favorite D&D, they win.  If they made a game that anyone who is open to playing D&D period would accept a game of 5e, then they've done their job.  After they themselves blew up the D&D fanbase, they were never going to Unite the Clans under a single banner, but at least they could make peace.  We might be bitching about 5e here in one form or another, but we're bitching about a game we would play if someone at our table wanted to run it.  Mission Accomplished.

Since they own all the different versions of D&D and have them all up for sale perpetually now anyway, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't just come up with a DM's Realm for every edition and just rake in the money.  If they did it correctly, they could be gettin' paid from the OSR instead of just watching those crazy outlaws from their Mr. Burns window.

Quote from: CRKrueger;9049255e was never going to be everyone's favorite edition of D&D, the goal was more to make it no one's least favorite edition of D&D.  If they're everyone's second favorite D&D, they win.  If they made a game that anyone who is open to playing D&D period would accept a game of 5e, then they've done their job.  After they themselves blew up the D&D fanbase, they were never going to Unite the Clans under a single banner, but at least they could make peace.  We might be bitching about 5e here in one form or another, but we're bitching about a game we would play if someone at our table wanted to run it.  Mission Accomplished.

And that's the smart way to do it, too.  Being everyone's second favourite means more people will be buying while being one group's favourite is a smaller section of the the pie.  10% of a million is better than 100% of a thousand.

Quote from: CRKrueger;904925Since they own all the different versions of D&D and have them all up for sale perpetually now anyway, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't just come up with a DM's Realm for every edition and just rake in the money.  If they did it correctly, they could be gettin' paid from the OSR instead of just watching those crazy outlaws from their Mr. Burns window.

I'm thinking that this is what they're gearing up for.  Waiting so that 5e is well ensconced into everyone's mind and then putting out the original games after.  They were asking for people to send them copies of the older stuff, like Chainmail, by PDF and willing to PAY for it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;9049255e was never going to be everyone's favorite edition of D&D, the goal was more to make it no one's least favorite edition of D&D.  

It's my favourite. I love old-school D&D, but I don't love the AD&D rules set, and find B/X kinda thin. 5E is just right. My long-time players prefer it too.

Quote from: Haffrung;905648It's my favourite. I love old-school D&D, but I don't love the AD&D rules set, and find B/X kinda thin. 5E is just right. My long-time players prefer it too.

Mine as well. It's the Goldilocks edition. I think they had me when I realized that multiclassing was an optional rule - never liked it, neither mechanically nor thematically, despite liking rogues with magical abilities, etc.