crosswiredmind's page

I played D&D from 1976 until 1982. Then I realized that D&D sucked.

I played RuneQuest from 1982 until Warhammer Fantasy Role Play game along in the early 90s because my friends wanted to go back to high fantasy.

3E brought me back to D&D because the rules were finally decent. Not as good as RQ or WFRP but good enough. We adopted 3.5 right away because the upgrade made it even better.

Now 3.5 is long in the tooth.

I think most D&D players will see that by 10/08 and a vast majority some time after that. Some will find other games.

But most FRPers will play D&D - that is a constant.

They're dumbing down the game to widen the audience.

D&D is as dumb or as smart as the players and GM happen to be.

Simplicity does not always equal smart, and simplicity does not always equal dumb.

I don't consider Star Fleet Battles a "smarter" game than chess or go just because it has more rules to keep track of.

No, rules not make one smart. (nod to Master Yoda)

Smart is what people do with the game. D&D was smart when the entire set of rule could fit in once chapter of 3.5 PHB.

But rules can be cumbersome and annoying.

Power attack is both.

I think the point is to make XP about playing and making critters go splat.

Currently - by the book - D&D is all about the grind.

Anything that gets folks away from that is cool by me. The card thing is a good focal point. My players know the reward for making a dragon go splat but the story rewards are kinda fuzzy.

Besides props are cool.

I had item cards back in the 70s and loved them. Paizo brought them back and that is cool too.

I like the sounds of this quest thingy.

crosswiredmind wrote:

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.

So...

You would rather it get removed from the game, rather than remove/"fix" it at your table?

How considerate.

[Note: It is usually much easier for a group to remove a rule, than to have a group add one in.]

1) We play a LOT of Living Greyhawk - no rules are optional.

2) 3.5 works as a system of rules. Once you start twiddling with it it can be easy to break.

3) Yes, I have no desire to piss off my friends and limit their enjoyment of the game.

OMG!!! Grapple Sucks!!! We Need a New Edition to fix Grapple!!!!

OMG!!! Power Attack Sucks too!!! How dare I do basic addition at the gaming table!?! We desperately need a new edition right this very second to fix this blight on our game!!!

link

No. YAY!

I am sick and tired of the BDFs sitting their taking off their shoes to figure out just how much they should power.

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft gave more than 12 months warning on Vista coming out.

Sure. Vista was released to dev teams years before it came out - and they kept changing it right up to is launch.

Notice how many companies stuck with XP?

... maybe riding the D&D train forever isn't good business. D&D may dominate RPG sales but it is not the only game in town. And the RPG industry is not one where the only viable business model is following WotC's lead.

True. Trouble is that D&D is far and away the biggest game in town.

If Paizo wants to be the Apple to WotC's Microsoft it will need to be more like Mongoose. Run d20/OGL at the same time it develops its own niche.

Let's face, in $$$ WotC is probably as big as all the other RPG companies combined - if not bigger.

Independent RPG companies are typically small ventures that cater to a small fan base. They stay small with Whit Wolf being slightly bigger then the others.

It may not be a good thing to build and sustain a company based on the intellectual property of others but its also nod such a sound idea to move too far afield to quickly.

Of course the counter point is the software industry.

If you want to run a firm that creates software for Windows then you do it with the full knowledge that Windows will change and your code will need to be redone.

You could write your own OS but then you would be a very small fish in a very big pond, strugling to survive.

If a company wants to ride the D&D train then edition changes are going to need to be part of their business plan.

crosswiredmind wrote:

Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.

Now hold on a moment.

Who is hating on those that like the way 4th Edition is shaping up?

Since when did any of the "anti 4th Edition" people hate on those that were for 4th Edition? (A few trolls withstanding, of course.)

As I read through the posts I see phrases like - "why would anyone want that?" or "gawd that's dumb" or "WotC = Nazi" or "this is a game for kids - stupid ones that like *gasp* WoW".

People aren't just saying they do not want to buy 4E - they are piling on in such a way that makes those of us that are looking forward to it feel as if we are lesser dumb and gullable swine eating the slop out of WotC's bucket.

People are all kinds of pissed off about the shift. I get it. People hate WotC for dumping Dragon and Dungeon. I get that too.

All I am saying is don't let emotion rule your reaction those of us that think 4E is sounding cool and plan to buy into it straight away.

I guess my problem is that its not one big thing that is keeping from being thrilled with 4th edition, its sort of a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing.

I hear ya, but D&D has always changed. Rules, settings, playing surfaces, minis, mats, dice, whole conceptual frameworks.

The game today is nothing like it was when I started playing in 76. When Forgotten Realms came along it was nothing like Greyhawk or Blackmoor. AD&D was nothing like D&D. Basic, expert, etc. were not like AD&D.

Second edition was a radical shift. Worlds changed. New ones popped up.

3E brought even more change.

4E will bring more.

Its ok to not want to change but don't blame the change for your dislike of it. Stick with what you like, but don't assume D&D will ever be a static entity. It will always change. New rules, new worlds, new playing media, new, more, onward, and continual change.

Any time something changes there will alway be folk that do not want to make the change.

Some folks thought Star Trek TNG was horrible simply because it was set decades after the original. They wanted more of Kirk and crew. Some people watched the new BSG and said - ewww its nothing like the original. Lots of people did not like Star Wars Episodes I to III. People screamed when Mac said they were switching to intel chips. People screamed when they heard Apple was going to make a portable music player.

I could go on and on. Yes there is always New Coke. I get that. But frankly for every New Coke there is an Aliens (that flick so rocks).

Play what you want but do not hate on those of us that like the way 4E is shaping up. Some of us want change and some do not. Only time and the movement of the market will tell if 4E is an iPod or New Coke.

Just a quick note - the original D&D had areas that were for specific levels.

Every dungeon went up a level the deeper you went. The first level was 1, the second was 2, etc. etc.

As far as aggro goes - when I GM you can get a monster's attention by hitting real hard or hitting it frequently. If the critter has natural racial, class, or religious foes and they are present in the party then that is where they head.

I have played under GMs that ignore this common sense approach and either make it random (thinking that is fair) or they make it personal by tracking down the player they dislike the most.

The AoO is basically and aggro mechanism as it keeps a critter from going right past the meat shields to get to the soft on the outside crunchy on the inside spell flingers.

From the sound of things the monsters in the MM will have some general tactical guidance as a part of their write up to give GMs a plan for how they will act in combat. That should be good enough.

Just a quick question--

I recognize that many of the frequent posters are anti-campaign setting, but...

If the Powers redeveloped FR or Eberron or GH, et al. (or created a whole new setting) into something absolutely stunning--highest production value, superior editing, rock-solid campaign-specific mechanics, fabulous art and art direction--all packaged by the very paragon of WotC's best writers, would you capitulate to 4th Edition?

Would a great campaign setting draw you in when you would otherwise ignore 4e?

I am switching to 4E regardless. However WotC needs to produce a solid campaign setting regardless.

I would say it's inapropriately applying a tactical reality to a societal level.

The word I'm looking for is motive. Why are all of these superbadasssweetdaddyjones spellcasters determinedly destroying any population centre which begins to develop? What's in it for them.

And mining with Xorn? The humanoid entrepreneur can give them nothing, and what he wants to sell they want to eat - Xorn arriving is a disaster for any mine.

Hardly - take a look at the development of cities as military technology changes. Why don't we build castles? If you can drop a bomb then big walls don't mean much.

As for motive ... power, money, influence, greed, and the realization that the appropriate application of arcane might can bring a nation to its knees.

As for the xorn ... are they without needs or motives? I like the xorn hooker idea - might use that in my campaign.

All beings have needs. Power can gather to it those that need and connect them with the things they need.

The mine example is interesting. Here is where high fantasy is often short sighted though Eberron does it better.

Why use miners at all? Work a deal with a powerful caster and some Xorn. Form a corperation and wack the crap out of the ground til it gives up the gold.

Big houses (like Eberron) would form to exploit powerful magics and critters to do the work half the time and one tenth the effort thus maximizing profit.

As for the safety in numbers thing. I don't care how many clerics are in a big city. If an evil overlord gathers 100 incorporeal undead, a bunch o zombies, and some flying naties then any big city will fall.

Even if the clerics come to the rescue people will head for the hills.

I'm 36 and have come to grips with the fact that I am not part of the "new" generation, I am part of MY generation. If I want something to mimic a video game, I'll buy a video game.

I'm nearly 40 (less than one month of 30s left) and I do want a game that moves faster.

One thing I do not understand is the quickly forming notion that 4E = video game.

I have read nearly everything I can get my hands on about 4E and I do not see it. It is still a table top rpg. It still has dice, character sheets, and books.

Sure, it has a virtual table top for those that want it but you never need to use it.

Oh, and I do own an iPhone because it ROCKS!

I guess I'm not a grumpy old man just yet.

That's too bad...as a DM you should keep things moving. Try going to a story mode and tell the rules-lawyers to pipe down. Use the golden +/-2 rule and have fun. 3.5 works if you don't nit-pick the rules to death and spend forever trying to make everything legal.

Here is the rub - the rules for 3.5 are solid. The game does not bog down due to rules bickering. The game is just slow.

Playing loose and fast with the rules does not interest me. I love the fact that the rules govern the game in a coherent manner. That is why 4E appeals to me. If 4E has as solid a set of rules and it increases the pace of the game then I am all for it.

If 4E runs slowly then I would rather play a rules light system then tweak 3.5

Right now, playing 3.5, I have access, literally, to over 2,000 monsters (including 3rd party products), and infinitely more if you include templates.

I have access to thousands of race/class combos.

4E is not needed.

I get 5 hours every week to play D&D.

1 hour is spent socializing.
1 hour is spent actually role playing.
3 hours are spent runing just 2 combat encounters (1 if the PCs are over 14th lvl).

I don't care how much material I have for 3.5 when the core mechanics and complex options require so much time to work through.

3.5 is slow. Encounters above 8th level take far too much time to run.

My choice is not 3.5 or 4E. My choice is 4E or a completely different game.

I am so done with 3.5

And does your power-crazed archmage really want to run a nation; arranging the bureacracy ...

No more than the warrior king wants to. Power harnessed to conquer and rule is always the strongest available.

D&D has so many powerful entities and so many ways to wreak havoc that society would become decentralized as a matter of survival.

The points of light concept simply recognizes that the power present in a high fantasy setting means that populations will spread rather than become concentrated in strong points that offer no real protection.

Think of it this way. How many times at the table does a party fight shoulder to shoulder if they are being attacked by a spellflinger capable of inflicting mass AoE damage.

The point of light concept just takes that tactical reality and moves it to a societal level.

In the mac thread there is confirmation that the virtual table top is PC only but that all other tools will (at some point) work on a mac.

crosswiredmind wrote:

If the rules are just OK then people will switch when their favorite campaign setting switches.

Or for the first time in 20 years they won't be picking up "current" sourcebooks for their favorite setting.

Just saying.

I know very few gamers who can resist new material on their favorite setting. I think very few can actually resist the lure of new facts, stats, and tidbits that will keep them in the know.

That very well depends on D&DI. All the whizzbang gollygoshgee things for 4e seem to be happening for, at, or on D&DI. Will third party publishers be able to bring their products through this medium? If not I don't see it integrating with the 'main line' stuff WotC will be putting out. Non-integratable to me means ,'it's for another game'.

And if it's for another game ...
=/

I am not sure I agree. I plan on switching to 4E but i do not plan on using any of the online tools. Its the game that interests me and not the electronic accesories. If the rules rock then people will switch right away. If the rules are just OK then people will switch when their favorite campaign setting switches.

Regarding 'powerful magic' causing a more decentralized society, I have to offer a dissenting opinion. First of all, static fortifications like castles are not ideal, but they make great defenses for the 'dungeon', which is a great defense in a high magic world.

Its a great defense until you get swarmed by incorporeal undead, all manner of earth elemental, and all the other critters that can move through rock and dirt. Oh, and now that you are stuck in your dungeon the evil critters can just take all of your land.

That's the problem with high fantasy - the amount and variety of powerful entities makes it hard to justify strongholds and big cities.

Further, powerful wizards are not likely to be 'interested' in nationalism or patriotism. If the 'king' poses no threat to you, you're most likely to do the things you want to do, which probably involve more of the 'getting more power and knowledge' and less of the 'blowing up enemy soldiers'.

Why would a nation in a high magic setting be ruled by a warrior king? With the ammount of power they wield nations would be run by powerful spell flingers. Either that or there would be an arcane (or divine) arms race with the state investing heavily in arcane research and training.

This is why the points of light concept has always appealed to me - even before WotC placed that particular name upon it. It acknowledges the reality that you can't just bolt fantasy and magic on to medieval technology and patterns of governance and have it make sense.

That's right, what if we don't switch? By 'we' I mean the Paizo community and any and all connected to us.

Enthusiasm for not switching will be high at first. Then more and more 4E products will come out and draw people in. Enthusiasm will diminish as the numbers diminish.

You said it yourself ...

There are 'better' games out there than DnD already, they just have hard learning curves or not enough players to keep a consistent campaign going.

The points of light idea intrigues me. D&D is by its very nature a "high magic" system. Between demons, devils, dragons, and powerful spell flingers nations would not develop around large population centers stuck behind static defenses. War would not be waged by massed armies moving in close formation. Power would not be centralized and concentrated in capital cities with halls of government.

It seems to me that everything would be decentralized - the government, the military, the population, trade, etc. Warfare would look a lot like modern combat where the core combat unit would be based on a platoon sized group working in a combine arms team - arcane artilery, combat medics, air transport, heavy combat units, special forces, etc.

Castles and fortifications would be a hinderance more than a help. A well placed rock to mud effect would bring the whole thing crashing down. Warp wood and shape stone would make things even worse. Area effect spells and breath weapons would make the concentrating effects of castle defenses pointless.

The points of light idea makes sense insofar as it decentralizs society thus making it more robust in the face of the type of devastation "high magic" conflict could bring. Like the internet a decentralized society could withstand the loss of node and still function.

If power, wealth, agriculture, and trade were concentrated in large population centers then, it seems to me, one massive attack would bring tremendous ruin to that nation.

Eberron is one fantasy world that seems to take this kind of problem into account. The war ravaged the world and peace broke out because the alternative was mutual assured destruction.

The other way to avoid the point of light situation is to lower the power and pervasive nature of magic. Worlds like Lankhmar or Glorantha come to mind.

... it's a whole new game that NONE of us recognize anymore.

Is that a bad thing? I have been playing since three little books in a white box. AD&D came along and things changed. Dungeon crawls were replaced with whole worlds outside of the graph paper. Then more changes - new worlds - new editions - new concepts.

I played when characters fit on one side of an index card. I actually carried a character in my wallet in case a game broke out. Then all of a sudden you needed a whole sheet of paper. Then you needed a folio. Now I need an excel spreadsheet.

Tell you what - all of that change was good. The game grew and I would hope it can still continue to grow.

I know that change is not welcome by everyone. I see the same guys every year at DragonCon with the yellow Judges Guild DM's screen and the wonderful monochormatic character sheets. I have friends that refuse to play 3E and stick with 2E beause that's the way they like it.

That's cool. Its their choice. But no business will be able to sustain itself serving them unless that business wishes to remain small.

Change is not always good but not following the market is often bad for business.

Razz - i would not be so sure that 4E isn't going to save D&D. I do not know all of the numbers but i do know that the core books sell much better than those that follow. I know that as 3E matures fewer and fewer copies of the core books are selling as the game hits its saturation point.

If that pattern continues then D&D dies. 3E has done all it can to attract a new audience. It is now pushing its limits.

If D&D is going to survive it needs to show that it can be a viable product with a sustainable business model. 3.5 is a good set of rules. It definitely needs tweaks but it could stand on its own for at least a while longer. I agree with that.

The rub is that it won't sustain itself and when the cashflow dries up then our beloved game will fall into a downward spiral - much like the waning days of 2E.

WotC

... and calling them Nazi is truly beyond reason and any sense of civility. The Nazi atrocities and the memory of their victims and the targets of the horrors they perpetrated is cheapened everytime we invoke that name when it truly does not fit those to whom we have made the comparison ...

Wizards of the Coast is a business. They are fully aware of their bottom line. They know what sells and what does not. I trust that they spent a great deal of time and effort making the decision to produce a fourth edition of D&D. WotC is doing what all businesses do - try to stay in business, grow, and prosper.

I am sure this decision was made in order for D&D to remain a viable product.

I go back to what i said a few posts ago - the personal decision to play a certain game or buy a certain product is very different from the decision on what is best for a business.

I respect the decision to not buy 4E. I will not try and shape anyones decision on that front. I am one of the folks that actually welcome the new rules and plan on adopting them for my own campaign later in 2008.

Until then I plan on wrapping up LG with my friends, runing Pathfinder, and learning the new rules so that when my Pathfinder run is done its on to 4E.

Others will do whatever they want to do - and that's cool by me.

A for sure.

Actually I think Paizo would be smarter to delay transition for a time, perhaps with a few module releases with 4th edition, but not a full blown transition.

I definitely agree that the switch is inevitable. It would be a sound decision to launch 4E material by GenCon, but continue with 3.5 on all of the in flight adventure paths.

Maybe this is not as black and white as it seems.

I am not being dismissive but this al sounds like the chatter that surrounded the 2E to 3E switch. Its history repeating itself.

Just an observation.

As for the merit of not wanting to switch. Cool by me if you do not want to switch.

The market will do what the market does regardless of merit. If it were my company I would be looking to switch over to 4E as soon as possible. WotC, for all of its faults, is the industry leader and when it moves so will the rest of the industry. If I were an OGL publisher my long range business plan would be to follow the leader. The risks of not moving with the big dogs is that you get left behind to scrape out a niche.

There are a whole lot of emotions wrapped up in this debate and every individual needs to decide for themselves to buy or not buy into 4E. That is different from the business decision to take a company in a specific direction or not.

I guess I just don't get it. I am a regular at a local game shop. Been shopping there since 1975. Worked there for 6 years. I know most of the regulars and have known the manager for 25 years.

I have yet to hear the kind of WotC hating that seems to prevail here. In fact at our last LG gameday most folks were ready to reserve their 4E books right then and there.

Paizo will do whatever it feels is best for its business but from my perspective all of this anti 4E sentiment does not reflect the majority of the gaming population.

The funny thing about this is that I heard all of this before when 3E was announced.

Hmmmmm.

I think the future is bright for Golarion as a campaign setting to bring in more and more players. Especially those of us who have played older settings that either "got disappeared", like Greyhawk, or are becoming radically changed, like FR (and not to everyone's liking).

W/ that in mind, I don't think it's out of the question to at least consider a 3.75 or 3.Paizo (or perhaps 4.Paizo).

I agree that Paizo writes amazing adventure paths. I am gearing up to run Pathfinder starting in January.

That being said I am also looking forward to 4E and I will be tapping into whichever 4E source material will allow me to get rolling with the new rules.

I dislike 3E. I liked it enough to play it from the start but the flaws are just too big to look past and no ammount of tinkering will fix it. Everything I have read about 4E makes me want to hop right on.

I will miss Living Greyhawk. I do not like the Forgotten Realms and never have. I enjoy Eberron but not all that much.

I would hope that Paizo heads towards 4E because their material is top notch and I would hate to give it up.

I will miss Dragon.

It was the one place i could discover all kinds of cool products and publishers. I discovered Steel Sqwire and other cool little companies making awesome products to make my game better. Not ot mention all of the fine Game mastery stuff.

There is a real need for an RPG mag to feed us geek the scoop on what's new.

As for 4E - I CANNOT WAIT!

Everything I have read suggests that they are fixing the BIG problems and making this game ROCK. I am tired of combats that take hours. I am tired of spells and critters that produce bang your dead attacks. I am way tired of magic item overload.

My prediction - Dragon will be back in print at some point.

3.75?

Bad idea.

Look at Arcana Unearthed - anyone actually play it? No one at my local plays it.

I look at the number of new players we brought in running Living Greyhawk and I see them all wanting to play Living Realms. They will buy 4E. More new players will hop on board because of the links to the video games, novels, and the like.

4E will sell. 4E will expand the potential customer base.

Staying at 3.5 will do you well until WotC pulls that plug.

I have read many but not all of the posts in this thread and I undertand the angst surrounding the looming 4E madness.

Honestly, there is how things should be and then there is how things are. WotC will release 4E. Publishers big and small will switch over and produce material for the new edition. Those that don't will rapidly find themselves in the minority as the excitement over the new edition grows. The core 4E books will fly off the shelves and those independent publishers that get products out in the early days of 4E fever will reap the benefits.

3E and the d20 OGL made game companies appear and grow rapidly. WotC has very big coat tails.

4E will be a real test for the independents. In the end I firmly believe that the publishers that move to 4E will grow and those that do not may survive but they may miss out on a real opportunity to keep up the growth.

I would love to think that a business can thrive by catering to sentimentality. But that is not how this world works. I have been a gamer since 1975 when my brother ran me, my sister, and a friend of his through our first dungeon. I have seen systems and companies come and go. I have seen changes like this before. The result is always the same. When things change the companies that thrive are those that can adapt and move forward.

I have friends who still play 2E. To them switching to 3E would be a betrayal. Of course the folks at my local game shop have all moved on to 3E leaving them in a very very small minority. 4E will sell well. The industry will move with it and anyone that does not will find themselves described as a specialty publisher serving a niche market.

Besides - 4E looks like it is going to kick ass. And frankly 3E is so showing some big flaws. If someone told me that my only choice was to stick with 3E for the next year or two after 4E comes out I will go back to playing RuneQuest or Call of Cthulhu and give D&D a pass.

Sorry for the rant but I want to see Pathfinder go 4E as soon as possible. Time to follow the big dog.