D&D is dying. D&D has died. But very soon, it will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. 3P (P for Phoenix, or Pathfinder).Hang on...gotta get my hip boots. :P
yup, my boots. and scuba gear apparently.
how can d&d be dying? i am quite sure that d&d is very different from one group to another. it even morphs within groups over time.
argh, i dont know why i even read these message boards.
|
[4.4] There is no question that with its powerful brand and widespread marketing, the fourth edition will remain a top seller, but it seems possible that instead of forcing a new industry-wide standard, Wizards have splintered their once monolithic influence and created their own competition.
This is a bit that seems to me to reflect what has happened, and I honestly don't think that WotC saw it coming. However, it has meant we now have choice - you don't like what WotC has done to D&D then wander off and play another flavour.
S.
and what was the scale in ad&d....inches.It was inches, but those inches were multi-representational, 10feet indoors and 100feet outdoors if memory serves...
1" = 10 feet indoor scale or 10 yards outdoor scale
However, they were linear distances and not tied to an abstract "battlemap square." Old-school use of miniatures for combat in AD&D didn't tie movement/position to an artificial "grid;" you used a string and ruler or a tape measure (some used hex maps to speed things up). It was much closer to the wargaming roots where terrain and movement are more free-form.
|
I didn't find the article terriably academic. Too short, no citations, no real analysis of what WoTC/Hasbro were out to achieve nor did I find the reasons for the fan revolt compelling (some examples would have been good).
The reasons for a fan revolt seem, to me, be intergral with the reasons for WoTC/Hasbro releasing 4e. The fact that there has been any kind of revolt shows that the decision by WoTC/Hasbro did not have the full support of their customer base (witness the "my system is better than yours" comments on this very thread). The fact that the "rebel" faction, those players that have not switched to 4e have the support of a number of companies (some of which are hedging their bets it seems) shows that the move to 4e has been rejected by a substantial faction if not a majority of the existing customer base.
To me a more interesting question is what happens to 3.5e now that is essentially an "orphan" game system. Before things like the OGL and "orphan" system basically disappeared unless adopted by another publisher as Paizo has done in this case. But whereas the back catalogue once went with the system this has not happened in this case. Paizo didn't purchase 3.5e and didn't have the rights to any of the old WoTC modules or source books. In the past you were able to track down old books in bookstores, WoTC has in effect recalled all old stock both in printed and electronic form the later quite suddenly.
What level of "piracy" are we going to see on p2p networks? Is it still piracy if the product cannot be obtained otherwise? Why would WoTC/Hasbro cut off a source of income tapped from customers that had rejected their move to 4e? What information is WoTC/Hasbro basing their decision making and business model on?
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Tony
D&D is D&D, "Powers" isn't, nuff said...
My D&D has "Powers", so I don't think enough was said.
My 3.5 has powers:
Or my PFRG:
Or my older editions:
The fact that the "rebel" faction, those players that have not switched to 4e have the support of a number of companies (some of which are hedging their bets it seems) shows that the move to 4e has been rejected by a substantial faction if not a majority of the existing customer base.
Respectfully, I don't think this indicates what you say it indicates, at all.
The "rebel" faction having company support is largely the result of the OGL allowing companies to continue producing material for an older edition of the game, coupled with these companies' hopes that a significant enough faction of gamers is sticking with their older edition of choice. None of these companies have a solid idea of what percentage of D&D players makes up this "rebel" faction; only that it exists, and is relatively active on the internet.
It is almost certainly not a majority of active, regular D&D players (though, again, there's no real way to tell).
The fact that the "rebel" faction, those players that have not switched to 4e have the support of a number of companies (some of which are hedging their bets it seems) shows that the move to 4e has been rejected by a substantial faction if not a majority of the existing customer base.Respectfully, I don't think this indicates what you say it indicates, at all.
The "rebel" faction having company support is largely the result of the OGL allowing companies to continue producing material for an older edition of the game, coupled with these companies' hopes that a significant enough faction of gamers is sticking with their older edition of choice. None of these companies have a solid idea of what percentage of D&D players makes up this "rebel" faction; only that it exists, and is relatively active on the internet.
It is almost certainly not a majority of active, regular D&D players (though, again, there's no real way to tell).
I agree to the point that claiming a majority for the Rebel Alliance is a bit hopeful, not to say plain wrong. The Evil Empire naturally has more numbers, it's what gives it it's might.
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.
From Paizo's point of view I would imagine they just want to sell as many books as possible, outselling 4e is probably not even in their gameplan let alone hopes or dreams. They don't need to outsell 4e to be a success, they seem to be a relatively small company, they don't need WOTCs profits or anything like them. I'm 90% sure Paizo will be around for a long time.
Where it gets interesting imo is what level of loss compared to what they were previously making from D&D before 4e can WOTC accept?
What I mean by this is that every game shop I've been into in the last year has seen a reduction in shelf space for WOTC D&D products and their allied TPPs. For example I was in a game shop in Sheffield last week where I would guestimate 4e having about 60-70% of shelf space compared to Paizo's 30-40%, very roughly speaking of course. Let's say for arguments sake I've got that wrong and Paizo only has say 25% to 4e's 75%.
The thing is whereas before 4e people buying tpp products also could be expected to buy wotc core manuals at the least, now I'm guessing most people who are buying Paizo product aren't buying 4e ... some will sure, most I tend to think wouldn't.
Even if the hit to wotc's D&D sales is only 10%, which seems very low and unlikely to me, in business that's a significant downturn. I've never worked for a company that would be happy about losses like that. Let alone the possibility of 20, 25, or 30%!
Of course I've not considered that 4e may have brought in new players. Mainly because I'm not sure it has in any significant numbers. I've personally never met any 4e player who didn't also play 3.5e or 3e or whatever before.
Well it's all guess work, but we live in interesting times.
I agree to the point that claiming a majority for the Rebel Alliance is a bit hopeful, not to say plain wrong. The Evil Empire naturally has more numbers, it's what gives it it's might.
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.
You're absolutely right.
What I mean by this is that every game shop I've been into in the last year has seen a reduction in shelf space for WOTC D&D products and their allied TPPs. For example I was in a game shop in Sheffield last week where I would guestimate 4e having about 60-70% of shelf space compared to Paizo's 30-40%, very roughly speaking of course. Let's say for arguments sake I've got that wrong and Paizo only has say 25% to 4e's 75%.
While this might be the case for some (though definitely not the game shops I've been to), I've noticed that shelf space in actual bookstores for WotC products (and RPGs in general) has increased over the last few years, though Paizo still receives woefully little of it (I was in a Barnes & Noble tonight; WotC had two shelves of RPG supplements, including front-facing books, and a plastic, rotating, stand-up display in the middle of the aisle. Paizo had a single copy of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting sitting there.) Hopefully we will see better Paizo representation once the PFRPG is released. I'd also love to see some of the standalone Pathfinder modules in stores (adventure paths are a no-go for reasons the Paizo guys have explained).
Of course I've not considered that 4e may have brought in new players. Mainly because I'm not sure it has in any significant numbers. I've personally never met any 4e player who didn't also play 3.5e or 3e or whatever before.
I've met TONS.
I agree to the point that claiming a majority for the Rebel Alliance is a bit hopeful, not to say plain wrong. The Evil Empire naturally has more numbers, it's what gives it it's might.
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.
You're absolutely right.
What I mean by this is that every game shop I've been into in the last year has seen a reduction in shelf space for WOTC D&D products and their allied TPPs. For example I was in a game shop in Sheffield last week where I would guestimate 4e having about 60-70% of shelf space compared to Paizo's 30-40%, very roughly speaking of course. Let's say for arguments sake I've got that wrong and Paizo only has say 25% to 4e's 75%.While this might be the case for some (though definitely not the game shops I've been to), I've noticed that shelf space in actual bookstores for WotC products (and RPGs in general) has increased over the last few years, though Paizo still receives woefully little of it (I was in a Barnes & Noble tonight; WotC had two shelves of RPG supplements, including front-facing books, and a plastic, rotating, stand-up display in the middle of the aisle. Paizo had a single copy of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting sitting there.) Hopefully we will see better Paizo representation once the PFRPG is released. I'd also love to see some of the standalone Pathfinder modules in stores (adventure paths are a no-go for reasons the Paizo guys have explained).
Of course I've not considered that 4e may have brought in new players. Mainly because I'm not sure it has in any significant numbers. I've personally never met any 4e player who didn't also play 3.5e or 3e or whatever before.I've met TONS.
I agree I've never even seen a single Paizo product in a normal bookshop, but English bookshops don't really tend to have extensive rpg book sections anyway. They tend to have 2 or 3 copies of D&D manuals, some WoD, maybe some tv-tie in games such as Serenity, maybe some Games Workshop stuff and that's about it. Personally I doubt we can learn much about relative sales from the presumably comparitively small number of manuals sold in mainstream stores.
One thing I didn't mention in my post, which is presumably in WOTC favour, is their new reliance on the sale of minis. That must be bringing in some new funds I guess?
|
|
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.
What a horrorifying statement - win what? The "I'm the coolest RPG comp."? What do the rebels win? Some people don't like 4e so burn down the company that makes it?
Why can't we have both? Does there have to be a winner?
As pointed out WotC has the clout to put a roleplaying product on the front shelves of big stores. His must rise awareness of P&P RPGS, perhaps 4e will be an entry point that will lead new players to "better games".
S.
PS: Still hate minis in RPG's for determining combat... (reaching for 1e AD&D).
|
|
The "rebel" faction having company support is largely the result of the OGL allowing companies to continue producing material for an older edition of the game, coupled with these companies' hopes that a significant enough faction of gamers is sticking with their older edition of choice. None of these companies have a solid idea of what percentage of D&D players makes up this "rebel" faction; only that it exists, and is relatively active on the internet.
It is almost certainly not a majority of active, regular D&D players (though, again, there's no real way to tell).
Yes the OGL allows companies to produce that support which in the past (preOGL) would have been impossible. But the fact that companies do continue to support it shows that they believe/hope/know that there is enough demand for they produce, that there are enough customers out there to support them. What is "enough" will depend on company size, overhead etc but I think we can agree that this is a little more than a niche market.
Your last statement sums up the problem we all have getting to grips with what affect 4e is having on the gaming world. Nobody has been able to produce hard sales figures and even then you'll get people arguing that just because someone bought the book doesn't mean they play the system..yada yada yar.
What we are left with are our own opinions of what we see around us. I am currently playing in 4 regular, one semi regular games and one that looks like becoming defunct. Of the 20 odd players in those groups 2 are moving/moved exculsively to 4e, 2 are playing 4e in other games and will continue to do so whilst also playing 3.5 looking to switch to PFRPG late in the year. Another 2 I am uncertain about but the rest are planning to go PFRPG and are not looking at 4e at all. My local games store is sell 4e but has the Pathfinder Adventure Paths right alongside. They are currently selling the last of their 3/3.5e Goodman Games Modules but word is that they will NOT be getting the 4e ones in. From that perspective 4e looks to be doing really badly but I am not naive enough think that this has to be the whole story.
I've met TONS.
That could be like five people. Have you been to Gencon? ;-)
It is almost certainly not a majority of active, regular D&D players (though, again, there's no real way to tell).
Agreed. It it were a majority, heads would be rolling, and not just the typically "Merry Christmas" layoffs WotC seems to do every few years.
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.
If Paizo does win*, it's because WotC completely and utterly dropped the ball. Don't get me wrong; Paizo is making a lot of really smart moves. But the D&D brand is such an overwhelming advantage that smart moves alone won't do it. A year ago, I would have (and did) laugh at people who suggested Paizo might someday topple WotC, but now I'm not so sure. WotC has been bungling very badly of late.
* For my purposes, I define winning as outselling D&D.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
then play your lawful evil player. alignment guidlines was something that ad&d used to punish players who didnt follow game mechanics.
Donnald, could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean.
"Alignment" was around well before AD&D, of course. It was a way to demark sides in a Moorcockian battle between the forces of Law and Chaos. Gygax introduced the good-evil axis in an early issue of "The Dragon".
Alignment has always struck me as a way of defining character motivations and personality. How do you see it as a means of punishing players who were breaking the rules?
|
|
If Paizo does win*
* For my purposes, I define winning as outselling D&D.
This is the bit I don't seem to understand the why's and wherefor's of. Why are people hell-bent on punishing WotC for the crime of producing a game? As long as BOTH companies are making a profit margin that keeps them in business it is a win or the gaming community. Both rule sets then remain "current" and you don't end up trying to find backroom game filled with old people smelling of socks to play your out of print game.
Perhaps because I (and I'll repeat) think that neither 3.5e or 4e have anything but varying degrees of "like D&D"* that I don't see the issue. The community created 4e, WotC no matter what has been said, HAD listened to the complaining and moaning people who played 3.5e and attempted to address the issues. <cry, sob> "I only have 2 spells per day" / <cry/sob> "Now I HAVE to play a cleric" / <cry/sob> "My fighter sucks compared to the mage"
Think Motes and Eyes ladies and gentlmen.
S.
*If I rewrite bits of Lord of the Rings and "stream-line" it a tad, then put in the front cover "based on a book by Tolkien" can I still call it Lord of the Rings, tell people it IS LotR? It's what TSR and WotC have done with D&D, but we complained little until now? D&D = Gygax, written and produced.
*If I rewrite bits of Lord of the Rings and "stream-line" it a tad, then put in the front cover "based on a book by Tolkien" can I still call it Lord of the Rings, tell people it IS LotR?
What would you call the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy? All three were excellent films, all three rewrote and streamlined the books for a more mainstream audience, and all three were definitely pitched as Lord of the Rings. They seem to have gotten away with it just fine.
It's not the publishing a game that has people wanting to see WotC "punished" it's the breaking of a golden business rule, "You don't lose customers to have a new product."
It is a rare company that chooses to lose customers or do something purposefully designed to point out they don't want your business. It's an even rarer company that does this then continues to greater success.
Microsoft didn't say, "This is windows Vista and no matter how much you liked windows XP we won't do anything like that ever again."
Ford didn't say, "This is the car we are producing and we don't care if it isn't like the old ones we used to do, you'll buy what we make."
Mainly because they don't have a monolithic share of their market to try and force such change. They also don't turn around and tell the people that had been providing third party parts for their products that they can't continue to do that and work on their new product too.
It's less a "punish WotC and raise Paizo" it's more of a "I don't expect WotC to continue 'winning' in this business and I hope it's Paizo that leads the way here after because they are running a more conservative business model."
D&D == Gygax until he sold it, after that it D&D == what its current owner wants.
It's only yours as long as you keep it.
|
|
pitched as Lord of the Rings. They seem to have gotten away with it just fine.
True but the screen play was written by Jackson et al, and I would be surprised if many would support that the movies ARE LotR rather than an adaptation of LotR. Hmmm, 3.5e/4e adaptations of Gygax's D&D, I can live with that. Did I mention I was in the movie? :)
If I may quote the all knowing Wikipedia;
The three films do not correspond exactly to the three volumes of the trilogy, but rather represent a three-part adaptation. Jackson takes a more chronological approach to the story than did Tolkien.
and rewrite;
The three books (PHB/DMG/MM) do not correspond exactly to the three volumes of the Gygax trilogy, but rather represent a three-part adaptation. 3.5e/4e takes a more mechanical/tactical approach to combat than did Gygax.
It's not the publishing a game that has people wanting to see WotC "punished" it's the breaking of a golden business rule, "You don't lose customers to have a new product."
D&D == Gygax until he sold it, after that it D&D == what its current owner wants.
Again, 4e was a response to complaints that perhaps even you or I made about the then current edition of dungeons and dragons. Not saying 4e wasn't coming, product cycles and that. But flog the designers of 4e all you like they were trying to make the D&D as we wanted it (or believed we wanted it). I am not saying they succeeded, just they tried. You can please some of the people some of time...
Your last statement while true from a materialist point of view isn't what I was getting at. The writing style, concepts etc are Gygax. It was partly the reason for my "LotR" example. Anyone could rewrite LotR in their own words but it would BE LotR? Anyway I don't want to get into what is or isn't D&D just that 3.5e and 4e are different designers approachs to giving us what we want.
S.
pitched as Lord of the Rings. They seem to have gotten away with it just fine.True but the screen play was written by Jackson et al, and I would be surprised if many would support that the movies ARE LotR rather than an adaptation of LotR. Hmmm, 3.5e/4e adaptations of Gygax's D&D, I can live with that. Did I mention I was in the movie? :)
If I may quote the all knowing Wikipedia;
The three films do not correspond exactly to the three volumes of the trilogy, but rather represent a three-part adaptation. Jackson takes a more chronological approach to the story than did Tolkien.
and rewrite;
The three books (PHB/DMG/MM) do not correspond exactly to the three volumes of the Gygax trilogy, but rather represent a three-part adaptation. 3.5e/4e takes a more mechanical/tactical approach to combat than did Gygax.
I think this is actually a pretty accurate explanation of how new editions of the game relate to one another. Well put.
|
I swear I remember seeing an article by wizards that one of their design philosophies was to make 4e more MMO like...anyone have a link or remember that?
Yes I remember seeing that somewhere as well they openly said they took aspects from various sources including MMO's to help design the game. Now personally I do not think it is unreasonable for something that it's designers have said have taken inspiration and aspects from MMO's for some people to notice and think it plays like an MMO.
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road./facepalm
I have not played 4e, and probably never will, but does it really play like a MMORPG on paper?
|
|
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road./facepalmI have not played 4e, and probably never will, but does it really play like a MMORPG on paper?
About as much as a P&P RPG plays like an MMORPG. As MMORPGs came from P&P RPGs there will always be a degree of similarity. So yes 4e plays like a MMORPG if you remove the computer and add a real live DM (then again all editions have that in common). It would be much closer to say it plays more like a skirmish wargame (during combats).
T.
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road./facepalmI have not played 4e, and probably never will, but does it really play like a MMORPG on paper?
What that even means boggles the mind. It plays like D&D.
There is no grinding. There is no Looking For Group channel. You do not need to form raids. Quest givers do not have floating exclamation points above their heads. You do not press buttons to attack. I can think of very few real similarities between MMORPGs and D&D (most of which are based on genre rather than how the game works), and those few similarities are shared by all editions of the game; they are not unique to 4th Edition.
Of course, if 4th edition does attract a new customer base, and sales stay strong, a game that plays like a MMORPG on paper might be a new style of RPG game that other companies follow down the road./facepalmI have not played 4e, and probably never will, but does it really play like a MMORPG on paper?
Honestly ... imo no it doesn't.
It doesn't play like D&D though either imo, it's closer to a tactical miniature based tabletop skirmish game with limited additional roleplaying rules imho.
|
|
with limited additional roleplaying rules imho.
I'm interested in why you think this? 4e still has skills and feats like 3.5e and races/classes etc. 1e AD&D (my top ranked version of D&D) had neither and we seem to do some roleplaying fine. So I really am interested to hear what is the missing ingredient in 4e?
This is an honest question I do not intend to say "but you are wrong" at all. Your opinion is after all your opinion.
Thanks,
S.
It plays like D&D.
Not in my opinion.
It plays like D&D.Not in my opinion.
You know what they say about opinions...
You know what they say about opinions...It plays like D&D.Not in my opinion.
No. Enlighten me.
Opinions are like butt-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink. No one cares to see yours.
No. Enlighten me.You know what they say about opinions...It plays like D&D.Not in my opinion.
They're like a~%#@&~s. Everyone has one or is one, can't quite remember which sometimes...
Edit: Or is it that they're like ninjas - not meant to be seen?
So it plays like Chainmail? ;-)
Honestly ... imo no it doesn't.It doesn't play like D&D though either imo, it's closer to a tactical miniature based tabletop skirmish game with limited additional roleplaying rules imho.
Wouldn't know, that's before my time old chap ;-).
If it does that's hardly a recomendation for a modern day rpg though is it?
with limited additional roleplaying rules imho.I'm interested in why you think this? 4e still has skills and feats like 3.5e and races/classes etc. 1e AD&D (my top ranked version of D&D) had neither and we seem to do some roleplaying fine. So I really am interested to hear what is the missing ingredient in 4e?
This is an honest question I do not intend to say "but you are wrong" at all. Your opinion is after all your opinion.
Thanks,
S.
Well, without getting into a massive discussion, as I'm sure we're all past that stage now, simply put I feel though some lip service is paid to roleplaying advice in the DMG (and possibly the PHB?), maybe even more lip service strictly speaking than previous editions, the rules themselves, and the supplementals such as modules and monster manuals, are so heavily reliant and focused on combat, as are things like spells, powers, even art, that it feels like it's all about the combat far more so than in the past. And with combat being a very time consuming part of the game and having to be fought out using minis on a tabletop, I honestly feel this has all conspired at the table during play to move things away from the roleplaying side towards long tabletop skirmishes.
Look at the 4e MM. Check how previously non-combat oriented monsters such as the Succubus have been skewed away from jaw jaw towards war war. Look the lack of almost any fluff in that manual. Where in it does it encourage roleplay beyond finding inventive ways to kill the monsters on the tabletop? Can it be used for roleplaying? Yes I suppose ... but it doesn't encourage it imo, just the opposite in fact.
Again, you CAN roleplay using 4e (indeed I have), just as you CAN roleplay with Warhammer FB, or that Inquisitor tabletop semi-rpg that GW put out a few years back, where sessions were pretty much inevitable table top combats strung together with a plot storyline. The point is the system absolutely does not encourage it in play. Characters are created at the speed of light, with very little bedding in time for the player, and limited feeling choices.
That's been my experience anyway, from reading it, putting it aside in disgust, to finally playing it much later (2 weeks ago).
EDIT - I should add I don't use any of the D&D systems personally any more, I use a RQ/Basic rules tweak, with ported over D&D spells and magic items etc, in my old D&D homebrewed campaign world. RQ now there is a system that imo subtly encourages roleplaying, by the clever mechanism of only skills that are used going up thru experience. This makes players think of ways to use non-combat skills as they want them up as well as the combat skills. The combat is nastier too, so while being fast, descriptive, and bloody, it is not something players take lightly or get bored during.
"D&D 4E" - the game to "D&D: The Movie".
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Skill Challenges are broken. The first version was too difficult, the second version too easy, and neither works for providing a challenge. Anyone who disagrees with this is either not using the SC, has house ruled it, or doesn't get math. It's rather embarassing to see people still tout the system as anything to eb proud of - and the fact WotC didn't manage to provide a system with sound math speaks volumes about their support for non-combat systems.
|
|
Yes I remember seeing that somewhere as well they openly said they took aspects from various sources including MMO's to help design the game. Now personally I do not think it is unreasonable for something that it's designers have said have taken inspiration and aspects from MMO's for some people to notice and think it plays like an MMO.
One of the designers had mentioned that both he and a few others were heavily into World of Warcraft; which in of itself isn't saying much since so many other millions are too.
If I had to pull something from 4E that likely came from an MMO, it's the powers on a timer mechanic.
|
|
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Can you explain this?
I'm just curious - and for the record i'm not a 4E player, couldn't be bothered with it. But I've always wondered why this comes up.
Which part of roleplaying requires rules? Going back through all my 1E, 2E, Palladium, GURPS, 3.x, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy, Mutants and Masterminds materials I can't in any of them find anything specific to rules which deal with Roleplaying itself.
Am I the only one who equates roleplaying with drama and verbal activity?
I don't mean for my question to seem like I'm picking on you, I just can't help but ask it whenever I see that statement come up.
Which part of roleplaying requires rules? Going back through all my 1E, 2E, Palladium, GURPS, 3.x, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy, Mutants and Masterminds materials I can't in any of them find anything specific to rules which deal with Roleplaying itself.
Am I the only one who equates roleplaying with drama and verbal activity?
I don't mean for my question to seem like I'm picking on you, I just can't help but ask it whenever I see that statement come up.
It's not that roleplaying requires rules, but it can be supported by rules. A good skill system, for example, can support roleplaying by offering more options and a more fair method than "just say what your character says".
4E doesn't do anything like that, its SC system is broken.
And once that is gone all you have is combat. Of course you can RP in 4E - as you can RP in any tabletop wargame.
Opinions are like b~~&-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink. No one cares to see yours.
That's just your opinion.
|
|
It's not that roleplaying requires rules, but it can be supported by rules. A good skill system, for example, can support roleplaying by offering more options and a more fair method than "just say what your character says".
4E doesn't do anything like that, its SC system is broken.
And once that is gone all you have is combat. Of course you can RP in 4E - as you can RP in any tabletop wargame.
Ok, I got ya.
It seems to me that back in the day, the idea of "useless" skills like profession, craft, etc (read, roleplaying skills) was one of the primary complaints that led to the truncated skill system in 4E.
Unlike, say, in Warhammer Fantasy or Dark Heresy where you have RP skills like Blather and Carouse ( the "I can drink more than you" skill!).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm somewhat reminded of Mechwarrior, the RPG companion for BattleTech. I ran a game for a while, and like any RPG you could roleplay with it to a certain extent, but it kinda always felt like you were just filling time until you got back into your giant robot killing machine and started making Piloting and Gunnery rolls.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm somewhat reminded of Mechwarrior, the RPG companion for BattleTech. I ran a game for a while, and like any RPG you could roleplay with it to a certain extent, but it kinda always felt like you were just filling time until you got back into your giant robot killing machine and started making Piloting and Gunnery rolls.
Which version?
1st and 2nd yes, that was a problem. 3rd? Characters could have *very* broad knowleges, but character creation took 6 months (or at least it felt like it)
What I've noticed is that almost all of the bookstores in my area (central and north New Jersey) have just almost completely gotten rid of their RPG sections with the end of 3rd Edition. Every book store I've been in has maybe the 4.0 PHB and a smattering of leftover 3E books with the rest of the shelf-space going to manga and board games. The impression I get is that they are giving up on RPGs and using the shelf space for something else.
What I've noticed is that almost all of the bookstores in my area (central and north New Jersey) have just almost completely gotten rid of their RPG sections with the end of 3rd Edition. Every book store I've been in has maybe the 4.0 PHB and a smattering of leftover 3E books with the rest of the shelf-space going to manga and board games. The impression I get is that they are giving up on RPGs and using the shelf space for something else.
I live in a very small city (though I call it a town when compared to say Phoenix) and all of our local bookstores have an entire bookcase devoted to D&D stuff. I use to work for one of them and it wasn't as extensive then.
Opinions are like b~~&-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink. No one cares to see yours.That's just your opinion.
Hey. I was just repeating what they say about opinions. I am not confirming or denying what my opinion on the matter is. Don't shoot the messenger, buddy.
"D&D 4E" - the game to "D&D: The Movie".
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Skill Challenges are broken. The first version was too difficult, the second version too easy, and neither works for providing a challenge. Anyone who disagrees with this is either not using the SC, has house ruled it, or doesn't get math. It's rather embarassing to see people still tout the system as anything to eb proud of - and the fact WotC didn't manage to provide a system with sound math speaks volumes about their support for non-combat systems.
It was determined by a few people before the errata that during a skill challenge your players needed to get alittle creative and you needed to therefore hand out the extra bonuses to rolls as opposed to the system just being used in this way: "I use Diplomacy" *rolls d20*.
The extra bonuses were built into the system as well but yes, to many people complained about it so WOTC attempted to fix it. That is pretty much all 4E is about anyways. WOTC listened to all the complaints a significant number of us gamers had with 3.x and attempted to fix them.
I don't use the errata because I don't need it, I don't house-rule it because the bonus system was built into it, and I can certainly count numbers so your opinion that anyone who disagrees is just skewed. See the above statement about opinions.
"D&D 4E" - the game to "D&D: The Movie".
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Skill Challenges are broken. The first version was too difficult, the second version too easy, and neither works for providing a challenge. Anyone who disagrees with this is either not using the SC, has house ruled it, or doesn't get math. It's rather embarassing to see people still tout the system as anything to eb proud of - and the fact WotC didn't manage to provide a system with sound math speaks volumes about their support for non-combat systems.
Skill challenges don't work if you design boring skill challenges.
Skill challenges do work if you design interesting skill challenges.
Take a look at the Scales of War AP, or the Insider articles on designing good skill challenges. Just because you haven't seen it, or can't imagine that it's possible doesn't mean it can't be done.
And really, "There are no rules for role-playing!" is a pretty tired complaint, especially when there a) are rules for role-playing, even if you don't like them, and b) there is way more rules support for role-playing, both in terms of mechanics and advice, than there has been in previous editions.
My main problem with 4e comes from the way it teaches a new generation of RPgamers our loved hobby. It is true that experienced players can grab mostly any set of rules (3.5, 4e, or even Chess) and construct a role-playing experience.
I started playing RPGs with AD&D some 16 years ago. The amount of fluff, tips on roleplaying, and literary references that came with the core books really aided me and everyone playing at the time to understand what RPGs were all about.
You see, I really loved 3e and 3.5. I think they really refreshed the way the game was played. AD&D was somewhat restrictive in character creation without the splatbooks, and those, most of the times, frankly sucked. I do think it sacrificed a bit in the descriptive department, specially in the monsters descriptions.
Now 4e is a whole different animal. As is well pointed by many of you, rules are not needed for roleplaying. However, some sets of rules lend themselves more naturally to roleplaying than others. Among RPGs, D&D in all its iterations is, ironically, not the most roleplaying-friendly due to the amount of dissociated mechanics it brings with it. However, the amount of effort put on fluff in past iterations compensated this problem. It seems to me that 4e worsened somewhat the dissociated mechanics aspect of the game while phasing out most of the fluff (both in quantity and quality IMO) we had come to expect from D&D products. Of course experienced players can tap into a wealth of knowledge they acquired during their game years. This is, of course, not so for newer players. It seems to me that many of them might lose a lot from this.
Now, with a more on-topic comment:
I agree with everyone that says this article showed too few references to support its claims. Even though it raises some interesting ideas.
"D&D 4E" - the game to "D&D: The Movie".
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Skill Challenges are broken. The first version was too difficult, the second version too easy, and neither works for providing a challenge. Anyone who disagrees with this is either not using the SC, has house ruled it, or doesn't get math. It's rather embarassing to see people still tout the system as anything to eb proud of - and the fact WotC didn't manage to provide a system with sound math speaks volumes about their support for non-combat systems.
Their first try at Skill Challenges managed to break things by making the 'harder' checks give out more XP before it was pointed out to them by statisticians that, under most circumstances it was actually statistically easier to pull off hard Skill Challenges then the supposed easy ones. The errata solves that.
After that what DCs should be are open to pretty wide interpretation and it appears that WotC shifted their interpretation during the errata.
Essentially the whole thing boils down to the question "What does 'training' mean?". Thats were the +5 difference comes into play. Initially, with training you'd fail a moderate check 25% of the time and a hard one 50%. Under the new system moderates will pretty much always be passed by some one with training in the relevant skill and hard checks will only be failed 25% of the time.
OK so which numbers would be better in use? The answer to that would seem to depend on how often players should fail skill checks. Now the real twist with the above numbers is that whether they work or don't work is actually a function of party size. If one has a 3 player party then most of the time your not going to have skills with a combo of both training and a high stat meaning the original numbers where near impossible and the new errata its still pretty tough. On the other hand with a party of 7 PCs you'll encounter the opposite. Now one of the characters probably has training and a high stat for just about all the skills and succeeding at anything but the hardest Skill Challenges should not be too tough.
Still there has clearly been a reevaluation on how often success should occur with Skill Challenges. Presuming the average party size of 5 players its now significantly better then even that you'll succeed at anything but very difficult Skill Challenges the majority of the time. Presumably this was done in order for Skill Challanges to be analogous to combat encounters. How often do the PCs win a combat? Probably at least 80% of the time. The current Skill Challenge system would seem to want to have the same results with players succeeding close to 80% of the time with most challenges. Its no surprise to me that WotC went down this road as succeeding is usually more fun then failing so skewing the game so that success is the more common result makes a fair bit of sense. After all the players would likely get pretty frustrated if 50% of the time when they engaged in combat they had to flee with their tail between their legs.
Nonetheless for DMs that do want things to be more difficult - well thats a pretty simple house rule...raise the DCs.
Personally I'm hoping that the DMG II expands on what we have so far. The current tables are passable but I'd like to see a very hard column as well. There is room in the game for a range of checks which even the untrained can usually perform right through to ones that are near impossible without training and touch and go even with it.
"D&D 4E" - the game to "D&D: The Movie".
Sure you can roleplay in 4E - but there's no support from it by the system. It's a tabletop miniature game.
Skill Challenges are broken. The first version was too difficult, the second version too easy, and neither works for providing a challenge. Anyone who disagrees with this is either not using the SC, has house ruled it, or doesn't get math. It's rather embarassing to see people still tout the system as anything to eb proud of - and the fact WotC didn't manage to provide a system with sound math speaks volumes about their support for non-combat systems.
Skill challenges don't work if you design boring skill challenges.
Skill challenges do work if you design interesting skill challenges.
Take a look at the Scales of War AP, or the Insider articles on designing good skill challenges. Just because you haven't seen it, or can't imagine that it's possible doesn't mean it can't be done.
And really, "There are no rules for role-playing!" is a pretty tired complaint, especially when there a) are rules for role-playing, even if you don't like them, and b) there is way more rules support for role-playing, both in terms of mechanics and advice, than there has been in previous editions.
Scott, get a clue, and do the math before you post next time. SC are broken, math says so. Arguing with math makes it really hard to take any of your opinions seriously.
My main problem with 4e comes from the way it teaches a new generation of RPgamers our loved hobby. It is true that experienced players can grab mostly any set of rules (3.5, 4e, or even Chess) and construct a role-playing experience.
I started playing RPGs with AD&D some 16 years ago. The amount of fluff, tips on roleplaying, and literary references that came with the core books really aided me and everyone playing at the time to understand what RPGs were all about.
I keep hearing these sorts of comments from people who don't like 4e. I have to think that I read a very different set of books than they did, because I see plenty of roleplaying possibilities in 4e.
I hear things like "well powers are all the same - only the damage die and type changes" and I think what were the differences between ray of frost and burning hands or flame strike vs fireball vs lightning bolt vs cone of cold. combat spells do damage of a type in a shape - they did in 1st edition and 2nd edition and in both 3.0 and 3.5 - so why is this bad in 4e?
Flavor and role-playing depend on the players and the DM - anybody who started playing very young knows that, because when we were young, very young, we probably didn't understand the rules well enough to play correctly. But we still had fun, because when you're a kid roleplaying comes naturally. And you know what was exciting? The bits where you got to fireball the troll. And it's still exciting in 4e.
Only in 4e, I don't have to prepare for six hours if I want the game to go well, or even longer at high levels. I can just spend a reasonable amount of time preparing and enjoy.
4e gives tremendously good DMing advice in the DMG - Easily better than ANY PREVIOUS EDITION of the Dungeons & Dragons game.
I don't have anything against people who enjoy 3rd edition, nor anything against Paizo. Heck, I think they put out great products, and I'm thrilled to be able to port some of that content for my 4e games. I will still pick up the Pathfinder RPG when it comes out. But I am really sick of hearing "but there are no rules for roleplaying in 4e" because there are, and frankly, the barebones rules light approach for roleplaying appeals to me a heck of a lot more than the 'must be a rule for everything in case someone tries to break the game' approach taken by 3.5 ... I'm so relieved to not have to spend hours stating up a monster with class levels... I can do it in a few minutes, and not have to feel like crap if my two hours of prep work dies in the first round of combat.
I'm also really sick of the edition wars. I've tried to be neutral - because I do enjoy both... I like playing in 3.5, and even DMing at lower levels... but I also enjoy 4e and I see a LOT of unjustified attacks.
It's a boardgame that requires minis - I hear this a lot too. So did 3e, it just didn't outright say so. Was it possible to play without? Yes. Did certain classes lose out if you did so? Yes. I wonder where the excitement of playing with the table, with a board went to. My brother and I used to use legos, and we thought it was so cool to be able to put the monster mini down, especially if we had the right one. Now it's bad????
I'm sorry, I'm just fed up. I'm really sick of being told that if I enjoy 4e I don't know what role playing is. I'm really sick of being told that if I was a good DM, I wouldn't have to prep so long for my 3.5 games. That clearly 3.5 is better and that I owe it to Paizo to support their game of WotC.
This edition war is destroying both games. And it shouldn't. I like both games. I hope, I really do, that somehow Paizo manages to fix 3.5 for DMs, because I like the game - I just hate that DMing for it became work rather than fun, especially at high levels. I hope that WotC manages to figure out that failing to actually let new blood into their adventure writing pool is causing most of their adventures for 4e to stink. Because I want to be able to play and DM in 3.P and I want to be able to play good prepublished adventures in 4e.
And mostly, I want not to feel every time I go to one discussion board or the other that I am the enemy. Even when I don't post, when I read the boards... these wonderful boards that were once the best gaming community out there... I cringe. I'm always the enemy now, no matter where I go, just because I like to enjoy my game. Gamers shouldn't do that to other people. We should know better.
- Ashavan