Isn't that the highly praised design concept of the "classic modules" from the good old times?
|
And DigitalMage, you really should read any AP adventure before you make your mind up. They're very much different from 4E Delve-style scenarios.
Not going to happen I am afraid, I have heard enough good things said about them that I do believe they must be pretty damn good.
However they would not be for me, in terms of taking too long to play through - I started playing in Rise of the Runelords, but as we were rotating with other games I only got to book 2 before quitting the group. A couple of other players who stayed with the group for another year before leaving apparently also didn't get to see the end of it.
For me as someone with loads of different RPGs I want to play and run, short tightly focussed campaigns that last maybe 20 or so sessions are what I am after. Luckily I find that I can create such campaigns myself (god that sounds boastful).
Also as I am a slow reader in the time it would take me to read a full six part Adventure Path (576 pages!) I would rather read a new RPG or couple of setting books that I would get more use out of than an adventure path I would likely run only once (and would likely have to work hard to keep a group of players together long enough to see it through to the end).
So yeah, I have no issues with the APs as such, but some PFS scenarios can seem to be nothing more than a linked set of combat encounters (though some are excellent too!)
|
Let's stop pretending that D&D is no longer worthy of the name "Dungeons and Dragons" because of the the fact that the core game system changed from 3.X to 4e. Because if that is the case, then 3.X wasn't "Dungeons and Dragons" either, seeing as how it was also a large divergence from the prceeding system.
|
No, it's the "convention module design" concept. Gotta fit in 4h.
PFS scenarios are a totally different animal from PF AP scenarios.
And DigitalMage, you really should read any AP adventure before you make your mind up. They're very much different from 4E Delve-style scenarios.
Yeah, that is an unfortunate side effect of modules made for conventions. The AP's have much better stories. Even so, PFS scenarios are a roleplaying bonanza compared to LFR (4E organized play)modules, and the sad thing is the LFR modules take much longer to run, because combat in 4E takes so agonizingly long. LFR mods are kill, skill challenge, kill, skill challenge, kill, and the killing part takes so long that can almost run two PFS scenarios in the time it takes to run one LFR mod. Let's hope 5E is much better.
A rose by any other name . . .
I didn't realize my statement would be considered controversial. I've been playing since 1977-8. I've played & GM'ed every edition, including 4th. IMHO, I see a natural evolution from 1st edition (D&D and AD&D) to 2nd edition to 3rd to 3.5 and finally to Pathfinder. I see 4th edition as different and not very good, it's true. But I must concede that this a moot opinion.
But none of that concerns me. What does concern is the Brand, Dungeons & Dragons, aka D&D. What if 5th edition is a failure? Does WotC simply discontinue D&D and Hasbro puts that entire trademark on a shelf, possibly forever? Will Pathfinder, the rightful heir to the brand (based on the quality of the content of their contribution to D&D), be unable to be identified as a natural evolution of said brand?
That would suck. Heck! Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax might rise from the dead, united once again, to slay Hasbro. A zombie apocalypse could result. OK, just kidding about the last part . . . ;^D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TSR was bought in 1997. 3.0 came out in 2000. 3.5 came in 2003. It was announced to go away in E00Z and killed in E00X.
Where are you getting 11?
1997 - 2008
11 years
And DigitalMage, you really should read any AP adventure before you make your mind up. They're very much different from 4E Delve-style scenarios.Not going to happen I am afraid, I have heard enough good things said about them that I do believe they must be pretty damn good.
However they would not be for me, in terms of taking too long to play through - I started playing in Rise of the Runelords, but as we were rotating with other games I only got to book 2 before quitting the group. A couple of other players who stayed with the group for another year before leaving apparently also didn't get to see the end of it.
For me as someone with loads of different RPGs I want to play and run, short tightly focussed campaigns that last maybe 20 or so sessions are what I am after. Luckily I find that I can create such campaigns myself (god that sounds boastful).
Also as I am a slow reader in the time it would take me to read a full six part Adventure Path (576 pages!) I would rather read a new RPG or couple of setting books that I would get more use out of than an adventure path I would likely run only once (and would likely have to work hard to keep a group of players together long enough to see it through to the end).
So yeah, I have no issues with the APs as such, but some PFS scenarios can seem to be nothing more than a linked set of combat encounters (though some are excellent too!)
Heh, you should really take a look tat the AP again. Those 600 pages are not all adventure module, there is game theory (guidelines how to run a thieves guild for example), short story, independent short adventure (That may or may not be included in the adventure - it started wih second darkness) and of course the bestiary. Try looking at the Jade Regent, the internal organisation of the boo is sooo sweet now (Important NPCs having separate page at the end of the module for example).
Pathfinder relies on it because it is a smart business model.
Pathfinder is D&D for most of us. WoTC bought the brand and abandoned the game.
Your definition of "abandoned" looks a lot like my definition of "rescued", then.
The reason Pathfinder is successful is because the basics behind the game work, and they realized that the OGL wasn't a problem by a solution. They have more and better adventures and modules specifically because the OGL allows 3PP and freelancers to be able to write for the game without worrying about litigation.
The reason they have more and better adventures is because Paizo's primary focus is on more and better adventures. It really has nothing to do with the system.
I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D."
"This isn't D&D," is really just a half-hearted justification for departing from D&D. Everyone knows 4e is D&D, even if they don't like to admit it - if they did, they'd have to acknowledge that they were choosing not to play D&D, and I guess some people can't really take that. If you looked at D&D's entire history prior to 4e and were forced to make a list of common traits that define D&D, nearly all of those traits would be present in 4e. You can't really argue otherwise.
Pathfinder is D&D for most of us. WoTC bought the brand and abandoned the game.Now you really are just getting silly. There was this 11 year period in which Wizards developed 3rd Edition and ran with it extremely successfully until it THEN dropped it to be continued by Paizo as the game you praise so much now.TSR was bought in 1997. 3.0 came out in 2000. 3.5 came in 2003. It was announced to go away in E00Z and killed in E00X.
Where are you getting 11?
3e development started soon after WotC purchased the game in 1997. The 3e/3.5 product line ended in 2008.
Eleven years.
Something just occurred to me. WotC is a division of Hasbro, it's true, but how was the acquisition structured? Does WotC own D&D or does Hasbro? And if WotC does own D&D, can they sell it without consulting Hasbro?
WotC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro. I'm not an expert on corporate structuring, but the D&D property is owned by Hasbro. WotC cannot make a unilateral decision to divest themselves of that property.
Economically, it might be better for WotC to get rid of the brand than to hang on to it if Hasbro deems it a failure.
Hasbro doesn't really sell properties.
I removed some posts and their replies to keep this thread on an even keel.
|
|
Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure.
Isn't that the highly praised design concept of the "classic modules" from the good old times?
Yep. For an example of one that has gotten a LOT of praise, take a look at Tegel Manor. Big huge map with numbered rooms, and then a description of what the PCs find in that room...a description that is no bigger than a small paragraph (2-3 sentences). That literally describes the entire module. And, I've only seen the Revised and Expanded version, so I have to imagine that the original is even somewhat more terse.
Lots of story makes for a great movie or book, but it doesn't necessarily make for a good RPG adventure. Sometimes less is more.
|
|
Scott Betts
3e development started soon after WotC purchased the game in 1997. The 3e/3.5 product line ended in 2008.
Eleven years.
You are counting three years prior to a product being released as part of the products life span? Seriously? By that logic the air plane has been in existence since people started trying to emulate birds.
On a less hyperbolic point, using that that logic the original DnD goes back to at least 1974, rather than the 1981 dateline I gave for the release of the basic rules, so the original iteration lasted for 26 years.
3.0 was released in 2000. It was revised in 2003 to 3.5, a revision that built on rather than replaced the prior product, just as 2nd edition more or less built on rather than replaced basic.
In 2007 they announced they would no longer support 3.5 in any way, in 2008 they introduced an incompatible product which was largely designed by an entirely different group of people than were involved in the creation of 3.0 or 3.5.
So 8 years, 7 of which were involved in growing and one of which was focused on killing the product.
WoTC bought the brand and has lost brand dominance in the same way Frisbee is no longer the best selling flying disc program.
I'm more interested in what Green Ronin is working on than what Hasbro is working on. They have a better track record of product support and quality.
You are counting three years prior to a product being released as part of the products life span? Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Yora's post (which you quoted, which started this discussion) talked about the period from 3e's development onwards. 3e started development in or around 1997.
If you're going to bother taking exception to something, first understand what it is you're taking exception to.
|
|
I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D.""This isn't D&D," is really just a half-hearted justification for departing from D&D. Everyone knows 4e is D&D, even if they don't like to admit it - if they did, they'd have to acknowledge that they were choosing not to play D&D, and I guess some people can't really take that. If you looked at D&D's entire history prior to 4e and were forced to make a list of common traits that define D&D, nearly all of those traits would be present in 4e. You can't really argue otherwise.
Well, maybe they said or thought "This isn't D&D." which really means "This isn't D&D to me." or "This isn't the D&D I remember. I'll pass." Either way, if a large portion of your fan base has this impression of your edition of D&D, it is doomed to failure. That's what happened with 4E.
Well, maybe they said or thought "This isn't D&D." which really means "This isn't D&D to me." or "This isn't the D&D I remember. I'll pass." Either way, if a large portion of your fan base has this impression of your edition of D&D, it is doomed to failure. That's what happened with 4E.I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D.""This isn't D&D," is really just a half-hearted justification for departing from D&D. Everyone knows 4e is D&D, even if they don't like to admit it - if they did, they'd have to acknowledge that they were choosing not to play D&D, and I guess some people can't really take that. If you looked at D&D's entire history prior to 4e and were forced to make a list of common traits that define D&D, nearly all of those traits would be present in 4e. You can't really argue otherwise.
I think it was much simpler thinking.
I think it usually went something along the lines of:
"This version of D&D has different rules. I don't like some of those rules. They are too different. I probably won't like this game. But I like D&D. Therefore, this must not be D&D. If it were D&D, I would like it."
The irony, of course, is that a lot of these people haven't been playing D&D for the entirety of the last 35+ years, and if they were plopped down to try an earlier edition of D&D that they'd never played but were told it was the next edition of D&D, they'd probably have a similar reaction.
Actually, most of them would probably say something along the lines of, "Huh, this seems a lot like D&D. Are you sure we're playing something different?"Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.
Which is where the divergence happens for me.
I don't care for strategic wargames which is where I perceive they were taking D&D with the 4th Edition.
That's why I abandoned the game. It felt like, to me, that WotC decided to make a strategic wargame and then branded it with D&D tropes.
At the end of the day, I've made my peace with WotC, but they will never see me buy another D&D product from them in the future. Pathfinder has a strong (if not likely, STRONGER) gamer following than D&D has. The truth can be seen in sales numbers in stores, number of games played at conventions, and in the sheer number of awards Paizo has received over WotC (who traditionally dominated in gaming awards). I'm fully behind the Pathfinder product now, and am completely happy with where they have taken the hobby.Tarrintino
Tarrintino, I love your avatar. Good choice!
I agree w/ you 100%. To paraphrase Paul Newman, why go out for hamburger if you've already got steak?
Rawr! I'm really, really, really convinced my opinion is the right one, so that must make it count as a fact, right?
Guys?
Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.
You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Rawr! I'm really, really, really convinced my opinion is the right one, so that must make it count as a fact, right?
Guys?
You should start a thread on it! And title that thread "D&D 5th Edition"! Or else no one will see it and then they won't know the truth!
Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Yeah, what it grew out of and they abandoned with the basic set?
That's my point.
D&D was not a wargame at its inception. CHAINMAIL was.
Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Yeah, what it grew out of and they abandoned with the basic set?
That's my point.
D&D was not a wargame at its inception. CHAINMAIL was.
4e isn't a wargame either. It just has some wargame elements. But hey, that's D&D for you.
4e isn't a wargame either. It just has some wargame elements. But hey, that's D&D for you.Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Yeah, what it grew out of and they abandoned with the basic set?
That's my point.
D&D was not a wargame at its inception. CHAINMAIL was.
4E combat plays like a strategic wargame. I never said 4E was a strategic wargame. Don't add things that aren't being said. You're better than that.
Rawr! I'm really, really, really convinced my opinion is the right one, so that must make it count as a fact, right?
Guys?
Quick Bugley, new edition! It's time for you to swap sides again!
*patiently waits for Bugley to deliver a deserved punch in the face*
QUIVERING PALM!*
But seriously, I don't really want to pick sides, but I'll definitely check out 5E. It's also about time to fire up my AP sub again now that Jade Regent is almost over (sorry, just don't dig the Eastern culture == separate mechanics thing).
To tell the truth, what I've been playing the most of lately is Savage Worlds -- so I'm a traitor all around.
Edit: I will admit to a certain irrational fondness for the D&D brand, however -- it was what got me into the hobby all those years ago. On some level I want to be playing some form of D&D.
* From your preferred edition, of course.
4E combat plays like a strategic wargame.4e isn't a wargame either. It just has some wargame elements. But hey, that's D&D for you.Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Yeah, what it grew out of and they abandoned with the basic set?
That's my point.
D&D was not a wargame at its inception. CHAINMAIL was.
Ah, I see. I thought that you were implying that combat gave people the impression that D&D 4e as a whole was a strategic wargame. I agree, 4e combat takes a lot of its inspiration from strategic/tactical wargaming.
Ah, I see. I thought that you were implying that combat gave people the impression that D&D 4e as a whole was a strategic wargame. I agree, 4e combat takes a lot of its inspiration from strategic/tactical wargaming.
Nah, you're mixing me up with those other people who like to declare badwrongfun on other folks.
4E is simply not my cup of tea. But neither is Cricket. It doesn't make either of them bad or something that they're not.
@ Jerry Wright 307
Yes, you are indeed correct! In a moment of boredom, I made a family tree of D&D Editions and some of the most popular OGL retro-clones.
Check it out at the following Dropbox link: http://db.tt/A0oNiWO3
Of course, I am not sure how 5th Edition will really fit in this tree.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. I thought that you were implying that combat gave people the impression that D&D 4e as a whole was a strategic wargame. I agree, 4e combat takes a lot of its inspiration from strategic/tactical wargaming.4E combat plays like a strategic wargame.4e isn't a wargame either. It just has some wargame elements. But hey, that's D&D for you.Until you hit combat and they wonder why they're now playing a strategic war game.You mean sort of like how D&D was originally conceived?
That's my point.
Yeah, what it grew out of and they abandoned with the basic set?
That's my point.
D&D was not a wargame at its inception. CHAINMAIL was.
I seem to recall that D&Ds origins were in some optional rules to a strategic/tactical wargame. I could be mistaken, wouldn't be the first time, but I have a strong feeling about this one...
;-)
(Yes, I can read, but, seriously. the game has always been a combat simulation with some RP rules. And most of the RP comes from the players, not the books.)
|
|
The irony, of course, is that a lot of these people haven't been playing D&D for the entirety of the last 35+ years, and if they were plopped down to try an earlier edition of D&D that they'd never played but were told it was the next edition of D&D, they'd probably have a similar reaction.
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Yes, I can read, but, seriously. the game has always been a combat simulation with some RP rules. And most of the RP comes from the players, not the books.)
WHAT? This isn't a immsersive post-modernist narrativist shared experience? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *jumps out of the window*
Yeah, but a lot of them did play all those earlier versions of D&D, and had no problem switching and adapting to the newer editions. Then when 4E came along, it was just too different, too "not D&D" to them to be worth switching over this time. 4E was no longer D&D to them, whereas the other versions of the game were.
Right, in the same way that many 2e players had that reaction to 3e.
@ houstonderek
Yes, Chainmail was a earlier tactical wargame. Original D&D comprising of 3 small booklets was a supplement to Chainmail. OD&D didn't even have its own combat system. It didn't even make an attempt until the Holmes Blue Box. If you are interested in seeing OD&D + OGL SRD, check out Swords & Wizardry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WHAT? This isn't a immsersive post-modernist narrativist shared experience?
(Yes, I can read, but, seriously. the game has always been a combat simulation with some RP rules. And most of the RP comes from the players, not the books.)
My chianti just threw itself up.