Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games (and the RPG Superstar Contest) has posted the following information on planned 4th edition 3rd party products:
1. Tome of Horrors 4E: if WotC leaves monsters out of the offial rules, we will put them back in (cant say which ones cause we dont have the rules yet). Plus all the classics from the original Tome that you want in your 4E game will be back.
2. Advanced Player's Guide: To be designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in (Of course, we can't say if bards or druids or barbarians or gnomes or half-orc are or arent in 4th edition, but we know some stuff has been cut, and whatever is missing we will create for you with work by respected designer Ari Marmell.)
3. Tegel Manor. A 4E version of the 1E Judges Guild classic.
4. Winter's Tomb. A free, downloadable PDF along the lines of Wizard's Amulet, Necro's Ennie-winning introductory adventure, that will help jump start your 4E campaign.
My question to you all is this: to what extent will the use of 3rd party material that harkens back to 1st edition influence your decision to create a 4E campaign?
And a question for Paizo: will you be using any of this material in Pathfinder/GameMastery?
I still wont convert. but for me Its more because of the tons of 3rd edition books I want to keep using. Not wanting my giant investment becomming obsolete outweighs me loathing the new system.
There is stuff I hate about 4th...Dragonborn and Teiflings replacing Half-Orcs and Gnomes being very high on the list.
Since I wont really do it I'll still say that if I hypotetically converted I would definitly be all over a 3rd party Monster Manual and Players Handbook that converts the castoffs and puts them back into D&D.
My only problem would be the pricetag. In a year a lot of the monsters, PC races and classes left out of 4th edition will arrive in official WotC form...making the Necromancer Games books outdated in a short amount of time. I wouldnt spend much on a book I would see as a temporary fix.
My question to you all is this: to what extent will the use of 3rd party material that harkens back to 1st edition influence your decision to create a 4E campaign?
As a self-professed grognard, I have to wonder: doesn't there come a point where it's faintly ridiculous to try and import an older "feel" on to the latest model of D&D?
Early 3E was fairly accommodating to "old school" play but there were still plenty of things that broke that frame. From what we've seen, 4E goes even further down that path. I speak only for me, but, were I to play 4E, I'd probably play it according to its "intended" flavor rather than try and evoke a past that's intimately connected to rules and other assumptions that have long since been jettisoned.
I know I'm weird that way.
|
My question to you all is this: to what extent will the use of 3rd party material that harkens back to 1st edition influence your decision to create a 4E campaign?
Despite being at work, I just spent a half hour on the phone with my wife (and gaming life partner) regarding this news and all the malarky surrounding it.
My answer is this: it won't effect us. I have everything needed to harken back to 1st edition to my 3e campaign, and there's simply no way I'm going to be buying what is essentially the same old crap with a few different numbers every 7 or 8 years.
I have a useful 3.5 gaming library filled with stuff to explore and play, and for me it's a very simple matter of investment.
We just started Pathfinder. It's amazing to us both, and yes when I mentioned what to do IF Pathfinder goes 4E there was a long silence (becauase for a moment, for that reason alone we considered it)...followed by "I'm going to miss Pathfinder".
So I hold hope my system of choice will not go dodoish with Pathfinder. :-)
-DM Jeff
rather than try and evoke a past that's intimately connected to rules and other assumptions that have long since been jettisoned
Was the past flavor (like Greyhawk) truly connected to rules and other assumptions that are now gone? What are some examples, from what you see as going more 'down this path'?
From what we've seen, 4E goes even further down that path. I speak only for me, but, were I to play 4E, I'd probably play it according to its "intended" flavor rather than try and evoke a past that's intimately connected to rules and other assumptions that have long since been jettisoned.
4E has, IMO, broken far to many old school traditions. So, I'm sorry, but a Tome of Horrors with previous edition monsters and books with previous edition classes just ... don't cut it for me. I'm not going 4E.
4E has, IMO, broken far to many old school traditions.
Like what? The elf wasn't that far a stretch, IMO. We haven't seen much else other than "it's new!"
Was the past flavor (like Greyhawk) truly connected to rules and other assumptions that are now gone? What are some examples, from what you see as going more 'down this path'?
I could go on at great length if you really wanted, but I suspect anyone who says they want that would regret it. :)
That said, here are a couple of examples.
1. Demihuman Level Limits: Old school D&D, following pulp fantasy traditions, is very humanocentric. Demihuman level limits existed for several reasons, not least to discourage the presence of too many demihumans and thus alter the flavor of the game. Look at Gygax and Arneson's PCs. How many were demihumans? Look at Greyhawk and Blackmoor. How prominent are demihuman nations? The easing of this restriction, begun in late 1E and culminating in 3E, had a powerful impact on the game and its assumptions.
2. Skill System: The introduction of an honest-to-goodness skill system wrought havoc upon the class system, which had previously been understood as being about archetypes. Again, late 1E is where the rot set in, with non-weapon proficiencies and the slow drip, drip, drip of increased character options above and beyond what the archetypal classes implied. Coupled with no-fault multi-classing rules, what exactly does it mean to be a fighter or a ranger anymore?
Then there's the "Vancian" magic system and its consequences for strategic play, but I won't tread that well-worn path again.
My point is not that there's anything wrong with wanting to import older flavor onto a newer game so much as pointing out that this is pure nostalgia at work. Old school game play is hard to do under 3E as it is and calling mariliths Type V demons doesn't change that fact; it's a purely cosmetic thing. If we want old school play, why not go to old school games? They still work just fine.
1. Demihuman Level Limits
This game mechanic non-limitation, along with Vancian magic, has little to do with the flavor of the setting. You assume the world must follow the ruleset, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. PCs and NPCs do not need to advance the same way. Just because you have no level limits for a PC, that does not mean you cannot institute world limitations for NPCs. (In my homebrew world, no elf is more than 15th level, yet many humans are 20+, for example.) This is a setting difference, not a ruleset difference.
Vancian magic is the same thing. Few stories and modules assumed Vancian magic. What percentage of older game supplements focused on whether someone could cast a certain spell once per day or ten times per day? And in 4th edition, there are some limitations that are very similar to per day.
For skill systems, I believe 4E is going backwards to a more class-based system. 3.5 feats made it very easy to build characters that didn't fill their role very well. 4th is not only making archetypes, but labeling them with roles.
If we want old school play, why not go to old school games?
They are no longer supported, and you have to find other people to play the game first. The community is much smaller to select from. Using third party supplements is a good compromise in this case.
Like what?
Races: Dumping gnome and half-orc from the PHB (putting the gnome as a playable monster doesn't cut it). No negative to playing any certain race; everything is all positives.
Classes: Fighter has spells (they use to be a simple entry level class). Wizard is an evoker/illusionist. No schools of magic addition of wizarding weapons. Dumping: bard. Hitting someone and getting healed. These descriptions give the game an anime/video game feel, not a first ed feel.
Magic: 1 level of magic per level (I don't have a problem with this, but it is an old school break)
There's more, I'm blank at the moment.
EDIT: All classes are useful all the time (big no-no).
They are no longer supported,
OSRIC. Damn good game. Old school games are still supported, just under a different name.
I'm glad they're chomping at the bit to make products.
That said,
I'm still betting the OGL is going to be written so things like ToH are difficult if not impossible to make.
I think ToH will be fine - monsters probably won't be restricted.
The Advanced Player's Guide, however....On topic, I agree with DM Jeff. This will have no impact on my desire for 4E. Actually (if it's even possible at this point), I'm even more sure that staying with 3.5 is the way for me.
If I wanted to play 4E, I would have no interest in 1E feel - I'd want 4E feel.
You assume the world must follow the ruleset, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
No, it doesn't have to be, but then why use the rules set if you're going to ignore it?
From what I can tell a lot of people play D&D because they play D&D, which is to say, it's their fantasy game and it's what they've always played, even when they don't actually like its assumptions, its mechanics, or its gameplay. They stick with it, because it's what they know.
I have nothing against this and, goodness knows, I stuck with 3E longer than I ought to have done because I could modify it and house rule it into something closer to what I wanted. But at the end of the day, all games include assumptions within their rules that, if accepted, have consequences for their settings. Old school D&D settings like Greyhawk reflect the rules of the era in which they were made. To deny this is to claim that systems don't matter because you can just ignore the rules, in which case, I ask again: why play D&D at all?
Races: Dumping gnome and half-orc from the PHB (putting the gnome as a playable monster doesn't cut it). No negative to playing any certain race; everything is all positives.
We don't know that everything is all positives or not, just ability scores. Dwarves don't have darkvision, for example, which is a considerable weakness. They'll probably have something elves don't have too.
Classes: Fighter has spells (they use to be a simple entry level class).
Fighters used to have cool magic items, even if the class was limited in what it could do. Fighters don't have 'spells', they have maneuvers, which are just codified rules for things fighters have always wanted to do. Fighters will always be able to just swing away, if you're into that sort of thing. And if the maneuvers are too 'flashy' or seem anime, restrict to old school feeling maneuvers, like Necromancer might offer.
Wizard is an evoker/illusionist.
They can cast other spells, and other classes can be called 'wizards' by laymen. In the Forgotten Realms, wizards have been referred to as warlocks for a long time.
No schools of magic addition of wizarding weapons. Dumping: bard. Hitting someone and getting healed. These descriptions give the game an anime/video game feel, not a first ed feel.
They don't change the story or outcome of the story, which feel just as much like a 1st edition game as a game using the 1st edition ruleset can feel like a weird anime video game with the right (or wrong I guess) story.
OSRIC. Damn good game. Old school games are still supported, just under a different name.
Compared to D&D, OSRIC has almost no community or support.
Old school D&D settings like Greyhawk reflect the rules of the era in which they were made. To deny this is to claim that systems don't matter because you can just ignore the rules, in which case, I ask again: why play D&D at all?
I disagree that the World of Greyhawk is built on the assumptions of the ruleset. Eberron was an attempt at building a world where the 3.5 rules applied to everyone, yet Greyhawk was still the default setting for 3.5. The rules are for dungeon crawling, essentially, but the world is much more than the crawl. Whether you have a feat or a talent tree, your hit heals 'imaginary' hit points or not, or whether a hero can shoot lightning bolt once per day or ten, has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're playing in a world influenced by ancient Greece, or a Dark Age invasion by the Lombards, or the Spanish Inquisition, or Warcraft or Final Fantasy or Discworld.
"Old School" is, IMO, much more setting than ruleset. Would anyone argue that playing in Eberron feels more like 1st edition than in a game of Warhammer FRPG? If so I would love to hear why, despite two radically different rulesets.
yet Greyhawk was still the default setting for 3.5.
And a very poor default it was IMO. Aside from the work done by folks like Erik Mona, who knows Greyhawk inside and out, most of the 3/3.5E "Greyhawk" material felt nothing like the Greyhawk Gygax created or described in the late 70s/early 80s. The reason for that is simple: the World of Greyhawk is a pulp fantasy world built from the pulp fantasy 1E rules. It's not a video game world or a dungeon-punk setting and I think it sits poorly with incarnations of the rules beyond 1E.
1 and 2 sound good, although I have to wonder if they will actually be possible under the new OGL.
The reason for that is simple: the World of Greyhawk is a pulp fantasy world built from the pulp fantasy 1E rules. It's not a video game world or a dungeon-punk setting and I think it sits poorly with incarnations of the rules beyond 1E.
Tens of thousands of lamenting Living Greyhawk fans might disagree with you. The core ruleset for 3.5 can easily support the old school feel of 1st edition modules. Just ask Joseph Goodman.
OSRIC. Damn good game. Old school games are still supported, just under a different name.Compared to D&D, OSRIC has almost no community or support.
Compared to D&D, Vampire has almost no community or support and that the #2 game in the industry. D&D (excluding 3rd party products) has 50% of the gaming market.
You can say all you want that 4E doesn't break with old school, you're not going to convince me (and I am assuming, many others) otherwise.
The core ruleset for 3.5 can easily support the old school feel of 1st edition modules. Just ask Joseph Goodman.
I would argue that the DCCs, like most of Necromancer's output, are largely nostalgia products akin to someone buying a modern phone that looks like an old fashioned one or retro-70s clothes made from modern materials. They look similar to the originals, especially to those whose memories of the originals are hazy, but they're not the same. There's more to old school adventures than blue maps, B&W line illos, and ripping off TSR's mid-80s trade dress. I doubt in a blind "taste test" anyone would mistake a 3.5E module for a 1E one.
But, as I said, I'm a weirdo. There's obviously a market, maybe even a big one, for D&D nostalgia. I don't get it. I'd rather either have the originals or go full-bore with the modern stuff. The halfway house approach just doesn't appeal to me, but I'm clearly in the minority.
The reason for that is simple: the World of Greyhawk is a pulp fantasy world built from the pulp fantasy 1E rules. It's not a video game world or a dungeon-punk setting and I think it sits poorly with incarnations of the rules beyond 1E.
Tens of thousands of Living Greyhawk fans might disagree with you. New editions can emulate, if not surpass, the intended feel of 'old school' settings. Just ask Joseph Goodman.
Compared to D&D, Vampire has almost no community or support and that the #2 game in the industry.
Compared to Vampire, OSRIC has almost no community or support. One reason why D&D is so popular is because...well...it's so popular. It's a common ruleset. That doesn't mean it's a common setting or feel. Just post on a board asking what a D&D game should be like and you'll get a dozen different answers.
rather than try and evoke a past that's intimately connected to rules and other assumptions that have long since been jettisoned
Was the past flavor (like Greyhawk) truly connected to rules and other assumptions that are now gone? What are some examples, from what you see as going more 'down this path'?
I think so. Look at the list of playable races, origin myths for each race, and patron deities for each race. These were once the purview of campaign sourcebooks -- now they are fundamental parts of the game.
Yes, they're easy to change, but this marks a significant philosophical change in the content and structure of D&D. Now I have to work (no matter how little) to make D&D fit my campaign world. D&D has historically been a (fairly) generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying; these elements take a little from that.
I don't think it's worth the rancor that has emerged, but I still understand and sympathize with the anger.
1 and 2 sound good, although I have to wonder if they will actually be possible under the new OGL.
New classes and monsters are going to be allowed under the OGL. If not, there wouldn't be much of a point of calling it an OGL.
New classes and monsters are going to be allowed under the OGL. If not, there wouldn't be much of a point of calling it an OGL.
We don't know that for sure. Anything is possible. The original intent of the OGL was to allow other companies to make adventures not to make alternate PHBs and such. It is possible the OGL can will only allow for things like adventure. Its possible that the new OGL will not allow $1 PDFs. Its also possible that the new will allow anything and everything that the current d20 licence allows.
Paizo has asked us to keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum, so lets keep the "this is definitely allowed" and "this is definitely not allowed" down for the time being. Paizo boards are civil; lets stop a trainwreck before it starts.
1 and 2 sound good, although I have to wonder if they will actually be possible under the new OGL.New classes and monsters are going to be allowed under the OGL. If not, there wouldn't be much of a point of calling it an OGL.
That is by no means certain yet.
It really depends on how strict the section "We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D" is.
Maybe new classes / races / monsters are allowed, maybe not.
And if they are, there may, or may not, be limitations on "D&D Property." (Like Gnomes, Bards, etc.).
We need to see what comes of it.
If we want old school play, why not go to old school games?They are no longer supported, and you have to find other people to play the game first. The community is much smaller to select from. Using third party supplements is a good compromise in this case.
Retro-clone systems are earning more fans every day since they "emulate" old out of print systems and create licenses to third party to create stuff for them. Castles and Crusades, Osric, Labyrinth Lord, Hackmaster, etc. Maybe their comunities are smaller but they exist and support their favorite games. Personally I don't see why to go to a less complex and (without offense) incipient system when I have 3.5, unless it is pure nostalgia and I can't blame someone to do that.
My question to you all is this: to what extent will the use of 3rd party material that harkens back to 1st edition influence your decision to create a 4E campaign?
None at all, since my players have made it clear to me they aren't interested in 4e.
Aside from the work done by folks like Erik Mona, who knows Greyhawk inside and out, most of the 3/3.5E "Greyhawk" material felt nothing like the Greyhawk Gygax created or described in the late 70s/early 80s. The reason for that is simple: the World of Greyhawk is a pulp fantasy world built from the pulp fantasy 1E rules. It's not a video game world or a dungeon-punk setting and I think it sits poorly with incarnations of the rules beyond 1E.
I am a Greyhawk fan from the 1e days, and I couldn't disagree more.
I am a Greyhawk fan from the 1e days, and I couldn't disagree more.
Color me curious then: aside from Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, which is as good as it could be given the constraints under which it operated, what 3/3.5 era Greyhawk material felt like Gygaxian? Perhaps I missed some hidden gems.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I am a Greyhawk fan from the 1e days, and I couldn't disagree more.Color me curious then: aside from Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, which is as good as it could be given the constraints under which it operated, what 3/3.5 era Greyhawk material felt like Gygaxian? Perhaps I missed some hidden gems.
Complete Champion, maybe.
Next Greyhawk game I'm in I'm either going to play a cleric or a sorcerer with ranks in Knowledge (Religon) Grey Pardoner rocks.