My example was OD&D, the three Booklets from 74', which is different from the Mentzer BECMI versions. OD&D still had a lot of the wargame rules (the Combat system for example). And the wargames from that time at leats, tried to simulate realty as best as possible for a game to still be playable.
Furthermore, even BECMI is much, much closer to 3rd edition than to 4th edition.
But I am intrigued and willing to concede your point, what mechanics do you think 4th took from BECMI that were not already in 3rd?
Yeah, I was not at all certian we were talking about the same system. Hence I made sure to call what I was talking about BECMI figuring that if you meant the brown books you'd point it out. I can't address the brown books - I never played with them.
Houston Derek hits the nail on the head pretty much when he states that I'm discussing 'look and feel' when comparing 4E to BECMI. That said mechanics do follow from look and feel.
While the most 'in your face' change from 3.x to 4E is the replacement of the Vancian Magic system with the powers system its not the most fundamental change from 3.5 to 4E, just the most obvious. The most fundamental change, and the one that moves the system furthest away from 3.5s simulationism is reverting to a where the DM and the players are playing by fundamentally different rule sets.
3.x made a concerted effort to create a rule set where the players could do pretty much anything the DM could do. If the DM wanted a Necromancer who controlled undead the 3.5 rules system showed one how to do that. The players could in fact use the same rules to make their own necromancer. This was not the case in older editions, BECMI never even tried, 1st edition was leaning in this direction but never quite got there, 2nd edition had other priorities.
I certainly don't fault 3.x for heading this way - it was the holy grail of game design at one point and it was maybe the biggest reason I personally made the switch from 2nd to 3rd. However the simulationism inherent within this approach comes with a significant price tag. One I'd not personally grasp until played 3.5 for a significant period of time. Its a system that requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of the DM. If one wants to make a Necromancer on needs to go through the steps of acquiring all the things that the rules say a necromancer needs in order to be able to control undead. If one wants to make a monster then one starts from first principles in determining the type of monster and builds from there, etc.
This was not so in BECMI, it was only sort of true for 1st and 2nd and in 4E its not so again - though this time its explicitly not so. The big bad guy at the end of the adventure is a Necromancer because the DM says that it is so. He controls undead purely because the DM says that he does. At no point does the DM need to utilize the rules to justify this - the rules exist merely to allow the DM to create a creature to interact with the player characters no more no less. Creature creation also returns to these roots. The creatures in older editions had smaller stat blocks mainly because their stat blocks represented only what they would need to interact with the PCs. 4E takes that to a further extreme because it has 'only include whats needed for the monsters to interact with the PCs' as an actual design goal while earlier editions had just ended up in that design space without particularly choosing between a simulationist organic monster or NPC creation system a gamist/narrativist option of simply have such creatures be developed enough to be used with the story but then developed no further.
One can go forward from this and find a lot of further examples - in 3.5 NPCs of a certain level have specific amounts of treasure. in BECMI and 4E NPCs have whatever they need to move the story forward and they get it via DM fiat. In 3.5 towns have a certain amount wealth that determines what a a player can buy - in 4E towns have whatever the DM wants them to have - and they, again, acquire it via DM fiat, etc. etc.
One can go beyond this however to find many more BECMI bits. The planar structure of 4E is fairly clearly an upgraded version of the BECMI planar structure. Many of the sacred cows that were sacrificed in 4E have no home in BECMI which is likely one of the reasons that it was used so much in the design of 4E.
I emphasize BECMI in particular partly because it had similiar objectives to 4E. Both were an attempt to make a simplier, streamlined version of the game and that lead them to similiar conclusions in many cases. Often 1st edition would have a similiar mechanic to BECMI but it was not trying to be a simpler version of the game - it was trying to be a more simulationist version of of heroic fantasy so there were many updates that would add more complexity and simulationism on top of a simpler mechanic or there might well exist a more complex mechanic alongside the simpler ones.
Thank you. I believe I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, VedicDragon.
I would like to take this opportunity to say, "Welcome to the party." You are about 20 years late. D&D completely ignored narrative style in the early days. There was no semblance of balance at all. Now, I realize that was not your preferred style, so I could see how you may have missed it. 3.5 gave it a little nod, but still largely ignored it.
Yes, yes. Lots of groups put in all sorts of narrative into their game. However, it was not really built into the model of kill things, take their stuff, level up.
It seems to me that WotC was only following the market. In every D&D game I ever played in (yes, I realize that is my own personal experience, I have nothing else to base my opinion on), it was very gamist.
As far as the evil corporate entity trying to get you to buy product after product, I have some very bad news for you. 1e did it, 2e did it, 3.5 did it. Microsoft does it. MMORPGs figured out a way to completely skip even producing a product and simply make you just keep paying them to play the game you already bought.
There are lots of excellent games out there that only require one book, ever. If you really want to show WotC the error of their ways, buy those independent titles that actually give you what you have wanted all along.
I get that you are angry that the hobby is going in a direction you do not want it to go. It has been going that way for 20 years for me (save for independents, but try to get someone to play something other than D&D's version of the Krabby Patty).
Since you have no problem with higher math, how about a nice game of Hero. :)
*hope u laughed a little though*
I did, although I am surprised to learn you find anything I say eloquent or sensible.
|
See, now THIS is more of what I am talking about!!! This is what I was looking for! (Not a Game of HERO, though that would be cool too)
Thank you. I believe I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, VedicDragon.
I would like to take this opportunity to say, "Welcome to the party." You are about 20 years late. D&D completely ignored narrative style in the early days. There was no semblance of balance at all. Now, I realize that was not your preferred style, so I could see how you may have missed it. 3.5 gave it a little nod, but still largely ignored it.
Yes, yes. Lots of groups put in all sorts of narrative into their game. However, it was not really built into the model of kill things, take their stuff, level up.
Yes, yes. Lots of groups put in all sorts of narrative into their game. However, it was not really built into the model of kill things, take their stuff, level up.
I find that 2nd Edition had such a Plethora of Robust literature on how to make the game immersive. I joined up back when I was 6, watching my older cousins play 1st and then 2nd. THESE, to me, were the Halcyon days. There was so much RICH lore ... so many DEEP and thoroughly well written products it is difficult to relate to others all that was lost. It is akin to comparing Roman and Hellenic Empire's Acquired Repositories of Knowledge and Sciences to the Dark Ages. Which is essentially what I feel the Company did-- To whit, set torches to the most treasured and precious pearls of knowledge, that Gamer-generation's "Library of Alexandria" if you will.
And here it is, again, in 3.5 to 4th. White Wolf did the same in the Transition to New WoD, and I spit on anyone who parrots to me the trite old "You can write it in, if you really want to" because they obviously have no comprehension of how much time and effort and investment has been wasted, nor the slightest bit of comprehension in what that injection of auld into new entails, nor the problems therein.
Yes, by all means, alot of that were groups, but if you actually READ ALL the extensive literature as I did, they REALLY did leap to a high level of "Simulationist" play (though they used a different term for maintaining that balance. It was called "good DM'ing" )
It seems to me that WotC was only following the market. In every D&D game I ever played in (yes, I realize that is my own personal experience, I have nothing else to base my opinion on), it was very gamist. As far as the evil corporate entity trying to get you to buy product after product, I have some very bad news for you. 1e did it, 2e did it, 3.5 did it. Microsoft does it. MMORPGs figured out a way to completely skip even producing a product and simply make you just keep paying them to play the game you already bought.
That seems to advocate a mentality of Moral Bankruptcy in the corporate environment. Present Business Practices notwithstanding, the whole "Apple, Think Different", and TSR's original paradigms would disprove this concept. TSR had the fierce brand loyalty it did by at least -attempting- to cater to its niche market. Granted there were severe flaws with OD&D to AD&D conversion, but at least they threw ya a bone and gave ya something! Even reconciliation of the "Original D&D Setting" as Mystara / Blackmoor, for better or worse.
It was not -drastically undone- in similar fashion, just explored in different continents and underneath-the-crust (Hollow Earth IIRC). Granted TSR may not be the best example, but they went belly-up for diversifying too much at one time. I feel in the form of systems, the D&D line is doing the same.
While there ARE indeed lots of excellent games with smaller purchasing investment, for a company who claims to be the industry-leaders and flagship of the genre, I would think behaving like spoiled children with a license would NOT be a formula for success.
I have been angry about these things for 15 years, myself. So I guess that gives me "grognard" status too (at least to the latest batch of kids picking up the game).
And yes a Game of HERO would be delightful. Just Let me bring my graphing calculator. :P
I would agree there was a lot of great fluff in the 2e days. In fact, I keep some of that fluff around for Fantasy Hero games I run. I will not tell you that you can write it in if you want to. But, honestly, would you buy another reprinting of the same fluff? Even if you would, do you really think it would sell well in a mass market?
The next argument I am sure to come is that WotC should just produce such great new material now. I would agree. Maybe they can not. How many supplements have you produced that would live up to your expectations? This is not to excuse WotC. I simply speak with my wallet.
I did not read all the extensive literature you did. I left D&D long ago. I found immersive gaming in other systems. Maybe if I had had the right groups, I would have stayed. To me, D&D was dungeon crawls, wandering monsters and random treasure. None of which is very Simulationist unless you are trying to simulate D&D.
I seem to recall a very large and vocal hate against TSR.
I do not subscribe to your spoiled child analogy. A corporation trying to milk their customer for every cent. Sure. At the risk of the ban hammer, what do you think Paizo is doing with their proliferation of products? In my opinion Paizo's quality > WotC. That is reason enough for me to buy their products. It does not make me want to name call WotC. Both companies are doing the same thing, trying to make money. Their strategies are a little different.
And, I am willing to bet, WotC's strategy is not failing as badly as you might hope. Look at all the splat people bought so they could have the next cool new Feat. Why wouldn't they cash in on that? I blame the consumers, not WotC.
Even DOJ is getting in on the act with Hero 6th.
So, to answer another person wanting the "edition wars to be over" ...
Hi there. I want the edition wars to be over, too. So cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric. I appreciate that you feel slighted, maligned, and "left behind" but the sentiment probably doesn't need to be aired again and again and again. Let's move on, shall we?
1.) I am less a fan of 4th Edition System than I am of 3.5, I am less a fan of 3.5 than I am of PFRPG, I am less a fan of PFRPG than I am of Exalted. I am less a fan of Exalted than I am of Rifts/Palladium. And So on. and So On. Each has their merits and flaws, but having seen the Hasbro scam of "Built in Obsolescence" twice over right now, I am FAR FAR FAR beyond caring about systems. My beef with Wotc/Hasbro is philosophical and business-practices oriented. They need to stop shafting their previous markets when catering to new ones. Those of you who are fans of 4E, just wait and see what I am talking about when 4.5 or 5 comes out in the next two years. They are already talking about it. Enjoy blowing your $$$ to have everything be reprinted with less page count and content, and have vast swaths of your investment be rendered instantly obsolete.
...and so it has ever been. It'll be interesting to see how PFRPG avoids this or if they even try.
In any case its not like this will come as a surprise to pretty much anyone that frequents these boards and plays 4E. Most of us have been through this before - often with many game systems Furthermore its not like WotC denies that this will happen - though maybe they've implied that it will take longer then it will actually take. Even before the release of 4E they stated that the game was expected to have an 8 year life cycle and then it will be time for a new edition. While there might be a 4.5 version the marketing plan would appear to be trying to avoid that through the creation of Players Handbook II, Monster Manual IV and DMG V and by parceling out the popular worlds one year at a time. Maybe they will succeed in keeping there sales figures afloat with this marketing method but in truth even they have no idea if it'll work or not. Thats going to depend on what the sales figures for DMG V and 4E Krynn or 4E Spelljammer are like. Really weak and they'll reboot early. If they are surprisingly strong then its just possible that 4E will last longer then 8 years.
The only ones that are likely to feel really burned will be the new converts, they're not used to the way this industry works.
|
|
So, to answer another person wanting the "edition wars to be over" ...Hi there. I want the edition wars to be over, too. So cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric. I appreciate that you feel slighted, maligned, and "left behind" but the sentiment probably doesn't need to be aired again and again and again. Let's move on, shall we?
How about just not read the thread, especially if that is all you have to offer?
If you see a forum posting where you're -obviously- not going to like the trend (or not, if that's clearly all you felt worthy of contribution in spite of NUMEROUS posts that expand beyond that) perhaps you'd care to offer constructive commentary after -carefully- reading what else has been written? In Context? Or refrain from commenting haphazardly (which is certainly your right, as it is hers to ignore you completely and continue a pointed if potentially controversial perspective which many of us happen to agree with)
*sighs* Nevermind. That's simply too much to ask, apparently. I will follow my own advice now.
Jeremy, not just the new converts are offended. Some of us bitter old grognards still have an axe to grind with this, especially with the pulling of all virtual sales of the older products.
What do you propose? Surely we as the consumers don't have to just "roll over and take it". I mean beyond the obvious and repetitive discussed solutions of "make your own", "run your games quietly in the background" and "support the indies". I am talking about a concerted push from consumers to redirect the market trends away from this cancerous and frankly baffling business model.
And of course, beyond praying that Paizo NEVER resorts to similar tactics...
What if I just play 1e AD&D? You know, the one with "Gygax" as Author?If you aren't playing OSRIC, you aren't playing D&D.
Well then you are playing the best there is and the best there ever will be, in my not so humble opinion.
He's not offering. He's moderating. *ducks*
What do you propose? Surely we as the consumers don't have to just "roll over and take it". I mean beyond the obvious and repetitive discussed solutions of "make your own", "run your games quietly in the background" and "support the indies". I am talking about a concerted push from consumers to redirect the market trends away from this cancerous and frankly baffling business model.
As soon as you tell me how to push market trends away from horribly broken class based systems favoring illogical Vancian magic and little to no thought given to the narrative. :)
Jeremy, not just the new converts are offended. Some of us bitter old grognards still have an axe to grind with this, especially with the pulling of all virtual sales of the older products.What do you propose? Surely we as the consumers don't have to just "roll over and take it". I mean beyond the obvious and repetitive discussed solutions of "make your own", "run your games quietly in the background" and "support the indies". I am talking about a concerted push from consumers to redirect the market trends away from this cancerous and frankly baffling business model.
And of course, beyond praying that Paizo NEVER resorts to similar tactics...
I'd never find it again but three or so years ago I went into one of my trade marked (or they should be) long essay style posts with the idea of having an online computer based rules set. Somehow I doubt thats what your looking for but it is a solution - its at least conceivable that 5E will be close to the last edition of D&D if their subscriber based method works out.
The root of the problem is sales. Sales die down for pretty much every system and, in order to get sales to come up again a new edition is released. That has been true in the market for a long time. You can partially get around that by creating a system thats meant to use tons of supplements like adventures and worlds but these tend to come out faster then the customer base can play them. If one thinks about it that may also be part of the reason 4E is aimed at a simpler faster game system - if the players can go through an adventure module in two sessions instead of five then it stands to reason that a company that makes adventure modules can sell a lot more of them. If they can get to 20th or 30th level in a year then you have a better chance of selling more campaign worlds (as a new DM steps up to the plate and chooses to run in his favourite world). One way or another if a company wants to survive they need to come up with a way to get consumers to keep buying product - if the consumers stop then there is no money to pay employee wages and, pretty soon, no employees.
WotC has begun to develop something that, at least in theory, could be used to get around this problem. Its conceivable that one could create a subscription based rule set. Everyone subscribes and gets the rules but the rules themselves are never actually static. They are perpetually in development. No rule is written down in a paper bound book (or if they are then its with the understanding that your paperbound book will be out of date next Tuesday when the rule updates are posted). The game is forever being honed and added to. If something is over, or underpowered, it eventually gets fixed. If the monsters are not playing like it was hoped they would play then they get updated. Even the adventures themselves are not set in stone - as rules change they get updated and if an adventure has a bad scene then the scene is modified.
The subscribers pay to get this constantly evolving rule set and to get access to what is an ever growing pool of source material of ever more adventures and endlessly evolving worlds. More subscribers means hiring more developers to constantly update the rules and work on desperately trying to keep the back catalog up to date.
This has been the only way I can think of that might take RPGs off the edition treadmill without basically stating that the game is finished and closing up shop.
Gah! I must go back in time now and kill you, Jeremy Mac Donald, before this gets out.
Gah! I must go back in time now and kill you, Jeremy Mac Donald, before this gets out.
Judgement Day is inevitable.
Death, taxes and subscription based…well…everything?
I find that 2nd Edition had such a Plethora of Robust literature on how to make the game immersive. I joined up back when I was 6, watching my older cousins play 1st and then 2nd. THESE, to me, were the Halcyon days. There was so much RICH lore ... so many DEEP and thoroughly well written products it is difficult to relate to others all that was lost. It is akin to comparing Roman and Hellenic Empire's Acquired Repositories of Knowledge and Sciences to the Dark Ages. Which is essentially what I feel the Company did-- To whit, set torches to the most treasured and precious pearls of knowledge, that Gamer-generation's "Library of Alexandria" if you will.
What you seem to be describing I would not call Simulationism but Narrativism. I'd see Simulationism as rules and mechanics meant to create a 'realistic' feeling system. Narrativism is an emphasis on the story and on interactions with the NPCs.
Its a tad odd but I'm very much in line with you in thinking that there was a great deal of really good material in the last days of 1E and the early days of 2E. Stuff like the world of Krynn and Ravenloft moved the game away from being hard core kill or be killed dungeon crawls and placed more emphasis on the story and the NPCs that inhabited our make believe worlds.
That said I don't really think the rules sets particularly start or stop this sort of thing they just emphasize or de-emphasize it. Paizo's APs are usually great examples of good story telling and its why I keep buying their APs even though I no longer use the same rules system as the APs are designed for.
Strikingly one of the major reasons I am a 4E convert is because I think 4E is an extremely good rules system for exploring these kinds of stories. 4Es stripped down mechanics and faster pace of play (once everyone is familiar with their characters and powers) allow me to tell more of the story in any given 4 hour block of time. The emphasis on characters being balanced both in and out of combat allow me to actually focus things on either combat or non-combat encounters without having to worry to much about some of my players becoming unhappy or bored and a return to a rule system thats separate for both the players and DM means that DM fiat now takes centre stage once again when answering questions about why the Necromancer has undead minions or the like.
The rule set supports the idea that the DM should do whatever it is he or she feels is important to tell the story and mostly sets things up so that the DM can use as little or as much detail as the story requires.
So why not just play 2nd? Well because I'd have a hard time finding players and I sure don't blame the players for that. IMO the greatest thing 3.x did for the game was create a 'players edition'. Characters in 3.x are totally cool. You can do so much and you have so many interesting options. Until 3rd came out I never wanted to be a player - I always wanted to be the DM. It was just so much more fun being the DM. 3rd changed that - it was great to be a player in 3rd and even I, a die hard DM, wanted to be one. 4E retains that philosophy of focus on making the players cool and giving them lots of toys to play with, I'm playing a cleric in a 4E campaign and having a blast and playing a character in 3.x had that same sort of feeling. Cool characters with cool concepts are at the heart of both 3rd and 4th and this aspect really is an improvement (IMO) from the older editions.
That said - so far you pretty much still have to go out and find a really compelling story. WotC has not done a particularly good job of supplying good stories to tell. Personally I use Paizo stories or I go and loot out the best stories from 1st and 2nd and convert them. Even here I'm generally happy with 4E. Converting things from 2nd into 3rd could be tricky as, usually, you found yourself working something up from first principles and there was a lot of detail. Especially later when my players had well honed characters capable of slaughtering vanilla monsters. The only way I could keep them challenged was to swap out feats, spells and magic items. If I was careful about my choices in these regards I'd manage to keep the players scared and on their toes. Still making a high level enemy wizard was a phenomenal amount of work. I'd start with the feats - I had a list of every feat in the campaigns cannon with the source book, pre-reqs and the gist of what it did (the list ran something like 35 pages in Open Office). Feats usually focused the character on what it was going to do. I'd follow by choosing all the spells. That alone used to use up an evening of time as making sure every spell might be useful took a long time. This was the most frustrating part about teh evil wizard - every spell might potentially be useful but it was a good combat if I got off more then 6 of the 30 odd choices - I made a lot of evil sorcerers just to keep the options down while maintaining a fair bit of versatility. Finally I'd choose equipment - which the Magic Item Compendium made much easier. Here I focused on covering weakness. Equipment was best at making sure that my wizard would not stay grappled or stunned.
In 4E converting stuff, more often then not, is just - "it is so because I, the DM, say it is so". Then making sure that its balanced. It only really gets hard when you choose to turn something into a skill challenge - those require a lot of prep work. The DM never has to use teh rule set to explain story elements and an emphasis on play balance means the players are not able to get really out of hand. Monsters don't derive from first principles nor are they in any way analogous to the PCs so there is no choosing of equipment, feats or spells.
Hence I'm a big 4E convert because I feel its done a pretty good job of marrying 2nds ability for the DM to tell a good story with BECMI's faster paced mechanics and far easier game prep while retaining the 'being a player rocks' elements of 3rd edition.
Since we are time traveling…
Let us go back in time before the announcement of 4e. WotC needs more sales but they refuse to abandon 3.5. What suggestion(s) do you offer?
|
Since we are time traveling…
Let us go back in time before the announcement of 4e. WotC needs more sales but they refuse to abandon 3.5. What suggestion(s) do you offer?
Make a slick, functional and sexy portal for online D&D play, including a server dedicated to keeping track of registered users online, their current loaded characters and play preferences and sending them emails or IMs (or both) when the sort of game they have listed as their preference is scheduled to start and has a slot open (with preferences including specific other registered users, so that friends can hook up regularly online). The system would allow automated GM run scenarios (which, by their nature, will require a smaller subset of available player options, to avoid programming issues) and DM run scenarios that can use generic room or maps they've made themselves in the dungeon generator tool, or purchased adventure material (with each purchased adventure coming with a code that allows the user to log on and claim online maps, statblocks, etc. for that published adventure, usable by one registered user only). DMs running games would be able to set 'invite only' permissions, and only have his regular crew notified when a game is starting, and not have random yahoos show up at the 'table.'
Sell advertising on this portal, and allow the users to spend some money for a 'gold membership' that blocks the ads and allows access to some basic terrain, etc. for populating adventures.
D&D, IMO, doesn't need to be more or less of anything, rules-wise. A thousand fiddly mechanical changes won't make the tinkest damn when the world now plays it's games online with strangers in different states, timezones and countries, instead of around a table in a basement.
A thousand fiddly rules changes is all about making us, who already have the game, happier. It does bupkiss to attract new meat to the hungry beast that is the bottom line.
Since we are time traveling…
Let us go back in time before the announcement of 4e. WotC needs more sales but they refuse to abandon 3.5. What suggestion(s) do you offer?
Produce quality books that support it. Some of that 3.5 splat was so bad touching it made me throwup a little in my mouth at the gaming store.
More well written adventure chains similar to the APs of Paizo. Or an attempt to fix 3.5 similar to the pathfinder gambit might also have been a better idea. Who knows. Even having gone the 4e route I am still not sure chasing away anyone not willing to immidiately convert to your new system though was a great idea. Skipping whether 4e rocks or stinks the marketing/public relations job done at it's release was not as well thought out as I would have expected from a company of their size and past success.
Edit:
Joshua J. Frost: Oh, sorry. You do moderate this board. I didn't read carefully enough. I apologize for what I said.
I'll just say, then, that I find it fascinating that so many people actively care that I don't like WotC because of what they did, and actively want me to like them, expecting me to change my opinion for no reason whatsoever, including no change in strategy from them.
Seriously, that doesn't happen all that often, does it?
|
|
Yeah, I was not at all certian we were talking about the same system. Hence I made sure to call what I was talking about BECMI figuring that if you meant the brown books you'd point it out. I can't address the brown books - I never played with them.
Ok, let's include BCM (because I never played M and I), AD&D 1s and 2nd.
Houston Derek hits the nail on the head pretty much when he states that I'm discussing 'look and feel' when comparing 4E to BECMI. That said mechanics do follow from look and feel.
And vice versa. Ceratin mechanics favor a certain type of gaming style. You can, for example, do dungeon crawl with WoD rules, but they are better suited for the storyteller gaming style.
While the most 'in your face' change from 3.x to 4E is the replacement of the Vancian Magic system with the powers system its not the most fundamental change from 3.5 to 4E, just the most obvious. The most fundamental change, and the one that moves the system furthest away from 3.5s simulationism is reverting to a where the DM and the players are playing by fundamentally different rule sets.
We agree.
3.x made a concerted effort to create a rule set where the players could do pretty much anything the DM could do. If the DM wanted a Necromancer who controlled undead the 3.5 rules system showed one how to do that. The players could in fact use the same rules to make their own necromancer. This was not the case in older editions, BECMI never even tried, 1st edition was leaning in this direction but never quite got there, 2nd edition had other priorities.
We agree.
Just to add: a DM could of course always use the "player's ruleset" to create antagonists.I certainly don't fault 3.x for heading this way - it was the holy grail of game design at one point and it was maybe the biggest reason I personally made the switch from 2nd to 3rd. However the simulationism inherent within this approach comes with a significant price tag. One I'd not personally grasp until played 3.5 for a significant period of time. Its a system that requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of the DM. If one wants to make a Necromancer on needs to go through the steps of acquiring all the things that the rules say a necromancer needs in order to be able to control undead. If one wants to make a monster then one starts from first principles in determining the type of monster and builds from there, etc.
I agree that it can take quite a while to create antagonists if you follow all the rules. See also below
This was not so in BECMI, it was only sort of true for 1st and 2nd and in 4E its not so again - though this time its explicitly not so. The big bad guy at the end of the adventure is a Necromancer because the DM says that it is so. He controls undead purely because the DM says that he does. At no point does the DM need to utilize the rules to justify this - the rules exist merely to allow the DM to create a creature to interact with the player characters no more no less.
This can also be true for 3.5. Of course that means houseruling and players have to agree or be informed that player rules can be different from DM rules. Housruling also played a significant part in older editions. the difference was that then we had to invent rules and now we have to leave rules out.
If I want my 3.5 Necromancer to have abilities that my players will never be able to match. So be it. After all, it is my game.Creature creation also returns to these roots. The creatures in older editions had smaller stat blocks mainly because their stat blocks represented only what they would need to interact with the PCs.
Look at AD&D 1st edition MM and you will find a lot of entries that provide the Monster with non encounter abilities (the Djinn water creating ability for example). Also look at the entries in the stats where it states how many young and females can be found in family groups.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]4E takes that to a further extreme because it has 'only include whats needed for the monsters to interact with the PCs' as an actual design goal while earlier editions had just ended up in that design space without particularly choosing between a simulationist organic monster or NPC creation system a gamist/narrativist option of simply have such creatures be developed enough to be used with the story but then developed no further.
This is whre I disagree. I think that 4E does not provide a Simulationist approach here. One Monster does not differ from the other, apart from their encounter powers. To me that does not feel organic. Of course you can invent these non-encounter powers. But so you can leave aside non encounter powers in 3.5.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]One can go forward from this and find a lot of further examples - in 3.5 NPCs of a certain level have specific amounts of treasure. in BECMI and 4E NPCs have whatever they need to move the story forward and they get it via DM fiat.
Huh? 4th edition has it's "treasure parcels".
The expectation of a certain wealth level in Gold and/or magic items is unique to 3rd and 4th edition. Both games will get skewed if you do not provide the PCs with the average amount of wealth. Where they get it does not matter be it a Dragonhoard or Payment for a job.You could go on in older editions without ever seing a +3 sword.
And again, if i do not want an NPC to have any Treasure, I do not give it to him.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]In 3.5 towns have a certain amount wealth that determines what a a player can buy - in 4E towns have whatever the DM wants them to have - and they, again, acquire it via DM fiat, etc. etc.
Again, these rules are guidelines. Where in the older editions (?) and in 4th we do not have any rules and use DM Fiat everytime, I can use the 3.5 rule or leave it and use DM fiat.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]One can go beyond this however to find many more BECMI bits. The planar structure of 4E is fairly clearly an upgraded version of the BECMI planar structure. Many of the sacred cows that were sacrificed in 4E have no home in BECMI which is likely one of the reasons that it was used so much in the design of 4E.
As I said, i only know the BEC rules. The Companion gives some hints to the elemental planes and briefly mentions other planes. So I can not really comment on it.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]I emphasize BECMI in particular partly because it had similiar objectives to 4E. Both were an attempt to make a simplier, streamlined version of the game and that lead them to similiar conclusions in many cases. Often 1st edition would have a similiar mechanic to BECMI but it was not trying to be a simpler version of the game - it was trying to be a more simulationist version of of heroic fantasy so there were many updates that would add more complexity and simulationism on top of a simpler mechanic or there might well exist a more complex mechanic alongside the simpler ones.
Simpler yes. But when comparing BEC to AD&D 1st you should take into account that both rulesets existed beside each other but had a wholly different genesis. BEC was more or less the streamlined version of OD&D (via the Holmes and Cook/Moldvay incarnations of the game). But AD&D was almost a different Game. EGG created AD&D to standardize all possible rules to provide a set for tournament play. So, while you had to houserule the heck out of "Basic" D&D and every group played a slightly different version of it. AD&D was to provide the umbrella rules that every group would use.
It is interesting to note, that the Moldvay Basic set was created to provide an easy way to swap to AD&D but was very successful on it's own. So the "Basic" line was continued.But still both AD&D and BEC are Simulationist IMHO. Look at the Expert and Companion rules. Players are expected to build Fortresses and rule Kingdoms.
Since we are time traveling…
Let us go back in time before the announcement of 4e. WotC needs more sales but they refuse to abandon 3.5. What suggestion(s) do you offer?
The flood of bad d20 OGL books and worse d20 OGL books was pretty much like the videogame industry crash in the early 80s. After the Atari era passed on, Nintendo solved this problem by implementing the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality", which pretty much meant: "Before you sell this you'll let me see it, check it doesn't have any critical bugs and won't break my console down... then you can go on". Perhaps if Wizards had done this a little earlier...
To the batmobile! *remembers all too late the batmobile is too large for the time machine, and wrecks both*
I've been talking about such for a while, but your retort, sir, has been the kick in the hindquarters I need to get this up and running. Thank you. Link forthcoming.
Still waiting for the link. =)
On a separate note (if you like I will create a related topic and link, or you could provide one) How IS Anima? It has been highly recommended to me.
Anima... well, design-wise, it's a sin against everythig useability and ergonomics stand for. Character generation is too old-school regarding "mundane skills-wise, you're only half decent for one thing and a null for everything else", and the game's XP criteria actively punishes non hack&lashers. The guys behind the game really tried though, and there are some pretty nice things in there that make it worth checking, and you can make the game work if you really get yourself into it.
Also, word to the wise... try not to be rude to Bad Mr. Frosty, cause-and-effect and all that. ;)
I'll just say, then, that I find it fascinating that so many people actively care that I don't like WotC because of what they did, and actively want me to like them, expecting me to change my opinion for no reason whatsoever, including no change in strategy from them.
Seriously, that doesn't happen all that often, does it?
You know, I could write a big rant demanding to know where anyone has claimed such a thing and question how this post contributed to the thread, but I realize you are using hyperbole here, so don't need to.
There are more than just two positions for something. Just because one is not pro-4e/WotC does not mean one has to be anti-4e/WotC. Several of the people here that are questioning all the hating do not play 4e and don't have any great loyality to WotC.
Personally, I think people should be following enlightened self-interest. If a company produces a product that I can use for a price that is reasonable, then I don't really care that they call me "Mr. Poophead" and say "Double-Dumbass On You" to me. I'm going to purchase the products that are useful to me. Likewise, even a company is politely tells me I am "The Most Fascinating Man in the World", if they don't produce products I want, I am not going to purchase from them. This isn't a popularity contest or charity, it is about getting what I can use and am willing to pay for.
Make a slick, functional and sexy portal for online D&D play…
I love your idea, Set. However, they would have hemorrhaged money trying to get such a beast up and running since it would have been all outlay and nothing incoming until it was ready to go. Then, after all of that effort it likely would have ran into the same issues as the virtual table top they hyped up so much at the beginning of the 4e release.
Were they really ready to enter the video game market at that time?
d20 Time-traveling Poodles
O.k. You have me there. If they had done time-traveling poodles all would have been right with the universe. Even if it were class based, I would have played it.
Produce quality books that support it. Some of that 3.5 splat was so bad touching it made me throwup a little in my mouth at the gaming store.
Do you honestly believe they intentionally tried to produce sub-par material? That seems a bit conspiracy theorist to me. I am more likely to go with they tried but failed. As a consequence, sales dropped. This is even if we ignore the fact that each release appeals to a much smaller market share. Show of hands from the people who want the Ultimate Halfling Basket Weaver.
Or an attempt to fix 3.5 similar to the pathfinder gambit might also have been a better idea.
Right, because releasing 3.5 the first time around did not alienate enough people.
Skipping whether 4e rocks or stinks the marketing/public relations job done at it's release was not as well thought out as I would have expected from a company of their size and past success.
I will agree with you there. In an effort to get people excited enough to abandon a perfectly good system and jump on board with a new one, they really dropped the ball. They did not do it to insult you personally. Do you think it is the least bit possible that WotC would have loved to have kept all the old grognards and bring in new blood all at the same time?
If their campaign had been more like…
3.5 is a great game, but here…try our new, untested (that is field tested) game. Honest, it is great too…although not better than 3.5 because, afterall, that is a really great game.
…how many people would have been, "Meh. I like the D&D I have just fine."?
Or maybe, "Gah! WotC are evil, money grubbing, corporate tools! It is 3.5 all over again!"?
The flood of bad d20 OGL books and worse d20 OGL books was pretty much like the videogame industry crash in the early 80s. […] Perhaps if Wizards had done this a little earlier...
The GSL was a disaster. You really think it would have worked if it had been done even earlier?
The GSL was a disaster. You really think it would have worked if it had been done even earlier?
Yes, if it was done at the beginning of 3rd edition instead of the OGL. The only reason the GSL was viewed as so disappointing was as it compared to the OGL. Consider 1e or 2e, did they have anything remotely as open as the GSL? Nope. It would have seemed a huge advantage to many. The OGL has just spoiled people that consider anything less than it as an insult.
The only reason the GSL was viewed as so disappointing was as it compared to the OGL.
I think they still would have run into the problem of diminishing returns. No matter how stunning the Ultimate Halfling Basket Weaver is, it is only going to appeal to a small niche of a small niche of a small niche.
Well, as one of the guys that was largely disenfranchised by the 2E/3E split (I never really have gotten past my dislike of certain fundamental structures in 3.x), I can say that over the years it has become nearly impossible to find a 2E group or even 2E events at conventions. They are out there but honestly I can't find one and I'm in Boston.I hear you, and yes I felt the same way. Alas, I am way out here in California.
Running a secound edition dark sun game right now as my main game. DEAR god balance is out the window from the gates. Replaying an older edition again, makes me understand why 3.x did what it did to the rules. At the same time the rules changed ,but it feels the same to me. It feels like DnD in a way that 4e never felt to me. I can not explain really well why i do not like 4e other than how it feels when it being played. I played with two dms and i ran it. It just feels like a board game to me. It just lacks I do not know the soul of DnD.
pres man: If I want to buy some bread, or a movie ticket, or a bus trip, or whatever, you're right. If I buy a bad movie ticket, I don't buy the next one. Any previous movie tickets I have bought are merely parts of what I have experienced.
However, when you play roleplaying games, you INVEST in them. That makes all the difference in the world. I buy the basic rules, I spend hours and hours reading them, trying them out, planning campaigns for them, convince my players we should try them, then we all invest, further and further, through making characters and adventures, debating rules that need clarification. At least for me, that's why I am a very loyal customer. I invest in the games I buy. It matters to me what the intentions and attitude of the producing company is, because done right, it means my investment is "safe", which justifies the time and energy I spend on that game.
Changing systems means all that has to start over. It's as simple as that. When a company deals with me and what I care about in bad ways, it means more than just me saying "Oh well, I guess I'll just go buy some other RPG systems". I am not saying it's the end of the world - only that your "market view" of the problem is completely missing the entire point.
Loyalty, trust and investment are things a company want, because it means dependable customers. However, those very same qualities that make such feelings appealing, also mean that if you screw your customers over, people will get personally hurt about it, and there will be "edition wars" or whatever it's about.
However, when you play roleplaying games, you INVEST in them. That makes all the difference in the world. I buy the basic rules, I spend hours and hours reading them, trying them out, planning campaigns for them, convince my players we should try them, then we all invest, further and further, through making characters and adventures, debating rules that need clarification. At least for me, that's why I am a very loyal customer. I invest in the games I buy. It matters to me what the intentions and attitude of the producing company is, because done right, it means my investment is "safe", which justifies the time and energy I spend on that game.
I would think having fun would be enough justification.
Changing systems means all that has to start over.
So don't change systems. It is not like those books you "invested in" suddenly become worthless. The fact that both WotC and Paizo abandoned 3.5 hasn't stopped the two groups I game with every week from playing the hell out of it. We invested (heck I continue to invest when I see a deal) in it, and we continue to gain on its returns.
It's as simple as that. When a company deals with me and what I care about in bad ways, it means more than just me saying "Oh well, I guess I'll just go buy some other RPG systems". I am not saying it's the end of the world - only that your "market view" of the problem is completely missing the entire point.
Not really, a company produces something you don't want, then don't buy it. I have purchased zero 4e stuff, not because WotC's Red Dragon pooped on anyone or they thought grappling was too complicated (which Paizo agreed with) or because they blew up the FR,
but because I play 3.5. They don't produce what I want, I don't buy stuff just to make some company happy. Now I still continue to purchase WotC miniatures from time to time when I see ones that I can use for my games. Do I HAVE to use miniatures? Nope. But it adds fun to myself and the people I game with. And using miniatures is very "old school" gaming for alot of folks.
Loyalty, trust and investment are things a company want, because it means dependable customers. However, those very same qualities that make such feelings appealing, also mean that if you screw your customers over, people will get personally hurt about it, and there will be "edition wars" or whatever it's about.
Yet as a customer, I want products I can use. I have no loyalty or trust for any company, because no company has it for me. You think if I fall on hardtimes any company is going to say, "Hey we feel sorry for you pres man, here is some free gaming products." Nope. They are looking out for their own interests and so am I.
Again, turn that coin over. Are you saying you would just give money to a company for products that wouldn't benefit you at all just because you percieved them as treating you nicely? If not, then why refuse to consider products just because you percieve a company as treating you poorly?
...
I would think having fun would be enough justification.
I have fun, to a big part because of that investment. Immersing yourself in a campaign is the only way to make it mean something more than doing 2d6 points of damage and crossing out those hit points. So yes, having fun, but it requires investing.
...
So don't change systems. ...
Absolutely not. I still play 3.5 as well. That's not what I am talking about.
...
Not really, a company produces something you don't want, then don't buy it. ...
I don't. But a company that treats its own customers badly, and produces bad stuff, but who tried to appeal to our loyalty, they get a different response to new things than a company who is respectful and does the best they can quality-wise. It's not about their products, it's about me feeling my investment in their products would never be safe. It's about me feeling that any loyalty given to their company would be misused and misplaced. So I tell them. If that is uncomfortable, well, that's a shame.
I think we have different ideas of what "invest" means in this context. I invest (by that I mean I purchase) in products that are useful for me, irregardless of the attitudes/behavior of the company making them. You seem to be saying you invest (by this you seem to be saying you make emotional attachments to) in brand/game/company. I see your view as more the road to fanboyism, which is understandable when you tie your emotional character to a company, that you feel betrayed by that company when it doesn't do something you like. I would wager that some of the harshest critics of WotC/4e were some of the strongest fanboys of WotC/3.x. They feel like they fought the good fight for WotC and they have been left out in the cold, their dedication not ultimately rewarded/recognized by that unfeeling company.
My only regret right now is the over four hundred dollars I spent in 4e and got nothing out of it. I am a follower, it is the game we played and I had players interested in it. I just invested a bundle in rebuying second edition books cause I REALLY NEED ALL THE FLUFF that is missing for the newest edition of the worlds most popular role playing game. Than I found pathfinder and I am happy that they meet my fluff need and they are also current which means for me is that I have years of things to look forward too. I am really happy with paizo, not only there level of products they make but the whole really caring what there market thinks.
Also I think we all have such strong feelings on this, due to the years we spent in this hobby. I know It has been almost 20 years now for me.
But a company that treats its own customers badly, and produces bad stuff, but who tried to appeal to our loyalty, they get a different response to new things than a company who is respectful and does the best they can quality-wise.
How did WotC treat you, personally, badly? I doubt WotC, as a whole, was even aware of your very existence. The pooping dragon? Are you convinced it was aimed directly at you and you alone? And not the flood of bile launched against the designers for trying to produce a new product they honestly felt you (the royal you) might want?
How did they turn around and try to appeal to your loyalty? It seemed to me they were trying to appeal to anyone who might enjoy a spiffy new product. I mean, how much money could they make if they kept pandering the stuff they already produced?
If Paizo had tried to publish Pathfinder RPG while WotC were still supporting 3.5 how many of you would have laughed at them? "Why do I need an over-powered 3.5?!" Timing really is everything.
Paizo certainly understands customer loyalty and quality. I believe that is why they are where they are today. But they are small enough to be agile and take risks. They are lucky enough to have the creative team they have.
WotC is not evil. They are just not capable of matching what Paizo has done.
"WotC owes me!" What do they owe you? They gave you 3.5 which you love. It seems to me, that is the end of their contract with you. They put out new material. If it meets with your expectations, you buy it. Another contract. If they do not, you make no bargain with them. You go and spend your entire allowance at Paizo.
Believe me, once Pathfinder is no longer profitable, Paizo will not let it drag them under just so you can feel the company is loyal to you. They will make changes. Changes you may or may not like.
Believe me... Pathfinder... will make changes. Changes you may or may not like.
Must... resist... urge to make joke about clerics and heavy armor...
Oops. Sorry! Self-control fail.
Fanboy? Heh. Not really. I did tell you. It's not about anything like an unhealthy obsession. It's merely the fact that to get something out of your roleplaying that isn't as easily served filling in tax forms, you need to engage in it, let the fate of your character matter to you. If you never thought of that side of the investment, you have my sympathies.
Why does it matter what the company does when I still have the old books? Well, they say a shark needs to keep swimming to be able to breathe. In the willingness to pay for various rulebooks lies the expectation of good future products, not merely pokemonised and wow-ised stuff that have been calculated to maximise profits because they appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator available.
When a company sells me a set of rules, my buying those shows that I believe the company will keep putting out good stuff. Paizo has consistently done so, ever since that first day in Sandpoint. Jumping on that train was easy, given what I had seen of their previous stuff such as the Shackled city, and how they made Dragon and Dungeon flower in their care. They keep an active contact with their customers here, they care what we think, and above all, they make products that show they enjoy the game, sharing in my investment. By gamers, for gamers is the standard, you know?
I believe this may be a difference between american and european thinking. Americans are generally much more forgiving of companies who treat them badly, at least that's the image I have gotten.
I imagine that when it's Paizo's turn to change the concept, they'll simply tell us what is happening, tell us that while PFRPG was good, it isn't something they can keep publishing for monetary reasons, and launch the new product. It really would make all the difference, and not cost them a penny OR getting them a bad image.
I may be wrong, but I will believe it until I see different. What do you think?
Edit: Oh, right. Part of what I said about expectations above: I expect Paizo to do an outstanding job when it comes to those changes I may or may not like.
|
|
"WotC owes me!" What do they owe you? They gave you 3.5 which you love. It seems to me, that is the end of their contract with you. They put out new material. If it meets with your expectations, you buy it. Another contract. If they do not, you make no bargain with them. You go and spend your entire allowance at Paizo.
I agree with 99% here in the vacuum of other evidence, without entailing any of the other "business decisions" that WotC has made. Pulling the Ravenloft license so they could get a mediocre profit off of a badly written book that undoes much of their previous canon and further alienates the gamer audience was NOT a smart move.
Neither was removal and revocation of license to resell soft-copies of older editions products from various legal and licensed third party vendors, for what was a single act of illegal piracy of a 4E book that was performed by one of their own employees. Essentially punishing the previous editions' enthusiasts and vendors that cater to them for the actions of an employee with regards to their -newest- edition (the PHB II IIRC). I had a link to the post on this matter where it was discussed on these 'boards, but this discussion alone has blasted it past my "recent posts" feed.
What are your thoughts on the matter, given those two manuevers. Not from the perspective of one who feels their owed, but literally wide-sweeping gestures that are ineffective for the stated goals, and only succeed in alienating those who would not be previously, and further inciting resentment in others?
In the willingness to pay for various rulebooks lies the expectation of good future products, not merely pokemonised and wow-ised stuff that have been calculated to maximise profits because they appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator available.
TSR and WotC produced stuff calculated to maximize profits by appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator available. You were quite content while you were in that denominator. The problem is that you now realize you are no longer.
I imagine that when it's Paizo's turn to change the concept, they'll simply tell us what is happening, tell us that while PFRPG was good, it isn't something they can keep publishing for monetary reasons, and launch the new product. It really would make all the difference, and not cost them a penny OR getting them a bad image.
Can you hear that? It is the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. Can we start a pool now on how many times 3.0 -> 3.5 gets brought up during this transition?
4E takes that to a further extreme because it has 'only include whats needed for the monsters to interact with the PCs' as an actual design goal while earlier editions had just ended up in that design space without particularly choosing between a simulationist organic monster or NPC creation system a gamist/narrativist option of simply have such creatures be developed enough to be used with the story but then developed no further.
This is whre I disagree. I think that 4E does not provide a Simulationist approach here. One Monster does not differ from the other, apart from their encounter powers. To me that does not feel organic. Of course you can invent these non-encounter powers. But so you can leave aside non encounter powers in 3.5.
We are saying the same thing - 4E deliberately went with a gamist/narrativist approach that monsters exist only to interact with the PCs. 3.5s approach was organic and simulationist.
Creature creation also returns to these roots. The creatures in older editions had smaller stat blocks mainly because their stat blocks represented only what they would need to interact with the PCs.
Look at AD&D 1st edition MM and you will find a lot of entries that provide the Monster with non encounter abilities (the Djinn water creating ability for example). Also look at the entries in the stats where it states how many young and females can be found in family groups.
Sure, and we both agree that 1st ed. was trying to be simulationist it just never reached the level of 3rd which actually created a system of first principles in monster design. I'm sure some of the creatures in BECMI also have abilities that probably don't come up in combat. Still, by and large, what was needed for a stat block was far less because the creatures had stats in order to interact players. The big difference here was that older editions just ended up in this design space. Monsters were needed to challenge players and from that the monster stat block evolved. No one was particularly choosing to have it so that the monsters were meant specifically to fight the players but that was, by far, their main role. Many things that did not have to do with combat would be added in, on top of and around the stats that told us how the creature interacts with the PCs. 4E went back to that kind of stat block but this time there was a very deliberate design goal that if it was not about the PCs then don't include it.
One can go forward from this and find a lot of further examples - in 3.5 NPCs of a certain level have specific amounts of treasure. in BECMI and 4E NPCs have whatever they need to move the story forward and they get it via DM fiat.
Huh? 4th edition has it's "treasure parcels".
The expectation of a certain wealth level in Gold and/or magic items is unique to 3rd and 4th edition. Both games will get skewed if you do not provide the PCs with the average amount of wealth. Where they get it does not matter be it a Dragonhoard or Payment for a job.
Both 3.x and 4E do have a system that regulates how much the players should get during the course of a level - 3.5 however has a system that tells me how much the evil necromancer has, depending on his level, as well.
In 3.5 towns have a certain amount wealth that determines what a a player can buy - in 4E towns have whatever the DM wants them to have - and they, again, acquire it via DM fiat, etc. etc.
Again, these rules are guidelines. Where in the older editions (?) and in 4th we do not have any rules and use DM Fiat everytime, I can use the 3.5 rule or leave it and use DM fiat.
Certainly - I'm simply pointing out that the design inherent in 4E in terms of adventure or campaign creation are explicitly all about DM fiat. In older editions DM fiat was the result of the rules not covering these topics. In 3.x the rules do cover them and the DM can choose to ignore them as is his right. 4E deliberately went back to a system that relies on DM fiat.
the economic system (also known as buying magic items) is maybe the clearest example of this 4E does actually give some guidelines as well and, like 3.x has hard rules on how much loot the players should have to spend at a given level. In a lot of ways both 3.x and 4E get to the same place but they come at it from opposite directions. 4Es direction, with DM fiat at roots, would have been the only option for a DM of earlier editions.
I emphasize BECMI in particular partly because it had similiar objectives to 4E. Both were an attempt to make a simplier, streamlined version of the game and that lead them to similiar conclusions in many cases. Often 1st edition would have a similiar mechanic to BECMI but it was not trying to be a simpler version of the game - it was trying to be a more simulationist version of of heroic fantasy so there were many updates that would add more complexity and simulationism on top of a simpler mechanic or there might well exist a more complex mechanic alongside the simpler ones.
But still both AD&D and BEC are Simulationist IMHO. Look at the Expert and Companion rules. Players are expected to build Fortresses and rule Kingdoms.
I'd say building kingdoms is more narrativist then simulationist. 4E actually steals this concept though it expands on it. After 20th level all 4E characters choose an epic destiny - become a God or conquer the evil kingdom etc. A sort of similar mechanic - at X level you make Y world effecting choice and then set about trying to complete it which should be finished at 30th when advancement stops and the game should come to a close. Epic Destinies are really just a modernized version of the old kingdom building concept.
In the willingness to pay for various rulebooks lies the expectation of good future products, not merely pokemonised and wow-ised stuff that have been calculated to maximise profits because they appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator available.TSR and WotC produced stuff calculated to maximize profits by appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator available. You were quite content while you were in that denominator. The problem is that you now realize you are no longer.
I imagine that when it's Paizo's turn to change the concept, they'll simply tell us what is happening, tell us that while PFRPG was good, it isn't something they can keep publishing for monetary reasons, and launch the new product. It really would make all the difference, and not cost them a penny OR getting them a bad image.Can you hear that? It is the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. Can we start a pool now on how many times 3.0 -> 3.5 gets brought up during this transition?
The 3.0 -> 3.5 change never got anywhere near as bad as 3.5 -> 4 has. Why do you think that is? Oh, and 3.5 came a few years early, admittedly so, because the economic interests of the new Hasbro owners required quick cash flow. Is it any surprise people didn't enjoy buying it? Even so, it was made by people who did care about the game, and was generally accepted, probably partly because the company never tried to bash previous products or any of the other stunts we've been discussing.
I would agree those moves were missteps.
Let me be clear. I am not fan of WotC. I did not like 3.5. I do not like 4e. I just do not see them as evil.
Now, back to your question. I see both moves with the simple goal of trying to make money.
You have a job, right? You do not work for your company simply out of the goodness of your heart, right? Does that make you evil? Are you a money grubbing, corporate tool? Marxists, please stay out of this.
So we can agree that trying to make money does not make on evil.
WotC alienated a lot of their fans by producing questionable quality and restricting the availability of their products. Again, I doubt WotC purposely tried to produce garbage with the hopes of selling it to the unwashed masses. They gave it their best shot and it failed miserably.
You have made mistakes, right? You have tried to do something and missed the mark. Should your 'customer's hate you? Or do they just take their 'business' elsewhere? Maybe once you have proven you can deliver, they will return to you.
I was not happy about them pulling all the PDFs. There is some good fluff in those older editions. I am sure they are trying to figure out a way to make money off of them.
As I said earlier, WotC is too big to take risks. It would have been risky for them to do what sites like RPGNow and Lulu set out to do. Once those sites proved it was marketable, WotC decided they can take a larger cut.
And why not? It is their material right?
D&D has not been the innovator since OD&D. It has only adapted what others have proven to be successful. WotC does not hate you. They do not even know you. They are just trying to make money. You want to tell them they are going about it wrong, don't buy their stuff. There is no need for animosity. When they see everyone is buying Pathfinder, they will change their tune.
Here is the problem though. What if WotC was right? If 4e turns out to be hugely successful, where does that leave you?
I understand where you are coming from. Remember, Hero fan boi here?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Fanboy? Heh. Not really. I did tell you. It's not about anything like an unhealthy obsession. It's merely the fact that to get something out of your roleplaying that isn't as easily served filling in tax forms, you need to engage in it, let the fate of your character matter to you. If you never thought of that side of the investment, you have my sympathies.
Ohhhh! Now it makes sense. The gods communicated with you and provided you with the one true way of gaming. How lucky you are! Tell us more, I would really hate to be doing it wrong. Maybe you could light a candle for me and hope I see the light too!
Why does it matter what the company does when I still have the old books? Well, they say a shark needs to keep swimming to be able to breathe.
Anyone else hear this line in Michael Scott's voice from the Office? I have no idea what that even means.
In the willingness to pay for various rulebooks lies the expectation of good future products, not merely pokemonised and wow-ised stuff that have been calculated to maximise profits because they appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator available.
Got it. In addition to telling you the one true way to game, the gods also communicated to you the best way to make rpg products. Maybe you should start a game company to share this amazing font of wisdom you've discovered! I bet you could even make enough money to cover the costs of printing the books too!
Here's an analogy that actually fits the topic of discussion: the armchair quarterback.
I believe this may be a difference between american and european thinking. Americans are generally much more forgiving of companies who treat them badly, at least that's the image I have gotten.
I'd be more concerned about the difference between thinking and having imaginary relationships with entities that cause you to post non-sequitors on message boards. That seems to be more the root of the problem than cultural differences.
...probably partly because the company never tried to bash previous products or any of the other stunts we've been discussing.
Srsly? 3.5, by its very existence, suggests that 3.0 is broken.