'Future of D&D' article


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Unfortunately, the price of printing books is getting higher all the time, because the print market is shrinking. WotC might have no choice on the cost of books. As for the number of books... the way they've been doing it is the way they'll probably keep doing it. Like it or not, they have to maintain revenue.

Print on demand seems to be a viable option for many smaller companies. Of course, for WotC to maintain its status, print on demand might not bring in enough money.

Sadly, I think their future is largely digital. It's certainly been their recent focus and doesn't seem to be shifting in the upcoming year.


Even if they only print on demand, they'll still be supporting the tabletop RPG. And all the digital stuff is focused that way.


Most of their product is PDF only, that's what I was referring to.


SuperSlayer wrote:
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.

You can play 4th Edition with one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide, and one Monster Manual. Oh, and you can get all three for $66.

So I'm not sure where you're seeing precedent for this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.

You can play 4th Edition with one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide, and one Monster Manual. Oh, and you can get all three for $66.

So I'm not sure where you're seeing precedent for this.

I think it's a good moment to remind everybody about Pathfinder's entry cost which is: 0$!

:)

:D

:P


Gorbacz wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.

You can play 4th Edition with one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide, and one Monster Manual. Oh, and you can get all three for $66.

So I'm not sure where you're seeing precedent for this.

I think it's a good moment to remind everybody about Pathfinder's entry cost which is: 0$!

:)

:D

:P

On the subject of reminders.

I wasn't aware that this was a contest, though. Both games have fairly comparable expected entry points. Neither is an expensive hobby. I was just taking exception to the implication that you need 9 books (or whatever) in order to run D&D.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No no Scott, we're talking apples and oranges. My 0$ nets me an entire game system with several expansions, your 0$ gets you some promos. Which are probably not compatible with whatever that is currently the official rules version of the game.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
I wasn't aware that this was a contest, though. Both games have fairly comparable expected entry points. Neither is an expensive hobby. I was just taking exception to the implication that you need 9 books (or whatever) in order to run D&D.

Apprently it is some sort of contest. Nothing you I or anyone else is going to post will change his mind beyond "4E sucks". It's also not 0$ investment. It requires a PC or laptop with an internet connection or access to free wi-fi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that. 4e is a great system. It's a shame that you weren't able to figure out how to make it work for you.
Scott, why is it when someone doesn't like 4e, you have to imply that they did something wrong? That in this case, the reason Elton doesn't like 4e is because he couldn't "figure it out"?
There's a difference between being unable to make the game work, and being unable to make the game work in a way that suits you to a tee. Maybe Elton can't figure 4e out (I've certainly seen a fair number of people who can't), or maybe there just isn't a way to fiddle with it that will make it enjoyable for him. I'm not going to guess at which it is - assuming unkind things about a poster is frowned upon here, unless the poster in question likes 4e.

I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set. If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set. So, I got excited for 5th Edition and I am faithfully waiting for a versatile version of D&D right now. I definitely want versatility in the rules concerning characters.

If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM. I had more success GMing the game, though. But still, the game is lacking. Only 1/100th of one percent of a given world population (I think it's smaller than that) is described in all three books.

4E is weighted towards the gamist, as one person said. I checked it out myself, and yes it is true. 4e is an "Olympic" or "Sport" version of D&D. If D&D competitions were televised, this is the version the Sports media would televise. 4th Edition is made with an Athlete's logic instead of a playwright's logic. It's definitely a mass market RPG, but a Roleplaying Game's niche has always been creative scholars rather than Athletes.

4e a Great System? Sorry, but you can't please everyone all at the same time. It's a great system for you, but for me, there are problems. Deep problems. To solve them, I either need to play a different game (Pathfinder, Rolemaster, AD&D 2ed Edition for ex.); or totally re-engineer the game to fit my vision.

I just couldn't get in the spirit. The entire game screams out "FAKE" to me.


Gorbacz wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.

You can play 4th Edition with one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide, and one Monster Manual. Oh, and you can get all three for $66.

So I'm not sure where you're seeing precedent for this.

I think it's a good moment to remind everybody about Pathfinder's entry cost which is: 0$!

:)

:D

:P

Even if they didn't want to go the free downloadable SRD PDF route, they can still get both the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary for 26.39 each from Amazon so that's still all the books you need for Pathfinder for just about $53.


Elton wrote:


I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

What, specifically, do you mean by non-adventuring professions? You wanted to make a Noble, but how type of character expressed differently from one edition to another. What does one gain/lose by the comparisons. More importantly, what didn't the rules facilitate that exemplifies what it is to be a noble?

For example, "I wanted to play a noble that has lots of skills with the ability to influence people without resorting to violence." Which, BTW, is fine if your in campaigns that don't feature a lot of violence. But be that as it may, many adventures in D&D tend to turn into violence and PCs might have to be prepared for that too. The game is cooperative and there are times when violence is the only answer, but how does your character deal with that? If it's to hide in the corner and not contribute, well I can't say I'd be happy with the cowering and probably wouldn't protect you if it came down to yourself and possible another member shedding their own blood and sweat.

Elton wrote:


I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set. If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set. So, I got excited for 5th Edition and I am faithfully waiting for a versatile version of D&D right now. I definitely want versatility in the rules concerning characters.

I'm not really sure how 4E is rigid when there are just so many possibilities out there. With over 40 classes, the ability to multiclass, paragon-multiclass, and hybrid there are over hundres of combinations to come up with. That's the opposite of rigid. It could be that you played before hybrid rules and some of the otehr classes came out, thus forcing the opinion based on the available information at the time.

Elton wrote:


If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM. I had more success GMing the game, though. But still, the game is lacking. Only 1/100th of one percent of a given world population (I think it's smaller than that) is described in all three books.

What does that even mean? You want definitive rules for Blacksmiths only? Or you want Profession (Blacksmith) and Craft (Weaponsmithing)/(Armorsmithing)/(Blacksmithing) to be able to builds stuff. OR you could say my NPC blacksmith is crafting a beautiful weapon for you. Sets DC at "Difficult" (or DC 25) Rolls d20, adds 1/2 level (we'll say he's 11th level) so +5, +5 more since he's trained, with +5 in Wisdom (we'll allow the usage of Intelligence or Wisdom) and he roll's an 11. Total it up to 26 which surpasses the DC. A beautiful, finely crafted non-magical weapon is created. Voliá.


Maybe the messageboards should have a section specifically meant for edition comparison. Then the moderators could dump threads that start out as one thing and end up as something else.

This isn't about how 3.5 compares to 4e. its about where 5e might go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really get the feeling that you are misunderstanding where I am coming from Diffan. You are not seeing the picture I see, you are seeing the picture you see. 4th says, "I'm artificial" to me. There is no feeling to me that you are in a different world when you play.

The picture I see of 4th is, to describe it in terms of machinery, a complex Victorian steam engine with cogs and wheels producing a painting without vibrance or life. Some of it was done right, yes. But ---

No one in real life has the same opportunities. There is no artificial balance in real life, everything in real life is built without glaring balance. Everyone has different gifts, different opportunities, and different circumstances in life. Human beings on this planet isn't at all BALANCED obviously. Take a look at the Occupy Wall Street movement: people are fed up and frustrated that 1% controls most of the money (I think their anger is misplaced, it should be against those who control and create our money).

There is a stark difference from a ELF terrorist and a soldier in Special Forces. There is a stark difference between a bush pilot and an Airline pilot. There are differences from a Gangster and an ordinary policeman.

There should be enough differences in the balance between the classes to make the game feel plausible. So a 3.x Wizard can blow up a bunch of kobolds at 11th level, so what? A mid level Special Forces soldier can do the same with C-4 explosives.

I see 4th Edition as fake, that is the overall picture that it presents to me. We see different pictures, try to at least see mine and not to see what I see as a threat to yours. 4th Edition is an entirely different game from the others. The true relationship it has is to OD&D (BECMI), as to the rest -- it bears no similarity.

My problems are with character creation. The rest is okay. I can't solve them in ten minutes without stripping the game down. Character Creation has the problems I have with 4th, Diffan. Character Creation. I have to throw everything out dealing with Character Creation and start with scratch to have a game that I am satisfied with and call it 4th. Do you understand?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will preface this by noting that your last two posts have made your position much clearer.

Elton wrote:
I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

Dungeons & Dragons is about adventuring. It would be sort of insane if they didn't make a game heavily weighted towards the adventurer.

And before you try, no. It's about adventuring.

Quote:
The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

I'm not sure why anyone thought you were breaking the game by purposefully sucking. That seems weird. Maybe they just thought you were being a bad party member because you refused to use your actual abilities.

Quote:
I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set.

I don't see how playing a noble is impossible. I played a half-elf warlock who was part of a noble line for a good 20 levels.

What you're saying is simply false. You can play a noble. I daresay some of us have done it. You are also going to be playing an adventurer, however, because Dungeons & Dragons is a game about adventuring.

Quote:
If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set.

4e is far more flexible than you give it credit for. Your insistence that you cannot play a noble despite the fact that people do it all the time is proof of this.

Quote:
If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM.

Why is it important to you, as a DM, that you have rules for playing the blacksmith? You are the DM. You are free to have the blacksmith do whatever you feel is appropriate for the story and the game. You need to understand this. You have freedom to do whatever you feel is appropriate with your NPCs. They do not need to follow a set of rigid rules, like in 3.5.

This is the ultimate irony of 4e criticisms. You claim in one sentence that 4e is a system of rigid rules (it's not, of course). In the very next sentence you complain that 4e doesn't have enough rigid rules!

You don't even know what you want. You don't want flexibility and freedom. 4e gives that to you, but it's not what you want. You want rules for everything. 3.5 should be right up your alley.

Quote:
But still, the game is lacking. Only 1/100th of one percent of a given world population (I think it's smaller than that) is described in all three books.

Welcome to Dungeons & Dragons, a game of heroic fantasy, where you are a hero destined to do great things.

Dungeons & Dragons isn't about describing everyone in the world. It's about facilitating a game about heroes adventuring.

Quote:
4E is weighted towards the gamist, as one person said.

Sure. That's a good thing. Other versions of D&D have put too much emphasis on simulating a fantasy world, to the detriment of the game.

Quote:
I checked it out myself, and yes it is true. 4e is an "Olympic" or "Sport" version of D&D. If D&D competitions were televised, this is the version the Sports media would televise. 4th Edition is made with an Athlete's logic instead of a playwright's logic. It's definitely a mass market RPG, but a Roleplaying Game's niche has always been creative scholars rather than Athletes.

I've met a lot of gamers with a lot of different opinions. The ones who I would call "creative scholars" overwhelmingly favor 4e. The ones who have a puerile hatred for 4e much more often fall into the category of people who like to think that they're creative.

But hey, that's just my experience.

Quote:
4e a Great System? Sorry, but you can't please everyone all at the same time.

That doesn't make the game less great, in general. It just makes it less great for you.

Quote:
It's a great system for you, but for me, there are problems. Deep problems. To solve them, I either need to play a different game (Pathfinder, Rolemaster, AD&D 2ed Edition for ex.);

Yeah, see, I'd really advocate maybe playing something that isn't D&D. It sounds like you're not interested in a game focused on adventuring, and that's what D&D has always been about (and probably always will be about). Some of the versions of D&D provide token concessions towards the "verisimilitude" crowd, but that's nothing compared to what some other roleplaying systems facilitate.

Quote:
I just couldn't get in the spirit. The entire game screams out "FAKE" to me.

You're sitting around a dinner table with a bunch of friends pretending to be magic elves. Of course it's fake.

Quote:
I really get the feeling that you are misunderstanding where I am coming from Diffan. You are not seeing the picture I see, you are seeing the picture you see. 4th says, "I'm artificial" to me. There is no feeling to me that you are in a different world when you play.

This does not speak highly of your DM and group. The rules should have very little to do with putting you in a different world.

Quote:
No one in real life has the same opportunities.

Thank goodness we're playing a game, then! If D&D was trying to simulate real life, we'd never have magic or elves!

Quote:
There should be enough differences in the balance between the classes to make the game feel plausible. So a 3.x Wizard can blow up a bunch of kobolds at 11th level, so what?

Oh. OH.

You're one of those.

Nevermind.


Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.

You can play 4th Edition with one Player's Handbook, one Dungeon Master's Guide, and one Monster Manual. Oh, and you can get all three for $66.

So I'm not sure where you're seeing precedent for this.

Yeah I can play it, but it's not all of the game. It's misleading and deceiving. They could of been nice and put it all into one fat book instead of rushing it into all these seperate skinny books. It's broken up into parts so I have to hunt down several books to purchase to have the full set of rules and options. I don't use computers for my RPGing, there is no computers in the gaming dungeon. I don't know where you get your books from, but where I live the books are normal retail price unless you want to send me some with this discount price you're talking about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Yeah I can play it, but it's not all of the game.

Presumably your game of choice has never printed more than three books.

If you tell me you prefer Pathfinder, I will laugh at you. In fact, if you tell me you prefer any flavor of D&D, I will laugh at you.

Quote:
It's misleading and deceiving.

No, it's not.

Quote:
They could of been nice and put it all into one fat book instead of rushing it into all these seperate skinny books.

None of the three books I mentioned is particularly skinny.

Quote:
It's broken up into parts so I have to hunt down several books to purchase to have the full set of rules and options.

I assume you criticize every other RPG that does this sort of thing just the same. Otherwise that would be a little hypocritical of you, and would give us a pretty good idea of why you're here.

Quote:
I don't use computers for my RPGing, there is no computers in the gaming dungeon.

You could fix that.

Quote:
I don't know where you get your books from, but where I live the books are normal retail price unless you want to send me some with this discount price you're talking about.

Here you go.


@Scott Betts

Pathfinder put most of the major classes in one book, I don't have to buy another book to be what I want. I can see there is no use argueing with you about 4th edition since you're so certain the game is flawless and perfect and nothing gets past your wall of defense. I know more about 4th edition than you think for I have read it and I know what it is your comments won't change my mind on that. I have praised 4th edition as well as made creative criticism comments about it as well. I choose not to use computers, RPGing gets me away from the damn things. It's not like I need a computer plugged in my head 24 hours a day to play a tabletop RPG, I usually just use my eyes and brain for that part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Pathfinder put most of the major classes in one book,

So did 4e.

Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric. All there. They also included Rangers, Warlords, Warlocks, and Paladins, because those are cool, too.

All in one book.

Now, maybe that's not your personal list of favorite classes. I don't know, I'm not you. But it is unquestionably an adequate assortment of classes for an edition launch.

You're whining because it didn't have everything you wanted it to have (which, in reality, probably means that it didn't have the exact assortment of launch classes that 3rd Edition had, since there isn't really an accepted list of "major" classes in Dungeons & Dragons apart from Fighter-Wizard-Rogue-CLeric - I very much doubt that this is a coincidence on your part). Tough. Don't go confusing your personal whims with an objective count of everything that is important.

Quote:
I can see there is no use argueing with you about 4th edition since you're so certain the game is flawless and perfect and nothing gets past your wall of defense.

Except I don't think the game is flawless or perfect.

You just don't like that I have the gall to defend something you waste your time and breath on senselessly bashing.

Quote:
I know more about 4th edition than you think for I have read it and I know what it is your comments won't change my mind on that.

That's fine.

Quote:
I have praised 4th edition as well as made creative criticism comments about it as well. I choose not to use computers, RPGing gets me away from the damn things. It's not like I need a computer plugged in my head 24 hours a day to play a tabletop RPG, I usually just use my eyes and brain for that part.

Cool. I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea of a computer plugged into someone's brain all day, but whatever.


Where is the Barbarian, Druid, and Bard? Where is the Half Orc, or the gnome? These are standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons and they are not in the player's handbook. They are in the Player's hanbook 2 which is sold seperate for 35.00 dollars.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
SuperSlayer wrote:
Where is the Barbarian, Druid, and Bard? Where is the Half Orc, or the gnome? These are standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons and they are not in the player's handbook. They are in the Player's hanbook 2 which is sold seperate for 35.00 dollars.

None of the were in my Basic D&D books. That set the standard for me. Well, the Druid made it into the Rules Cyclopedia, but I can understand why it got left out.

Picking a new line up of classes/races isn't making an incomplete game. You can play a complete campaign from 1-30 with three books. That sounds like a complete game to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It may be complete to those that don't realise it's incomplete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Where is the Barbarian, Druid, and Bard? Where is the Half Orc, or the gnome? These are standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons

NO.

They are launch classes and races for 3rd Edition. They are not standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons as a whole.

2nd Edition AD&D had Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, Priest, and those were broken down with variant classes - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Cleric, Druid, Thief and Bard. Barbarian wasn't an option (at least, at launch, which is what we're discussing).

1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.

Original D&D only had Cleric, Fighting man, and Magic-User. It didn't even have Rogue at launch!

By the way (since you called it out), Half-Orc wasn't a core race in 2nd Edition, either.

The things you think are standard are not actually standard. The assortment of races and classes has changed in every edition. To you, the 3rd Edition assortment is the assortment. But, taken as a whole, there is no "standard" list of classes or races. The closest you will get are the basic roles and races (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) but even those aren't necessarily universal (as noted, the original D&D didn't have Rogues).


SuperSlayer wrote:
It may be complete to those that don't realise it's incomplete.

Or to those who have been playing the game for more than one edition. Or to anyone familiar with D&D's history.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
SuperSlayer wrote:
It may be complete to those that don't realise it's incomplete.

It's as complete as my Rules Cyclopedia, or my Pathfinder Core book. That's good enough for me.


Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.

I don't even know how to respond to this. You're clearly trying very hard to position yourself as the guy with the old-school cred. Why? You're doubling down on your "This is the one true set of races and classes!" position? You even threw in a "true gamer" comment, presumably to distance yourself from the rest of us "fake gamers." It's just sort of a confusing tack you've chosen.

I mean, neither original D&D nor basic D&D contained Half-Orcs or Gnomes, and yet you're convinced that Gygax would know what you're talking about?


SuperSlayer wrote:
I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile.

What essentials books did you read? I can't see why anyone would be confused by them.


Scott Betts wrote:
1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.

Assassin, Illusionist, Magic-User, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Thief. Bard was a rather strange multi/dual class thing involving taking levels in Fighter/Thief/Druid, iirc. No Barbarian until Unearthed Arcana. Of course if those are the standard classes, and Gygax being the original designer he might have a little say in the matter, no edition since then has done it correctly.


I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinions as opposed to trolling on that of others.

My personal choice is here in the Pathfinder/Paizo camp because 3rd and 3.5 are just what comes naturally to me. I'm a fairly young gamer, and it's what I started on, and what I know and love. But...

I can't say that I didn't initially try 4e when it came out, and I can't help but say that it did just as many things right as it did wrong.

4e was much more mechanically balanced than 3rd, 3.5, or Pathfinder ever did. If you don't believe me, even all of the crazy classes like Seeker are far more balanced than classes like the Dread Necromancer or Ninja of 3rd ever were. It also brought me simplicity, allowing the ability to get new people into the game without having to teach them the complex algorithm that was the 3.5 character sheet.

Sadly, the simplicity changed a lot about the game, providing a lot of preset builds, a simplified power system, and a heavy focus on combat, making it too reminiscent of an MMO for quite a few people. It also alienated quite a few of us by killing of quite a few of our sacred cows. Why is Tiefling an initial Player's Handbook race? Why did I have to wait a year to play Druid? The list goes on and on. At the same time though, for people who looked past this, I feel that they still found a great game.

Do I personally run 4e? No, and I probably never will again. Will I play with a group who wants me to join in for a night on their 4e? Of course.

Whether you love 4e or hate it, it effects you, and it will probably effect what is to be the future of the TRPG hobby as a whole.

Personally, I don't want 4e to go, and I don't want to see a 5th Edition swoop in to "save us from this madness", or even that 4e "failed the true fans and the masses", but rather I want to see 4e make an effort to bring us on board; to try to give us a reason to get behind them. Don't make me stand on one side or the other of some stupid line in the sand, because I really don't want to.

I love D&D, and I love Pathfinder because it is pretty much the D&D I know and love. But I at least want WotC to try to reach out to me give me -and especially older gamers- a reason to get behind their banner without pressing the reset button and losing their already devout legion of 4e fans. All I want to see is a unified gaming community.

It doesn't mean that I want one everybody behind Pathfinder or everybody behind 4e, but I just want to see all of us behind something again, supporting whatever edition we love, while still acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both of our games, growing back together as opposed to being warring sides in what some consider an already disappearing hobby.


Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
I can see there is no use argueing with you about 4th edition since you're so certain the game is flawless and perfect and nothing gets past your wall of defense.

Except I don't think the game is flawless or perfect.

You just don't like that I have the gall to defend something you waste your time and breath on senselessly bashing.

And you can't stand the fact that some people simply do not care for something you hold so dear. Seriously, most of the posts you pick apart and destroy are just opinions. Sure, they may be misguided, uninformed, or flat out ignorant opinions, but that's all they are.

If I happen to order a meal at a restaurant and I end up not liking the way it tastes, I wouldn't be expected to write a 5 page essay explaining specific details as to why I don't like it. Same goes for gaming, to a more complex extent. Hell, it could be something as simple and stupid as not liking the art in the books, not liking the font they used, not liking the color of the borders of the tables. But regardless, if someone dislikes something, getting badgered by you isn't exactly going to change their minds favorably.

Duty calls, right?

You're tired of the edition warring. A lot of us are. But sarcastically picking people apart isn't doing your edition of choice any favors. You aren't going to change the world through sarcasm and condescension. It is entirely possible to correct people's misgivings and incorrect notions of 4e without picking them apart.

People are allowed to not like things. Sure, I can understand defending something you feel strongly about, but at this point, I think some posters here just like riling you up.

The sad truth is, 4e isn't for everybody. This in no way has any bearing on that person's status as a gamer, has nothing to do with their imagination(or lack thereof), nothing. Simply disliking(or loving) 4e does not make one gamer better, worse, or all the above, than any other gamer. It's simply preference. WotC certainly tried to make a game that was as wide-spread as possible, but it's impossible to please everyone all the time. No matter how hard you beat down other people's opinions, you can't change them all. Thankfully, the RPG industry has plenty of other options for players.

Strictly an opinion, but I think some of the problem is that players may not realize their own tastes have grown and changed, and would be better suited to a different game system. Instead of people trying to twist 4e into a different game, they would have better luck just playing something else. A lot of us cut our teeth on the flagship game brand, and it's hard to accept that we might have outgrown it. My own example, I used to love the Halo video games, but more and more I just kept finding things I didn't like anymore. I stepped back, and realized that Halo hadn't changed; I did. I moved on to something else and am much happier for it. The players who still enjoyed that game can do so, and I'm not around to pester them about things that simply are not going to change(the Covenant look and sound like Muppets, for instance). 4e is D&D right now, and has been for almost 4 years. Plenty of time to make informed opinions one way or the other.

Anyway, attempting to get back on topic.

4e did drastically "reign in" the game and get it back to what D&D does best; adventuring. Maybe some players got used to having a game mechanic for every possible scenario imaginable, so they imagined a lot of scenarios that didn't involve dungeons, dragons, or even adventuring. 4e trimmed the fat and focused the game on being cinematic heroes, doing epic things, almost superhero like from level 1. I'd say that's a pretty specific style of game, and while 4e does it great, it's just not for everyone. Not everyone wants to be a superhero from level 1.

Maybe 5e will get back to opening the floodgates, attempting even half-heartedly to be a little more simulationist and gritty. Maybe launch the edition with something resembling Essentials, and building off of it later with crunchier, more complex classes. Give us the options, let the players decide how complex of a game they want to play. That way nobody can complain about anything being "deumbed down, simplistic" or whatever. Personally, I would love the streamlined playability of 4e with the crunchy, complexity of 3.5, even as simply optional rules. Sue me, I like complexities.

Each edition of D&D did something really well that the edition before it didn't do. I don't want to see 5e as an expansion of 4e; I want 5e to do the things 4e didn't. 4e got the fantasy superhero, slick and smooth game down pretty good, so a rehash of that would be futile.

EDIT: Ok, "futile" is a poor word choice. I mean for it to maybe focus a little less on being superheroes, and maybe a little more on showing the growth of being a level 1 runt, growing into superhero status later on. I do realize, this opinion is absolutely loaded with bias and preference, just throwing that out there. I don't like starting off powerful; I like the very real possibility of dying at level 1. I believe that's separates level 1 from level 15, etc; if everybody survived level 1 so easily, then every npc in the game world would be a hero.


Raziel wrote:

Personally, I don't want 4e to go, and I don't want to see a 5th Edition swoop in to "save us from this madness", or even that 4e "failed the true fans and the masses", but rather I want to see 4e make an effort to bring us on board; to try to give us a reason to get behind them. Don't make me stand on one side or the other of some stupid line in the sand, because I really don't want to.

I love D&D, and I love Pathfinder because it is pretty much the D&D I know and love. But I at least want WotC to try to reach out to me give me -and especially older gamers- a reason to get behind their banner without pressing the reset button and losing their already devout legion of 4e fans. All I want to see is a unified gaming community.

They did, it was called Essentials. Basic classes with basic abilities with limited options. Fighter, Rangers, and Rogues without those little-pesky Daily powers. Encounter abilities that just add a bit more damage, and "Mages" with schools of magic. But none of these aspects change the core foundations for which 4E is based off of. Balance is still there, magic items are more limited, wizard...er I mean mages still don't instant-win encounters, 1/2 level is still the function that drives AC, non-AC defenses, attacks, and Saving Throws are succeeded on a roll of 10 or better. If these are elements that still don't appease you, then the system won't regardless of what fluff or add-on mechanics they throw at you.

If, and this is a big IF, they're going to create a 5E, this is what I want to see or remain with the game:

  • 1/2 level driving mechanic: This is SOOO much more elegant than any sort of alternating charts for 20+ classes. It also keeps certain classes on-par with everyone else across the board.

  • Fatally debilitating effects are far and few between: This penchant, started by 4E in D&D, is something of a marvel. For one, a PC doesn't have to really worry about being one-shot at the start of a battle. Second, DMs don't have to worry about carefully planned encounters coming to a possibly abrupt end because of one spell or effect. Bad effects (paralyzing and domination being the biggest culprits) can still be there, but for a more limited duration or to be signigicantly harder to be hit with.

  • Sticking with a one or two attacks per turn: Honestly, any more is a pain in the butt. 3, 4, 5 attacks with varying attack modifiers with possible varying damage modifiers with each attack being subjecet to different effects is just bogging the game down without really adding much to...well anything. If there must be multiple attacks, at least make them subject to the same roll modifiers and use 1 final damage roll that incorporates every successful attack. It's simpler and keeps the game moving.

  • Balance of Classes: Honestly, it's no fun when one character can do it all. This is as much the system's fault as it is the DM for allowing it to happen. Classes can be balanced, if a few things are taken into account. One, throwing the idea of everyone getting the "spotlight" at different times throughout the campaign, quest, mission, etc. No, this is not a good approach because certain classes naturally get more spotlight and it forces DMs to then put in nichè examples to make others feel happy (like throwing out undead every once in a while just so the cleric feels "important"). This mentality has to stop, and has from 4E's angle, in that everyone gets the spotlight on their turn rather than every once in a while (or ever). Other balance factors include classes not crapping in ther other's toilet such as the Wizard completly undercutting the Rogue by 6th level via spells. If your going to give the wizard these aspects, make them pay for them via Rituals which take longer and cost money. The Rogue, howeve can do it in 6 seconds without costly pricing.

  • Roles: Classes have had them for as long as I can remember, since well it's practically forged into class/archtype design. Even if these roles weren't directly spelled out for people. Fighters for example, defend their squishier allies due to their heavy armor, weapon selection, and featrues. That is how it is. If you want something unorthodox (like a Bow-Using Fighter 99% of the time), just reflavor the Ranger. This common problem has been the reason why we've recieved 15+ crappy classes in 3.5 to fit certain ideas of classes that could've been better accomplished with existing ones (I'm looking at you 3e Samurai). So roles need to remain established because your playing with other people, in a group with shared goals. Character generation that has little to no intention of helping said fellow members succeed is NOT what this GAME is about. Never has been, yet people think it's fine to play fairy princesses that do nothing but try to dissolve situations with Diplomacy and cower when things turn sour. Ther eare better games for this, so DON'T force D&D down this path.

  • The elimination of M.A.D: MAD (or Multiple Attribute Dependacny) was something first found in 2E and prevailed...HARD in 3E. Basically it required certain classes to have exceedingly good scores in multiple ability scores to perform in any sensable way while other classes needed one or two. In a Point-Buy driven game, something D&D has grown to accept as standard, it's a character killer. For one, like 4E, make attacks based of of an Ability score that drives the class. Not EVERY melee attack should be derived off of Strength. Not EVERY ranged attack is derived off of Dexterity. Synergy is good. Let me repeat, Synergy. Is. Good. and making classes need one or two good scores and one or two or three medium scores and one poor score is much perferrable than one classes skating by with three 8's because they're not required for well.....anything. I've found more character in my 4E games take 8's in one score than I've EVER had in previous editions.


  • Diffan wrote:


    If, and this is a big IF, they're going to create a 5E...

    Oh, did you miss the big announcement?


    Josh M. wrote:
    Diffan wrote:


    If, and this is a big IF, they're going to create a 5E...
    Oh, did you miss the big announcement?

    I did, thanks for the heads-up.

    Quite frankly, I'm just outta drive and crusader's zeal to champion yet another edition. I feel everyone has their breaking point with support for games and I think I've just hit mine. I don't think 5E is even close to being produced, and it's probably a good year and a half away from launch, which is why I'm thinking summer of 2013. But I won't ever say I'm totally against it or that it's going to suck until I thoroughly play it.

    Though this time, I'm going to wait....well over a year after launch before I even look at it. I've got 4E (and 3E and PF and modern d20) to occupy my time and resources for a long LONG while. Personally, I just don't see what 5E can give me that Free Paizo products and 4E can't.

    Also, I plan on adding my two cents and signing up to help forge what's going to happen. If I can keep going my list above, then I won't have a problem with other aspects. but if I have to go back to past iterations of the game, why bother when there are already past iterations that are still supported?

    It had better be near perfect at launch to re-energize the fractured fan-base. If it's too much like Pathfinder, why would people come back when they can play Pathfinder AND you lose customers like myself? If it's too much like 4E, then you've kept the Pathfinder people on that side of the fence yet still alienated the current fanbase.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    SuperSlayer wrote:
    Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.

    The "true gamer" card doesn't really work. Gary Gygax, as a quick search of the internet will find, didn't like 3rd edition. He prefers a lighter, simpler game. I'm betting he'd consider Swords and Wizardry a better descendant than either Pathfinder or 4th edition.

    I've been gaming since 1984. If you've been playing as long as I have, you realize that there are lots of good games out there. I've played every version of D&D except the original. I've played Rolemaster. I've played Palladium Fantasy and Rifts. I've played Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play. I've played Shadowrun and Earthdawn. I could list more, but it'd take several paragraphs.

    Once you get past the "one true game" attitude, you realize there is a rich sea of games out there worth taking inspiration from. If you look and my subscriber tag, you can see I'm a big Pathfinder supporter. I also really enjoy the Dark Sun 4E game I'm in. Because they are both good systems with different strengths.

    Anyway, now that 5E is officially announced, I look forward to seeing the open playtest. I applaud Wizards for taking a good first step and promising to engage their fans. I look forward to contributing feedback.

    Liberty's Edge

    Scott Betts wrote:
    SuperSlayer wrote:
    Where is the Barbarian, Druid, and Bard? Where is the Half Orc, or the gnome? These are standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons

    NO.

    They are launch classes and races for 3rd Edition. They are not standard classes/races for Dungeons & Dragons as a whole.

    2nd Edition AD&D had Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, Priest, and those were broken down with variant classes - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Cleric, Druid, Thief and Bard. Barbarian wasn't an option (at least, at launch, which is what we're discussing).

    1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.

    Original D&D only had Cleric, Fighting man, and Magic-User. It didn't even have Rogue at launch!

    By the way (since you called it out), Half-Orc wasn't a core race in 2nd Edition, either.

    The things you think are standard are not actually standard. The assortment of races and classes has changed in every edition. To you, the 3rd Edition assortment is the assortment. But, taken as a whole, there is no "standard" list of classes or races. The closest you will get are the basic roles and races (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) but even those aren't necessarily universal (as noted, the original D&D didn't have Rogues).

    You must remember that, when 2e was released, a lot of people b+&%%ed about a lot of what you're talking about. Some of us never adopted 2e and continued with 1e because we didn't like the changes (made for completely non game related reasons, by the way, much of the same reasons demons and devils were changed to tanarii and whatever devils were).

    Just history repeating, no big deal.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    houstonderek wrote:

    You must remember that, when 2e was released, a lot of people b#@#&ed about a lot of what you're talking about. Some of us never adopted 2e and continued with 1e because we didn't like the changes (made for completely non game related reasons, by the way, much of the same reasons demons and devils were changed to tanarii and whatever devils were).

    Just history repeating, no big deal.

    Others of us were already playing Palladium and Warhammer Fantasy by then. ;)


    Get 'em while they're hot!

    Hey Mister, you wanna shirt?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    deinol wrote:

    The "true gamer" card doesn't really work. Gary Gygax, as a quick search of the internet will find, didn't like 3rd edition. He prefers a lighter, simpler game. I'm betting he'd consider Swords and Wizardry a better descendant than either Pathfinder or 4th edition.

    Didn't see Gygax's Dangerous Journeys RPG, I take it? Lighter & simpler it ain't.

    I think Gary tended to like games he had a hand in creating. Which, since he was a game designer, I can appreciate.


    Diffan wrote:
    It seems to me that pro-Paizo people like to forget that prior to the 4E shift, 3E was the only version of D&D supported in any way, shape, or form. No one was really making new 2E/AD&D products. No one was advancing BASIC D&D/OSR D&D and the 3PP were super small niché markets.

    Supported with new product, no, though OSRIC was launched in 2006, well before 4th edition, to allow 3PPs to publish material for AD&D. But pre-3rd D&D was extensively supported directly by WotC in the form of electronic downloads of previously published products, including core rulebooks. It was only after WotC stopped selling the old product PDFs that a serious market emerged for non-D&D branded old school core rulebooks. Just like it was only after WotC stopped selling 3.x material that a serious market emerged for non-D&D branded 3.x core rulebooks.

    WotC decided to try to force everybody to 4th by cutting off the old product. Instead, other companies supplied substitutes for the old product.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    BPorter wrote:
    deinol wrote:

    The "true gamer" card doesn't really work. Gary Gygax, as a quick search of the internet will find, didn't like 3rd edition. He prefers a lighter, simpler game. I'm betting he'd consider Swords and Wizardry a better descendant than either Pathfinder or 4th edition.

    Didn't see Gygax's Dangerous Journeys RPG, I take it? Lighter & simpler it ain't.

    I think Gary tended to like games he had a hand in creating. Which, since he was a game designer, I can appreciate.

    I haven't seen it. And I may have been misremembering what it was that Gygax didn't like about 3E. I can't find the exact interview in a quick search, but I do know it wasn't the way he'd have taken the game.

    As it is, while I think Gygax was a brilliant and creative GM, I don't think he was the best designer. Not that he wasn't good, but I think there are others out there who have taken his ideas, polished and improved them.


    Diffan wrote:
    I don't think 5E is even close to being produced, and it's probably a good year and a half away from launch

    David M. Ewalt of Forbes magazine has already played in a session of 5e run by Mike Mearls, back in December. He had positive things to say about it, but no real info. So 5e is a lot further along than people think.

    Ewalt wrote:

    First of all, and least surprising: It’s pretty great to have Mike Mearls be your Dungeon Master.

    Second, and most important: Wizards is on the right track.

    I’m not a fan of fourth edition. I find the combat slow, the powers limiting, and the rules inhospitable to the kind of creative world-building, story-telling and problem-solving that make D&D great.

    But so far, the fifth edition rules show promise. They’re simple without being stupid, and efficient without being shallow. Combat was quick and satisfying; we got through most of an adventure in just a few hours. And I get the sense that fifth edition will bring back some of the good complexity of previous versions, allowing players to create unique characters and new worlds.

    If 5e really does hearken back to previous editions, then things might change at my gaming table.

    Liberty's Edge

    Scott Betts wrote:
    SuperSlayer wrote:
    Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.

    I don't even know how to respond to this. You're clearly trying very hard to position yourself as the guy with the old-school cred. Why? You're doubling down on your "This is the one true set of races and classes!" position? You even threw in a "true gamer" comment, presumably to distance yourself from the rest of us "fake gamers." It's just sort of a confusing tack you've chosen.

    I mean, neither original D&D nor basic D&D contained Half-Orcs or Gnomes, and yet you're convinced that Gygax would know what you're talking about?

    Also Dragonborn are pretty awesome. DnD is really about awesome characters. Also, I'm pretty sure that rules for Gnomes were in the first Monster Manual.

    Liberty's Edge

    Bluenose wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:
    1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.

    Assassin, Illusionist, Magic-User, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Thief. Bard was a rather strange multi/dual class thing involving taking levels in Fighter/Thief/Druid, iirc. No Barbarian until Unearthed Arcana. Of course if those are the standard classes, and Gygax being the original designer he might have a little say in the matter, no edition since then has done it correctly.

    Though arguably, 3.x comes pretty close to that since all of those classes (except for Illusionist) are options in Core 3.x (including assassin as a PRC).


    thomrenault wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:
    SuperSlayer wrote:
    Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.

    I don't even know how to respond to this. You're clearly trying very hard to position yourself as the guy with the old-school cred. Why? You're doubling down on your "This is the one true set of races and classes!" position? You even threw in a "true gamer" comment, presumably to distance yourself from the rest of us "fake gamers." It's just sort of a confusing tack you've chosen.

    I mean, neither original D&D nor basic D&D contained Half-Orcs or Gnomes, and yet you're convinced that Gygax would know what you're talking about?

    Also Dragonborn are pretty awesome. DnD is really about awesome characters. Also, I'm pretty sure that rules for Gnomes were in the first Monster Manual.

    Gnomes didn't receive a full player character write-up until the PHB2, unless I'm very much mistaken.


    I don't like the Dragonborn, I hope they take them out of the 5th edition.

    Liberty's Edge

    I used to dislike Dragonborn now they have grown on me. I rather 5E be the edition that allows more options ratheer then one that disllows them.

    Liberty's Edge

    Scott Betts wrote:
    thomrenault wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:
    SuperSlayer wrote:
    Yeah I have been playing Pathfinder lately having fun with it. I found the D&D essentials line confusing which even had me in a daze for awhile. I mean was this even appropriate, how much more must they water down the rules and basify the game before it becomes something completely different. Things like These strange Dragonborn races don't feel right to the game, when instead there should of been Half Orcs or Gnomes instead. They keep slowly altering the game, further and further away from what the core essence of D&D was to a true gamer from the golden age. From the original creators like Gary Gygax would know what Im talking about because he knew what D&D is and what D&D is suppossed to be since he helped create it.

    I don't even know how to respond to this. You're clearly trying very hard to position yourself as the guy with the old-school cred. Why? You're doubling down on your "This is the one true set of races and classes!" position? You even threw in a "true gamer" comment, presumably to distance yourself from the rest of us "fake gamers." It's just sort of a confusing tack you've chosen.

    I mean, neither original D&D nor basic D&D contained Half-Orcs or Gnomes, and yet you're convinced that Gygax would know what you're talking about?

    Also Dragonborn are pretty awesome. DnD is really about awesome characters. Also, I'm pretty sure that rules for Gnomes were in the first Monster Manual.
    Gnomes didn't receive a full player character write-up until the PHB2, unless I'm very much mistaken.

    Yup you're right. I just double-checked. I thought it had the basic racial information: Gnomes as PC's like PF and 3.x do for non-standard races in the Beastiary.

    Shadow Lodge

    Same Author, new article:

    Speak Your Mind in the Next Version

    Partial Quote:

    Quote:


    As part of my visit to Wizards' offices, I played the new game in a group of other journalists and gaming experts with Mike Mearls serving as DM. We were asked not to reveal any of the specifics of the rules because they are still in flux and the team - understandably, considering the backlash from 4th - wants to handle how the changes are revealed very carefully. I can say that many fans will be happy and surprised at some returning rules. Many things are now in the game that were missing from 4th, while newer concepts have been reworked to feel like they've been there all along.

    Mike quickly got the party investigating a lost relic, and after three hours of adventuring we quickly discussed what we liked and didn't like about what we played. It's a compliment to the new rules that I was rarely aware of them. It might have been Mike's expertise as a DM, but the new D&D does feel like a pleasant amalgam of every edition and the elegance of the rules allowed us to concentrate on the adventure's plot.

    "We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition. Our goal is to make sure we are on course for a game that hits the broad spectrum of D&D," Mearls said.

    Story is going to be a focus of D&D going forward. Many of us fell in love with the game through the adventure modules released by TSR in the early days of the game. Gygax's Against the Giants modules are still regarded as a crowning achievement in how they planted plot details in the dungeon along with exciting combat, and Mearls said he wants to get back to that level of story-telling through new published adventures.

    The announcement of a new D&D doesn't mean that 4th edition is now a lame duck. Wizards recognizes that the game still has a very loyal following, and pledges to continue supporting 4th edition during the testing cycle of the new edition and beyond. "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition," Mearls said. "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes.

    What is less clear is whether the new iteration of D&D will operate with a more open license for its rules than the Game System License was for 4th edition. The OGL - Open Gaming License - associated with the launch of 3rd edition in 2000 had a profound impact on the tabletop gaming industry, but Wizards backpedaling and holding onto its trademarks more closely in 4th pleased no one. The decision has not yet been made on the level of openness the new edition will have.

    "We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future. Personally, I have a copy of 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' on the shelf at work," Mearls said, admitting the landmark essay regarding open source software systems impacts his views on the subject. "From my days as a programmer and as a freelance RPG designer, the bulk of my work involved open platforms which did a lot for a game that relies so much on individual creativity."

    If you read my recent series of articles - The State of D&D: Past Present and Future - then you'll be a bit closer to understanding the mountain Mike Mearls and Wizards must climb for the new edition to be a success. The rise of Paizo's Pathfinder and the retro-clones of the Old School Renaissance in the wake of unhappiness many gamers felt with 4th edition is unprecedented in the nearly 40 year history of role playing games. Something drastic had to be done to change the conversation, and the new iteration of D&D might be it.

    Being in the Wizards offices and hearing excitement from each member of the staff about the new rules - from Mearls himself down to the Magic folks - was infectious and I'm now cautiously optimistic about the future of D&D. Having an extended open test of the rules will go a long way to bringing disenchanted gamers back into the fold. Even if I disagree with individual rules or concepts in the new iteration of D&D, I'll have the opportunity to tell the designers my concerns. The first time I see something I or my fellow play testers recommend make it into the game, I'll know my Dungeons & Dragons is back.


    Yes I have a feeling 5th edition will have tons of optional rules and very flexible. If anything I hope they cram with all the classes and races screw it throw in the dragonborn if they want but they need tweaking imo.

    Liberty's Edge

    Mandisa wrote:

    Read through all 3 parts of the essay, and a bunch of the comments there, which have better insights than the article in some cases.

    I think D&D is suffering from a similar plight as Hollywood TV/movies - lots of people still enjoy watching movies, but not as many people are paying for tickets to keep up with costs. Lots of people are playing D&D - any edition, or more likely an amalgam of editions - but not enough people are buying books/subscriptions to keep up the cost of doing business (or maybe even worse, the cost of keeping Hasbro shareholders happy).

    Unlike the big-budget movies though, people can write their own new/expanded material for D&D and use it as long as they like, for free, without paying WotC a dime. If you can stay under the lawyers' radar, you can even distribute it to friends & family, much like the looseleaf-modules of old. It's a very corporate-unfriendly scenario, compounded by (illegal) availability of the entire PDF-catalog and (legal) third-party published material. The folks who cry for the end of Wizards' ownership/control of D&D would probably be happy with that scenario, and even 4e players like me could carry on without any new WotC products.

    But the kick in the ass comes from the lack of mass-marketing and support for big-money investments in things like conventions, video games, and TV shows/movies that bring in totally new players. No matter how cool the hobby, you need new people (preferably kids and/or parents) to keep it going. Existing players will certainly be able to get their game on, and bring in some new people by direct persuasion. But that's not enough to keep up with normal attrition.

    Having a well-known "big player" in the mix helps indies, too, in its own way - where do you think indie game devs get trained? When they were kids, just scratching together ideas for their first-ever RPG character, what game system did they play? Or even if they never played RAW-D&D, how many of them had D&D-ish ideas about how elves, dwarves and humans meet in taverns...

    No. If the market ain't there, wotc will not even bother with 5E. They will just scrap the franchise or hasbro will sell it off. Actaully, market is still there despite what u had cited but they are not getting enough of it. Don't forget, the d&d franchise isn't restricted to pen-&-paper rpf but boardgames, card games, computer games, movies, many many more. Except 4E is so below par that it is simply not kicking in for them.

    101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 'Future of D&D' article All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.