|
Finally we get a clear statement about what modularity means.
Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions, and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play.
So it appears that the goal is to bridge play styles, not rule sets. You can read the rest of the article here.
Do you seriously believe that the market goal of 4e was anything less than dominating the RPG market?
I mean they ALREADY DOMINATED THE MARKET before releasing 4e.
Unless their market goal was to CEDE DOMINANCE OF THE MARKET, then it was a market failure.
Are you suggesting that their market goal was to CEDE DOMINANCE?
I suppose you could argue that was possible. In a Bizarro world. Where corporations don't answer to shareholders.
But you can argue that if you like.
*Sigh*
Someone in this thread obviously has a burning need to be right -- but I'm not sure it's Scott.
No, of course WotC's goal wasn't to cede the market...hence my characterization of 4E as an "absolute" failure from that perspective. I was merely pointing out that "failure" can mean a lot of things. Perhaps you should take a moment and quite looking for enemies where there aren't any?
.
Which companies are the Frodos in this race? (i.e. trying to reach the volcano's edge.)
|
|
I don't see how that could work, but at the same time I am more hopeful you are right, then skeptical that it will fail.
The biggest thing that I am unsure about is how campaigns and adventures are going to work. Monte stated somewhere, I can't remember where right now, that you could have a character with skills and feats at the same table as one without them under the new rules. The difficulties that this design creates for GMs are immense if you are trying to figure out ways to make both characters shine. Just one of the many questions this raises for me is how do you create a skill challenge for a group when half the group doesn't use skills. Similarly, how do you design a mass market adventure that adequately covers ever possible option combination out there. In some ways the information Monte has given us leaves more questions than it gives answers.
To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".
It is unrealistic to think Hasbro would abandon (or diminish) 4E by publishing yet another new and incompatible rule-set. "D&D Next" absolutely has to be compatible with 4E and the only way to do this is to make it, at it's core, the same game. To me, after reading various developer comments, the goal of "D&D Next" is to make fans of old D&D (pre-3E) want to play 4E by tweaking it so it suits the their game play preferences, not their actual rules.
I don't think this is bad or wrong. It's just not for me.
This has become my opinion too (although, in my case, it would suit our group well).
I think one advantage would be that it would preserve the value of the DDI - irrespective of whether one were to switch rules systems or not. There would be D&D:Next, post-Essentials and pre-essentials 4E subscribers who would all be able to use the new material. Whether the players of earlier editions are interested in making the switch would be what determined the model's success or otherwise but at least the risk of damaging current players would be minimised (and you'd have to think they'd be leery of that, given how the previous attempt worked out).
|
|
To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".
Having played 0E (at the beginning of my gaming life, when it was the "only game in town"), my first reaction is that I want to try whatever Mearls was smoking when he made that inference. I just don't see it, at all (4E being close to 0E, that is). However, if D&D-Next/5E is going to be a scalable version of 4E-- definitely not going to be my game.
To those who do enjoy it-- have fun, more power to ya-- it just ain't for me.
With varying levels of complexity a DM would probably have to know every faucet of character concentrations and what they're capable of.
Apparently they're throwing in everything and the kitchen sink.
Second, won't this start to grow player-envy? I mean, if I'm in a party with a dwarf fighter who opt-out of Skills and Feats and swings his weapon 1/turn and there I am, using a glaive and tripping oppnents and throwing them back and performing interesting tricks with skills....well won't that put me in the better spotlight all the time while putting the simple guys to the back? And as a DM, how do you accomplish incorporating everyone when everybody's focuses are completely different?
You've obviously never played with that guy. We had a player in our core group that always played a fighter, and his only contribution to the game was swinging his weapon. He was perfectly fine with that.
I've never played at a table where everyone had the same focus. There are whole sections of the 3.5 DMG 2 and the 4E DMG that discuss how to juggle all of the different player motivations at any given table. In fact, the 5E system might be a huge boon to the DM. You ought to be able to identify some player types based simply on which system options they gravitate toward.
Having played 0E (at the beginning of my gaming life, when it was the "only game in town"), my first reaction is that I want to try whatever Mearls was smoking when he made that inference. I just don't see it, at all (4E being close to 0E, that is).
To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".
Is 0E AD&D? Or Basic/Expert/Etcetera? (Or something else?)
|
|
Is 0E AD&D? Or Basic/Expert/Etcetera? (Or something else?)
Terquem has the correct definition. I was referring to the original D&D, the 3 little booklets that were the very first version of the game-- I believe Mike Mearls was referring to the same thing. I started off as a young lad with those booklets (+ a couple of the original supplements, also little booklets) before there was an AD&D (aka, 1E) or a basic set, or a basic/expert/master, etc., progression.
Just took a side-trip to re-read some of the "Legends & Lore" column. While I'd still like to see WotC come out with a good game for the next version-- now, I really don't expect them to be able to. I think they're spreading their ambition in trying to modularize the game too far, and it's not going to work out nearly as well as any number of more focused systems that don't require a lot of "mix-and-match" mental assembly of parts before you can start using them-- having a system that actually can mesh with the different play-styles and in-game feeling from all the different versions and variations on D&D, in the same system, does not seem to be a workable goal. Making a system that can accommodate all of them at the same table, is likely to be completely impossible (at least, if you want a fun, playable game).
We'll see though. I've been wrong before... and I kind'a hope I'm wrong this time (I don't care as much though-- because I like PF enough that what happens to 5E isn't going to affect me if WotC fails).
|
Original would be, in my opinion, the three lttle books, of which I only have the Monster and Treasure assortment still in my collection. It predates both first edition AD&D and Basic D&D by three to four years depending on how you count it. The Acaeum is your friend
http://www.acaeum.com/
edit: I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"
In chronological order:
OD&D (1974 - four year run, realistically): The three original digest books with Greyhawk Suppliment, Blackmoor suppliment, Eldritch Wizardry suppliment, gods demigods and heroes suppliment and swords and spells.
Holmes Basic D&D (1977 - four year run): the original "basic" D&D, an attempt to clean up D&D.
AD&D (1977 - twelve year run): 1e Officially started in '77 with the release of the Monster Manual, wasn't a complete game until '79 with the release of the DMG.
Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D (started 1981 - two year run): a rewrite of OD&D (sort of) aimed at younger players, though it was quite popular with older gamers as well.
BECMI (started 1983 - eight year run): Frank Mentzer's rewrite of basic & expert with expansions all the way to "god" level.
AD&D Second Edition (1989 - eleven year run): Dave Cook's rewrite of AD&D. Included in this is "skills and powers", etc. as they were optional rules, even though they're commonly referred to as "2.5"
D&D Rules Cyclopedia (1991): The "fifth" edition of Original D&D in a way. Compiled and revised "basic" rules.
D&D Third Edition (2000 - three year run): Yeah.
3.5 (2003 - five year run): Yep
4e (2008 - run not done quite yet): And here we are.
5e: ?
I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"
I remember that... I used to play it back when I was 12 and my parents wouldn't let me get within five miles of a store that sold d&d....
Original would be, in my opinion, the three lttle books, of which I only have the Monster and Treasure assortment still in my collection. It predates both first edition AD&D and Basic D&D by three to four years depending on how you count it. The Acaeum is your friend
http://www.acaeum.com/
edit: I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"
In chronological order:
OD&D (1974 - four year run, realistically): The three original digest books with Greyhawk Suppliment, Blackmoor suppliment, Eldritch Wizardry suppliment, gods demigods and heroes suppliment and swords and spells.
Holmes Basic D&D (1977 - four year run): the original "basic" D&D, an attempt to clean up D&D.
AD&D (1977 - twelve year run): 1e Officially started in '77 with the release of the Monster Manual, wasn't a complete game until '79 with the release of the DMG.
Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D (started 1981 - two year run): a rewrite of OD&D (sort of) aimed at younger players, though it was quite popular with older gamers as well.
BECMI (started 1983 - eight year run): Frank Mentzer's rewrite of basic & expert with expansions all the way to "god" level.
AD&D Second Edition (1989 - eleven year run): Dave Cook's rewrite of AD&D. Included in this is "skills and powers", etc. as they were optional rules, even though they're commonly referred to as "2.5"
D&D Rules Cyclopedia (1991): The "fifth" edition of Original D&D in a way. Compiled and revised "basic" rules.
D&D Third Edition (2000 - three year run): Yeah.
3.5 (2003 - five year run): Yep
4e (2008 - run not done quite yet): And here we are.
5e: ?
Thanks for that. Looks like I started with Holmes Basic (which I'd always thought of as 'original D&D'), then pretty immediately AD&D.
.In response to Finn K, I too find 4E very similar to these early editions (as opposed to PF/3.5 which feel like something else entirely). To me, the distinction in feel is the reliance on DM fiat and focus on story justification rather than extensive rules and subsystems. I think that combat in 4E is nothing like AD&D, if that's what you were focussing on, but the non-combat stuff is where I think the similarities lie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to Finn K, I too find 4E very similar to these early editions (as opposed to PF/3.5 which feel like something else entirely). To me, the distinction in feel is the reliance on DM fiat and focus on story justification rather than extensive rules and subsystems. I think that combat in 4E is nothing like AD&D, if that's what you were focussing on, but the non-combat stuff is where I think the similarities lie.
I missed the whole 'basic set' stuff in my D&D playing... jumped straight from original D&D to AD&D and onwards from there. However, sounds my experiences with playing 4E were completely different from yours. Also, if you play 4E the way the rules are written (instead of chucking most of them out), there are rules and subsystems for everything. 3.5 (and for that matter, PF) have strayed pretty far from where D&D started, but I still find them to be much closer in play (in my experience) to the original than 4E. To me, it was the whole game experience in 4E, from character generation through to everything else involved (combat and non-combat alike)-- was as far from original D&D as any edition or version that I've played so far.
I suppose I could try and explain in detail-- but everyone's experience (and the resulting impressions) are different and that's okay. I have no wish to reopen another flame-war, and since that's the way-distant past, I don't think our differing impressions of 4E's resemblance to 0E has that much bearing on what the new game may or may not look like (Steve-- you and I and a few of the others might be able to handle it respectfully, but I'm more than a little concerned with how many others might jump in on that, after the past couple of thread explosions around this section of the Paizo boards so far).
HoustonDerek--
1976. :D Seems your chronology matches my memories well enough.
I suppose I could try and explain in detail-- but everyone's experience (and the resulting impressions) are different and that's okay. I have no wish to reopen another flame-war, and since that's the way-distant past, I don't think our differing impressions of 4E's resemblance to 0E has that much bearing on what the new game may or may not look like (Steve-- you and I and a few of the others might be able to handle it respectfully, but I'm more than a little concerned with how many others might jump in on that, after the past couple of thread explosions around this section of the Paizo boards so far).
Your approach is probably wise (but I'm an eternal optimist :p).
.I only mention it in response to the "what is he smoking?" comment. Most people I've chatted to who don't like 4E seem to have played it as a series of combats with very little roleplaying and/or story development. I could imagine someone from that perspective seeing 4E and AD&D as being poles apart. The way you do it at your table is going to guide your views on that though (i dont really know the rules of any RPG ive played, so i wouldnt know what ive chucked out and/or misunderstood or adapted).
In terms of rules for being a blacksmith, or taming a wild animal, or something like that - we do it the same in 4E as we did in AD&D. I was speculating that that's the kind of thing Mearls was referring to.
|
Holmes Basic D&D (1977 - four year run): the original "basic" D&D, an attempt to clean up D&D.
It's also worth noting that this was really just published as an intro product, similar to the Beginner Box. It only covered levels 1-3, IIRC. It was their intention that you move on to one of the other products, either 0E or AD&D.
|
|
I only mention it in response to the "what is he smoking?" comment. Most people I've chatted to who don't like 4E seem to have played it as a series of combats with very little roleplaying and/or story development. I could imagine someone from that perspective seeing 4E and AD&D as being poles apart. The way you do it at your table is going to guide your views on that though (i dont really know the rules of any RPG ive played, so i wouldnt know what ive chucked out and/or misunderstood or adapted).
Okay, I can see that response... "What is he smoking?" was my first impression (still is based on my experience), but I see why his claim might resonate differently with others. Truth be told-- I wasn't running the 4E game at any point (and I won't be trying to, because I really don't like the way 4E handles combat and character powers either-- that actually is part of my reason for feeling that 4E is farther from original D&D than any other version so far); the game (as run by the person who was GM) was run as pretty much a long series of combats, interspersed with "skill challenges" and other non-combat events that, under the 4E "skill challenge" rules, were handled... much too close to the way the combats were, IMO-- see if you can roll enough successes on various skills before you run up too many failures, or take too long doing it, or whatever else the limiter on that particular challenge was. Some story-development and player-decision making, but extremely short, IMO, on character-development and character interaction (especially PC-NPC interactions that were at least partly decided by role-play, instead of by dice on skills).
Now, as far as I could tell (having looked at the 4E rules) the GM was running the game "by the book"-- if he'd thrown out lots of those rules and game-book guidance, I would have enjoyed the game a lot more... but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point, because the 4E 'rules' would have been chucked out the window. Some amount of rules to handle skills and non-combat task completion is good, IMO-- but it shouldn't ever get in the way of actually playing your character -- you shouldn't be stuck relying on the dice for everything. I like PF and 3.5's skill system-- I think it defines enough to be useful while leaving enough room for originality, creativity, and for not letting the dice play your character instead of you-- at the same time, there's a lot of things we don't handle by dice in the PF games I'm in now, that could be reduced to diplomacy checks and the like in the hands of other, more rigid and inflexible, GMs. I do like a much looser, more free-flowing, more left up to the GM and players, game; rather than the game I saw in my experiences with 4E.
Some other games I've played where I particularly liked the system (other than D&D derivatives) btw: Amber, Big Eyes Small Mouth (mostly BESM 2E), old World of Darkness (particularly Changeling), GURPS (mostly 3E), Mutants and Masterminds, and RuneQuest (mostly Chaosium/2E)). I've played a lot of other RPGs, but those are the standouts that readily come to mind for systems whose mechanics I really liked. Oh, and another thoroughly incomplete list (a few of the other games that I really like, for setting usually, but am dubious about the game's mechanics): Chivalry and Sorcery (original/1 & 2E-- I understand there's new, substantially changed editions, out since then), Cyberpunk, Shadowrun (4E is my favorite, but I'm still not especially enthused about the mechanics), Dark Heresy, and Traveler. I've played at least 60 different role-playing games in my life so far... so this is a short sample-- I post it here, just to give an indicator of some of the games which I have sufficient knowledge of that I can compare D&D and derivatives with game-play in these systems.
|
4e doesn't actually set out subsystems for much - I'm thinking diseases, poisons and mounted combat, and them I'm a bit stumped after that. 4e provides a framework, and not much else. What I think you experienced was probably a WotC adventure which, in common with most, wasn't well-written. All the DM'ing I've done with 4e has been with self-made adventures, and I've not really experienced what you described. In fact, the framework - and I'm not just talking abut skill challenges, which can be useful but are probably best used sparingly - actually makes things much easier creatively, in my experience, and doesn't lock down anything. What normally confounds is the expectation that 4e is like 3e - it isn't, it is a radical departure that, for those who like the system, jettisoned a load of prescriptive garbage in 3e that did actively make the DMs life harder on may levels. But you have to understand that what looks like a gap - "What? No crafting!!!?" - is basically a slimming down of a bloated ruleset where marginal activities are filleted out for brevity and ease of use. If they should arise the framework can simply be used to improvise something specific to the players and the situation, not what the Great Design Gods think is necessarily appropriate. And your example concerning Diplomacy is perfectly viable in 4e - that's an issue of play-style, not rules.
It's an odd comment that 4e is closer to 0e or 1e prima facie - and blatantly false in many ways. Except that the framework allows for a much more free-form approach to interacting with the gameworld com pared with the subsystem-frenzy of 3e - "Fallen into lava? Let's check page xxx!" The framework isn't the same as the earlier editions, since they didn't have skills for a start. But what it also offers is a way to formalise the process to some extent, reduce hand-waving on the DM's part and make more use of the PC's abilities, and provide experience.
Aubrey, I'm with you about sub-systems of 4E. I really can't think of anything that needs it's own special table to check all the time. And if there is, it's 9/10 in the DMG for the DM to look at (and it's 1 table for a slew of things). But I get the same sort of playstyle when I run v3.5 or Pathfinder. Which is why I think it falls more on the group running the game than only the mechanics of the system.
For example, I'm running the Sons of Gruumsh adventure (Forgotten Realms, v3.5) for my group and I find a lot of things such as actions out-of-combat, expectations of play, combat, and exploration very similiar to that of 4E. We still needed trail rations (even though I hardly track them), torches, mundane equipment, ammo, yadda-yadda for this adventure as we do for 4E ones. The differences are seen in combat, obviously, but this plays more to 4E favor than v3.5. I just think it comes down to expecations of one's abilities and how those abilities work within the setting/game. A person who loves playing 4E is going to be disappointed in say....v3.5 Flaming Sphere (2d6 fire, save for 1/2) as it's pathetic compared to 4E's 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage and an additional 1d4 + Intelligence fire damage on their turn and it's a zone. But they often don't take into account a 3E monster's HP being almost 1/3 the total amount of a creatures in 4E is and so the damage expression makes sense. But many people go into 4E or 3E or 2E with expectations of the game they currently favor the most instead of an idea of not comparing at all and basing it on it's own merits within that system.
|
Finally we get a clear statement about what modularity means.Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions, and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play.So it appears that the goal is to bridge play styles, not rule sets. You can read the rest of the article here.That's pretty much what I figured he meant when he first said it and why I bowed out of the 5E discussion. I'm not sure where all the "support previous editions of the game natively" talk came from.
To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".
It is unrealistic to think Hasbro would abandon (or diminish) 4E by publishing yet another new and incompatible rule-set. "D&D Next" absolutely has to be compatible with 4E and the only way to do this is to make it, at it's core, the same game. To me, after reading various developer comments, the goal of "D&D Next" is to make fans of old D&D (pre-3E) want to play 4E by tweaking it so it suits the their game play preferences, not their actual rules.
I don't think this is bad or wrong. It's just not for me.
Considering that the poor reception of 4E is the reason why 5E is coming so soon, making 5E a simpler version of 4E would be just plain stupid. They already tried that with Essentials, and it didn't save 4E. If they were to try essentially the same thing a third time, they would deserve the inevitable failure that would result. Besides, making a game that supports 1E, 2E, and 3E styles of play (which they say is there goal) would not be possible if a simplified 4E was the base system. It's simply not going to happen, because 4E is so massively different from all the editions that came before.
|
|
Aubrey, I'm with you about sub-systems of 4E. I really can't think of anything that needs it's own special table to check all the time. And if there is, it's 9/10 in the DMG for the DM to look at (and it's 1 table for a slew of things). But I get the same sort of playstyle when I run v3.5 or Pathfinder. Which is why I think it falls more on the group running the game than only the mechanics of the system.
For example, I'm running the Sons of Gruumsh adventure (Forgotten Realms, v3.5) for my group and I find a lot of things such as actions out-of-combat, expectations of play, combat, and exploration very similiar to that of 4E. We still needed trail rations (even though I hardly track them), torches, mundane equipment, ammo, yadda-yadda for this adventure as we do for 4E ones. The differences are seen in combat, obviously, but this plays more to 4E favor than v3.5. I just think it comes down to expecations of one's abilities and how those abilities work within the setting/game. A person who loves playing 4E is going to be disappointed in say....v3.5 Flaming Sphere (2d6 fire, save for 1/2) as it's pathetic compared to 4E's 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage and an additional 1d4 + Intelligence fire damage on their turn and it's a zone. But they often don't take into account a 3E monster's HP being almost 1/3 the total amount of a creatures in 4E is and so the damage expression makes sense. But many people go into 4E or 3E or 2E with expectations of the game they currently favor the most instead of an idea of not comparing at all and basing it on it's own merits within that system.
I personally can't identify any really compelling differences in the way we played as a group in 3e and the way we played as a group in 4e. The differences mostly reside in how I personally prepare for a game as DM. Once you are used to a system, I discovered you can pretty much recreate all situations which are covered in the 3e DMG and then some.
|
|
Besides, making a game that supports 1E, 2E, and 3E styles of play (which they say is there goal) would not be possible if a simplified 4E was the base system. It's simply not going to happen, because 4E is so massively different from all the editions that came before.
Agreed. Of course, you can say the same thing about supporting a 0E, 1E, and 2E style of play with 3E as your base system.
edit: I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"
a bit off topic - but I played that game a few times 1980. now I want to find it again.
|
|
Besides, making a game that supports 1E, 2E, and 3E styles of play (which they say is there goal) would not be possible if a simplified 4E was the base system. It's simply not going to happen, because 4E is so massively different from all the editions that came before.Agreed. Of course, you can say the same thing about supporting a 0E, 1E, and 2E style of play with 3E as your base system.
Which is why (as far as I can tell) they are designing the core of the game as a very simple basic rules set not specifically tied to any previous edition of the game.
|
|
One of the things that have said they are going to do is include every class that has ever appeared in a PHB 1 in the PHB for D&D Next. Someone over on Enworld put together a list and came up with:
Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard
Even if you consider that Assassin may very well end up being a sub-class of Rogue and Illusionist will most likely be a sub-class of Wizard, that is still a lot of classes to try and boil down to their essence and still have them feel and play differently. In a 3.5/4e world that might not be as hard because of the different class features but for the feel of earlier, less complex editions it is going to take some doing.
Okay, I can see that response... "What is he smoking?" was my first impression (still is based on my experience), but I see why his claim might resonate differently with others. Truth be told-- I wasn't running the 4E game at any point (and I won't be trying to, because I really don't like the way 4E handles combat and character powers either-- that actually is part of my reason for feeling that 4E is farther from original D&D than any other version so far); the game (as run by the person who was GM) was run as pretty much a long series of combats, interspersed with "skill challenges" and other non-combat events that, under the 4E "skill challenge" rules, were handled... much too close to the way the combats were, IMO-- see if you can roll enough successes on various skills before you run up too many failures, or take too long doing it, or whatever else the limiter on that particular challenge was. Some story-development and player-decision making, but extremely short, IMO, on character-development and character interaction (especially PC-NPC interactions that were at least partly decided by role-play, instead of by dice on skills).
Now, as far as I could tell (having looked at the 4E rules) the GM was running the game "by the book"-- if he'd thrown out lots of those rules and game-book guidance, I would have enjoyed the game a lot more... but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point, because the 4E 'rules' would have been chucked out the window. Some amount of rules to handle skills and non-combat task completion is good, IMO-- but it shouldn't ever get in the way of actually playing your character -- you shouldn't be stuck relying on the dice for everything. I like PF and 3.5's skill system-- I think it defines enough to be useful while leaving enough room for originality, creativity, and for not letting the dice play your character instead of you-- at the same time, there's a lot of things we don't handle by dice in the PF games I'm in now, that could be reduced to diplomacy checks and the like in the hands of other, more rigid and inflexible, GMs. I do like a much looser, more free-flowing, more left up to the GM and players, game; rather than the game I saw in my experiences with 4E.
I can easily see that happening - it doesn't help that WoTC put out a lot of social skill challenges early on. (I use skill challenges when I run PF too and they work great, but I've never seen a successful social one, in any system).
When you say "...but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point..." it resonates with how I play RPGs. I haven't played as many as you, but I've tried maybe a dozen or so (?) and ultimately it always feels the same to me - no doubt because we take such a laid back approach about rules and happily ignore things which are too much work (none of our PF games bother to track encumbrance for example - we just "chuck out" the rules there, but I still consider it "playing pathfinder").
I agree with you that skill challenges are very similar to combats - a game with combat - combat - skill challenge - combat - skill challenge... would no doubt be as frustrating as one with just a series of combats. Im not much of a role player, but story is important to me - without some creative ways to interact with a dynamic plot an RPG isn't going to hold my interest.
|
|
When you say "...but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point..." it resonates with how I play RPGs. I haven't played as many as you, but I've tried maybe a dozen or so (?) and ultimately it always feels the same to me - no doubt because we take such a laid back approach about rules and happily ignore things which are too much work (none of our PF games bother to track encumbrance for example - we just "chuck out" the rules there, but I still consider it "playing pathfinder").
:D
I've had some pretty excellent game experiences, because the group was good, the characters were interesting, the stories were intense-- nominally using game systems that were utter crap (and ignoring much of the official rules as a result). The players and the GM, and (also very important) the group 'chemistry', are (in my experience) much more important than the system. And yes, don't forget group chemistry-- you can have a bunch of truly outstanding players and a superb GM (taken as individuals and as seen in other games)-- if they don't mix well together, the game's still likely to suck.
I agree with you that skill challenges are very similar to combats - a game with combat - combat - skill challenge - combat - skill challenge... would no doubt be as frustrating as one with just a series of combats. Im not much of a role player, but story is important to me - without some creative ways to interact with a dynamic plot an RPG isn't going to hold my interest.
:)
Yep-- now you understand my frustrations. If all a game is is combat and tactical decisions, some dice rolling and a bit of puzzle-solving-- I can go play a war game or computer game for that stuff; it's not what brings me to D&D (or any other RPG).
I am very much a role-player-- story and character-- story development, character development, character interaction, the opportunity to take that character personality (and everything else that's part of it-- background and etc.) into the game-world and play it out with the group in the vast open range of our collective imaginations-- these are the most important things to me about playing RPGs-- that's what keeps me active in the hobby.
|
|
It be hard to believe, but the "Outdoor Survival Game" was semi-sort-of required to play D&D, originally.So actually not as off topic as you think. This game was called out in the D&D books as the tool to use for the "non-monster" aspect of surviving the fanasy world environment.
Heh. Even though I played original D&D, I never had the "Outdoor Survival Game"-- outdoor/wilderness adventures were something that I remember just wingin' it for in the early days.
|
|
They tried the 4E thing twice. The community said "No!" How can they possibly make the core of 5E use 4E mechanics and it be successful? D&D customers have shown that not enough of us like 4E mechanics to buy 4E like products and have it be commercially successful enough for WotC to support it. If they try this will show two things: 1) The talk of listening to fans and including them in shaping the game is nothing but smoke and mirrors and 2) They really haven't learned anything about what their customers want and what makes an RPG successful. This hypothetical "1e-like" 4E game will fail hard, and it will deserve to fail hard. Let's also not forget that all we know about the mechanics of 5E so far suggest strongly that 5E is not similar to 4E at all.
|
|
Well, Cory, 4e isn't actually a massive failure and it has those. It maybe hasn't been as successful as they wanted but plenty of people play it happily, even if it isn't your cup of tea, and you certainly have no basis for suggesting it has "failed" since no one but WotC have access to WotC P&L figures. I'm more likely to not be interested in 5e if it does turn into some backward-looking scramble for what some people seem to consider the "essence of D&D" - which suggests that pandering to the more atavistic element in the hobby may actually alienate current 4e players. Projecting your preferences on to the "community" ignores the diversity of opinions on this subject.
|
|
Since I didn't say that, I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that "It doesn't matter how awesome the marketing is, if 5E has healing surges and powers as a core part of it's combat system (which it would have to if it's based on 4E) it will be a massive failure" doesn't speak to what I want from a new edition of D&D, nor is it necessarily accurate despite the emphatic tone. From what I'm reading, the new version doesn't seem to be very similar to 4e, though I'll judge if that's a good or bad thing when I see it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is basically what I mean when I say 5E will be a "simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E.": Take a look at this blog post.
It is an experiment by a 4E player to make a 1E adventure using 4E "design techniques". This is pretty much what I think 5E will be as a rule-set. A modified 4E backbone that can be used to run 1E type adventures. This blog post I think shows what the 4E designers believe the 4E game is: basically compatible with 1E when you break it down it it's simplest parts. I think they have always believed this, and now with "D&D Next", they are going to "prove it". I'm not judging this belief, or agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Actually, it was a blog post by someone who was switching back to 1e who wanted to take elements of 4e that he liked and apply them to the edition that he wanted to play. You should note that he did not try and use anything mechanical, he just used some of the design framework. If that is what you mean, then I am all for it. 5e should be made up of the best elements of the past and that is what Monte and the others seem to be aiming for.
However, what you seem to be saying is that 5e is just going to be 4e with "New and Improved" slapped across the labeling and I just don't see that happening.
|
|
Speculation is fun, but yours really doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter how awesome the marketing is, if 5E has healing surges and powers as a core part of it's combat system (which it would have to if it's based on 4E) it will be a massive failure.
Funny, I was just thinking that Healing Surges is one mechanic that I hope they keep. I am even trying to figure out how to incorporate them into my Pathfinder campaign.
|
|
Well, Cory, 4e isn't actually a massive failure and it has those. It maybe hasn't been as successful as they wanted but plenty of people play it happily, even if it isn't your cup of tea, and you certainly have no basis for suggesting it has "failed" since no one but WotC have access to WotC P&L figures. I'm more likely to not be interested in 5e if it does turn into some backward-looking scramble for what some people seem to consider the "essence of D&D" - which suggests that pandering to the more atavistic element in the hobby may actually alienate current 4e players. Projecting your preferences on to the "community" ignores the diversity of opinions on this subject.
I didn't say 4E was a massive failure, but a rehashed 4E with different marketing would be. If it's similar to 4E, why would 4E fans switch? Likewise, people that don't like 4E would steer clear of it if it's similar to 4E. Who would want to buy this?
|
|
Why would anyone buy the B/X set? It's just a re-hashed 0E.
Why would anyone buy AD&D? It's just another rehashed 0E.
Why would anyone buy BECMI? It's just a rehashed B/X set.
Why would anyone buy 2E? It's just a re-hashed AD&D.
Why would anyone buy the Rules Cyclopedia? It's just a re-hashed BECMI.
Why would anyone buy 3.5? It's just a re-hashed 3.0.
Why would anyone buy Pathfinder RPG? It's just a re-hashed 3.5.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why would anyone buy the Rules Cyclopedia? It's just a re-hashed BECMI.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I wanted to hit on this point.
I bought the RC because it was cleaned compiled and all in one area. A "Pathfinder Rev" would get my attention with the same design goal.
I think one other difference is that pesky OGL. When any of the examples above was phased out for the brand new thing, you had to accept that not only would no one be producing new supliments, no one would be making new core rule books. It was harder to introduce the 'old game' to new players, as the supply of books was finite, and steadily shrinking. "Retro-clones" can be made with the OGL, but they don't have the traction of a recently 'freed' player base.
If Washington got hit by a meteor tomorrow, Pathfinder's core rules would survive in the cloud. JBE or Rite or someone else could publish the rules, SGG could still make supliments w/o packs of lawyers descending. Golarion would be lost, but not Pathfinder. If WotC's 5e doesn't use the 4.x engine, and they discontinue 4.x, it's as dead as 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything I don't personally like is sure to be a massive failure and an indelible stain on the game's fine legacy.
And it definitely wouldn't be "real" D&D.
And it will kick puppies.
|
|
Precisely.
Specifically I think 2E->AD&D, 3.5->3.0, and 3.5->PF are the models WoTC is looking at for "D&D next". All of those "new" versions were readily compatible with the previous version, sold extremely well, required little actual development, were for the most part wholly accepted by existing consumers, and even brought in some new and lapsed ones. That's my point. That's what they want with "D&D Next".
Except that none of those except AD&D 2E were billed as new editions. D&D Next is being billed as a new edition so we should expect to see something more akin to the 1st->2nd->3rd->4th progression then the 3.0->3.5->3.PF progression. The fact that they are calling it a new edition is a strong indication that A) 4th Edition has run it's course, and B) the new game will not simply be a revision of 4th Edition. That was what Essentials was for and it did not succeed in generating the desired effect. If it had we would just see new Essentials products being released rather than a brand new edition. I'm sorry, but saying the 5th Edition is just going to be a repackaged 4th Edition is not going to make it true.
|
|
I don't think anyone is understanding what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. 4E wasn't successful by whatever metric WotC uses to judge such things, so they released Essentials (a more 1E like 4E). It wasn't successful either, or they wouldn't be announcing a new edition so soon. In what bizzaro world does anyone in their right mind think another go at the 4E rules set with better marketing and a different name will be successful this time? Do you really think they learned so little from the poor reception of 4E that they are going to try to do essentially the same thing for a third time when they know from experience that it does not work?