The Heart of D&D

I personally feel that THIS is the reason Wizards is following Paizo with the more open playtesting.

Cybrim Presents: The Heart of D&D

How would Wizards compete in today's market if their competitors know what works for larger groups of people if they kept everything in closed doors? Look at 4E all of the books were smaller than their previous incarnations, including less adventure information and more locked-in class information, 4E was a tabletop MMO it was incredibly easy to respec to get the damage dealing min/max character that seemed expected of you. In old school D&D you would play a weak character and survive by the skin of your teeth, if a DM was merciful you'd survive if not you had an emotional spiral watching that 2HP wizard die after almost making it to level 2. The MMO culture is vastly different from D&D as in D&D you work together to accompish a goal and in an MMO it is always about your DPS, everyone having the same "legendary" piece of equipment and everyone paying $15 every month after an initial purchase of $60 or more just to find that they are in a chat room discussing how the game became boring and "end game content" is worth paying the $15 for even though there is really no more progression or customization. D&D is completely different after max level your DM may create new rules for advancement, he/she will make their own stories/locations/NPCs, older players help newer and returning players to grasp what is going on and involve them in their stories, if they succeed they'll do it together and form bonds of friendship, if the host forgets the snacks the party will die horribly. Many authors were inspired to write fantasy based off of their play sessions even Andre Norton wrote a book based off a D&D game she played "Quag Keep". Unlike games with too much money, too many developers, a lack of content and a bunch of people on the message boards unhappy with "expansion content" DMs and players have a say in everything that goes on in D&D.
See, this?  This is a wall-of-text.  It has no paragraph breaks, and desperately needs them.  A lot.  To Death.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Also, you may want to watch the comparisons of 4E to an MMO... Some edition warriors may take great offense to that... moreover, it smells a little of "edition war speech" which is generally frowned upon.  Doesn't bother me; to each his/her own, just saying.
Soooo...to you, the heart of D&D is hating 4e and comparing it to an MMO?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
What I meant was that D&D has an MMO which charged for a while and even though it is mechanically similar to it's origin it is spiritually different. 4E to me felt min/maxing in nature. But the spirit of the game is the enjoyment of playing it with people you will better get to know through playing it.

 The reason I posted this is entirely because D&D started the RPG genre and game makers turned those into videogames and from there the MMO was born, but due to the ladder of greatness invloved in every mmo experienced players typically dispise new players, most of the time when I played Tabletop D&D we NEVER had that problem, I tried to tell my friends who were into MMOs the reason they can enjoy them today was because of D&D, because they were puzzled by how "such and awesome game can exist" (refering to WOW)...

We started playing D&D 3.5 over a period of weeks (I suck as DM...) but everyone had a good time and talked about getting 4E, one guy spent $100+ just to get the required materials for the DM they shared the PHB and everything went from one battle to the next, and my players asked me why things were going so fast and I think the miniatures is what did it in for us, all of the things you didn't see before seemed to make it more believable. In MMOs you see "everything" or a representation of it, in D&D 3x the monster manuals had a first hand visual discription of a creature in 4E that discriptive text that added so much flavor to the world was replaced by facts that would have been located later on after the creature's stats in 3x.

"The swirling black ooze floating no more than a foot off of the ground suddenly foams and jolts toward you." -things like that.

In the AD&D 1E DMG Gary talked about encounters in different terrain, henchmen, gaining your own land after clearing the creatures from surrounding lands, turning your adventurer into a lord or lady and making room for new adventurers in your modified world when your old characters retired after all they had everything they wanted now it is up to new adventurers. That is what I didn't get around to saying.

PS Sorry for my initial wall of text, this is not an attack on any edition, but the folks at wizard are trying to piece together the most widely accepted rules and ideas then modulate into and onto them, to maximize their profits and reputation.
The Heart of D&D is still beatin'!

Man I hate that song...
that song was terrible.
So, you did a bit better that time, but you still spent a lot of time describing why you don't like MMOs and sprinkling in various personal experiences and things you've read that seem, well, sort of disorganized and disconnected.  Why don't we try this:

Tell me what you love about D&D.  Don't tell me about anything that isn't D&D, and don't tell me about stuff you don't like.  Tell me what makes D&D great, to you.  About what will keep you coming back week after week.  That would make a good "The Heart of D&D" thread.

Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
    I've removed content from this thread because masked vulgarity is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
What I love about D&D.

Working together to solve an issue you'd get killed doing alone! Like the time my Monk punched a wall to exclaim distaste and set off a trap in the process. Then Sheigo my friend's halfling ranger jumped in front of me and sliced through all of the arrows to protect the party.

Getting jumped at night! This is self expanitory but when your Gnome Barbarian captures live goblins and tortures them so the rest of the party can't go back to sleep but they find out about a horde of treasure nearby it was worth it.

The nemesis' dark and evil plans: My friend was playing a half-orc Paladin named Jon Von Butu that was getting stalked by a sucubus, they had a fight, she escaped and then bore him a tiefling child, he cried but they got married because it was the "right thing to do."

When a Human Fighter gets charmed by a dragon, knocking off his friends to meet the dragon face to face (failed saves and mages are out of spells) gets impaled trying to give the dragon a hug.

Or when you tick off some orphans with your group of human purists preaching about how their God is the only God ect ect, the orphans turn out to be Gnomes and give you gifts that turn out to be live grenades!

Or the time your monk kicks a lich in the gut and comes out the other end!

Has anyone ever played "secrets?" Your DM gives each player a list of tasks they must complete without getting caught by other players when in certain areas, the DM takes each player off to the side when it is their turn and keeps a record of the events. Since no one wants to get caught or really knows their companions they are told they each need to find a different location in order to maintain their privacy and accomplish their individual goals. The locations are up to the DM to say exist to hang out at, if a specific player is where the player with the task is 3 times that player is "caught" and everyone knows what he is up to, he and his group is then hunted by whoever sent him out for the task. Eventually the players may go after the individuals or organizations that sent them to do the dirtywork or charismatically come to a solution with them.

Secrets is really fun because it's a game of deceiving eachother as well as townsfolk and eventually getting revenge, freedom or a large pay-off. It is best used when your characters are being introduced to eachother.
What I love about D&D.

Working together to solve an issue you'd get killed doing alone! Like the time my Monk punched a wall to exclaim distaste and set off a trap in the process. Then Sheigo my friend's halfling ranger jumped in front of me and sliced through all of the arrows to protect the party.

Getting jumped at night! This is self expanitory but when your Gnome Barbarian captures live goblins and tortures them so the rest of the party can't go back to sleep but they find out about a horde of treasure nearby it was worth it.

The nemesis' dark and evil plans: My friend was playing a half-orc Paladin named Jon Von Butu that was getting stalked by a sucubus, they had a fight, she escaped and then bore him a tiefling child, he cried but they got married because it was the "right thing to do."

When a Human Fighter gets charmed by a dragon, knocking off his friends to meet the dragon face to face (failed saves and mages are out of spells) gets impaled trying to give the dragon a hug.

Or when you tick off some orphans with your group of human purists preaching about how their God is the only God ect ect, the orphans turn out to be Gnomes and give you gifts that turn out to be live grenades!

Or the time your monk kicks a lich in the gut and comes out the other end!

Has anyone ever played "secrets?" Your DM gives each player a list of tasks they must complete without getting caught by other players when in certain areas, the DM takes each player off to the side when it is their turn and keeps a record of the events. Since no one wants to get caught or really knows their companions they are told they each need to find a different location in order to maintain their privacy and accomplish their individual goals. The locations are up to the DM to say exist to hang out at, if a specific player is where the player with the task is 3 times that player is "caught" and everyone knows what he is up to, he and his group is then hunted by whoever sent him out for the task. Eventually the players may go after the individuals or organizations that sent them to do the dirtywork or charismatically come to a solution with them.

Secrets is really fun because it's a game of deceiving eachother as well as townsfolk and eventually getting revenge, freedom or a large pay-off. It is best used when your characters are being introduced to eachother.

So what you are saying is that you like Roleplaying? I hate to break it to you but every edition has that in its core. I think you are not liking 4e because each power (apart from mostly just spells as in previous editions) has a descriptive name and flavor text that goes with it. I guess you never saw the part in the PHB that says the flavor text is just an example and can be reimagined to anything you want it to do.
@Limond: Hasn't it been D&D's tradition now to remove "fluff" from books?

Roleplaying mechanics are demonized on these forums a lot - and the entire PHB covers tactical combat.

- What stats I need for... tactical combat.

- What powers I need for... tactical combat.

- What gear... what rules... what feats... what skills do I need for.... tactical combat.

====

- Here's the "roleplaying" in D&D.

Alignment - doesn't matter. D&D gamers rant about it too much.

Skills - don't matter. Too many is too hard.

Oh... and then there's the Linguist Feat.  Here comes the five people that took it with their characters to tell me how deep roleplaying is.

=====

Point is... I don't need the PHB - DMG - or Monster Manual to Roleplay. They do zero to enhance it.

They are solely concerned with dungeon crawling more and more with each edition.
Point is... I don't need the PHB - DMG - or Monster Manual to Roleplay.



This. This is the big killer of all the "You can't roleplay with Xe," whether the complaint is 1e, 3.x, or whatever.

I've been playing for many years, probably more than many posters here have been alive (I started in 1979). Roleplay is something you learned when you were three years old. The rules are irrelevant to RP. You can pick up the worst RPG ever written and RP with it, if you just remember what you did when you were three.

Now, rules may influence how much fun you have roleplaying. I've had the most fun recently with 4e, and 3.5 killed my fun. I don't think I'll have much fun with 5e, because it seems like a big kludge right now, and it goes back to those old rules that I stopped playing for a reason. I came to dislike older editions of D&D because I wasn't having fun. So, if I don't like the old editions, 5e looks like old editions, then I probably won't have fun with it, and I won't move forward on the edition treadmill. That's my opinion.

But if you like 3.x, play that. If that's what you have fun with, play it. If that's the ruleset you can get the fun you want out of your RP expecrience, more power to you. That's your opinion. Ranting about how 4e killed your game is a waste of everbody's time. Put your 4e books on eBay; one of us who like 4e will buy them, eventually. Sell them to Noble Knight or some other trade-in store, and go play, rather than write your diatribes here.
that song was terrible.



Which would make it the perfect theme for this thread.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

They are solely concerned with dungeon crawling more and more with each edition.



Nope.  They have clarified and streamlined the rules concerning dungeon crawling, and they've redesigned the Encounter Design for running Crawls, but anything else is up to the DM, the players and the Party.

I've had just as much Roleplaying in 4e as I have in any other edition, it's all whether you seek it out or not.

I agree that the 4e books are lighter on Fluff than 3.X books, but that just means the players have more freedom to fill it all back in.
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Every time someone compares 4E to an MMO, I add someone new to my blocklist. It's like crocs, or those "holographic" magnetic balance chi bracelents - they broadcast that the person wearing them doesn't know what they're talking about.

So, thanks for making it clear your opinion is based on parroting what you've heard other people say instead of on actually playing or learning the game.
Pro-actively exploring locations to acquire power, while using problem-solving skills to survive the dangers of said locations. That's the heart of D&D to me. Fantasy combat is done better elsewhere, heroes attempting to save the realm, done better elsewhere, emulation of fantasy literature, done better elsewhere. Going into a dungeon to get the treasure, and using your own wits, free of restraint, to survive the experience? I think D&D as a game (depending on version) provides that experience better than any other RPG.
Every time someone compares 4E to an MMO, I add someone new to my blocklist. It's like crocs, or those "holographic" magnetic balance chi bracelents - they broadcast that the person wearing them doesn't know what they're talking about.

So, thanks for making it clear your opinion is based on parroting what you've heard other people say instead of on actually playing or learning the game.



I run 4e and see the same thing.

I also play Warmachine/Hordes and think that 4e is a great skirmish rules set. In fact we played an encounter on a 4X4 battle board for fighting a group of ocrs for fun and it ran great. When the Wargamers watched us they thought the rules ran well for a "Role-Playing" game turned skirmish game. 

So I guess that you should block out everyone who does not JUST play/think the way you do. 
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
For me, the heart of D&D is fantasy roleplaying.  More than race, class, and other game mechanics.  My PC is part of a larger world, the hero of an on-going story, all fantasy.

My PC has ambitions and fears, he lives with successes and failures both.  His personality shows thorugh in how he talks with others (NPCs), the kinds of decisions he makes (even how he makes those decisions).  He could be easy-going or he might be over-bearing.  In any case, he's my PC.

What's his story?  Where'd he come from?  Where'd he get the sword?  Or is he a holy man? Hey, what's the fella look like anyway?  Is he tall and skinny as a witch's broom or is he as big and burly as a baby ogre?

That's the heart of D&D for me.  It's all about figuring out who my PC is, how he or she interacts with the wider world.

= = =

Chapter 2 of the current Player's Handbook is all about making characters.  There's an entire section devoted to roleplaying.  It talks about alignment (good, evil, or unaligned-- a staple of D&D), about various gods that the PC might revere, and the personality, backround, and appearance of PCs.  

The personality section even gives three situations which can provide opportunities for roleplaying:  Social Interactions (is the PC kind to others, or is she impatient), Dire Straits (when the chips are down, what does the PC do?).

There have always been plenty of opportunities to roleplay in D&D I think, no matter what version of the game is being played.  There's always been conflict between good and evil (this is fantasy after all), there's always been epic stories about the gods (Corellon vs. Gruumsh or Bahamut vs. Tiamat, or Vecna vs. Kas).  

D&D is a roleplaying game where I can tell the story of m PC, who he or she is, how they came to be an adventurer, and why they are the best at what they do (or will be ;)).  I can explore the wider world around my PC.  Game mechanics and rules have their place (no doubt) but for me, D&D is first and foremost a game of imagination, it's make-believe, all in my head.  Products of your imagination (as the classic blurb goes ;)).
/\ Art
@Artifact: I guess my issue with what you describe as 'the heart of D&D' is that none of it is specific to D&D. All roleplaying games are about 'telling the story of your PC', in one way or another, and any fantasy roleplaying game lets you do that in a fantasy setting. What makes your 'heart of D&D' specific to D&D? I'm not trying to say you can't play D&D the way you describe - of course you can, and many do, and they love it. But in a conversation about the heart of D&D, shouldn't it be focused on specifically D&D, as opposed to the entire fantasy RPG genre?
Here's the real kicker: No one is "right", this is why we have favorite Eds of D&D, because those rulesets fit our playstyles and that is what Wizards is trying to do now, fit the rules with the people that play them, hence the modulated experience they are now trying to go for, yes now EVERY D&D will be almost completely different.

If someone feels a certain way blocking them only makes you an opinion zealot, how are you supposed to get your point accross if you won't hear theirs. This is a Chaotic Evil act that Paladins are really good at? "My God is the only correct God!"- and you wonder why people don't join your religion mr high and mighty paladin?
@Artifact: I guess my issue with what you describe as 'the heart of D&D' is that none of it is specific to D&D. All roleplaying games are about 'telling the story of your PC', in one way or another, and any fantasy roleplaying game lets you do that in a fantasy setting. What makes your 'heart of D&D' specific to D&D? I'm not trying to say you can't play D&D the way you describe - of course you can, and many do, and they love it. But in a conversation about the heart of D&D, shouldn't it be focused on specifically D&D, as opposed to the entire fantasy RPG genre?

For me, roleplaying in D&D proper might revolve around specific story elements, the lore of the game if you will.  My PC might be trying to infiltrate a cult of Vecna for instance.  There might be some question in his backround that needs answered and the cult could have the answers, or so he thinks.  

Or, maybe my PC is a humble boy who one day hopes to join the Order of St. Cuthbert, knights who travel widely throughout the land.  That sorta stuff is D&D, not because the same stories can't be told in any other fantasy RPG but mostly because the stories involve elements of D&D lore.

The names, places, and events of D&D, that's something I really enjoy exploring through roleplaying.
/\ Art
Except, of course, there is a 'more correct', even in there's no 'absolutely correct' heart of D&D. We define objects in the world by coming to a consensus on what they are, and what they aren't - generally by assigning characteristics to a thing in a sort of a cloud; some characteristics are more central, some more peripheral.

If you were to say 'the heart of D&D' is racing technologically advanced supercars in an arena, while using weapons to try to stop the other racers from winning? I'd say that's wrong.

edit: You could, if you wanted, use D&D rules to play Car Wars. I'd still argue that's not the heart of D&D - it's the heart of Car Wars.
Freakin D20 modern... lol
Point is... I don't need the PHB - DMG - or Monster Manual to Roleplay. They do zero to enhance it.

They are solely concerned with dungeon crawling more and more with each edition.



Honestly, and this isn't a jab against D&D of any edition, but if you're some kind of "serious roleplayer" (whatever that means) then D&D just probably isn't the game for you (for any given instance of "you").

It's an adventure / combat game.  You can RP around that and totally have fun, but there are other games out there that actually focus on "drama" and "story" and "emotion" and whatever (and no, I don't mean White Wolf stuff which isn't much different from D&D).

Anyway, that's my point.  D&D is great, but for those who have ever uttered the term "roleplay vs rollplay", D&D just isn't the best tool in the box.

Not trying to cause problems.  Just something to think about.
@Artifact: I'd argue that those names are specific to individual D&D settings - thus, they're not universally the 'heart' of D&D. Plus, while those specific names certainly are representative of D&D, they're not attached to it - you could easily play any fantasy roleplaying game and use those names - I'd argue that it wouldn't make that game D&D.
@Ludanto: I'd say that you can roleplay adventure and combat exactly as much as you can roleplay conversation and politics. As long as you use roleplaying procedures to run the adventure and combat, and the conversation and politics (by this I mean not boardgame mechanics, or computer-game mechanics, or story-game mechanics, etc).

edit: This is not to say that you can't play a roleplaying game with boardgame, computer, or story-game mechanics in it. 
Except, of course, there is a 'more correct', even in there's no 'absolutely correct' heart of D&D. We define objects in the world by coming to a consensus on what they are, and what they aren't - generally by assigning characteristics to a thing in a sort of a cloud; some characteristics are more central, some more peripheral.

If you were to say 'the heart of D&D' is racing technologically advanced supercars in an arena, while using weapons to try to stop the other racers from winning? I'd say that's wrong.

edit: You could, if you wanted, use D&D rules to play Car Wars. I'd still argue that's not the heart of D&D - it's the heart of Car Wars.

Everyone has to decide for themselves.  For me, D&D is a Fantasy Roleplaying Game.  For someone else, D&D might be better described as a Fantasy Adventure Game.  What's the difference exactly?  I dunno.

There really can't be a concensus on some things; they just are.  D&D is fantasy, it isn't NASCAR.  Other than that, we all have to decide for ourselves.  That's part of the fun though ;). 
/\ Art
@Kaldric,
Yes, of course.  Heck, it's all roleplaying in the broadest sense.  I'm talking about the people who talk of "roleplaying, not rollplaying", the "we didn't roll dice all night" people, those that don't play D&D to explore dungeons and fight monsters, but to emote and and explore their character's motivation.  "Roleplaying", in that sense, is incidental to D&D.  You can do it, but it happens mostly "around" the game rather than because of it.

Meanwhile, there are other games that embrace that sort of thing, to the point of making combat (for example) incidental.

(edited!)
@Artifact: You seem (and correct me if I'm wrong) to fall into the group that says there is no heart of D&D. I'd disagree. I think there are fundamental design considerations that make D&D (and its clones/near clones) quite different from just about every other FRPG.
@Ludanto: Those people latched to things like emoting as being central and necessary to roleplaying, when those are tangential concerns. What they're talking about is acting. Roleplaying, as it is used in roleplaying games, is quite distinct from acting. Roleplaying is making decisions - acting is communicating those decisions to others in an entertaining way. 'Exploring your motivations' is also tangential - not all character motivations need to be obscure, complex, or particularly interesting. You can roleplay a character whose motivations require no exploration, such as 'get loot and survive the process' absolutely as much as you can roleplay a character whose motivations require 'exploration'.
@Kaldric,
Yes, of course.  Heck, it's all roleplaying in the broadest sense.  I'm talking about the people who talk of "roleplaying, not rollplaying", the "we didn't roll dice all night" people, those that don't play D&D to explore dungeons and fight monsters, but to emote and and explore their character's motivation.  "Roleplaying", in that sense, is incidental to D&D.  You can do it, but it happens mostly "around" the game rather than because of it.

Meanwhile, there are other games that embrace that sort of thing, to the point of making combat (for example) incidental.

(edited!)




being someone very much into the Roleplay over Rollplay I figured I'd comment.  When I say Roleplay over Rollplay I mean that Balance isn't as much of a concern to me so long as the characters created feel like the characters created.  While I enjoy rolling dice I don't so much care if another character is more usefull than mine in certain situations.  Our characters are different Mine is usefull at this yours is usefull at that.  I don't even care when they overlap.  It provides a point that the characters can connect upon.  D&D has always seemed the best on this front for me.  So long as I can create the character I want with the proficiencies and failings I wish it to have I am happy.  I have tried other systems but the creation and advancement process in most of those systems just don't feel right to me.
@Artifact: You seem (and correct me if I'm wrong) to fall into the group that says there is no heart of D&D. I'd disagree. I think there are fundamental design considerations that make D&D (and its clones/near clones) quite different from just about every other FRPG.

There are a lot of elements that make up D&D.  Lore and mechanics.  Races and classes, worlds and monsters, you name it.  What's the heart of it all?  That's highly debatable.  For one person, it might be six abilities, for another it might be alignment, for even another it might be hit points, or any combination in-between.  

For me personaly, the heart of D&D is more in the story, less in the mechanics.  Someone else might well fall on the other end of the spectrum.  I don't believe there will ever be a firm consensus on what is, or is not, D&D at heart.  We just know it when we see it (or don't, as the case may be) I guess.

So far, every game of D&D has had something that I can positively identify as being D&D.  I have enjoyed followng the lore of D&D for instance, from edition to editon, seeing how things have changed or stayed the same.  That's my thing; it would prolly bore someone else to death ;).

If a game of D&D ever comes along that I can't identify with, then I won't play that game.  Those that I would normally game with, they might not understand; they might have very different feelings.  That's a rare occurance though.  For the most part, I think we'd find things to agree upon so that we could play the game together.  Maybe that's the heart of D&D then; agreeing to play, well, D&D ;)?

Edit:  To answer your question directly, Kaldric:  No, I don't really believe there is a heart of D&D, not one that can be universally agreed upon at least.  The heart of D&D has to be decided upon by the individual.
/\ Art
@Kaldric, @SleepsInTraffic
Ah, well.  "Roleplaying" is just one of those things that pretty much means different things to different people.  All very messy, that.
It seems pretty obvious to me that 5E is a rejection of the '4E tabletop miniatures wargame rolled into an MMO with cards' game and the fans of that game, especially those who have never played 1E through 3.5E game back in the day, generally fall into two groups.

1. Never played much of anything besides 4E and so don't really have a good appreciation of the roll playing roots of D&D.
2. Group two have played other editions of the game but still feel that the combat centric 4E is their favorite way to play.

With regard to the 2nd group of grognards who like 4E, great, glad that you like, you just have to wait for a module to be released that layers on the 4E rules for you. Please give the 5E playtest rules a chance to define a simpler core set of rules that everyone can play with, like, and modularize to their heart's content.

For those who've never experienced the full glory of a 1E or 2E game ran by an old school DM I would suggest a quest to seek out such a mighty story teller and convince him to run a session of old school D&D for you. You might be surprised at how fun it is. You might not of course, but at least you will have an appreciation of what we are talking about when we say that the 5E rules are very encouraging to us old school D&D fans.
The cover of the 1st edition Player’s Handbook by artist D.A. Trampier. A motley crew of adventurers, the bloodied bodies of lizard men, the hint of arcane malevolence surrounding the idol, the daring thieves prying the jewels from the statue. This is arguably the most iconic piece of art in all of RPGdom.
So, you did a bit better that time, but you still spent a lot of time describing why you don't like MMOs and sprinkling in various personal experiences and things you've read that seem, well, sort of disorganized and disconnected.  Why don't we try this:

Tell me what you love about D&D.  Don't tell me about anything that isn't D&D, and don't tell me about stuff you don't like.  Tell me what makes D&D great, to you.  About what will keep you coming back week after week.  That would make a good "The Heart of D&D" thread.





@Pash, I didn´t read the whole thread, just up to your post, but you must agree, D&D 4E has a lot of things in common with WoW. A think it was one of the design goals of the team back them. James Wyat was a huge fan of WoW, Wizards was seeing WoW popularity as an opportunity to make profit. Not that it´s god or bad, I personally like 4E a lot, and have lots of fun with it. A liked WoW for 4 weeks and got bored of it, but it is good anyway.

I guess what the thread starter said was that as much 4E gets closer with WoW it gets away of what it used to be. Not that transformation is bad, it´s not at all. If 4E have achieved better selling results and Pathfinder never existed, we probably wouldn’t hear about 5E to soon and 4E would be around for a lot more years.

So, we just can´t expect people not to compare 4E with WoW, and claim it´s an attempt to start edition wars every time the word "WoW" is pronounced, because they have many things in common, especially in its mechanics, and that’s just where it (4E) gets away of the original D&D. On the other hand, we can´t possibly say 4E is not D&D, because it has so many things in common with the original game, it would be insane.  Also saying it´s not an RPG, is completely unfair. Saying it´s a only board game is a half true, because it is heavily board game oriented, being miniature mandatory to the game, but its absolutely a Role Playing Game as well.  In my opinion it´s a full fledge Role playing system with mixed with a board game with lots of options for combat in small scale. The bad thing is that so many people didn´t realize it, or didn´t like it this way. My guess is it´s because of the presentation of the mechanics. The thing is, in essence 4E is a different game, and if people like it or not is just a matter of taste. It´s solid mechanically, but unfortunately no game pleases everyone.

For those who've never experienced the full glory of a 1E or 2E game ran by an old school DM I would suggest a quest to seek out such a mighty story teller and convince him to run a session of old school D&D for you. You might be surprised at how fun it is. You might not of course, but at least you will have an appreciation of what we are talking about when we say that the 5E rules are very encouraging to us old school D&D fans.



"Full Glory" of 1e or 2e?

I grew up playing Oed, 1e, 2e, 3e, and I'm quite happy with 4e, and I'm a roleplayer, not a "wargamer" or MMO player.

Your biased opinion of '4E tabletop miniatures wargame rolled into an MMO with cards' is your own, but 4e is, or can be, just as much fun as any other edition of D&D. 

Have you ever even played 4e without attempting to see it only as you assume it is?

"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

@Kaldric, @SleepsInTraffic
Ah, well.  "Roleplaying" is just one of those things that pretty much means different things to different people.  All very messy, that.



Roleplaying in the context of tabletop roleplaying games has a very precise definition. Include other contexts, and you get different definitions. Same with the words 'football', 'set', etc. When I define football, however, I don't make the mistake of including play-by-play announcer - although in the vast majority of games of football I've seen, there's been an announcer involved. Just as I don't include acting in roleplaying - although a large majority of roleplaying activity is accompanied by acting.
@Pash, I didn´t read the whole thread, just up to your post, but you must agree, D&D 4E has a lot of things in common with WoW. A think it was one of the design goals of the team back them. James Wyat was a huge fan of WoW, Wizards was seeing WoW popularity as an opportunity to make profit. Not that it´s god or bad, I personally like 4E a lot, and have lots of fun with it. A liked WoW for 4 weeks and got bored of it, but it is good anyway.

Actually, I don't have to agree with that.  Or at least, I don't have to agree that 4e has any more in common with wow than previous editions, and I especially don't have to agree with any quality people want to assign to 4e as "WoW-like".

I guess what the thread starter said was that as much 4E gets closer with WoW it gets away of what it used to be. Not that transformation is bad, it´s not at all. If 4E have achieved better selling results and Pathfinder never existed, we probably wouldn’t hear about 5E to soon and 4E would be around for a lot more years.

Mainly what we heard in the opening post was "I hate all these things about WoW and the people who play it and I am going to use this to express some vague dissatisfaction with 4e."

So, we just can´t expect people not to compare 4E with WoW, and claim it´s an attempt to start edition wars every time the word "WoW" is pronounced, because they have many things in common, especially in its mechanics, and that’s just where it (4E) gets away of the original D&D. On the other hand, we can´t possibly say 4E is not D&D, because it has so many things in common with the original game, it would be insane.  Also saying it´s not an RPG, is completely unfair. Saying it´s a only board game is a half true, because it is heavily board game oriented, being miniature mandatory to the game, but its absolutely a Role Playing Game as well.  In my opinion it´s a full fledge Role playing system with mixed with a board game with lots of options for combat in small scale. The bad thing is that so many people didn´t realize it, or didn´t like it this way. My guess is it´s because of the presentation of the mechanics. The thing is, in essence 4E is a different game, and if people like it or not is just a matter of taste. It´s solid mechanically, but unfortunately no game pleases everyone.


I can't expect people not to compare 4e to WoW, because people suck, and they absolutely will do it.  I can't blame people for having different tastes in gaming than I do.  But I absolutely can blame them for expressing these preferences via an insulting and inaccurate rant that only serves to further the edition wars.  And I do.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.

Roleplaying in the context of tabletop roleplaying games has a very precise definition. Include other contexts, and you get different definitions. Same with the words 'football', 'set', etc. When I define football, however, I don't make the mistake of including play-by-play announcer - although in the vast majority of games of football I've seen, there's been an announcer involved. Just as I don't include acting in roleplaying - although a large majority of roleplaying activity is accompanied by acting.



But that's just my point.  There are many and varied tabletop roleplaying gamers out there who would vehemently disagree with you.  You don't include acting in roleplaying.  Others do, and there's no one definitive source to say otherwise.

Heck, for me personally, in the context of a tabletop game, I'd say it's roleplaying if... well, if you're playing a roleplaying game.
Just because a game "get's out of my way" - doesn't make it a roleplaying game.

Monopoly gets out of the way of me acting like a British Lord greedily consuming regions of the board from foolish savage Native American tribes while I place cities on "Boardwalkia" and "Park Placonia" and grow my colonies.

Doesn't mean it's a "roleplaying game".
Sign In to post comments