The Real Problem D&DN Has (IMHO).

Once upon a time I was a hardcore D&D fan boy. D&D was my favorite RPG system and I was very passionate about it. I did dabble in other RPG's but I did not like most of them because I wanted a fantasy based RPG and as far I was concerned D&D was it. The only other one I liked was Star Wars D6 which I played in the 90's. I started on BECM but after a year and a bit of that I got bored with it and moved on to 2nd ed. I liked 2nd ed but I was young and loyal to TSR and then WoTC. 3rd ed came out and I had liked alot of what I had seen in Dragon magazine leading up to it and I switched over no questions asked. I more or less done the same thing with 3.5 up until 2008.


I know what I like and I know what I don't like. 4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different. It was actually very good at what it was designed to do and it had pure gold in it I was jealous of in 3.5. I tried out the play test for PF back in 2009 and passed on that as well as it was 3.5 warmed up and I could just keep playing 3.5. From 2008 through to 2012 we played a variety of systems before settling on Pathfinder which had been fleshed out a bit more and Star Wars Saga which we thought was a worthy successor to the old D6 SW which we played instead of d20 Star Wars.


The main fall out for me personally from the edition war and WoTC handling of 4th ed (even though I did not play it) is that they have lost my automatic brand loyalty I had to D&D. Most people posting on these forums are passionate about D&D even if I disagree with them strongly or they like an edition I do not. Put simply I do not trust WoTC anymore with the D&D franchise and it really would not bother me if they sold it off or even shelved it. I'm not 100% sure what I want from D&DN but I do know what I don't want, that being a reprint of 4th ed (safe from that) or a jump back to pre 2nd ed style D&D. I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes and races years ago. That is why I moved on to 2nd ed even though I liked BECM.


I like the d20 system (including 4th ed in that description) and it seems popular enough if you count Pathfinder as a d20 game. 4th ed was a step in the right direction for a less complex game as 3rd ed went to far in that direction. There may be a market out there for a basic D&D game but the d20 players are probably the largest % of D&D players (3.5, 4th, PF). That theory could be wrong but I suspect 4th ed had problems because it was different not because it was bad. D&DN is going to be different but it may pay off it may not. Put simply if I want a simple D&D I do not have to buy a new version of D&D as I still have BECM and 2nd ed for that. Maybe they can get in a large influx of new gamers and bring back relapsed players. There could be a large market for that I really do not know.


Anyway the main problem with D&DN is that it is different from the last 12 years of D&D and brand loyalty from this consumer towards WoTC has evaporated. There are other RPG products out there and I have my old D&D material anyway. 19 years of D&D and I have somewhere close to 200 books for it which is almost an average of one a month. I used to buy minis, magic cards, SWSE books and various d20 materials WoTC used to produce and very little of that 200 books is 3rd pp. I might buy D&DN I might not. That loyalty to the D&D brand/label is gone. And that is the main problem WoTC has in selling D&DN at least to this consumer/gamer.

 I like D&D so sell it to me.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Cool story bro.

 I like D&D so sell it to me.



That right there is going to be the hardest part of this.
WoTC & Hasbro have not shown they know how to market this kind of product. They need to make a game that is worth spending money on. I think they are headed in the right direction, but its still early in the whole process to be calling it one way or another. I have 3.x/PF to fall back on if this incarnation fails.
I want this to succeed, and I will do my part in trying to make it so. However, that is the extent of my loyalty to D&D and I will wait and see if that grows or diminishes.
I don't need any brand loyalty :P If I like the game, I'll buy it. D&D doesn't have to bribe me to come back to them with anything other than a sound game. I must have that special ability, because it seems the norm around here to stick with one game until something comes to defeat it :P
My two copper.
My brand loyalty is still strong enough after some 25-ish years with the game that WotC can smear poo on the pages and I'll still purchase the core books.

To be honest, I don't actually understand anti-WotC vibes in their stewardship of the D&D brand, nor the general refrain of their inability to effectively market.  They done just fine this past decade and a half in my book.
My brand loyalty is still strong enough after some 25-ish years with the game that WotC can smear poo on the pages and I'll still purchase the core books.

To be honest, I don't actually understand anti-WotC vibes in their stewardship of the D&D brand, nor the general refrain of their inability to effectively market.  They done just fine this past decade and a half in my book.



 Up to a point this is still true for me. It depends on if they want purchases beyond the core books.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Cool story bro.



This

I came to see what's the OP thread about The Real Problem DNN and instead, I get a big long post.
Dude, just get to the point!

I really don't want to read all that, because I'll forget what I am suppose to read about.  


 I like D&D so sell it to me.




The problem is that D&D is different things to everyone, and those things are very much in conflict. I personally liked the version of mapless D&D that took place in the theater of the mind, where things were kept simple, and it focused on the story.

Other people want a rules-heavy game that features tactical combat with a full spread of minis on a map board.

Some people want a more realistic medieval simulation where certain weapons are good against certain armor types, other people want the game to play like fantasy superheroes.

D&D has always had the problem/feature of being very identity confused as to what it wants to be. It's a problem because it makes designing it very difficult, yet it's a feature becuase it attracted multiple groups who all played D&D differently.


Cool story bro.



This

I came to see what's the OP thread about The Real Problem DNN and instead, I get a big long post.
Dude, just get to the point!

I really don't want to read all that, because I'll forget what I am suppose to read about.  



 I could condense it I suppse but it would be alot more negative.
 Who is D&D supposed to be sold to? The 3.5 crowd have Pathfinder, the 4th ed crowd seem to hate it, the pre 3rd ed crowd made their minds up a long time ago.

 That leaves relapsed and new players as our target market and you will get some of the 3.5 and 4th ed crowd regardless I suppose. Broadly speking there are probaby 3 large groups of D&D players pre 3rd ed,  3rd ed and 4th. The pre 3rd ed holdouts seem to have ade it clear what they want and if you go to the websites catering to them they more or less do not want anyhting to do with WoTC, feats and d20 although some of the more liberal ones my steal parts of 3rd ed (no level limts whatever).

 The 3.5 crowd want a fixed 3.5 system or Pathfinder. The 4th ed crowd want 4.5 or 13th age they do not want an unbalenced mess like 3.5. A 3.5 or 4th ed hybrid (a fixed balanced 3.5) may work if its modular enough and they do a Combat and Tactics type sourcebook/module or just do something like 13th age.

 What/who is D&DN target market?  Ideally its all D&D players- lol good luck with that one. If its simple you laienate the d20 crowd, if its complex you alienate the pre 3rd ed crowd and if you make it simple with added layers of complexity which seems to be the goal people will not buy it on release or just stick with what they have probably 2nd/3rd/4th. The 1st ed players more or less only want 1st ed and nothing else regardless as far as I can tell and they made that choice back in 1989.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless. I got to feel like I'm there and right in the action. The story got to connect to me. I don't want to play some MMO where you just kill creatures and gather gold. 

To me, D&D is about the story, the adventure, and the development of my character. 


And the classes. I have played rpg where you level up and gain stats and that's it. 
In D&D, you can do more then that. The way 5e is now, the way you build your character add colors and flavor to it. You can build almost any character you want in the game and it won't be weak, because it didn't take some combo or the strongest feats in the game. 



Who is D&D supposed to be sold to?



New people. 

I'm going to go deep with you and tell this straight from my heart. 
Screw the 4th crowd, screw the 3.5e crowd, and screw the crowd that came before that.

I want the new crowd. I want new faces. I want a game where they can easily pick up and play right away. The only way this game is going to grow if we get new people. I don't care if they are bunch of casual roleplayers, that makes my job more easy because that mean I can focus more on the story.

I have dreams. Dreams that D&D will be so popular that I can go on an online table top website and join a game right away. I want D&D be so popular that they sell it at walmart. Red Box at walmart, baby! I want D&D so popular that they actually made a good movie about it. 
I want D&D so popular that there a cartoon or anime about it. 

I really like 5e and want to do my best to introduce new people to D&D. 




Who is D&D supposed to be sold to?



New people. 

I'm going to go deep with you and tell this straight from my heart. 
Screw the 4th crowd, screw the 3.5e crowd, and screw the crowd that came before that.

I want the new crowd. I want new faces. I want a game where they can easily pick up and play right away. The only way this game is going to grow if we get new people. I don't care if they are bunch of casual roleplayers, that makes my job more easy because that mean I can focus more on the story.

I have dreams. Dreams that D&D will be so popular that I can go on an online table top website and join a game right away. I want D&D be so popular that they sell it at walmart. Red Box at walmart, baby! I want D&D so popular that they actually made a good movie about it. 
I want D&D so popular that there a cartoon or anime about it. 

I really like 5e and want to do my best to introduce new people to D&D. 







They went with this approach back in 2008. Didn't end well. It might work but I doubt it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Who is D&D supposed to be sold to?



New people. 

I'm going to go deep with you and tell this straight from my heart. 
Screw the 4th crowd, screw the 3.5e crowd, and screw the crowd that came before that.

I want the new crowd. I want new faces. I want a game where they can easily pick up and play right away. The only way this game is going to grow if we get new people. I don't care if they are bunch of casual roleplayers, that makes my job more easy because that mean I can focus more on the story.

I have dreams. Dreams that D&D will be so popular that I can go on an online table top website and join a game right away. I want D&D be so popular that they sell it at walmart. Red Box at walmart, baby! I want D&D so popular that they actually made a good movie about it. 
I want D&D so popular that there a cartoon or anime about it. 

I really like 5e and want to do my best to introduce new people to D&D. 




if they really wanted to make a game that apealed to new people they would have less mechanics that are both very bad balance wise and are only included because they resemble pre-3e.

they would also try new things, and not abandon what made 4e easy to learn and use for a new person while rushing headlong as things that made 3e a bad system for newbies



Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Who is D&D supposed to be sold to?



New people. 

I'm going to go deep with you and tell this straight from my heart. 
Screw the 4th crowd, screw the 3.5e crowd, and screw the crowd that came before that.

I want the new crowd. I want new faces. I want a game where they can easily pick up and play right away. The only way this game is going to grow if we get new people. I don't care if they are bunch of casual roleplayers, that makes my job more easy because that mean I can focus more on the story.

I have dreams. Dreams that D&D will be so popular that I can go on an online table top website and join a game right away. I want D&D be so popular that they sell it at walmart. Red Box at walmart, baby! I want D&D so popular that they actually made a good movie about it. 
I want D&D so popular that there a cartoon or anime about it. 

I really like 5e and want to do my best to introduce new people to D&D. 







They went with this approach back in 2008. Didn't end well. It might work but I doubt it.




This doesn't mean that they will fail again.

I think that Wizards should try to reach D&D fans, but having new players is fundamental to the brand.


And I share many of these dreams.

D&D has always had the problem/feature of being very identity confused as to what it wants to be. It's a problem because it makes designing it very difficult, yet it's a feature becuase it attracted multiple groups who all played D&D differently.




That's why we have "core" and the settings, I suppose.

That is something 2ed made more evident, and I that think we've lost since.
If you go back to reading your AD&D core books you get the feeling that everything in there is purposedly "vague and optional".

It had a slight tendency towards the Greyhawk setting but even so, very little of that.
The core books were telling you something like that: "these are just general rules that are here for you to toy with."

It felt like the book was telling you: "This is our idea of an Elf," or "This is how magic can be inserted into your story."
And you built your own campaign with that.
Maybe I want lots of magic and magical items. Maybe I want very scant magic. Maybe my elves aren't good with bows at all, but daggers.

Then you had the official settings who told you: "Well, in this specific world an Elf is that, and magic is handled that way."
Which, of course, you could also change to your liking, but generaly the point in playing one of the official settings was playing in a world that was ready for you, of which you maybe even read the novels about.
It was like playing a game about Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... you usually want to stick with what's written, at least storywise if not rules.


Later editions do make some mention of following the same principle at the first pages of their Core Bookes...
But then you start turning the leaves, and as you read away you get the feeling that everything is much more set in stone, like it's one of the old Campaign Settings and not Core Books with general ideas and rules for different games.


I shall end with a quote from AD&D second edition that shows what I mean:


"The fighter is a warnor, an expert in weapons
and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend:
Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha,
Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John,
Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded
with great generals and warriors: El Cid,
Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne,
Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart,
and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled
after any of these, or he could be
unique. A visit to your local library can
uncover many heroic fighters." 


 

Show
Once upon a time I was a hardcore D&D fan boy. D&D was my favorite RPG system and I was very passionate about it. I did dabble in other RPG's but I did not like most of them because I wanted a fantasy based RPG and as far I was concerned D&D was it. The only other one I liked was Star Wars D6 which I played in the 90's. I started on BECM but after a year and a bit of that I got bored with it and moved on to 2nd ed. I liked 2nd ed but I was young and loyal to TSR and then WoTC. 3rd ed came out and I had liked alot of what I had seen in Dragon magazine leading up to it and I switched over no questions asked. I more or less done the same thing with 3.5 up until 2008.

I know what I like and I know what I don't like. 4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different. It was actually very good at what it was designed to do and it had pure gold in it I was jealous of in 3.5. I tried out the play test for PF back in 2009 and passed on that as well as it was 3.5 warmed up and I could just keep playing 3.5. From 2008 through to 2012 we played a variety of systems before settling on Pathfinder which had been fleshed out a bit more and Star Wars Saga which we thought was a worthy successor to the old D6 SW which we played instead of d20 Star Wars.


The main fall out for me personally from the edition war and WoTC handling of 4th ed (even though I did not play it) is that they have lost my automatic brand loyalty I had to D&D. Most people posting on these forums are passionate about D&D even if I disagree with them strongly or they like an edition I do not. Put simply I do not trust WoTC anymore with the D&D franchise and it really would not bother me if they sold it off or even shelved it. I'm not 100% sure what I want from D&DN but I do know what I don't want, that being a reprint of 4th ed (safe from that) or a jump back to pre 2nd ed style D&D. I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes and races years ago. That is why I moved on to 2nd ed even though I liked BECM.


I like the d20 system (including 4th ed in that description) and it seems popular enough if you count Pathfinder as a d20 game. 4th ed was a step in the right direction for a less complex game as 3rd ed went to far in that direction. There may be a market out there for a basic D&D game but the d20 players are probably the largest % of D&D players (3.5, 4th, PF). That theory could be wrong but I suspect 4th ed had problems because it was different not because it was bad. D&DN is going to be different but it may pay off it may not. Put simply if I want a simple D&D I do not have to buy a new version of D&D as I still have BECM and 2nd ed for that. Maybe they can get in a large influx of new gamers and bring back relapsed players. There could be a large market for that I really do not know.


Anyway the main problem with D&DN is that it is different from the last 12 years of D&D and brand loyalty from this consumer towards WoTC has evaporated. There are other RPG products out there and I have my old D&D material anyway. 19 years of D&D and I have somewhere close to 200 books for it which is almost an average of one a month. I used to buy minis, magic cards, SWSE books and various d20 materials WoTC used to produce and very little of that 200 books is 3rd pp. I might buy D&DN I might not. That loyalty to the D&D brand/label is gone. And that is the main problem WoTC has in selling D&DN at least to this consumer/gamer.

 I like D&D so sell it to me.




TL; DR version if anyone wants:

|x| It sucks because it's different
|  | It sucks because it's the same



D&D is going to change. That is inevitable. Wizards is asking for our input so that they can make DDN something that old players can identify with and that new players will find interesting and easy to learn. If you don't like how the game is shaping up, fill out a play test response form.

I started a thread about the true story behind why 4th ed failed, but the short version is that a) Hasbro was standing over their funding with an axe, demanding impossible profitability and forcing design changes in order to deliver, and b) the lynchpin of the 4th ed design was DDI, which never came together because the lead designer ate a bullet halfway through.

So please stop claiming that wizards knowingly or maliciously designed 4e just to screw with you and acknowledge that they are now no longer under the same constraints and deserve the benefit of a doubt, or at least a FREE playtest session.
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it."
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
Once upon a time I was a hardcore D&D fan boy. D&D was my favorite RPG system and I was very passionate about it. I did dabble in other RPG's but I did not like most of them because I wanted a fantasy based RPG and as far I was concerned D&D was it.  


I was introduced to other RPGs almost concurrent with finding D&D = RuneQuest either just came out or did so right after my intro to D&D ... it was more simulationist and appealed to things I thought I wanted out of D&D and did indeed have more balance, but not quite the flavor or role/niche support.

RuneQuest taught me that there were very different ways to do things and ways that often made more "sense" so D&D didnt ever seat itself as the one true RPG... just the first.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Show
Once upon a time I was a hardcore D&D fan boy. D&D was my favorite RPG system and I was very passionate about it. I did dabble in other RPG's but I did not like most of them because I wanted a fantasy based RPG and as far I was concerned D&D was it. The only other one I liked was Star Wars D6 which I played in the 90's. I started on BECM but after a year and a bit of that I got bored with it and moved on to 2nd ed. I liked 2nd ed but I was young and loyal to TSR and then WoTC. 3rd ed came out and I had liked alot of what I had seen in Dragon magazine leading up to it and I switched over no questions asked. I more or less done the same thing with 3.5 up until 2008.

I know what I like and I know what I don't like. 4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different. It was actually very good at what it was designed to do and it had pure gold in it I was jealous of in 3.5. I tried out the play test for PF back in 2009 and passed on that as well as it was 3.5 warmed up and I could just keep playing 3.5. From 2008 through to 2012 we played a variety of systems before settling on Pathfinder which had been fleshed out a bit more and Star Wars Saga which we thought was a worthy successor to the old D6 SW which we played instead of d20 Star Wars.


The main fall out for me personally from the edition war and WoTC handling of 4th ed (even though I did not play it) is that they have lost my automatic brand loyalty I had to D&D. Most people posting on these forums are passionate about D&D even if I disagree with them strongly or they like an edition I do not. Put simply I do not trust WoTC anymore with the D&D franchise and it really would not bother me if they sold it off or even shelved it. I'm not 100% sure what I want from D&DN but I do know what I don't want, that being a reprint of 4th ed (safe from that) or a jump back to pre 2nd ed style D&D. I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes and races years ago. That is why I moved on to 2nd ed even though I liked BECM.


I like the d20 system (including 4th ed in that description) and it seems popular enough if you count Pathfinder as a d20 game. 4th ed was a step in the right direction for a less complex game as 3rd ed went to far in that direction. There may be a market out there for a basic D&D game but the d20 players are probably the largest % of D&D players (3.5, 4th, PF). That theory could be wrong but I suspect 4th ed had problems because it was different not because it was bad. D&DN is going to be different but it may pay off it may not. Put simply if I want a simple D&D I do not have to buy a new version of D&D as I still have BECM and 2nd ed for that. Maybe they can get in a large influx of new gamers and bring back relapsed players. There could be a large market for that I really do not know.


Anyway the main problem with D&DN is that it is different from the last 12 years of D&D and brand loyalty from this consumer towards WoTC has evaporated. There are other RPG products out there and I have my old D&D material anyway. 19 years of D&D and I have somewhere close to 200 books for it which is almost an average of one a month. I used to buy minis, magic cards, SWSE books and various d20 materials WoTC used to produce and very little of that 200 books is 3rd pp. I might buy D&DN I might not. That loyalty to the D&D brand/label is gone. And that is the main problem WoTC has in selling D&DN at least to this consumer/gamer.

 I like D&D so sell it to me.




TL; DR version if anyone wants:

|x| It sucks because it's different
|  | It sucks because it's the same



D&D is going to change. That is inevitable. Wizards is asking for our input so that they can make DDN something that old players can identify with and that new players will find interesting and easy to learn. If you don't like how the game is shaping up, fill out a play test response form.

I started a thread about the true story behind why 4th ed failed, but the short version is that a) Hasbro was standing over their funding with an axe, demanding impossible profitability and forcing design changes in order to deliver, and b) the lynchpin of the 4th ed design was DDI, which never came together because the lead designer ate a bullet halfway through.

So please stop claiming that wizards knowingly or maliciously designed 4e just to screw with you and acknowledge that they are now no longer under the same constraints and deserve the benefit of a doubt, or at least a FREE playtest session.



 I'm sure alienating a large chunk of your player base had nothing to do with it either, a large chunk that is now supporting another company.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless.






Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

They went with this approach back in 2008. Didn't end well. It might work but I doubt it.



That's because they tried to market it along the wargame angle, and not the RPG angle. And that actually didn't work well with teaching casual players because wargames have complicated rules.

I'd like to ditch the complicated rules and go back to storytelling simplicity.
I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless.









I am just not sure what emoticon to use... nope not sure at all.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


They went with this approach back in 2008. Didn't end well. It might work but I doubt it.



That's because they tried to market it along the wargame angle, and not the RPG angle. And that actually didn't work well with teaching casual players because wargames have complicated rules.

I'd like to ditch the complicated rules and go back to storytelling simplicity.



 Thye also tried to market it to new players as well and that didn't work out either, not that I think 2nd ed or 3.5 would have done much better in that regard either.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I am just not sure what emoticon to use... nope not sure at all.



So there really are people who read the magazines just for the articles?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

D&D has always had the problem/feature of being very identity confused as to what it wants to be. It's a problem because it makes designing it very difficult, yet it's a feature becuase it attracted multiple groups who all played D&D differently.




That's why we have "core" and the settings, I suppose.

That is something 2ed made more evident, and I that think we've lost since.
If you go back to reading your AD&D core books you get the feeling that everything in there is purposedly "vague and optional".

It had a slight tendency towards the Greyhawk setting but even so, very little of that.
The core books were telling you something like that: "these are just general rules that are here for you to toy with."

It felt like the book was telling you: "This is our idea of an Elf," or "This is how magic can be inserted into your story."
And you built your own campaign with that.
Maybe I want lots of magic and magical items. Maybe I want very scant magic. Maybe my elves aren't good with bows at all, but daggers.

Then you had the official settings who told you: "Well, in this specific world an Elf is that, and magic is handled that way."
Which, of course, you could also change to your liking, but generaly the point in playing one of the official settings was playing in a world that was ready for you, of which you maybe even read the novels about.
It was like playing a game about Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... you usually want to stick with what's written, at least storywise if not rules.


Later editions do make some mention of following the same principle at the first pages of their Core Bookes...
But then you start turning the leaves, and as you read away you get the feeling that everything is much more set in stone, like it's one of the old Campaign Settings and not Core Books with general ideas and rules for different games.


I shall end with a quote from AD&D second edition that shows what I mean:


"The fighter is a warnor, an expert in weapons
and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend:
Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha,
Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John,
Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded
with great generals and warriors: El Cid,
Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne,
Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart,
and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled
after any of these, or he could be
unique. A visit to your local library can
uncover many heroic fighters." 


 



You need to take off those rose tinted glasses. 2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless.









I am just not sure what emoticon to use... nope not sure at all.



Ever played a D&D session where the story was so good that the combat is like a bonus?


I started a thread about the true story behind why 4th ed failed, but the short version is that a) Hasbro was standing over their funding with an axe, demanding impossible profitability and forcing design changes in order to deliver, and b) the lynchpin of the 4th ed design was DDI, which never came together because the lead designer ate a bullet halfway through.


Accepting that what appears from the outside to be a relative loss of market share to equate what you are calling failure for the purposes of this discussion, methinks that if WotC boils it down to just two bullet points, they will be drastically shortchanging the entire story.  For instance, I personally don't give a flying fig about those two things.  I eventually tired of running 4e and purchasing 4e stuff for one specific reason - the flow of combat doesn't really match the way that I DM combat.

There are a multitude of reasons that 4e appears to have lost market share. 
I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless.









I am just not sure what emoticon to use... nope not sure at all.



Ever played a D&D session where the story was so good that the combat is like a bonus?

I was in a campaign where every night the story was so good combat was merely a "perk".
I got sick of dungeon hacks and simplistic classes



Out of all that wall of text, this stands out to me more. 

I'm too sick of the dungeon hacks and simplestic classes. To me, D&D is like porn. Without a good story, it's just pointless.









I am just not sure what emoticon to use... nope not sure at all.



Ever played a D&D session where the story was so good that the combat is like a bonus?





 I have run session like that. Actually ran a no combat session and the players loved it. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  


D&D has always had the problem/feature of being very identity confused as to what it wants to be. It's a problem because it makes designing it very difficult, yet it's a feature becuase it attracted multiple groups who all played D&D differently.




That's why we have "core" and the settings, I suppose.

That is something 2ed made more evident, and I that think we've lost since.
If you go back to reading your AD&D core books you get the feeling that everything in there is purposedly "vague and optional".

It had a slight tendency towards the Greyhawk setting but even so, very little of that.
The core books were telling you something like that: "these are just general rules that are here for you to toy with."

It felt like the book was telling you: "This is our idea of an Elf," or "This is how magic can be inserted into your story."
And you built your own campaign with that.
Maybe I want lots of magic and magical items. Maybe I want very scant magic. Maybe my elves aren't good with bows at all, but daggers.

Then you had the official settings who told you: "Well, in this specific world an Elf is that, and magic is handled that way."
Which, of course, you could also change to your liking, but generaly the point in playing one of the official settings was playing in a world that was ready for you, of which you maybe even read the novels about.
It was like playing a game about Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... you usually want to stick with what's written, at least storywise if not rules.


Later editions do make some mention of following the same principle at the first pages of their Core Bookes...
But then you start turning the leaves, and as you read away you get the feeling that everything is much more set in stone, like it's one of the old Campaign Settings and not Core Books with general ideas and rules for different games.


I shall end with a quote from AD&D second edition that shows what I mean:


"The fighter is a warnor, an expert in weapons
and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend:
Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha,
Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John,
Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded
with great generals and warriors: El Cid,
Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne,
Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart,
and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled
after any of these, or he could be
unique. A visit to your local library can
uncover many heroic fighters." 


 



You need to take off those rose tinted glasses. 2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...Smile




I completely disagree with you.  Non-4e editions do work straight out of the box. 
Especially BECM.

The designers of BECM, AD&D, & 2e?  They explicitly told you that house-rulings were OK.  They didn't expect any two games to run the same!  So, we tinkered with things for the shear hell of it, not because "x didn't work".  Sometimes we made things worse.  Sometimes just different.  And every-now-and-then?  We hit upon something (we thought) truely better than RAW.

The reason I didn't house-rule much in my year of running 4e?  Despite concluding "this doesn't work"? 
(my biggest change was to laugh at the statement of fact that magical ammo didn't exist - & then promptly hand out +1 arrows in the first encounter I ran).
I deemed it wouldn't be worth my time to change the system sooo drasticly - when I already had several better editions of the game on my shelf. 
After that?  I was a PC for a year.  So it really wasn't my call at that point..      
2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...



You keep saying that like you know what "does not work out of the box" means.

edit: or perhaps, that everyone agrees with your undisclosed defintion of "works"

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
The main fall out for me personally from the edition war and WoTC handling of 4th ed (even though I did not play it)

I made it this far then stopped. 

I love your avatar, though.  Looks just like a kitteh I used to have.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

The main fall out for me personally from the edition war and WoTC handling of 4th ed (even though I did not play it)

I made it this far then stopped. 

I love your avatar, though.  Looks just like a kitteh I used to have.




 THe main point of that comment was yeah 4th ed ruffled a few peoples feathers and some 3.5 players didn't like it but they should have stuck with it. Its part of the loss of faith thing with WoTC and 4 year edition cycles. People warned us about this in 90s when WoTC bought D&D from TSR.

WoTC own business practices are splintering the fanbase. I don't mind companies making money by offering quality products but the D&D fanbase is being treated as a brand loyal ATM machine.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  


D&D has always had the problem/feature of being very identity confused as to what it wants to be. It's a problem because it makes designing it very difficult, yet it's a feature becuase it attracted multiple groups who all played D&D differently.




That's why we have "core" and the settings, I suppose.

That is something 2ed made more evident, and I that think we've lost since.
If you go back to reading your AD&D core books you get the feeling that everything in there is purposedly "vague and optional".

It had a slight tendency towards the Greyhawk setting but even so, very little of that.
The core books were telling you something like that: "these are just general rules that are here for you to toy with."

It felt like the book was telling you: "This is our idea of an Elf," or "This is how magic can be inserted into your story."
And you built your own campaign with that.
Maybe I want lots of magic and magical items. Maybe I want very scant magic. Maybe my elves aren't good with bows at all, but daggers.

Then you had the official settings who told you: "Well, in this specific world an Elf is that, and magic is handled that way."
Which, of course, you could also change to your liking, but generaly the point in playing one of the official settings was playing in a world that was ready for you, of which you maybe even read the novels about.
It was like playing a game about Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... you usually want to stick with what's written, at least storywise if not rules.


Later editions do make some mention of following the same principle at the first pages of their Core Bookes...
But then you start turning the leaves, and as you read away you get the feeling that everything is much more set in stone, like it's one of the old Campaign Settings and not Core Books with general ideas and rules for different games.


I shall end with a quote from AD&D second edition that shows what I mean:


"The fighter is a warnor, an expert in weapons
and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend:
Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha,
Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John,
Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded
with great generals and warriors: El Cid,
Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne,
Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart,
and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled
after any of these, or he could be
unique. A visit to your local library can
uncover many heroic fighters." 


 



You need to take off those rose tinted glasses. 2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...

Wow. Talked about tinted glasses...Cool

You need to take off those rose tinted glasses. 2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...Smile




I completely disagree with you.  Non-4e editions do work straight out of the box. 
Especially BECM.

The designers of BECM, AD&D, & 2e?  They explicitly told you that house-rulings were OK.  They didn't expect any two games to run the same!  So, we tinkered with things for the shear hell of it, not because "x didn't work".  Sometimes we made things worse.  Sometimes just different.  And every-now-and-then?  We hit upon something (we thought) truely better than RAW.

The reason I didn't house-rule much in my year of running 4e?  Despite concluding "this doesn't work"? 
(my biggest change was to laugh at the statement of fact that magical ammo didn't exist - & then promptly hand out +1 arrows in the first encounter I ran).
I deemed it wouldn't be worth my time to change the system sooo drasticly - when I already had several better editions of the game on my shelf. 
After that?  I was a PC for a year.  So it really wasn't my call at that point..      

Well said; I agree with you completely (although I have only played in one session of 4th Edition - as a PC and not the DM).

Every version of D&D had its trials and tribulations, and has a group of players that continue to play it. But the starkest contrast I see in 4E versus the predecessors is support by the company. If you take Pathfinder as an example, there are alot of players that do not like the game, but that does not discourage Paizo from continuing to release adventure paths, supplements and attempts to expand its market.

For 5E to succeeed WOTC/Hasbro must have faith in its product and have the long term fortitude to support it and extend that to third party developers. The other problem WOTC/Hasbro has is being consistent and true to their word, and avoid the cycle of promising something, and then not meeting it,  or supporting something then removing it like PDFs or offline character builder for 4E.
I just read the first page and will say this... the key to Next's success will be the modular rules system, if I as lover of 2e skills and powers can pick up Next and run a similar game, I'll buy it. if I pick up Next and need to create a crap load of house rules and have to fight player entitlement on everything from setting to classes and racial choices, I wont buy it.

I played a 4e game every other week for almost 2 years and didnt buy a single book or supplement, it never convinced me it was something I would want to play years down the line. I've been playing in two pathfinder games for about a year now, still dont own one book by Paizo. The only way a game company is getting my money is if they create something I know I'm going to want to keep playing for a long LONG time regardless of what else may come out in the TTRPG market, I'm done buying games to use for 12-24 sessions before I and the other gamers are sick of em and were on to something else.  
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different.

This is exemplary of everything that is wrong with this hobby and edition wars.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different.

This is exemplary of everything that is wrong with this hobby and edition wars.



"The main problem I had with 3.5 was that it was broken, poorly designed and unbalanced. The main problem I had with 4E was that it wasn't."
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
4th ed was not for me for various reasons. The main problem I had with 3.5 was CoDzilla, the main problem I had with 4th ed was that it was different.

This is exemplary of everything that is wrong with this hobby and edition wars.



 Perhaps but why spend money on something you don't like? If I want cookies and cream ice cream I'm not going to buy chocolate ice cream.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

2E had very solid and very strict rules, its just that many DMs house ruled because the game didn't work out of the box. This has happened in every edition except 4E where you house ruled because you didn't like something rather than the fact that it didn't work...



You keep saying that like you know what "does not work out of the box" means.

edit: or perhaps, that everyone agrees with your undisclosed defintion of "works"



All I have to do is point out 1 rule to prove both of your wrong: Massive damage and death.

In 2E if you took 50 damage or more from a single source (attack, spell, whatever) you had to make a saving throw or die. What this meant was that you were killing your enemies in one or two hits most of the time or you would take a hit and die after a certain level. Most spells would deal more damage than this. Fireball was 4d6 + 1d6 per level max 10d6. That's 10d6 at 11th level for an average damage of 35, max damage of 60. A half way decent roll would result in the saving throw and possible death of every creature in the area ally or enemy. There were many spells that did this.

Many monsters would do the same, not including the ones that could use spells. The Aurumvorax, Tarrasque, Behir (swallow), Beholder (eye effects), and others.

Here is the actual rule:

"Death From Massive Damage
A character who suffers 50 or more points of damage from a single attack must roll a successful saving throw vs. death, or he dies."

There were hundreds of these kinds of rules hidden throughout the game and then there were rules that actually contradicted each other.

Now I'm sure you had fun, as I did. However you and I were heavily house ruling the game to make it playable. It was not playable right out of the box...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.