Anyone Else Wish D&DN Was More like 3rd ed....

 Of AD&D;) I think I am after AD&D 3rd ed. Right now Castles and Crusades has the best claim to that crown for me so looks like we're giving up waiting for a game we know very little about and has to much stuff in it we do not like.

 

 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Nope. It's got plenty in there all ready.

Actually, in some ways I do want D&D next to be like 3e. I just don't want the unorganized and over complex stuff that 3e had... If that makes sense. 4e was great at first, but over the long term the powers got too repedative for me and my group. 3e felt like it had more options, but again at the price that it was too complex. In all, I'd rather deal with more options than less complexity if I had to pick. Hoping that NEXT gets the balance right!

"Lost? Confused? Lacking direction? Need to find a purpose in your life?"

     -Welcome to Night Vale Proverb

Eeh, no. I already have 3rd Ed. And I couldn't stand 2e AD&D. A merger of the two or a clone of either would be terrible IMO. 5E needs to set its own course and figure out just what sort of product it is and who its going to cater to the most.

No, I don't want an "AD&D 3rd edition" - though I really think I'd like a "Rules Cyclopedia 2nd Edition."

 

Or, there is what D&D Next actually is, which I happen to enjoy the current existence of, and am very hopeful for the finished product.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Diffan wrote:
5E needs to set its own course and figure out just what sort of product it is and who its going to cater to the most.
Yeah, I don't want a clone of any of the previous editions; but, I don't think it should try to cater to any particular playstyle.

 

Just include something for everyone, some things from every edition, and modules that allow/encourage/support all playstyles; starting with the most Basic rules modules (common to all editions), plus Standard optional rules modules (many of which will have options for different playstyles - i.e., "dials"), and expanding the game with Advanced optional rules modules that will introduce more complex ideas or completely change/replace Basic and/or Standard rules modules (these will probably not have "dials", since they will, most likely, be intended for specific playstyles).

I love the art and background from lots of things from 2nd AD&D, a lots of rules from 3rd.. and some ideas from 4th... 3.5. Edition is my favorite, but I don´t want a new edition war. About 4th Ed I didn´t like those powers about movement, because it wasn´t my style, but I acept a new edition with the best one from previous ones. 

 

My doubt is about the future version of prestige classes or parangon paths. I like the idea of kit/theme, where PCs can be different since the first level. I love the idea of variants, with a special and specific list of class features. I would like the return of monster or racial classes, but I notice it would be a great challenge for game designers. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I like the d20 part of 3e, the Essentials classes and Feats of 4e, the DM ability to make rulings from 1e, and the Adventure modules and settings from 2e.

 

Next has most of that already.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

did you have a look at THIS ?

 

I think it's even better than CnC, and it's FREE!

My RPG Campaigns

 

I joke that D&D Next is what happens when, A Christmas Carol-like, 3rd & 4th edition's ghosts travel back in time to an evening near the end of AD&D 2E's life, and say "this is what is coming" and so AD&D 2E heads off in a different direction. So, it's like alt-reality AD&D 3rd, maybe?Cam Banks

 

I understand where you are coming from, Zard.  However, I think are our time has passed for this type of game with the D&D logo on the cover. Actually, I just happy that the game I like still exists and is being supported by multiple parties. Everything from Swords & Wizardry, Castles & Crusades, Adventures Dark and Deep (this particular retroclone stretches the OGL to the limit), Myth & Magic, ACKS. Any adventure created for these systems is interchangeable with the others with miminal modification.

 

I am starting to wonder if the market really needs another system as much as just the presense of D&D brand. WOTC obviously needs for their bottom line; but myself as a consumer really can't justify its existence.

 

@Delazar78; Chris Perkins (different from the Chris at WOTC) is really begging for a cease and desist letter with the above link. If you look at Adventures Dark and Deep, it is now gotten to the point where a trademarked name is all WOTC has got left. He uses the monsters like the beholder, carrion crawler, mind flayer, and the displacer beast but just changes the name to sphere of many eyes, corpse creeper, cthonoid, and the phase panther respectively. OGL has ony grown in strength over time. This game has almost perfect representation of Demogorgon called Demoniarch.

Shadow Frog: Swords & Wizardry Developer for Frog God Games (froggodgames.org)

No, I wish the D&D next was like 13th age, but  with a really good tatcial combat module

 

 

But I would settle for D&D having a good understanding of various playstyles and tastes, and had a robust system of options for both players and DMs.

 

However I am not holding out much hope of getting either.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

Darth_Caffeineus wrote:

No, I wish the D&D next was like 13th age, but  with a really good tatcial combat module

 

But I would settle for D&D having a good understanding of various playstyles and tastes, and had a robust system of options for both players and DMs.

 

However I am not holding out much hope of getting either.

  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."

 

I am REALLY glad that D&DN is NOT like 3e OR 13th Age. I am not a big fan of either game. I HATE 3e. I actually really like the path D&DN is heading down. I just want them to take the effort to balance everything for final release...

 
 

I agree that C&C was the game I wanted when 3e was released.   With that said, I could certainly continue to enjoy my playstyle with 3e.

 

A few months ago started a 3.5e game with new players and after reviewing everyone's character for the first time I recalled why I didn't like it.     Auditing a character sheet is a nightmare.   This made me realize that a good system should have character sheets can be validated quickly.    

 

This new group of 3.5e players engaged in the typical rants against 4e (miniaturecombat, WoW like, etc), but they didn't have anything bad to say about D&D Next.  They just called it a simple version of D&D.    I honestly think they might feel option withdrawl with D&D Next.  

 

What I found interesting is that they didn't seem to know much about D&D Next and they certainly don't follow it like we do.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Haven't played any 2e, I like the direction D&DN is going right now. Going to check out that link Delazar provided, though. Nothing wrong with having more RPGs, especially free ones!

No not at all. I like the direction D&D Next is going. If the things that were present earlier in the playtest (maneuvers, sorcerer, warlock) as they appeared in the playtest I'll be happy. Right now the only thing that will keep me from purchasing it is the exclusion of options due to pandering to the obnoxious elements.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 2e don't play any of the OSR games out there. That's exactly what they'd get.

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 3e don't play Pathfinder. That's exactly what they'd get.

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 4e don't play...oh wait. Well, I guess that group is pretty well up a creek sans paddle.

 

I can understand why people would want 5e to be an improvement on previous versions of the game, to be very attractive to new players, be easy and fun to run at the table, with just enough tradition to be recognizable but enough different to warrent it being a different edition.

 

Seems like a lot of people would rather 5e just be the D&D they already have (maybe slightly improved, but not too different), not something new and interesting.

 

Which is why I really wish D&D would just stick to OSR material only, and let new players enjoy that if they want (making no other concessions to gain new players).

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."

Delazar78 wrote:

did you have a look at THIS ?

 

I think it's even better than CnC, and it's FREE!

 

Holy Awesomeness, Batman! WotC needs to hire this guy!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Zardnaar wrote:

 Of AD&D;) I think I am after AD&D 3rd ed. Right now Castles and Crusades has the best claim to that crown for me so looks like we're giving up waiting for a game we know very little about and has to much stuff in it we do not like.

I wish classes were more 3e with some more choices and options upon leveling up. Building characters is a lot blander and customization will likely bethe deciding factor in my players being willing to swap or not. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 2e don't play any of the OSR games out there. That's exactly what they'd get.

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 3e don't play Pathfinder. That's exactly what they'd get.

I don't understand why people who want 5e to be just like a slightly improved (but not too different) 4e don't play...oh wait. Well, I guess that group is pretty well up a creek sans paddle.

 

I can understand why people would want 5e to be an improvement on previous versions of the game, to be very attractive to new players, be easy and fun to run at the table, with just enough tradition to be recognizable but enough different to warrent it being a different edition.

 

Seems like a lot of people would rather 5e just be the D&D they already have (maybe slightly improved, but not too different), not something new and interesting.

 

Which is why I really wish D&D would just stick to OSR material only, and let new players enjoy that if they want (making no other concessions to gain new players).

 

I'll give you the reason.  The traditionalists love D&D and feel it got "stolen" from them by the modernists.   They feel the flagship should represent the majority of gamers.

My favorite edition is PF. 

 

Here is what I want from 5e.

 

The simplicity and streamlined core rules of 4e Gamma World.

 

The options, innovation, and customization of PF.

 

The ability to create interesting martial warriors like those of 3e ToB.

 

The ability to create simple martial warriors like 4e essentials. 

 

Skill and utility abilities available to all classes like the earlier packets "expert feats" or 4e skill/utility powers. 

 

The ability to easily run TotM like 13th Age.

 

I want 5e to be a mashup of the best parts of all of those, not merely another ret clone

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

 

strider13x wrote:

 

Delazar78 wrote:

did you have a look at THIS ?

 

I think it's even better than CnC, and it's FREE!

 

 

Holy Awesomeness, Batman! WotC needs to hire this guy!

 

 

I feel like I just d/l'ed copywrite material. Are these pdf's legal?

Keyword NO

  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."

 

NO!

 

I really liked 3e in the beginning and then enjoyed its evolution all the way into Pathfinder. I even still play. But when 4e came out (for all its inovation), I saw how simple things could be and began to dislike 3e's micro rules for evrything under the sun. One HAS to be a rules lawyer to play or have one at the table, so to speak. And even with the goodness of Pathfinder, I can't help but feel it is a broken system.

 

I agree with Blacksheepcannibal's perspective about why folks want 5e to be their game, but better. But I love the direction 5e is heading. I have similar concerns in some areas of the mechanics that others share, but I cannot wait to see the polished version when it hits and will be purchasing.

If I want to play 3e.... I'll play Pathfinder.    Why should we want to make another clone?

Imsolost wrote:

My favorite edition is PF. 

 

Here is what I want from 5e.

 

The simplicity and streamlined core rules of 4e Gamma World.

 

The options, innovation, and customization of PF.

 

The ability to create interesting martial warriors like those of 3e ToB.

 

The ability to create simple martial warriors like 4e essentials. 

 

Skill and utility abilities available to all classes like the earlier packets "expert feats" or 4e skill/utility powers. 

 

The ability to easily run TotM like 13th Age.

 

I want 5e to be a mashup of the best parts of all of those, not merely another ret clone

 

I'll go with that. +1

There's that word again, robust. Sturdy in construction... so unbreakable? Or at least hard to break.

 

I'm struggling to apply that word to any ttrpg.

kadim wrote:

There's that word again, robust. Sturdy in construction... so unbreakable? Or at least hard to break.

 

I'm struggling to apply that word to any ttrpg.

Robust also means "strong," "healthy,"  and  "vigorous."      So, when applied to an RPG, it means varied and useful modules that can be applied to a wide variety of situations.   

I hope Next will find its own style. 

But anyway, for me 4ed have open my mind.

Yes, every classes could have cool stuff and you can heal without magic! Even the skill challenge give us (after some management) a very efficient way to mix role play and skill use.

But I admit, 4ed become messy after mid paragon. To much feat, effect, stacking, interrupt chain, ....

 

I think Next will continue to make DnD grown up.

The new spell system is brilliant even if it make a step toward the old vanican casting.

 

But mostly I want to play a "2014 game" who benefit from 40 years experience of play.

There is a lot of good stuff in previous editions and other games, but Next is one of the rare one that try to be a better game.

Most of others games will say as they are for eternity.

 

 

 

Emerikol wrote:

I'll give you the reason.  The traditionalists love D&D and feel it got "stolen" from them by the modernists.

Which doesn't explain why they wouldn't just play the OSR games that give them exactly. what. they. want.

 

They feel the flagship should represent the majority of gamers.

So instead of playing a game that gives them exactly what they want, they choose to instead demand that this other game give them exactly what they want (which is to say, what they already have with thier chosen edition of preference) so that other people can't get a different game, just the same game redone with a few minor changes (not too much tho)?

 

Which is exactly why I really wish that D&D would go all-OSR-all-the-time, and let another game company actually make efforts to modernize, push the hobby forward, and appeal to newer audiences.

 

Which would be a great business model for D&D to have, I'm sure. Record breaking profits.

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."

5E is its own game and i'm pretty happy with it.

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

Which is exactly why I really wish that D&D would go all-OSR-all-the-time, and let another game company actually make efforts to modernize, push the hobby forward, and appeal to newer audiences.

 

Which would be a great business model for D&D to have, I'm sure. Record breaking profits.

 

I believe that D&D would dominate going OSR (as in 2e AND scalability to 3e).   I agree with you though that there is no reason they couldn't provide a 4e like game or something using those same guidelines and sensibilities.   They could do many things and make a ton more people happy and probably a ton more money.

 

To most of us, D&D was a super popular and very profitable game loved by millions.  There was no need to throw that away and alienate so many people.  Just branch out and make other roleplaying games.  I'm all for it.  

Emerikol wrote:
I'll give you the reason.  The traditionalists love D&D and feel it got "stolen" from them by the modernists.   They feel the flagship should represent the majority of gamers.

 

Which is funny, because 3e being such a departure from traditional D&D was a major complaint at the time.

 

Not to mention 3.x was one of the least mechanically functional editions and broke apart as easily as wet tissue paper if your players knew anything about the game.

Bingo.  D&D has always changed, and it's changes have always pissed some fans off.  From OD&D, to the BECMI/AD&D split, to 3rd, to 4th, to Next.  There has always been a small group that hated having their favored game being ended for a new editon, and a new playerbase.

 

The monkeywrench that threw everything into a tizzy was the OGL.  That allowed old, defunct editions a spark of new life, and disgruntled fans the opportunity to continue to play their prefered edition with new support.

 

Emerikol's post:

 

Emerikol wrote:

I'll give you the reason.  The traditionalists love D&D and feel it got "stolen" from them by the modernists.   They feel the flagship should represent the majority of gamers.

 

Kinda sums up the edition wars.  The "traditionalists" or side whatever not only want their favorite game continued/supported, they way it the majority.  They want to be the catered to, preferred audience.  They want to be officially supported by WotC as The Official Fanbase of D&D, and Their Preferred Playstyle to be Official.

 

Which I personally think is wrong, as the "traditionalsits"/whatevers are a small but loud minority.  Games that cater to them alone will be small affairs than D&D proper.  By chasing this smaller audience, and ignoring the larger audience of current fans and potential new players, I guess Next is going to be a dud.  Why would the OSRs/Pathfinder fans return to Next?

Personally, I'd prefer something much closer to 4E, but without any of that "cinematic action" or "PCs are special" stuff. If it was an objective reality where the game rules were the natural laws of the universe, and those just happened to allow for consistent martial exploits in an AEDU structure (or, more reasonably, a Fatigue Point structure), then I could definitely go for that.

The metagame is not the game.

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:

Bingo.  D&D has always changed, and it's changes have always pissed some fans off.  From OD&D, to the BECMI/AD&D split, to 3rd, to 4th, to Next.  There has always been a small group that hated having their favored game being ended for a new editon, and a new playerbase.

 

The monkeywrench that threw everything into a tizzy was the OGL.  That allowed old, defunct editions a spark of new life, and disgruntled fans the opportunity to continue to play their prefered edition with new support.

 

Emerikol's post:

 

 

Emerikol wrote:

I'll give you the reason.  The traditionalists love D&D and feel it got "stolen" from them by the modernists.   They feel the flagship should represent the majority of gamers.

 

 

Kinda sums up the edition wars.  The "traditionalists" or side whatever not only want their favorite game continued/supported, they way it the majority.  They want to be the catered to, preferred audience.  They want to be officially supported by WotC as The Official Fanbase of D&D, and Their Preferred Playstyle to be Official.

 

Which I personally think is wrong, as the "traditionalsits"/whatevers are a small but loud minority.  Games that cater to them alone will be small affairs than D&D proper.  By chasing this smaller audience, and ignoring the larger audience of current fans and potential new players, I guess Next is going to be a dud.  Why would the OSRs/Pathfinder fans return to Next?

 

I think if we were sitting around the table in 1993 you might be right.  Perhaps in those days the disgruntled people were 1 or 2% of the fanbase.  In 3e maybe it was 10%.  Maybe.  I find more "retired" 3e players who prefer OSR now who loved 3e when it first came out.  I didn't personally know a single anti-3e person in 2000.   4e though changed in very fundamental ways.  I'm guessing 60 or 70% of existing players rejected 4e.  So there is a difference.  The switch from 3e to 4e was like the American Civil War.  It was a major split.   And that has nothing to do with the OGL.  

 

Pathfinder exists because it was such a split.  The split does not exist because of Pathfinder.  

 

If you look at the list of "sacred cow rules" they used in designing 3e, you'd see that 4e slaughtered every single one of them.  In 2000, it was forbidden to even touch one.  

 

 

 

 

I dont think I would want more 3e in DnD Next.  Maybe a little less of somethings but overall I think it has a good balance.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Shasarak wrote:

I dont think I would want more 3e in DnD Next.  Maybe a little less of somethings but overall I think it has a good balance.

 

I am so totally on the fence about everything that I can't possibly decide until I see the book.  I will review it at Gen Con and buy there if I like it.  If I decide not to buy it the reason won't be just some minor thing I don't like.  It will be some move that is very clearly a rejection of the old schoolers.  If that is what they do then I'll reject them and go my own way.  Probably the same path as Zard or even my own custom set of rules.

 

 

I wish it was less like 3rd.  It seems like it's taking a step back, becoming more complex, but with less content.

 

In 4th edition you could make characters anyway you wanted, but the roleplaying element suffered a bit.

 

In 3rd edition you can't take any options for your characters until you meet a list of prerequisite feat taxes, and you're guided into creating the character they want you to have since a lot of the style defining feats have pretty hefty stat requirements.

 

I look at the translation of 4th edition elements into next and it looks like they tried they're absolute best to make them unappealing.  Unless you are a Dwarf. 

dwarves get stronger every edition.  Now they're going to get a natural armor bonus, and lose their movement penalties.  And they took some of the best feats from 4th edition and added them as Dwarf Racial features.

 

In 4th Dragonborn had a ton of feat and class support, and now they've refluffed them as the bastard slave offspring of full Dragons, made they're racial powers nearly useless by requiring you to expend a standard action to use it, inexplicably given them resistance...

 

They even went so far as to taking away your ability to decide what your character looks like, forcing you to have a skin color and features based on what Breath Weapon/resistance you were forced to choose.  They mention the Albeir Dragonborn briefly, but provide no alternate options for them.

 

Warforged are straight unplayable until they clear up that Living Construct/Construct quagmire.

 

Weapon finesse makes dexterity the strongest stat in the game again.  There is no need for a Barbarian to have any strength when they can have better defenses/initiative/damage from concentrating everything into dual wielding-scimitars with high Con and Dex.  All so that Drizzt wouldn't be an illegal build under the current rules.  If you remember Drizzt was a Strength based Fighter/Ranger to begin with.

 

The rules for Diagonal movement on a grid are needlessly stupid.  In 3rd edition we never bothered with a grid or minis because of how much the diagonal movement rules bogged everything down.

I'm waiting on a part for my Delorean.

No.

 

People who want 3rd edition can play Pathfinder.

Emerikol wrote:

 

blacksheepcannibal wrote:

Which is exactly why I really wish that D&D would go all-OSR-all-the-time, and let another game company actually make efforts to modernize, push the hobby forward, and appeal to newer audiences.

 

Which would be a great business model for D&D to have, I'm sure. Record breaking profits.

 

 

I believe that D&D would dominate going OSR (as in 2e AND scalability to 3e).   I agree with you though that there is no reason they couldn't provide a 4e like game or something using those same guidelines and sensibilities.   They could do many things and make a ton more people happy and probably a ton more money.

 

To most of us, D&D was a super popular and very profitable game loved by millions.  There was no need to throw that away and alienate so many people.  Just branch out and make other roleplaying games.  I'm all for it.  

 

What was the situation of the Fantasy genre in 1974?

A few books and films, some war Games,  and  One RPG,  the new born DnD.  An obscure hobby for a few people.

 

And Now?

40 years later you can’t count the numerous Books, Novell, Movies, TV Series, BoardGame, WarGame, RPG, Video Game, Medieval Simulation activity, and other material that are available widely to everyone. It has been an explosion of the fantasy genre.

 

Where should go DnD? Return to the style of 1980? Or evolve to 2014?

I don’t think Next has to return to an OSR style  game.  The world has changed and the players (at least most of them) have changed too.

 

Now imagine a 2014 beginner. A young man of 20, who has  play War Craft, Assassin creed, Sky Rim and Magic gathering. 

Try to explain him that is wizard has only one magic missile spell for the day, and that he will shoot crosbow after using it. 

It is there that you want Next to Go?

 

 

Topic locked