|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 3:18AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2009
|
Those of you who believe small details can hold great information might like to know that the cover of the new FR book "Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster's Forgotten Realms" has a totally new cover format from the 4e books.
As far as I know, this is the first D&D product that has deviated from the standard D&D format since the release of "Keep on the Shadowfell" (which released before the 3 core 4e books).
What does this mean? I don't think we're seeing the format of 5e books, it's way too soon for that and the art director has already said they don't have those kind of details locked down yet. At a minimum it means that WotC wants to ensure that people browsing online or at stores know that this isn't a 4e book.
My personal opinion is that they're trying to put as much distance as possible between this book and the other 4e FR products most likely to draw those FR fans disappointed in the 4e realms. I like the 4e realms, I'm a huge 4e fan, but this really doesn't bother me. It's obvious that WotC has some books planned to cover the gap between the end of 4e and the start of 5e and it looks like this is the first book to be obviously in that camp (so far, the Menzoberranzan book has a 4e style cover, but I would not be surprised if that changed before release).
Want to know more about the history of D&D, especially how to play older editions of the game? Check out Crazy Monkey's "Tour through the editions":
http://community.wizards.com/crazymonkey/go/forum/view/133793/225799/Asylum_Play-by-Post
The current edition is BECMI, the most popular form of Basic D&D and the adventure is the classic Red Box quest to kill Bargle the evil magic user. Check it out, learn about the games roots, and enjoy the story as it unfolds.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 3:18AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
The book isn't a 4e book, why should it look like one? The Grand History didn't look like a 4e book either, or a 3.5 book.
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 03, 2012 - 4:18AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2009
|
The book isn't a 4e book, why should it look like one? The Grand History didn't look like a 4e book either, or a 3.5 book.
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 5:56AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2009
|
The book isn't a 4e book, why should it look like one? The Grand History didn't look like a 4e book either, or a 3.5 book.
I agree with you. Why then does Menzoberranzan have a 4e cover? From what we've heard it's edition neutral. (again, I wouldn't be surprised if the cover changes)
The point of my initial post was simply to draw attention to the fact that the new Ed Greenwood book is the first book since the release of 4e with a non-4e cover. That is significant in that it marks a turning point in D&D products.
Want to know more about the history of D&D, especially how to play older editions of the game? Check out Crazy Monkey's "Tour through the editions":
http://community.wizards.com/crazymonkey/go/forum/view/133793/225799/Asylum_Play-by-Post
The current edition is BECMI, the most popular form of Basic D&D and the adventure is the classic Red Box quest to kill Bargle the evil magic user. Check it out, learn about the games roots, and enjoy the story as it unfolds.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 1:46PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
The book isn't a 4e book, why should it look like one? The Grand History didn't look like a 4e book either, or a 3.5 book.
Exactly.
Yeah, I think in the speed of supporting WotC you missed the entire point of Style75's post. Edition neutral releases are a first with 4th. One follows 4th's current format, the other doesn't.
Bottom line- this book is a way for WotC to devalue, and denigrate, Heinsoo's radical change (and move forward) with the Realms. An alternative to innovation and creative (albeit with a man who is just as creative and innovative- Ed himself) thinking with a more scared cow, 1980 mindset.
Which in itself means this release is a furthering from 4th edition (the future) and a free falling towards D&D Next (the past). You will not see me nodding an Exactly here- nope.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 2:04PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Now a requiem for those who dared to change and were cut down- Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, Stacey Longstreet, Dave Noonan, Stephen Schubert, Richard Baker, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Steve Winter, Scott Rouse, Kevin Smith and Sara Girard. Casualties of those who dared kill the many sacred cows that so richly deserved their death (ah, Krull, what a flic).
A toast to the end of outside the box thinking and to a dawn of dogma mixed with a dose of inquisition to root out all controversy.
A silent nod to a Batten- if this had not happened, a tragedy of a cowardly motive, D&D Insider would have launched with all its rich promises- perhaps saving us from the two current M's dedicated to breaking down the very foundations of 4th edition.
Edition Wars are here to stay- D&D Next will NOT end them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 4:57AM
#7
|
|
|
Edition Wars are here to stay
Sure, since posts like your's ensure they stay
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 6:32AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Edition Wars are here to stay
Sure, since posts like your's ensure they stay
I don't view Edition Wars as something negative- unless you are a corporation who wants all the money in one pot.
Edition Wars are actually healthy. They promote change, free thinking, innovative design and most importantly- a constant forward evolution of game design. Without edition wars this is not possible. I don't think you will understand this but by merely responding to my post- you too are contributing to the edition wars- and that is good.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 6:40AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Look at it this way- if Paizo had gone along with the GSL and 4th edition, then the 3.5 ruleset would not have been furthered in design. If Paizo fans had not hated 4th, drew a line and criticized it, then Paizo wouldn't have had the chance to grow a rule-set.
D&D Next is not furthering 4th edition- it's morphing elements of it into a hybrid 2nd/3rd edition ruleset. D&D Next is a reaction to the edition wars but it's going about it in the wrong way. Instead of forward thinking, it's focused on the past.
Now we will have 4th, Pathfinder & D&D Next. Instead of a two headed hydra- it is a three headed one.
D&D Next is a pseudo-religious-past focused reaction to the Edition Wars. A positive reaction to the edition wars would be focused on improving game play for the sake of game play and not a ruleset to please them all.
So, yes, a requiem to those who understood this and lost their jobs because of it deserve a standing applause.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 07, 2012 - 3:20PM
#10
|
|
|
D&D Next is a reaction to the edition wars but it's going about it in the wrong way. Instead of forward thinking, it's focused on the past.
Which is not a vice. Sometimes you try a new route, along the way discover that you went down the wrong path, go back and return on the right route
|
|
|
