|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 8:03AM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
@ Ogiwan,
Sorry, I forgot to add that I did read those two articles and I saw the writers complaining about WoTC changing from an old style of rules/gameplay to a completely new one. Not going from a newer style of gameplay to an older one, so I missed how they supported what you were trying to say.
Also, they probably never got far enough to play the Savage Tides Adventure path because that motha' was a PC meat grinder...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 8:19AM
#112
|
|
|
I agree with you why should the player who liked 4e have to put out more money on books
when we are the ones who have kept them in buisness. It's a concern of group that WOTC
might leave all those who liked 4e without a system.
I think you kind of missed the point of the edition change. About every 8 years or so they come out with a new system. That's how they bring in new players and get us to buy the books you are complaining about. If we don't, they don't make money and they go out of business, then, there aren't any new books.
Do you think that players of 3rd Ed. didn't say the same thing? I have friends that stuck with 1st Ed. because they didn't want to change to the new ones. No one is going to force you go give up your 4e books or play the new system. If you want to keep playing it, go ahead.
As for keeping them in business, yes we did, so did the people who bought 2nd Ed when it took over the franchise. Just as AD&D took over for B/X in it's turn. It seemed that they lost a lot of players with 4e, they want to try and draw some of them back and still make the system better as they do it. They are just trying to stay in business and gain some of what they lost to Pathfinder and the other systems players have gone to in the last 8 years.
For your they change systems every 8 year, 4e still then has 3-4 years left to live since it
came out in 2008. As for getting new players each ayatem of DnD has evovle for the
previous edition. But DnD next isn't a evolitoin of 4e, only thing they took from 4e was
at-wills which may have been a proggestion out of 3rd and 3.5 as giving spellcaster
something to do on their turn then be usless. It seem that Wotc was listening to those who
didn't like 4e for they were vocal about it, while those that like most of the evolition of 4e
didn't have much to say until now. Also the new system may by a way to celebrate the 40th
year of DnD.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 12:28PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
I don't really understand your reply I guess. Are you implying that the 5E playtest rules aren't a re-hash of older editions rules with a few new features sprinkled in? Have you read what the R&D crew at WoTC have themselves admitted too?
Just because you blow the dust off of an older edition doesn't mean that you can't update the portions of those rules that have since been reconsidered or reimagined and proven to be of better quality from newer versions of the game.
I don't understand the resistance to this concept. It's like saying that all new cars should be carburated becuase they were sooooo much cooler than fuel injection. Really?
Oh no, I just wanted an excuse to post those two links, because I find them so funny. As for the playtest being a re-hash of older editions...I've never heard the playtests accused of being such, just being described that way. And they're quite true, though I really don't see all the 4e that others see.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 7:20AM
#114
|
|
|
I've said this before in different threads, and I'll say it again here:
My hope is that they don't make those of us who like a little more "mechanical" meat to our game have to wait an undetermined amount of time to get what we want out of the game.
I like mechanical rules, or mechanical combat so I have to wait 3-6 months for the modules to come out to play 5E D&D - how does that make any sense?
Who says that there won't be any expansions/modules included in the first rulebook? Did Wizards make a press release I'm not aware of?
If you really want to play a game like 4th edition without spending lots of extra cash...well, you've got 4th edtion to play right now. Enjoy!
This also implies that 'mechanically' minded DMs and players should be the ones spending more money on Modules and additions and that the 'simple' system players won't have to pay to play their way.
Should I have to pay more to play 5E D&D than the simple group just to get to the content that I want to use? Are you going to buy it for me so that we can both enjoy our play experience?
Expansion books have always been a part of D&D. Extra options for character classes? Expansion book. Detailed knowledge of dragons? Expansion book. Setting where magic is used like technology? Expansion.
This is the pattern of D&D for the last 20 years.
I'd much rather see a larger book as the initial release that has 'simple' up front and 'mechanical' in the back; or 'simple' as a base with 'mechanical' injects in the margins; or whatever makes for the best Core Rulebook. Yes 'simple' gaming groups would have to pay a little more for their 'simple' game, but there may be elements from the 'mechanical' rules that simple gaming groups may like.
Totally agreed. I'd love to see everyone get what they want right from the start.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 7:38AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
@autolycus,
I still have all of my old D&D gaming books as well. I'm still working on completing the set when it comes to obscure modules, adventures, etc.
But to have 5E, re-hash some of these for me also seems like a waste of time and money as well. If I want an all ToTM game, I'll go back to my OD&D books and make it happen.
I don't need 5E to be my new "old" way to get this feeling back.
My gripe isn't that I can't play the way I like with all of my old material. It's that if we're making new material that is supposed to be the end-all-be-all for everyone, then that's what it needs to be from the get-go.
It should not be OD&D as the core ruleset, and then we module out 2E, 3.XE, and 4E and then add on truly new 5E content through expansions.
I would never spend any money on that, and it doesn't make sense to build a new game around that design. 5E needs to beg, borrow, and steal from all of the older editions but still needs to be new.
It's just my opinion. I wouldn't waste my time on all the build up to just reintroduce each edition of the game to be layered onto OD&D through modules. That technique is probably the best way to ensure that D&D dies a permanent death once and for all. I already own most of that material, so why would I pay for it again?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 11:43AM
#116
|
|
|
You can't have something entirely new, because it wouldn't be D&D any more. What I see them trying to accomplish with the playtest rules is to create the minimum ruleset that still contains the bare essential elements of D&D. What this 'must have' list is will be different for all. But what I see them including is: d20-based system, multiple polyhedral dice, Armor Class, the six classic stats, levels, to-hit/damage, saving throws, movement, skills, attacking, non-combat resolution.
The "new" bit is how they approached using the d20 and the other classic elements. Stats are now how you resolve skill contests and challenges. Bonus/penalties are reflected with advantage/disadvantage. Character customization is in the form of snap-on modules (background, theme).
That's about it. With these elements, they have built a system that runs quickly and has no frills. Things like AoO, encounter-level resources, acting on another's turn, interrupts, codified manuvers, etc. - can all be added on as needed. Were they included in the base set then you would need expansions that told you what to remove instead - a much more difficult proposal.
If they published a core book with this minimal system, plus a hefty section with optional add-ons (and package suggestions for different styles of campaigns) I would gladly pay for it. In particular I would want to see a hefty DMG with scads of suggestions for ad-hoc resolutions and examples of them in use.
Then I could use one set of modern, published books to run my Tekumel game, Forgotten Realms campaign, and Dark Suns game. Each would have drastically different sets of included/excluded modules and would feel totally different. But they would all be D&D and would all be supported.
One can dream.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 12:47PM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
You can't have something entirely new, because it wouldn't be D&D any more. What I see them trying to accomplish with the playtest rules is to create the minimum ruleset that still contains the bare essential elements of D&D. What this 'must have' list is will be different for all. But what I see them including is: d20-based system, multiple polyhedral dice, Armor Class, the six classic stats, levels, to-hit/damage, saving throws, movement, skills, attacking, non-combat resolution.
The "new" bit is how they approached using the d20 and the other classic elements. Stats are now how you resolve skill contests and challenges. Bonus/penalties are reflected with advantage/disadvantage. Character customization is in the form of snap-on modules (background, theme).
That's about it. With these elements, they have built a system that runs quickly and has no frills. Things like AoO, encounter-level resources, acting on another's turn, interrupts, codified manuvers, etc. - can all be added on as needed. Were they included in the base set then you would need expansions that told you what to remove instead - a much more difficult proposal.
If they published a core book with this minimal system, plus a hefty section with optional add-ons (and package suggestions for different styles of campaigns) I would gladly pay for it. In particular I would want to see a hefty DMG with scads of suggestions for ad-hoc resolutions and examples of them in use.
Then I could use one set of modern, published books to run my Tekumel game, Forgotten Realms campaign, and Dark Suns game. Each would have drastically different sets of included/excluded modules and would feel totally different. But they would all be D&D and would all be supported.
One can dream.
Well written post! This is it in a nutshell...I agree, and I'd be willing to pay for it too.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 2:49PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
You can't have something entirely new, because it wouldn't be D&D any more. What I see them trying to accomplish with the playtest rules is to create the minimum ruleset that still contains the bare essential elements of D&D. What this 'must have' list is will be different for all. But what I see them including is: d20-based system, multiple polyhedral dice, Armor Class, the six classic stats, levels, to-hit/damage, saving throws, movement, skills, attacking, non-combat resolution.
All very D&D like, I'll agree. The "new" bit is how they approached using the d20 and the other classic elements. Stats are now how you resolve skill contests and challenges.
Yep, and so did OD&D. Bonus/penalties are reflected with advantage/disadvantage.
This is actually new, never seen before and a rather cool mechanic. Character customization is in the form of snap-on modules (background, theme).
This came out of 4E and is a firm "maintain" in my book. That's about it. With these elements, they have built a system that runs quickly and has no frills.
Then why should I play it? If I'm using my imagination, the frills are what get the juices flowing, the wheels churning, my heart pumping. No frills is 'See **** Run' (edit: See 'Richard' Run) vs. 'Harry Potter' or 'The Lord of the Rings'. No frills is lifeless and dead, not something that inspires the imagination.
Besides, D&D has always been about spending time. It's about being with your friends, telling a great story about adventures and exploration, victories and defeat, joy and sadness. It's not supposed to be quick - it's supposed to be worthwhile. Things like AoO, encounter-level resources, acting on another's turn, interrupts, codified manuvers, etc. - can all be added on as needed.
As many have said - they think they are needed, because the no frills approach lacks "common sense" in many ways. Simple doesn't always equal better. Were they included in the base set then you would need expansions that told you what to remove instead - a much more difficult proposal.
You are forgetting rule #1 of D&D - I you don't like something, change it. If they published a core book with this minimal system, plus a hefty section with optional add-ons (and package suggestions for different styles of campaigns) I would gladly pay for it. In particular I would want to see a hefty DMG with scads of suggestions for ad-hoc resolutions and examples of them in use.
Something that is dearly needed, especially for the playtests. And something that I have suggested in other threads that I would also like to see. Then I could use one set of modern, published books to run my Tekumel game, Forgotten Realms campaign, and Dark Suns game. Each would have drastically different sets of included/excluded modules and would feel totally different. But they would all be D&D and would all be supported.
No argument here One can dream.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 4:30PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
Remember, this is only the beginning of the core...the tip of the iceberg. We'll be seeing more of the crunchy bits over the next 4 months. WotC has to satisfy both the audience that wants it simple (rules light), and the audience that wants lots of bells and whistles (rules heavy), and everyone inbetween. I think they can do it if we are patient and helpful.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:29AM
#120
|
|
|
That's about it. With these elements, they have built a system that runs quickly and has no frills.
Then why should I play it? If I'm using my imagination, the frills are what get the juices flowing, the wheels churning, my heart pumping. No frills is 'See **** Run' (edit: See 'Richard' Run) vs. 'Harry Potter' or 'The Lord of the Rings'. No frills is lifeless and dead, not something that inspires the imagination.
Besides, D&D has always been about spending time. It's about being with your friends, telling a great story about adventures and exploration, victories and defeat, joy and sadness. It's not supposed to be quick - it's supposed to be worthwhile.
Because playing a game with your friends shouldn't be a chore. And combat in the current edition is just that. There are many good things in 4th edition - but whenever a combat begins I know the momentum is about to grind to a halt. Players will spend several minutes just sitting and waiting for their turn to come round - making the whole experience much less collaborative.
Flowing quickly thorugh combat rounds, everyone is always either doing something or is about to do something very soon. The focus moves from one player to the next in a matter of seconds. The whole thing feels much more like "telling a great story" with each person jumping in constantly to add thier bit. It's frantic, hetic...and kinetic.
As for the 'no frills' bit - that's what the story and world are for. The rules don't add the frills. Lord of the Rings is exciting because of the world and the story not because of the physics engine. The DM and the players create the 'frills' as they create the story of the campaign.
I prefer a rule set that gets out of the way of the story rather than one that painfully injects itself whenever a conflict arises. I think DDN is on the right track with this.
Thanks for the civil discourse!
|
|
|
