|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:23AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
3) Videogames. I am serious, in this age of computer games, there is no better way to introduce people to roleplaying games than by making a good CRPG out of the rules and settings. I became aware of D&D when playing Baldur's Gate II, and Vampire Bloodlines made me interested in other RPGs as well. 4th Edition would have been just about perfect for the DS and PSP, considering how many tactical strategy games are available for those platforms.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 5:50AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2003
|
Well, that's what convinced me not to go down that road. I know what I would do, and the result would be a fairly deep rewrite that was still a lot like 4e. In other words now I'd be playing a whole different game, so what's the point? If I'm going to make up my own entire game with all its content then I might as well just start from zero and REALLY make my own game. At that point whatever I say next is OT. If OTOH I actually want to play something with my friends that they can buy, then why bother? 4e's flaws are really kinda fairly trivial and 99.9% of it works fine if you play to its strengths. It is just TME to go down the cloning path.
Maybe in 10 years when I'm tired of 4e's foibles and WotC isn't likely to care what I do, then I can make a nice clone, if I feel like it.
I can definitely see your point, but I'm a perrenial tinkerer who's already done this before (my version of Mage: The Ascension is sitting at around 55,000 words of raw mechanics, lacking only the volumes of fluff and using the opponent creation rules to create a Monster Manual section to make it a complete RPG game system... well, and actually pulling all the seperate sections; task resolution, character creation, abilities/skills, merits/flaws, magic, gear, opponents; into a single file and making sure that some peripheral rules I haven't touched in 4 years are still compatible with the latest core re-write... ex. prices will be fine, but I still need to go through the equipment list to change the damage/armor values because of the recent rewrite of the combat rules).
I'm rambling again... Short version; I actually LIKE to dig around in the mechanical guts of game systems. I may actually enjoy doing that MORE than I enjoy playing the games themselves (I actually run more than I play, but I tinker even more than I run). So the idea of ripping the guts out of 4E, keeping what works, throwing out what doesn't, and generally building an improved game engine is actually my idea of FUN.
I'm weird... I admit it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 7:11AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
3) Videogames. I am serious, in this age of computer games, there is no better way to introduce people to roleplaying games than by making a good CRPG out of the rules and settings. I became aware of D&D when playing Baldur's Gate II, and Vampire Bloodlines made me interested in other RPGs as well. 4th Edition would have been just about perfect for the DS and PSP, considering how many tactical strategy games are available for those platforms.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.
Also, I have practically the same experience with videogame versions drawing me to the original RPG.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:34AM
#54
|
|
|
In my opinion, 4th Edition failed for four major reasons:
In some degree I disagree on all points.
1) The online components were broken or took too long to be implemented decently.
3) Videogames.
These are frills. We should have done them and/or better, but the game grew & thrived without them. 4e was not doomed by any flaws in these areas.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />2) Brand. The biggest problem with D&D and roleplaying games is that major overhauls are necessary to develop a better game. Unfortunately, there will be people who are fond of a particular edition and stick by it. This is bad in the long run because the fanbase becomes increasingly fragmented with each iteration. I think that if 4th Edition was called a different game, it would have succeeded.
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
4) WOTC. Simply put, the company is terrible at managing D&D, and often shoots itself in the foot. There are too many case studies to explain in detail, but WOTC created Pathfinder by forcing Paizo into an untenable position with the 'Poison Pill' clause.
D&D survived TSR. Not much that WOTC did/does will be worse. Ultimately of course, all is its fault, but selling D&D to somebody else won'T save 4e.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
I am of the opinion that the push for 5th Edition is less about making a quality game and more about trying to appease every generation of D&D fan...which is going to fail terribly, because you can't please everybody.
I fear you are right on that.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:07PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
In my eyes the best thing that WOTC could do is keep all 4th Edition content online, therefore preserving the content that they've paid out thousands for their employees to create and keep subscriptions going from people only interested in 4E.
Whilst doing this, they should add 5E Content to the same subsciption, I imagine quite a few people will out of sheer curiosity use the character builder to create a DNDNext character and fall in love with their character, and therefore gain interest in DND Next.
What they'll actually do is anyone's guess and may defy all logic.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 2:18PM
#56
|
|
|
Let's not start the "Is 4e D&D or not" argument.
The lack of a good video game surprises me. You would think that DDO should have been a great opportunity. Sadly, it was badly flawed from the get-go. Lazy writing and poor mechanics.
Oh well.
In a way, just like most of the classic games--at least, the ones I ran into, which relied on the brand name but generally sucked.
Colors
Show
Bow down, my subjects, for I am your master! Yesss.....
Show
For some reason, none of my friends were surprised by this...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 1:11AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significant changes in 'attitude,' that shifted the focus from selling to DMs (tons of settings, for instance) to selling to players (tons of splatbooks full of broken feats, items, spells, and PrCs), and from wide acceptance of variants to the enshrinement of RAW.
I wasted a lot of my time on the old boards defending 3.x from old-school reactionaries, and I ran into no small number of them in person, too. There were 2e games at ever con I went to.
It was nothing like the Pathfinder phenomenon, but there was no open-source option to go head-to-head vs WotC with TSR's old product, as there is now.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
Nod. Looked at as a version of D&D, 4e is phenomenal, revolutionary, and a failure. Looked at as just another of the endless stream of games better than D&D it's neither phenomenal nor revolutionary - but was remarkably successful.
The D&D nameplate changes everything. If Pathfinder were an official version of D&D it would be deemed a dismal failure with its current sales, as a competitor, even though a clone, Paizo is riding high with that revenue.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 6:57AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2012
|
I was skeptical at starting my 1st time as DM with 4e from the things I have read and it's my group's 1st time too, but so far I'm enjoying it. I don't consider it a failure and I will ignore some things I don't agree with using in order to allow the game to be a smooth fun experience. I am also using adventures from previous editions and yes, I am conveting that stuff to 4e. So I don't see 4e as a failure, but a failed attempt by a company that is treating D&D as if it is MTG. It's obvious WotC were/are in over their head. Next thing you know they will be implementing "Limited, Standard, and Extended" to our beloved game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 11:38AM
#59
|
|
|
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significant changes in 'attitude,' that shifted the focus from selling to DMs (tons of settings, for instance) to selling to players (tons of splatbooks full of broken feats, items, spells, and PrCs), and from wide acceptance of variants to the enshrinement of RAW.
I wasted a lot of my time on the old boards defending 3.x from old-school reactionaries, and I ran into no small number of them in person, too. There were 2e games at ever con I went to.
It was nothing like the Pathfinder phenomenon, but there was no open-source option to go head-to-head vs WotC with TSR's old product, as there is now.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
Nod. Looked at as a version of D&D, 4e is phenomenal, revolutionary, and a failure. Looked at as just another of the endless stream of games better than D&D it's neither phenomenal nor revolutionary - but was remarkably successful.
The D&D nameplate changes everything. If Pathfinder were an official version of D&D it would be deemed a dismal failure with its current sales, as a competitor, even though a clone, Paizo is riding high with that revenue.
Its quite clear actually that there was fragmentation and it was a problem. D&D itself has always been the most popular RPG. Nothing has consistently threatened that. OTOH D&D sales reached their peak with 1e AD&D plus red box Basic by around 1983. TSR clearly was always cognizant of the issue. They avoided major fragmentation by simply not tinkering with the rules much. Every D&D product TSR released was close enough to compatible with the others to not matter much. Even so 2e fell FAR short of 1e in core book sales, so something was happening.
When WotC bought D&D they explicitly acknowledged fragmentation by releasing the OGL, who's avowed purpose was to make it less likely and to at least create a way to build a common platform. Obviously this would not have been addressed if there wasn't a realization that fragmentation was bad.
Indeed the D&D brand name changes things. I strongly doubt 4e would have attracted much attention at all as a small publisher game. It would have its fans like FC or SW have perhaps. It wouldn't be on the radar compared with D&D (and right now today if I went to one of my D&D groups and mentioned FC or SW or HQ they'd not know what I was talking about). 4e HAD to be an edition of D&D. It makes no sense otherwise.
IMHO 4e IS D&D. It is far more D&D than any other currently available game is and we play "D&D" with it and it works for that. D&D is more than rules.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:49PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
On the subject of clones:
1) You don't have to change a lot of names. WotC doesn't own terms like d20, strength, dexterity, fighter, feat, etc.
2) By US IP law, once you publish a set of game rules, you essentially lose control over them. The rules aren't copyrighted so nothing prevents someone from developing a similar game.
3) This does not mean you get to do a direct copy and paste of everything in the rulebook. But if you are willing to take the time to rewrite it, or if you find relevant text blocks that are OGL, you could use the same rules framework.
4) Definitely don't copy flavor text, artwork, etc. Basically if it's not mechanical stuff, leave it alone.
5) The OGL and GSL are licenses. You can choose to use them or not. Obviously if you use them it eliminates a lot of question as to whether or not your product is legal, but particularly in the case of the GSL you will find that you are more limited than what you could legally produce without a license.
6) The OGL and GSL are not rules structures, they are licenses. If you use the OGL, nothing prevents you from using terms or structure outside the d20 system. So there is no reason you could not introduce powers into an OGL game.
*I'm not a lawyer, but these are my impressions after doing a lot of reading through US law as well as some well-written articles by someone who is an IP lawyer.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
