|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 3:58PM
#21
|
|
|
1. My favorite edition is 3.5. I have no problem throwing a quick adventure together in minutes or developing a long convoluted series of adventures over a longer period of time. 4e has been a problem for me because I can actually feel pain watching & helping players make characters. 2nd was my first D&D edition and it has a special place in my heart.
2. D&DNext isn't there yet. I see it as being on its way to becoming a system I can spend money on. If they published it in its current incarnation, then no they would have failed in their goal. As they are making changes as the playtest goes on, than this maybe the system I change over to.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 4:17PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Mearls is saying the next topic on Legends and Lore will be “Transitions”, specifically getting the various edition lovers to come together and both enjoy and support D&D Next. This is to me quite simply the ultimate (and clearly very difficult if not impossible) main goal of D&D Next.
I was a fairly active troll a while ago on these forums wrongly thinking with the right argument against what I perceived as unnecessary revisions, I might make a difference. But it was like trying to stop the waves of the ocean with a squirt gun. I knew that many older kitchen table gamers who only lurked on these forums agreed with my opinions but were choosing to wait and see rather than try and make their voices heard over the very loud and prolific younger gamers.
Though I am not participating in the playtest, (players in my area simply aren’t interested) what I read about the packets on these forums I found more and more disturbing as time went on.
Dice pools, AOO’s, a huge slew of unpopular (amongst my group) 4e rules being brought back, generic weapons, and most importantly the assumption that DM worlds will all likely be very high magic settings with many playable race/class/player options as opposed to the traditional grittier and more dangerous lower magic settings with the fewer options of basic/AD&D, and my faith in Mearls and the team of actually achieving their ultimate goal as I saw it became next to nil.
I had to assume that’s because what I wanted from D&D Next was simply an update of the game I really loved from back in the 80s, instead of returning to the types of fantasy-superhero RPG’s more like WOW than Tolken that seem to proliferate my gaming store.
I also knew I wasn’t going to be happy with just being “familiar” with the new system, I wanted a return to what I thought made D&D popular in the first place, simplicity and the right of the DM to actually create, improve, and adjust as desired as opposed to having to fight to overcome what I perceive as the modern player’s growing sense of entitlement and setting/rule assumptions that seem hammered into the core of the game (regardless of a few pacifying sentences about empowering the DM and the DM being allowed to use the rules they want.)
Though I HATE the pathfinder rule set and world (too much magic, too fast progression through middle levels and almost all games obliterated by unbalance caused by power-creep and system mastery by 12th level) I’m starting to wonder if it would just be better to stick with it like all the players and DMs in my area are telling me they plan to do, maybe house rule the hell out of it to get it to be the game I actually want to run.
Yesterday, at the table, I mentioned that I was going to check out these forums again, and asked if anyone’s opinions had changed and if they might change from Pathfinder once Next came out, one of the players at our game says…
“The D&D Next forum reminds me of kids watching Tinkerbelle die, it’s like they all shut their eyes and are all clapping their hands saying ‘I believe in D&D Next! I believe in D&D Next!’ and that if they whip themselves into a strong enough frenzy the game WOTC is proposing will be magically better than it really is and people will want to play it more than Pathfinder, but ya see this (and he tapped his hands on his large stack of pathfinder books/materials) Its not perfect but its good enough, so we got no reason to change to D&D Next, I got all I need right here.”
And that to me will be the most difficult transition for Mearls to create, to get people (like my gaming group) who are currently happy “enough” with PF to see a big enough difference and improvement in Next to shell out hard earned money and change back to D&D….
It’s probably too early to say this, but right now, I’m not seeing it… Next is just not the game that I wanted, and so far it does not seem to have enough big improvements over PF to get my players to put away the books they already own…
So to those of you who are actively participating with the playtesting… what about you…?
1) what was your favorite edition or version of D&D (but don’t tell me why, that seems to get people banned)
2) Do you think Next has done it? Do you believe that Mearls and the team have successfully overcome your loyalty to previous editions, your enjoyment of PF or other games currently on the market to such a degree that you and everyone you game with would be willing to put everything else aside if the release day was today?
So what stops you from playing AD&D or the BECMI? Nothing. BTW, AD&D was FAR from simple if you actually used the rules.
What stops you from trimming out some of the options you don't like from other systems? Nothing.
That said I don't care about D&D Next or playtesting as I have spent more then enough money on 4th. To answer your question though,
1) I like all the versions. Yhe easiest to play according to the rules is 4th, imo, and I like the tactical nature of it.
2) Don't think Mearls's vision is possible. Not only do players not know what they want at them moment what they want in a week as they evolve will change as well.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 5:07PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
JayM- so far I havent seen how the complexity of a system can greatly increase the fun unless the non-complexity some how creates unavoidable problems that cant be easily fixed with a house rule or minor adjustment. I’m still waiting for that complex system to come out and show me how it’s a vast improvement on OSR games.
I wasn't speaking of complexity in general, just your comment that you didn't like there being so many races/classes/etc. General game complexity is a rather different issue that gets into how structured a game you want and how much you want narration reflected in game mechanics.
Btw. IMHO the best most advanced RPG game ever to hit the market is Hero System which began I think in like 1982, but the fact that there is near complete freedom and a solid yet simple system to handle every possible want, need, desire or setting has not won HS massive sales, heck they cant even keep the core books printed.
Hero is one of my favorite systems also, but simple it isn't. The character design rules are longer then the combined 4e or 3e PHB and DMG together. More over, as a really open ended point buy system, it requires a lot of heavy handed DM intervetion to maintain game balance.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 5:19PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
1) what was your favorite edition or version of D&D (but don’t tell me why, that seems to get people banned)
2) Do you think Next has done it? Do you believe that Mearls and the team have successfully overcome your loyalty to previous editions, your enjoyment of PF or other games currently on the market to such a degree that you and everyone you game with would be willing to put everything else aside if the release day was today?
1. I'd have to go with 3E, although I liked certain elements of the other editions. 3E simply allowed our concepts to flourish in virtually any way that we could imagine, and it did so without restricting, homogenizing, or butchering the game world that we had loved for so long. All of our previous character concepts/classes/etc were fully supported in 3E, and it maintained our campaign worlds so we could pick up right where we left off from 2E (an absolutely critical feature of any new edition, given that role-playing campaigns can last for years). Plus, the amount of sourcebook material for our campaign setting is enough to keep us finding new things to do in 3E for many years to come. You can't beat that. But my ultimate favorite game is SAGA, and my players would pay big bucks to have a D&D version of that. The talent tree system was by far the best thing that WotC ever did, IMO. It was absolutely brilliant. 2. No, D&D Next will almost certainly not attract me as a customer, at least not as it stands right now. If the designers were simply taking the best elements of each previous edition (and SAGA) and combining them then I would probably really like it, but instead they are introducing new, controversial mechanics that are much worse than what we had before. It's this corporate "New Coke" approach that is ruining it.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 5:29PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
1. Hard to say. I have nostalgic soft spot for 2nd, but believe 3rd in its various incarnations was, on the whole, a better game. 4th edition wasn't a bad game, it just got boring after a couple of years so we went to PF almost 3 years ago and never looked back.
2. A resounding NO.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 7:01AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
Jaym- currently pathfinder has something like 300 different feats, many repetitive, some completely useless. each feat alters some general rule, a party of 8 mid level characters means the DM is going to have to keep track of 80 or so rule exceptions or changes... options can be very confusing and time consuming. a simple AD&D character had no skills but a good DM would incorporate bonuses to stat checks based on the character history you had provided. having needed options are a good thing, having unecessary or unbalancing options is a bad thing. (thats one of the reasons I really liked hero's active and actual point systems, gave the DM a good idea of how everything would balance or not regardless of system mastery) have you read through 6e hero system? rules are as complex or simple as you want them to be, including character creation, talk about modular... and I dont think you need a heavy handed DM to stop optimization, so far its been the most easy I have seen (telling you what powers or abilities must be carefully controlled or outright denied is fairly simple to me) Jacob... exactly, its new coke for the next generation whereas I'm not seeing many improvements and what is being pushed isnt exciting me regardless of the hype.
So what stops you from playing AD&D or the BECMI? Nothing. BTW, AD&D was FAR from simple if you actually used the rules.
What stops you from trimming out some of the options you don't like from other systems? Nothing.
That said I don't care about D&D Next or playtesting as I have spent more then enough money on 4th. To answer your question though,
1) I like all the versions. Yhe easiest to play according to the rules is 4th, imo, and I like the tactical nature of it.
2) Don't think Mearls's vision is possible. Not only do players not know what they want at them moment what they want in a week as they evolve will change as well.
what stops me from playing AD&D and BECMI- mainly I live in a small town and there are few gamers, if I want to play or run anything, I have to get the group to go along with it. right now there are two games a week, both Pathfinder and no other gamers with open tables. if I wanted to run AD&D nobody would show for it... so I think marketing, popularity, system loyalty, and player entitlement all stop me from being able to run AD&D.
What stops me from "trimming out" some of the options? just trying to get a group of pathfinder players to use core only is not easy, getting them to accept a lower magic world would also be difficult, then change the xp rules to increase the time players have to spend in middle levels, then change almost every character's higher level (god killer) abilities, then change the ways spells ... no its just way too much work to create something many in my area would refuse to play (since in essence I would be shutting down most optimization). I have thought about it then decided against wasting all that time for no forseeable reason... thats why I was looking forward to next coming out, thinking I could maybe bring people to it as the game I wanted to run but so far it really isnt the game I want to run.
on issue 2) it seems like most of the posters on this thread are agreeing with you, at least currently.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 7:44AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
a simple AD&D character had no skills but a good DM would incorporate bonuses to stat checks based on the character history you had provided. having needed options are a good thing, having unecessary or unbalancing options is a bad thing.
A good DM can make a good game with a terrible system and a bad DM can ruin any game system. That isn't an excuse to have a bad game system. I've played enough AD&D to hate the idea of the DM picking bonuses based on character background, because that always turned into a system where the DMs favorites got more bonuses then everybody else and where the abilities your character had changed over time because the DM forgot that your wilderness scout knew how to swim last time he got dumped in a lake.
have you read through 6e hero system? rules are as complex or simple as you want them to be, including character creation, talk about modular... and I dont think you need a heavy handed DM to stop optimization, so far its been the most easy I have seen (telling you what powers or abilities must be carefully controlled or outright denied is fairly simple to me)
I have not read the 6e rules. I have the 2e-4e rules, none of the later stuff. Unless Hero has changed the mechanics substantially, it does require a heavy hand, because it isn't nearly enough to point out the obvious powers and abilities that need to be controlled, or the obvious tricks such as loading up with non-disadvantages. It is subtle tricks such as buying up one narrow ability above the power curve for the campaign, such as running up OCV or speed, or taking advantage of situations where independent abilities stack to get advantage that isn't paid for in points, or taking advantage of any quirks added to game balance by the specific options/modules used in that game.
Your complaining that Pathfinder has too many feats and pointing to Hero as a better system. Hero is a system that lets people build the feats (powers) they want and thus in practice, has orders of magnitude more.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 7:50AM
#28
|
|
|
1) 2e/4e
2) There are elements in each packets that could convince me to change. The small issues seem to pretty much be dealt with, but its the big issues like the implementation of fighters and wizards that as of right now is making it difficult for me to commit to 5e. Fighters are much closer to being acceptable. Wizards are a ways off. I think the game is in a place where I would be willing to play in a game, but it is a ways off from me making the investment to DM it.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 8:56AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
1)
My favorite edition was second edition, and alot of it was the development of campaigns.
2) My players are happy with Pathfinder, I am pretty happy with pathfinder. It might be difficult for me to get them to switch to next.
What I am most excited about is that the developers will right the ship of the Forgotten Realms.
If Forgotten Realms is going to NOT be system neutral and require Next rules I would be more apt to switch because it would cut down on my prep time alot. Problem for me would be if it strays from the earlier 3 editions too much I will not sign on, but then I am in no worse position.
If Forgotten Realms is system neutral, then I will fanatically support it and buy everything for it again because it will be easy to use with Pathfinder or 2nd edition D&D.
It is going to be a tough call to switch or not. Pathfinder as you say is not perfect, but the balance is perfect enough for me, and the system is perfect enough for me. I tend to want the more gamey elements left behind, so if Next can resemble the older editions more I will be more apt to sign on.
With AD&D being reprinted, and Pathfinder running strong, if they do not make the 'good enough' of next better than Pathfinder, I will not be switching, unless it would make running the Forgotten Realms easier.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 9:19AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Here' a little bit of true info that may make many folks perk up their ears. I purchased Pathfinder and began playing it after the last playtest release. It seemed so "Blah" for lack of a better word that it sent me looking for what Piazo had done with the D20 system. Over all I as Mournblade like Pathfinder, my group has taken it on as their prefered flagship for New school gaming and after 3 sessions- a mini series asked me to run with it. They wont even touch Next, partly because it keeps changeing and party because it does badly what each other system of D&D did well. Next seems a cheap clone to them and they call it "Wonkey". I am waiting for the next playtest hoping for the best and expecting the worst. It is sad.
|
|
|
