Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

D&D 5e Discussion

12357122

Posts

  • LowlanderLowlander Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote:
    But at the end of the day, D&D is an engine in my mind, not a full game. And like any engine, you need to either keep coming out with expansion modules or updates to keep selling product.

    Or you could do what D&D did for it's first 20 years, and just grow your audience (and thus sell more products), by having an easy to pick up system (Thac0 aside) that doesn't devolve combat into a grid based miniatures game, and focuses more on storytelling.

    Some things are kinda neat about 4e. I don't mind all classes getting flashy powers consumate with mage spells. What irritates me is that it is strictly codified around a grid based system. If I wanted to play a war game, I'd go play WHFB, or 40K, and even those games realize that you don't robotically move in five foot increments. When I started playing in the mid '80s, few people even used mats and markers. You just described what you wanted to do, and if the DM said you were close enough to run up to an orc, you could.

    I don't know if it's just my enormous brain, but I liked having more than ten skills to choose from for my characters. The proficiency system in 2E and the skills in 3E were much better than 4E.

    Also, what the F are the Eladrin and Dragon born, and what are they doing in my Forgotten Realms, which you have permanently ruined by fast forwarding to the point that the world's history is next to meaningless. Maybe there should be Kender in FR too. Why not. I understand that any game I play in, I can do what ever I want and ignore their stupid mistake, but the Forgotten Realms campaign books they released for 4E are worse than garbage.

    steam_sig.png
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    I've got two extremes here.

    Stuff I'm sure that's never going to happen but would make me absolutely excited would be storygame hooks like Aspects.

    going back to "monsters created using the same rules as PCs" is probably going to be a deal-breaker.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    I feel like I should be pessimistic. Are they seriously proposing that the strength of this edition is going to be the group's ability to customize it? Is that not a default state of all tabletop RPGs? On the other hand, I love modular design and the idea that the game itself might have "rules" for crafting a D&D experience from the very core excites me.

    It's all speculation here, but my brain keeps on catching on the mere potential of a new edition. Hell, that's what got me into 4th Edition when it came out. New! If the current business model is to just sell and re-sell books to consumer whore gamers, then I guess I'm part of the problem because I'm already hooked and excited to hear more about a game that I know almost nothing about.

  • AegofAegof Registered User regular
    I've got two extremes here.

    Stuff I'm sure that's never going to happen but would make me absolutely excited would be storygame hooks like Aspects.

    going back to "monsters created using the same rules as PCs" is probably going to be a deal-breaker.

    The end result is pretty close already in 4e. Simplifying the "assign your numbers" bit of character creation to the thing we use to build monsters would be okay by me. All the fun bits are in the items and cool stuff you can do anyway, so have some choice there, but if you end up with a level 5 Fighter that looks near identical to the level 5 soldier on the other team, I think I'd be cool with that.

    I'm providing ambience.
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I liked 4e (Before the bloat) but my gaming group ranged from apathy to outright dislike, so we never got too much into it. (Which is a bummer for the 12 4e books on my shelf. Then again I have like 30+ wraith books on my shelf and never played a game of that. :D

    I liked the powers giving all classes a bunch of colorful options, and I liked how it managed to keep the various classes relatively balanced. I didn't like how it took almost all of the unqiuness and flavor out of classes like the Wizard, especially in regards to the move to rituals. The simple monster design was great too.

    Overall, what I would like to see is a coming together of these ideas (a bit like essentials.). I'd like to see martial combat take on a more fluid system, with lots of various kinds of attacks, but without some of the zanier aspects of 4e with it's encounter and daily powers. I want to see melee combat actually be a cinematic back and forth rather than trading standard attacks back in forth. I'd love to see maneuvers like parries and deflection incorporated into combat.

    Magic... needs work but I don't know what to do with it. 4e became too bland, making Wizards effectively just another class. But 3.5/pathfinder isn't what I want, as I hate the idea of "burning" spells and having to prepare specific spells each day. If a caster knows how to throw a fireball, I want him to be able to throw a fireball and not have to worry about if he has enough spellslots or if he still has a fireball spell memorized for the day. But I'm not sure how to do that while maintaining the impressiveness of a wizard but also not making him horribly overpowered. A mana system is the best I can come up with and honestly that seems like a horrible kludge. I dunno.

    Undead Scottsman on
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    i-xTWHDNT-L.jpg

    That said, didn't they claim to extensively poll the userbase when WotC first set about building 3e? Although if the userbase's influence is limited to choosing which monster we'll see in the first example scenario, then it might be okay in the long run.

    Amigu wrote:
    I really don't understand how people can say they preferred pathfinder to fourth edition.
    It's not complicated. 4e was a radical reshake of D&D to try and solve some of the fundamental problems. Pathfinder was a fresh coat of paint on the familiar. For a lot of people, 4e somehow missed what they wanted in an RPG. For others (a group I'd guess that were much larger) the new system worked out great. They were two very different styles of game (within the rules-heavy end of RPGs anyhow), it shouldn't be a surprise that opinion was split.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Heh, Girls Gone Feywild. I'd buy that dvd.

    Err, I mean I think the main difference is that Wizards is going to release the rules into the wild a long time before launch so they can get a wide range of first hand impressions and sort of gauge the reaction it's getting. Rather than going "well, this is something we're planning on, what do you guys think."

    Being able to actually try the rules out in a game means all the difference in the world.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Well, that's Paizo's marketing strategy too and it works out really well for them, so I can hardly blame them for giving it a whirl too.

    I think the issue might come in that Paizo are catering to a pretty well defined market, whereas Wizards are trying to bring those same players, along with the ones that play 4e and the wider untapped market into one place. Paizo's boards are a nightmare at the best of times, during a playtest they reach unfathomable levels of stupid. Trying to do that with two market sections that stereotypically don't get along is going to be much more difficult to do while keeping it all looking professional.

    Unless they restrict public feedback so that it just ends up in the bin rather than on a public forum?

    Edit: Actually, they'll be using the WotC community thing which is such a tangled mess that nobody will ever read most of the feedback while letting the layers make their noises. It's a solid solution.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • AnialosAnialos Collies are love, Collies are life! Shadowbrook ColliesRegistered User regular
    Heh, Girls Gone Feywild. I'd buy that dvd.

    What, I would. :winky:

    "there's sin enough without treating love like a sin"
  • Foolish ChaosFoolish Chaos Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    What I really want from a new edition is for them to seriously bring table top role-playing to the fucking technological present.

    Character builders, DM tools, virtual tabletop, and readable rules on phones/tablets/laptops (pdfs will get the job done, but aren't really ideal), and make most of it available without a subscription fee. I think alot of people play DnD, and other table top games, because it is a basically free way to spend time with friends. A subscription fee kind of breaks this to the point where people just won't use it, because they can't get the rest of their group to shell out the money.

    Rules are kind of seconday, really. I'm sure what they will come up with will be DnD, just like 3.5, pathfinders, and 4e is dnd. The core experience will be the same.

    Foolish Chaos on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    i-xTWHDNT-L.jpg

    That said, didn't they claim to extensively poll the userbase when WotC first set about building 3e? Although if the userbase's influence is limited to choosing which monster we'll see in the first example scenario, then it might be okay in the long run.

    Yeah, they did like a hundred question survey in Dragon and other sources bout what and how people actually played and found that many of their assumptions had been totally wrong.
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Amigu wrote:
    I really don't understand how people can say they preferred pathfinder to fourth edition.
    It's not complicated. 4e was a radical reshake of D&D to try and solve some of the fundamental problems. Pathfinder was a fresh coat of paint on the familiar. For a lot of people, 4e somehow missed what they wanted in an RPG. For others (a group I'd guess that were much larger) the new system worked out great. They were two very different styles of game (within the rules-heavy end of RPGs anyhow), it shouldn't be a surprise that opinion was split.

    I still think that by Wizards screwing up the licensing for 4th edition products they created their own problem. Paizo either had to not publish something for a year or "create" their own system. Amazing that they chose the one that doesn't put them out of business.

    There have always been those who would rather stick with the previous edition. This time they had a company catering to their needs from the very point they had them.

  • elbruceelbruce Registered User
    edited January 2012
    Going from 3.5e to Pathfinder seemed like a much more logical progression. Most of the rules were the same, but the changes they made, the ideas they added, and the source material they had to recreate, were all welcome across the board. It seems like they were just trying to make 3.5e better at what it already was doing.

    4e was far more of a revamp. After going through the books, it seemed to me like they were trying to rebuild the entire system so that it would be easier to code into future licensed MMO's and other video games, which involved dumbing it down somewhat. While more D&D video games would be welcome, that ruleset was not what I was looking for in my tabletop experience.

    I can't imagine what WoTC could do for a 5th edition, short of scraping up the cash to buy out Paizo and taking the best tabletop ruleset back.

    elbruce on
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    elbruce wrote:
    I can't imagine what WoTC could do for a 5th edition, short of scraping up the cash to buy out Paizo and taking the best tabletop ruleset back.
    They wouldn't need to buy anything from Paizo. If they were going to go back to something like 3e (which is incredibly unlikely), then they could just do it. The rules are all in the OGL and they own the rest themselves.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • MrBeensMrBeens Registered User regular
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    I wonder how widely shared the following sentiment is:
    Okay, WotC/Hasbro, you have one more chance with me. I'm being worn down into thin cynicism by the seemingly constant reboots. I will give D5D (Dungeon5 & Dragon5?) my last shred of sympathy. I will buy it, I will try it, but if you "Reboot it" in fewer than 10 years, ta ta forever.
    Why?
    What is wrong with releasing a new edition in 5 years?

    I don't mind trying new games. I have played many different games over the years, and really enjoyed many of them. (Especially in college, 97-2k, when it was the major component of my social life.) What has irked me about DnD (and it might be an issue that goes back almost as far as the franchise) is when they reboot, they abandon all support for previous systems. A deep, meaningful campaign might run 4-24+ years! I want to be able to build a library that stays relevant. At this rate, I might as well go disposable/electronic with my products, all the good my old books are doing me besides slowly decomposing alongside my memories.

    ... or were you being facetious?

    I don't understand this. All of your X Edition books don't dissolve when a new edition comes out. You can continue playing your 24 year long campaign. Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.
    And let's be honest here, the sort of people who run ongoing campaigns for more than a couple of years are more than likely to be running their own campaign world and adventures anyway.

    If they didn't release another 4e book I would be fine with that. The system has everything it needs to run games from 1 - 30 for years to come, boat loads of monsters and equipment, enough is known about the underlying systems to make it easy to make your own stuff up.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    This was quite funny. And now it's a good deal more apt.

    Really, it looks like they could put together something silly but much better than munchkin with this.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • GospreyGosprey Registered User
    edited January 2012
    The big thing spruiked about 4th Edition was the `Points of Light' setting...which they warped existing game worlds to sort of almost achieve, and never released a new setting that actually embodied this supposedly core concept.

    If the first setting released for 5th edition is not a brand new setting, they're seriously taking the piss. I have all the Eberron and Forgotten Realms books I'll ever want or need.

    Gosprey on
  • texasheattexasheat Registered User regular
    So, here's my take on 4e just for the record. Understand, we played the FULL Scales of War, from level 1 to level 30. I GM'd parts of it, and played most of it. Here's my thoughts on it compaired to 3.5e

    Combat is rigid, generic, and controlled (not by the player)
    ---What we noticed, is that as a player, you burn encounters, dailies if the fight warrants it, then use 1 of 2 possible at wills the rest of the fight. At wills were worthless. I think only our cleric used both of his at wills, the rest of us picked one and never changed. The fighting always felt very simular. Fight after fight, it's always the same thing.

    RP was non-existant
    ---4e was designed for combat. Peroid. There are no rewards for role playing. And really, no way to push players to do so. Combat was the focus of the rules. After reading the books alone you can tell it's not about your backstory, or how into your char you get, but how powerful he was in combat.

    Skills in battle implementation was horrid
    ---It's not that you COULDN'T use your skills in combat, it's just that you never wanted to. There were a number of times when a skill check just wasn't worth doing, cause you had to do 5-12 of them as standard actions. Combat would be over before you even really got started. We NEVER did them. There was no point in our mind. Not because we didn't see the benifit of doing it, just that we didn't want to miss combat. Which is the main focus.

    Loot tables were worthless
    ---Compaired to 3.5e, there was no reason to do loot tables. Players were going to get and use the best gear possible. We rarely had to buy anything. Much less feel like we were ever under geared. This may be fixable in 4e by running a custom compaign. But, we did what we thought was WotC best camp line in production. They wouldn't have toted as much if not right??

    tl;dr 4e was not well recieved at our table. We did it anyway. And i have to say, I don't plan to go back to 4e. We will play 5e. Regardless if it's the same system or not, but from my stance...i'm hoping not.

  • VanguardVanguard Je suis le savant au fauteuil sombre. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    MrBeens wrote:
    I don't understand this. All of your X Edition books don't dissolve when a new edition comes out. You can continue playing your 24 year long campaign. Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.
    And let's be honest here, the sort of people who run ongoing campaigns for more than a couple of years are more than likely to be running their own campaign world and adventures anyway.

    If they didn't release another 4e book I would be fine with that. The system has everything it needs to run games from 1 - 30 for years to come, boat loads of monsters and equipment, enough is known about the underlying systems to make it easy to make your own stuff up.

    The issue, as I understand it, is that given the current release schedule, completing a longer campaign arc within a system's lifespan is unlikely, which I think is bad. The most toxic thing for a group of players invested in an ongoing story is to just "try out another system". If that other system is the new edition, it can be very hard to get players to go back when everything feels new.

    The lifespan of an edition should be 7-10 years, I think. Paizo has promised to give us this, and I think they're doing it right. WOTC announcing 5th would seem to indicate that as well.

  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I just never liked the deck-of-cards style of 4e combat. It felt too much like a board game.

    And if I want to play a long complicated board game i'll play Arkham Horror.

    MagicPrime on
    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    texasheat wrote:
    RP was non-existant
    ---4e was designed for combat. Peroid. There are no rewards for role playing. And really, no way to push players to do so. Combat was the focus of the rules. After reading the books alone you can tell it's not about your backstory, or how into your char you get, but how powerful he was in combat.

    ....I know the chief thing I look for in my leisure time activities is the ability to force my friends to do things I think they should think are fun. If you have to push a player into RPing they are clearly not seeing the fun in RPing.
    texasheat wrote:
    Loot tables were worthless
    ---Compaired to 3.5e, there was no reason to do loot tables. Players were going to get and use the best gear possible. We rarely had to buy anything. Much less feel like we were ever under geared. This may be fixable in 4e by running a custom compaign. But, we did what we thought was WotC best camp line in production. They wouldn't have toted as much if not right??

    ......it sure is annoying when I don't not have the gear the game assumes I do. It's like the game is trying to get everything to work together!

    Though loot was a bit problematical in 4th, it's been that way in every edition.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • HugglesHuggles Future War Cult 4 lyfRegistered User regular
    Am I alone in actually finding 4e fun? I had been put off playing 3.5/pathfinder previously by the sheer quantity of bullshit that lay between me and enjoyment, whilst I found I could just jump into 4e with relatively little trouble. Admittedly, that might be down to a difference in DM, but I know this is going to be down to a difference in playstyle which finally got me interested in D&D.

    I like the tactical combat. I like differentiating between cool stuff you can do only once in a while and your more normal attacks. I like describing what I'm doing at the table beyond just 'I use Cleave'. I don't see why there needs to be some kind of rule hovering over my head demanding that I must roleplay my character as if I'm some kind of trained actor.

    It's not as if 4e disallows you from pretending to do something, even if it doesn't match up with the description on the power. As I understood it, 4e presents a framework of rules around which combat can be played, then leaves the volume of roleplaying up to the people sitting at the table. Can anyone suggest why there is so much hostility to this beyond just fear of the unfamiliar?

    For what it's worth, I'll probably play 5e and enjoy it, but as a newcomer I have had a really good time with 4e.

    Minecraft: Ginjinngear | Steam
    PSN: NAJBAR-AJO
  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    texasheat wrote:
    RP was non-existant
    ---4e was designed for combat. Peroid. There are no rewards for role playing. And really, no way to push players to do so. Combat was the focus of the rules. After reading the books alone you can tell it's not about your backstory, or how into your char you get, but how powerful he was in combat.

    ....I know the chief thing I look for in my leisure time activities is the ability to force my friends to do things I think they should think are fun. If you have to push a player into RPing they are clearly not seeing the fun in RPing.

    It's not that anyone is saying the game needs to force people to roleplay -but 4e definitely discourages roleplay by focusing on mechanics and a list of powers. Roleplaying is coming up with what your character is doing, not just describing your actions. If you don't need to do the first, in my experience you don't bother to do the latter anyway. My group loves roleplaying. But they don't bother to do it in 4e, especially not in combat. And they complain the game doesn't seem to want them to do it. I agree - by having a set list of actions (your powers) your choices are limited. Roleplaying is about making choices.

    EDIT: I'm not just talking about 'Roleplay' as in speaking/acting in character either. That's entirely optional to my mind.

    Lezta on
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Huggles wrote:
    I don't see why there needs to be some kind of rule hovering over my head demanding that I must roleplay my character as if I'm some kind of trained actor.

    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying. texasheat is just mashing his keyboard and producing confusing statements.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    This is a statement I sympathize with and mostly agree with.

    Some of the "openness" of my traditional D&D experiences feels missing from 4th but most of the positive "openness" was only a byproduct of the rules as written. Some of this is the loss of spells akin to the absurdly leveled "Move Earth" and it's ilk but mostly I think it is a matter of time investment. None of my group has the time to do the things required for this kind of thing to really work anymore, at least not with significant cost.

    However, that isn't what I think of when you say roleplaying. It is something that has only really been possible in RPG's but it isn't, in itself roleplaying.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • RedDawnRedDawn Registered User regular
    I don't know, I think a lot of it really comes down to the GM/DM. If you have a bad one it doesn't matter what the rules are, you are going to have a bad experience. While there is no rule saying you get a bonus on attacks when you role-play, there is no a rule saying you can't do that either. At PAX, Christ Perkins gave Wil a bonus after he roleplayed.

    You can also rename spells and attacks. If you don't like saying I cleave for x damage, rename cleave to something that you find more appropriate. Or instead of just moving your character, talk about how the movements took place. You can add flavor to it without having to be mechanical.

    That being said, I am on board with wanting more digital tools to help with character and world creation, if they can really nail that I could get behind 5e. I really don't see switching right out of the gate though.

  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    This was quite funny. And now it's a good deal more apt.

    Really, it looks like they could put together something silly but much better than munchkin with this.

    CanD&DLand could be the best setting ever.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • dresdenphiledresdenphile Watch out for snakes!Registered User regular
    Speaking of settings, is Rich Burlew's setting ever going to see the light of day? WotC has been sitting on that since Eberron was first released, and I'm really interested in what he had to offer.

    steam_sig.png
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    Speaking of settings, is Rich Burlew's setting ever going to see the light of day? WotC has been sitting on that since Eberron was first released, and I'm really interested in what he had to offer.

    I had no idea he was even meant to be producing something. I'd be most interested in seeing what he could crank out.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • ShadaXoraNShadaXoraN Registered User
    MrBeens wrote:
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    I don't mind trying new games. I have played many different games over the years, and really enjoyed many of them. (Especially in college, 97-2k, when it was the major component of my social life.) What has irked me about DnD (and it might be an issue that goes back almost as far as the franchise) is when they reboot, they abandon all support for previous systems. A deep, meaningful campaign might run 4-24+ years! I want to be able to build a library that stays relevant. At this rate, I might as well go disposable/electronic with my products, all the good my old books are doing me besides slowly decomposing alongside my memories.
    ... or were you being facetious?

    I don't understand this. All of your X Edition books don't dissolve when a new edition comes out. You can continue playing your 24 year long campaign. Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.
    And let's be honest here, the sort of people who run ongoing campaigns for more than a couple of years are more than likely to be running their own campaign world and adventures anyway.

    If they didn't release another 4e book I would be fine with that. The system has everything it needs to run games from 1 - 30 for years to come, boat loads of monsters and equipment, enough is known about the underlying systems to make it easy to make your own stuff up.

    True, my books haven't dissolved, but I have moved through high school, college, and into my career, and I don't game quite as much anymore. I am not one of the lucky ones enmeshed in an ongoing saga. I did run a game for about 4 years, running from 3 to 3.5. It was fun, we completed an epic adventure in a world of my creation.

    If I wanted to start a new group in my new town, we would need to settle on a rules set. I envision some trouble trying to get everyone to agree to roll back to AD&D (2e) and my Planescape boxed sets, or another's Realms or Ravenloft. Maybe I could swing it. Then new players would need to track down rulebooks on Ebay or Amazon. I'm sure that this set-up functions for many groups.
    MrBeens wrote:
    Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.

    Why would this be madness? Why couldn't they produce a rules system solid enough to stand the test of time? Sure, allow minor revisions and errata to make it into "revisions" (not "reboots") to tweak and sharpen the system over time. 3.0-3.5 was a step in this direction. (Why 3.5 and not 3.1? Where were 3.1-3.4?) Focus the publishing cycle on settings. Years 1-2 Realms, Years 3-4 Eberron, Years 5-6 Darksun, Years 7-8 Greyhawk. They wouldn't need to abandon the old cycle in the new, either, working up occasional supplements and then coming back to it for a new cycle. Maybe each great cycle (Realms through Greyhawk) could start with a new setting (ala Eberron) and cap off with a linking idea, like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, or Planescape. Homebrew enthusiasts could then pollinate their campaigns with ideas from all of these cycles without needing to convert good concepts to a completely different rule-set. I did once run a Palladium game (Nightbane) off of a Ravenloft module, it was rough work, but possible, because of all the good IDEAS in the module, not simple stat blocks, traps, and battle scenarios. It was rough work, however. How much easier would it be if I had the fortune of having the rules systems be compatible?

    This would be my ideal world, much like ADnD 2nd edition seemed grounded in. Was it this model that proved the downfall of TSR? I doubt it. From what I understand, legal issues took them out over time. Would this bring in the sweet profits of constant reboots? Maybe not, but I think the reboot well might be beginning to run dry, and this might be the more sustainable publishing model.


    893c32626ed79cca.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    MrBeens wrote:
    Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.

    Why would this be madness? Why couldn't they produce a rules system solid enough to stand the test of time? Sure, allow minor revisions and errata to make it into "revisions" (not "reboots") to tweak and sharpen the system over time. 3.0-3.5 was a step in this direction. (Why 3.5 and not 3.1? Where were 3.1-3.4?) Focus the publishing cycle on settings. Years 1-2 Realms, Years 3-4 Eberron, Years 5-6 Darksun, Years 7-8 Greyhawk. They wouldn't need to abandon the old cycle in the new, either, working up occasional supplements and then coming back to it for a new cycle. Maybe each great cycle (Realms through Greyhawk) could start with a new setting (ala Eberron) and cap off with a linking idea, like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, or Planescape. Homebrew enthusiasts could then pollinate their campaigns with ideas from all of these cycles without needing to convert good concepts to a completely different rule-set. I did once run a Palladium game (Nightbane) off of a Ravenloft module, it was rough work, but possible, because of all the good IDEAS in the module, not simple stat blocks, traps, and battle scenarios. It was rough work, however. How much easier would it be if I had the fortune of having the rules systems be compatible?

    Campaign settings don't really make money. A company can't survive on a profitable product once every decade.
    This would be my ideal world, much like ADnD 2nd edition seemed grounded in. Was it this model that proved the downfall of TSR? I doubt it. From what I understand, legal issues took them out over time. Would this bring in the sweet profits of constant reboots? Maybe not, but I think the reboot well might be beginning to run dry, and this might be the more sustainable publishing model.

    The 2nd edition that bankrupted the company? They had warehouses of unsold product. When Dancey was given the job of reviving them the first thing they did was find out what products actually made money. Adventures were right out. Campaign settings did not do terribly well, definitely not in the format they were then of boxed sets. The shift to rules expansions was entirely a business one.

    If we want professional game design level of quality we have to expect the professional game designers can't live off of making a product once every decade.

  • ShadaXoraNShadaXoraN Registered User
    The 2nd edition that bankrupted the company? They had warehouses of unsold product. When Dancey was given the job of reviving them the first thing they did was find out what products actually made money. Adventures were right out. Campaign settings did not do terribly well, definitely not in the format they were then of boxed sets. The shift to rules expansions was entirely a business one.

    If we want professional game design level of quality we have to expect the professional game designers can't live off of making a product once every decade.

    I was under the impression that it was the over-reach of late AD&D that buried the company. They printed too much? Why did they print so much, were there indicators that they would sell that much? "Professional game design level of quality?" Beyond slick packaging, what's the quality of a design that's abandoned after 5 years?

    893c32626ed79cca.png
  • CadmusCadmus Registered User regular
    Aegof wrote:
    Cadmus wrote:
    My impression of WotC is that they are ruled by corporate overlords that care more about $ signs than anything else

    Isn't this the case for basically every company everywhere. Every successful one, anyway.

    Blizzard, Valve, Apple, Google, Nintendo... etc. all seem to understand that they make money by making good products, not by compromising the quality of their products so that they can sell more. "We have this thing that we know people will buy, why put everything they want in it? Let's cut out half of the important things and put them into some of our other products, that way people will have incentive to buy the other useless shit that we make!"

    The only companies that I can think of with this kind of attitude only exist because they own a valuable IP with a strong fan base or it is just too big to die (keep buying new IP's and smaller companies, then run them into the ground while milking all that they can). EA and Microsoft are good examples of these.

  • MrBeensMrBeens Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    texasheat wrote:
    RP was non-existant
    ---4e was designed for combat. Peroid. There are no rewards for role playing. And really, no way to push players to do so. Combat was the focus of the rules. After reading the books alone you can tell it's not about your backstory, or how into your char you get, but how powerful he was in combat.

    ....I know the chief thing I look for in my leisure time activities is the ability to force my friends to do things I think they should think are fun. If you have to push a player into RPing they are clearly not seeing the fun in RPing.

    It's not that anyone is saying the game needs to force people to roleplay -but 4e definitely discourages roleplay by focusing on mechanics and a list of powers. Roleplaying is coming up with what your character is doing, not just describing your actions. If you don't need to do the first, in my experience you don't bother to do the latter anyway. My group loves roleplaying. But they don't bother to do it in 4e, especially not in combat. And they complain the game doesn't seem to want them to do it. I agree - by having a set list of actions (your powers) your choices are limited. Roleplaying is about making choices.

    EDIT: I'm not just talking about 'Roleplay' as in speaking/acting in character either. That's entirely optional to my mind.

    Maybe I just don't get why 4e felt constrained to you in regards to roleplaying where other systems didn't? You use the example of powers, so in 3e are you saying the spellcasters are likewise constrained?
    In my experience the system in a roleplaying game has little to do with how much people roleplay, it is mainly down to the people playing and the DM and how much they are enjoying the game. I'm not saying that you or your players are bad, all I'm saying is that maybe because you guys were obviously not enjoying the system there was a negative feedback loop and the "discourages roleplay" wasn't actually down to the system at all. I cannot imagine playing from 1 - 30 in 4e with a group that isn't keen on the system. You should have gone over to a system that you all liked and had more fun.

    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    MrBeens wrote:
    ShadaXoraN wrote:
    I don't mind trying new games. I have played many different games over the years, and really enjoyed many of them. (Especially in college, 97-2k, when it was the major component of my social life.) What has irked me about DnD (and it might be an issue that goes back almost as far as the franchise) is when they reboot, they abandon all support for previous systems. A deep, meaningful campaign might run 4-24+ years! I want to be able to build a library that stays relevant. At this rate, I might as well go disposable/electronic with my products, all the good my old books are doing me besides slowly decomposing alongside my memories.
    ... or were you being facetious?

    I don't understand this. All of your X Edition books don't dissolve when a new edition comes out. You can continue playing your 24 year long campaign. Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.
    And let's be honest here, the sort of people who run ongoing campaigns for more than a couple of years are more than likely to be running their own campaign world and adventures anyway.

    If they didn't release another 4e book I would be fine with that. The system has everything it needs to run games from 1 - 30 for years to come, boat loads of monsters and equipment, enough is known about the underlying systems to make it easy to make your own stuff up.

    True, my books haven't dissolved, but I have moved through high school, college, and into my career, and I don't game quite as much anymore. I am not one of the lucky ones enmeshed in an ongoing saga. I did run a game for about 4 years, running from 3 to 3.5. It was fun, we completed an epic adventure in a world of my creation.

    If I wanted to start a new group in my new town, we would need to settle on a rules set. I envision some trouble trying to get everyone to agree to roll back to AD&D (2e) and my Planescape boxed sets, or another's Realms or Ravenloft. Maybe I could swing it. Then new players would need to track down rulebooks on Ebay or Amazon. I'm sure that this set-up functions for many groups.
    MrBeens wrote:
    Expecting a company to continue to produce content for 20+ years for one system is madness. People complain when there is too much "bloat", but also complain when they don't release 3 new books a year.

    Why would this be madness? Why couldn't they produce a rules system solid enough to stand the test of time? Sure, allow minor revisions and errata to make it into "revisions" (not "reboots") to tweak and sharpen the system over time. 3.0-3.5 was a step in this direction. (Why 3.5 and not 3.1? Where were 3.1-3.4?) Focus the publishing cycle on settings. Years 1-2 Realms, Years 3-4 Eberron, Years 5-6 Darksun, Years 7-8 Greyhawk. They wouldn't need to abandon the old cycle in the new, either, working up occasional supplements and then coming back to it for a new cycle. Maybe each great cycle (Realms through Greyhawk) could start with a new setting (ala Eberron) and cap off with a linking idea, like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, or Planescape. Homebrew enthusiasts could then pollinate their campaigns with ideas from all of these cycles without needing to convert good concepts to a completely different rule-set. I did once run a Palladium game (Nightbane) off of a Ravenloft module, it was rough work, but possible, because of all the good IDEAS in the module, not simple stat blocks, traps, and battle scenarios. It was rough work, however. How much easier would it be if I had the fortune of having the rules systems be compatible?

    This would be my ideal world, much like ADnD 2nd edition seemed grounded in. Was it this model that proved the downfall of TSR? I doubt it. From what I understand, legal issues took them out over time. Would this bring in the sweet profits of constant reboots? Maybe not, but I think the reboot well might be beginning to run dry, and this might be the more sustainable publishing model.


    As Devoutly said, the downfall of TSR was bad management, over reliance on products that only a small fraction of their user base would need and an over saturation of these products.

    I too am now "all grown up" :) Sadly my gaming time is now limited to once or twice a month (as opposed to 3 or 4 times a week back in school). I now prefer campaigns that last shorter amounts of time, as those mega campaigns we liked to run at school over summer would now take 30 odd real time years!

    People don't seem to have many problems running older systems, it maybe just takes a bit more work to set up - finding like minded people etc. Sure if you are going to be running games for "the kids" down the local game store then the chances are they will want to play "their" version of D&D, but this has always been the case. Get out there and educate them to your way of thinking, broaden their minds to new systems!

    Are you seriously suggesting that people would have to wait 7 years for any Greyhawk stuff, then get 2 years of it at once in your publishing cycle idea !?

  • MrBeensMrBeens Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Cadmus wrote:
    Aegof wrote:
    Cadmus wrote:
    My impression of WotC is that they are ruled by corporate overlords that care more about $ signs than anything else

    Isn't this the case for basically every company everywhere. Every successful one, anyway.

    Blizzard, Valve, Apple, Google, Nintendo... etc. all seem to understand that they make money by making good products, not by compromising the quality of their products so that they can sell more. "We have this thing that we know people will buy, why put everything they want in it? Let's cut out half of the important things and put them into some of our other products, that way people will have incentive to buy the other useless shit that we make!"

    The only companies that I can think of with this kind of attitude only exist because they own a valuable IP with a strong fan base or it is just too big to die (keep buying new IP's and smaller companies, then run them into the ground while milking all that they can). EA and Microsoft are good examples of these.

    Ahhaha - IPhone 1, 2, 3, 4. Ipad 1, 2. Billions of different versions of the DS. Expansion packs for Diablo, Star Craft, WoW etc. They all do this, make one version, a year later put out an incremental verison with some new stuff in it.

    MrBeens on
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Cadmus wrote:
    Aegof wrote:
    Cadmus wrote:
    My impression of WotC is that they are ruled by corporate overlords that care more about $ signs than anything else

    Isn't this the case for basically every company everywhere. Every successful one, anyway.

    Blizzard, Valve, Apple, Google, Nintendo... etc. all seem to understand that they make money by making good products, not by compromising the quality of their products so that they can sell more. "We have this thing that we know people will buy, why put everything they want in it? Let's cut out half of the important things and put them into some of our other products, that way people will have incentive to buy the other useless shit that we make!"

    The only companies that I can think of with this kind of attitude only exist because they own a valuable IP with a strong fan base or it is just too big to die (keep buying new IP's and smaller companies, then run them into the ground while milking all that they can). EA and Microsoft are good examples of these.

    Can you explain to me how Microsoft is a good example of this?

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Gosprey wrote:
    The big thing spruiked about 4th Edition was the `Points of Light' setting...which they warped existing game worlds to sort of almost achieve, and never released a new setting that actually embodied this supposedly core concept.

    If the first setting released for 5th edition is not a brand new setting, they're seriously taking the piss. I have all the Eberron and Forgotten Realms books I'll ever want or need.
    I guarantee there are more people who won't touch a system if it doesn't have books for <insert favorite setting here> than won't touch it if there isn't a brand new setting.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo But do you really believe him? Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Gosprey wrote:
    The big thing spruiked about 4th Edition was the `Points of Light' setting...which they warped existing game worlds to sort of almost achieve, and never released a new setting that actually embodied this supposedly core concept.

    If the first setting released for 5th edition is not a brand new setting, they're seriously taking the piss. I have all the Eberron and Forgotten Realms books I'll ever want or need.

    There was never a planned book for the implied setting. The point was that it was implicitly explained through other products, which allowed DMs to use all the various pieces as they wished. It was one of things that 4e absolutely nailed, the default setting made sense, was presented well and was wholly unintuitive. Unlike 3e that was set in Greyhawk, but didn't want to give you any details of it or earlier editions that didn't have one (which I remember being a real pain in one edition that had clerics require spheres of spells from their gods but there was no default god list and if you didn't have a setting book you wouldn't have any clue how many major/minor spheres were a good idea to hand out).

    I really doubt they'll start off 5th with a new setting unless it's something similar. 3e got a single new official setting and it was part of a big competition / marketing campaign.

    Mojo_Jojo on
    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • ShadaXoraNShadaXoraN Registered User
    edited January 2012
    Lezta wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting that people would have to wait 7 years for any Greyhawk stuff, then get 2 years of it at once in your publishing cycle idea !?

    No, 2 years of heavy Greyhawk "highlight", and then 2-4 offerings a year between highlights.

    So, big team for the highlight, and small team continuing to develop in-between.

    ShadaXoraN on
    893c32626ed79cca.png
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    3.5e/Pathfinder and 4e have the same number of rules which enforce roleplaying.

    That's probably true. I don't think a rule that says 'if you roleplay you get x bonus' is needed or even appropriate. However, 4e often feels very constraining in a game I want to feel limitless.

    Lets be clear here.

    What you're talking about is "I can't do crazy, often game-breaking shit with my wizard anymore"

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
Sign In or Register to comment.