* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Old timers opinion on 4E? Started at 01-16-08 08:47 PM by thecasualoblivion Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=979418 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : thecasualoblivion Date : 01-16-08 08:47 PM Thread Title : Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm curious what you guys think of the upcoming 4th Edition. Personally I started playing back in 2E, and have found 3.x not to my liking at all. At this point, I'm really starting to miss 2E and am beginning to contemplate talking the game I'm running to switch to the old ways. That being said, I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Extempus Date : 01-16-08 09:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Not even interested. It will be obsolete by 2012-2015 anyway, so who cares? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-16-08 10:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I haven't seen a thing I like about it yet. Maybe I'll like the books being shiny, but that won't make me buy it (I have differing opinions from my ferret...). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 01-16-08 10:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? They've published two awful RPGs so far, and the second one might actually have been worse than the first. I guess that's a no. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Gryllmyre Date : 01-16-08 11:45 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I liked some of the changes in 3.x, some I didn't (combat just takes way too dang long). 4e by the looks of it is going to give us even more to keep track of, and more effects to apply. The debate has gone back and forth, but it sounds like it might be more like a tabletop RPG with MMORPG combat feel. But I'm withholding judgment until I see the ruleset. I'll be testing some encounters with PC builds at various levels to see what it's like. From that I should have a decent idea what to expect. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Ferns Date : 01-17-08 06:45 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? My group and me has stopped at 2nd ed and never even thought of playing 3.x We like it the way it is and stays that way -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : bloodtalon Date : 01-17-08 07:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? i have too much money invested in the older systems to start over with a new one. and like someone said it won't be long till 5e comes out.at least between the orginal 1e and 2e the rules were similar enough to play with and not have to go out right away and buy all the books at once to play the new system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Varl Date : 01-17-08 12:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm very edition weary. As I've said elsewhere, I plan on reading and listening to secondhand news what everyone says about it, reading up on it online wherever and whenever I can, and then deciding what I can strip mine for my 2e game, if anything. I'm not planning on buying anything other than possibly adventures from Paizo. Even monster tomes are probably out of the question now because I'm extremely leery of wasting my money on dupes. They're going to have to supply me with a table of contents so I can examine what's inside or I'll not buy. Simple as that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : tankschmidt Date : 01-17-08 12:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm curious what you guys think of the upcoming 4th Edition. Personally I started playing back in 2E, and have found 3.x not to my liking at all. At this point, I'm really starting to miss 2E and am beginning to contemplate talking the game I'm running to switch to the old ways. That being said, I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. The bottom line is that it doesn't affect most of us. It's no different from releasing a new edition of GURPS. When 4E comes and goes, we'll still be playing our own games with little change, if any. On forums like Dragonfoot or the Knight-n-Knaves Alehouse, there's hardly a mention of 4E at all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : havard Date : 01-17-08 02:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm very edition weary. Ach, you have no stamina! I'm looking forward to 5E already ;) :rolleyes: Seriously though, I will probably buy at least the core rules for 4E. I like to know what's going on. My impression is that they are taking one step forward and one step back when it comes to the rules. Pretty much like every new edition. Im pretty sure it will _look_* even nicer than 3E though... Havard *Wrapping _does_ matter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Votan Date : 01-18-08 02:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm very edition weary. As I've said elsewhere, I plan on reading and listening to secondhand news what everyone says about it, reading up on it online wherever and whenever I can, and then deciding what I can strip mine for my 2e game, if anything. I'm not planning on buying anything other than possibly adventures from Paizo. Even monster tomes are probably out of the question now because I'm extremely leery of wasting my money on dupes. They're going to have to supply me with a table of contents so I can examine what's inside or I'll not buy. Simple as that. Yeah, I went out and picked up some old 2nd Edition books and realized that I like that system better than 3E (after buying at least 30 3E books and playing in 4 campaigns -- the system got a legitimate try). I worry that 4E will move away from what made 1/2E fun. Minatures do not help my game nor do tactical combat rules that require them. I prefer power to be from classes not attribute scores. I don;t like templates, prestige classes or other mix/match approach to hyper-optimization. I'd like system friendly to "I want to play a human fighter" that you can do characters in 2 hours and then have a fun game. I kind of feel like the hobby is moving away from this . . . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-18-08 05:47 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I doubt it can be worse than 3e. At the very least, it should be mechanically better in some points (skills, multiclassing). Also, dropping/heavily modifying the Sorcerer is a good idea. OTOH, I don't like many of the motivations behind the design decisions -- even good decisions: e.g., dragons will not be strongly aligned. Per se, it would be a good point -- it is that way in Mystara as well, for example, and makes for less one-dimensional NPCs/Monsters. However, the rationale is that "otherwise PCs could not fight gold dragons", which doesn't strike me as brilliant. Same for the Half-Orc. I'd agree half-breeds are not especially good a choice for basic character races (indeed, OD&D doesn't have them). But if the choice is motivated with "we don't want to dwell on the family background of the Half-Orc PCs", then it detracts from the game. For the less mechanical part, I don't care either way. However, many choices make the game less portable to existing settings. That said, I'm not likely to move away from OD&D/AD&D 2e or to buy 4e books. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Wyre Date : 01-18-08 01:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Not even going to bother. I have my 1st/2nd ed campaigns working find and am not about to change. Unless the bring back Ravenloft bigger and better than before, they have nothing for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : I'm Batman Date : 01-18-08 06:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I think they should change the name to Wizards & Warcraft already and quit hogging the name D&D -- give it back to the actual D&D game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-18-08 11:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I think they should change the name to Wizards & Warcraft already and quit hogging the name D&D -- give it back to the actual D&D game. Or... Wizards: The Gathering... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 01-19-08 06:18 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, if you don't like 3e at all, then you might not like 4e. It's still the basic d20 system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-19-08 07:31 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, if you don't like 3e at all, then you might not like 4e. It's still the basic d20 system. OTOH, the basic system alone means little. You could easily adapt OD&D or AD&D to use the same basic system: uniform bonus/attribute progression (a similar, open-ended one is already present in OD&D), uniform roll high+bonus vs difficulty for attacks (as seen in Dragonfist, IIRC), skills (e.g., you get a skill bonus/penalty equal to the relevant ability score-10, roll d20+said bonus, succeed on 10 or more in the basic case) and saves (take standard AD&D or OD&D save, 20-original save score gives you the d20 ST bonus, roll d20+bonus, basic difficulty is 20, but can be easily normalized). Thus, it seems to me that the basic system is not really the issue. E.g., the focus on miniature-based combat which many of us old-timers do not like is not attributable to the basic system, but to character/monster powers that require clear measurements to adjudicate (i.e., AoO and related mobility/attack feats and skills). The same could be said for other choices that divide 3e from AD&D 2e, such as dropping specialist priests, dropping weapon/class/multiclass restrictions, adding sorcerers as a standard element, changing the structure of the Outer Planes -- most of these elements are not really related to the basic system (some are not even mechanical), so in principle there's no reason why a d20 based edition should not appeal to us -- indeed, I hear some old timers do like d20-based games that try to appeal to the old-style tastes. Still, it's probably right we won't like 4e much -- but that's most likely due to the fact that 4e is based on the same (or at least similar) design goals and style as 3e. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : havard Date : 01-19-08 12:01 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? dropping specialist priests,. You really like the specialty priests that much GP?:confused: We rarely used them in our 2e campaigns at all. That would be one thing I didn't think anyone would miss... Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Morvus Date : 01-19-08 12:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, I played 3rd ed for a while and enjoyed it. The 3.5 came out and I thought, "why should I buy this again?". Also, I became leery when I saw how many supplemental products Wizards kept cranking out. It seemed ridiculous to me; nothing but a cash grab. All the extra classes, races, new rules, etc. just seemed to dilute and diminish the game. 4th ed looks like more along that line. I understand that Wizards is here to make a profit, but I don't like what I've been seeing. I'm actually seriously considering dusting off my old 1st edition AD&D stuff and going back to that. It was simpler, fun, and now has a nostalgic charm for me. When the rules and products get in the way of imagination and fun, it's not a good game. After all, it should be about getting together with your friends and having some laughs, not about building some uber-character and being a rules lawyer. Morvus Dungeon creeper since 1982. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : havard Date : 01-19-08 01:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, I played 3rd ed for a while and enjoyed it. The 3.5 came out and I thought, "why should I buy this again?". I agree. I would have had much less of a problem with it if WotC had called it 3E Revised as they originally had intended. Also, I became leery when I saw how many supplemental products Wizards kept cranking out. It seemed ridiculous to me; nothing but a cash grab. All the extra classes, races, new rules, etc. just seemed to dilute and diminish the game. 4th ed looks like more along that line. I understand that Wizards is here to make a profit, but I don't like what I've been seeing. The same thing exisited in the TSR era though. Only more of it now since WotC has more money than TSR did. Buy what you want and leave the rest. More books rarely enhance the level of enjoyment from a game, unless the books cover a specific area which you are interested in exploring. I'm actually seriously considering dusting off my old 1st edition AD&D stuff and going back to that. It was simpler, fun, and now has a nostalgic charm for me. When the rules and products get in the way of imagination and fun, it's not a good game. After all, it should be about getting together with your friends and having some laughs, not about building some uber-character and being a rules lawyer. Agreed. Alot of this has to do with things outside the game itself though (like your attitude to it). Imagination and fun are the most important things as you say, but it doesn't hurt to have a solid ruleset as a foundation. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-19-08 01:22 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? You really like the specialty priests that much GP?:confused: We rarely used them in our 2e campaigns at all. That would be one thing I didn't think anyone would miss... They were quite popular in my AD&D campaigns. I remember having a Priest of Fanha and a Priest of Yangunesh (Rathanos) in the SC campaign, and a Priest of Protius in the Karameikan one. OTOH, I only had a Fighter/Cleric (Pantheist of the Church of Traladara, but that was early on and, in hindsight, he would have fit better as a Priest of Halav) and an Itinerant of the Eternal Truth (in a short lived Ylaruam campaign) as (more or less) standard clerics. I think specialist priests are one of the best features of AD&D 2e. The standard Clerics simply don't work much -- it makes little sense that a priest of a Nature god be exactly identical to a priest of a War god. Weapon, armor, powers and especially spell access need to be customizable. And 3e only allows this at higher levels -- but this makes even less sense, why should two average priests be so similar, and high level priests so different? GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-19-08 07:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? OP, I started playing back in 81 with 1st Edition. I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. What about it do you like. I have not seen it yet so I am very curious as I have been hearing how us old schoolers are supposed to like it better then 3rd edition. I'm actually seriously considering dusting off my old 1st edition AD&D stuff and going back to that. It was simpler, fun, and now has a nostalgic charm for me. I did just that last year. I got out my old book blew off the dust on my 1st ed modules and started running the Slavers series. Worked as good as new. The one thing I am getting tired of is how the focus is shifting from the roleplay to just min/maxing ultimate class builds. I think I may just go back to a hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition. The books that I dont have would be dirt cheap to buy and the old flavour would be there. Not too mention there are tons of great modules I still have not played. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Varl Date : 01-21-08 12:02 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That would be one thing I didn't think anyone would miss... I won't speak for GP, but they're the one defining aspect of 2e I refuse to game without. Priests before and after that are boring, simply put. Cardboard cutouts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : I'm Batman Date : 01-21-08 03:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I don't necessarily hate everything that's new, but I certainly hate everything that's mandatory. I'd be content with 4E if they also resumed publishing material that was 1E/2E compatible as well. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Toran Ironfinder Date : 01-22-08 12:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I noted this elsewhere. I'm an old WEG guy, and some of the changes to the D20swrpg have similar problems IMO. I think there may be big differences here between the young guys and the old guys in what they want. RPing is less important than it used to be. I know a lot of people might bring up the stormwind fallacy, but I'm not stating that min-maxing is necessarily opposed to roleplay, but inductively, I've noticed that a lot of the younger guys are only interested in the former, not the latter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-22-08 10:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I noted this elsewhere. I'm an old WEG guy, and some of the changes to the D20swrpg have similar problems IMO. I think there may be big differences here between the young guys and the old guys in what they want. RPing is less important than it used to be. I know a lot of people might bring up the stormwind fallacy, but I'm not stating that min-maxing is necessarily opposed to roleplay, but inductively, I've noticed that a lot of the younger guys are only interested in the former, not the latter. Woot! Ongorth's Law for the win! :D On a serious note, my opinion of the current rules set is that it is so formalistic in nature that it makes it easier for people to fall into the "trap" of being more concerned with their stats and powers and bonuses and rolling the dice for everything and less concerned about actually roleplaying their characters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-24-08 12:41 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Woot! Ongorth's Law for the win! :D On a serious note, my opinion of the current rules set is that it is so formalistic in nature that it makes it easier for people to fall into the "trap" of being more concerned with their stats and powers and bonuses and rolling the dice for everything and less concerned about actually roleplaying their characters. Pretty much. Try role-playing an encounter with a 3.5 DM... they look puzzled, then bored, then... "Why don't you just roll Diplomacy?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : nickcan Date : 01-24-08 04:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Stats are much to important (IMHO) in 3.x. Characters power in 3.x comes from their stats, not the class. I feel that this emphasis on stats instead of class leads to a very formulaic system. (like Mock26 and Vrykolas2k said) When there is a dice roll for everything then everything needs to be written in numerical format. It reminds me of a good article over at the blog ars ludi http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/70/dont-roll-think/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-24-08 01:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I am of the opinion that the older rules sets induced people to first reach for their thinking caps in a lot of situations, but the current rules set induces people to first reach for their dice. For example, back in the day, if you entered a room where they thought there might be an abmush, the players would say, "I'm going to scan the room for anything out of the ordinary." The DM would then make a roll or tell the player to make a roll. In 3.x, in the same situation, players simply say, "I make a spot check" and roll the dice. While the end result is still the same (i.e. the characters scan the room for suspected danger and a dice roll determines their success) I think that how that outcome is reached is very important. There has been a subtle but very important change in the thought process of the players, a shift that I think is greatly induced by the rules. I think that this shift has been a detriment to the game. I hope that the creators of the game have seen this and work to try and remedy it for 4.0. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Keryth Date : 01-25-08 10:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, like many here, I too am weary of the changes and was not a fan of 3.x My gaming group, however, forced my hand and most liked 3.x, so, my cherished 2nd Ed books got shelved to gather dust and eventually get boxed away. Now Wizards is pulling from the GW handbook, with a new edition coming and most likely another one several years down the road. Yes, i will pick up the new edition. And, if it is close ot SW:Saga, as has been hinted, I'll convince my group to put 3.x away, never to return. If it is more complicated, with battles taking even longer than they do now, then, well, I might just dust off those 2nd ed books and try persuading 3.x to go away -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-25-08 12:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? As one of the two principal architects of 2nd edition, I'll weigh in and say that 4E is the best D&D has been since the 1981 red-box Basic edition, which I hold in high reverance. And, of course, I'm a big fan of 2nd Ed. Like many others, I thought that 3/3.5 was an excellent game if you played with just the three core books (and not necessarily everything in them) but was unwieldy (unplayable?) under the full weight of the rules. The market being what it is, 4E probably will reach that point eventually, as the expansions stack up, but right now -- it's the most accessible, exciting FRPG I've played for a long time. And I'm not saying that just as a company shill, which of course I am, but as a longtime fan and publisher of D&D. YMMV; the important thing is to enjoy what you play. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Firstborn76 Date : 01-25-08 01:08 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I have been playing D&D since before 1st edition. With the original D&D boxed sets. The whole 4E thing is really driven by WOTC's financial model. It is simply business. They need to sell product to pay the game designers, and bring in revenue for the shareholders. The WOTC marketing campaign is going to be focused on getting as many current players to buy-in to 4E as possible. My sense is they will not make it "easy" to convert 3.x materials to 4E, and will largely proclaim the 3.x and lower editions to be inferior to 4E. In reality, if you want the advice of a "gaming elder", I can give you my perspective. I will not be purchasing 4E. I don't need to. I literally have all of the D&D content I need to keep me busy way past the time I am laid to rest 6 feet under. Heck, I have enough 1st edition stuff to play when I am in a retirement home. The current 3.5 edition really is solid, with almost in-countable support from third party publishers. And we are talking quality stuff folks; Necromancer Games, Sword & Sorcery, Monte Cook's stuff, Goodman Games, the list goes on. I personally do not see ANY VALUE in re-investing in the 4E system, when I already have all of D&D products I, and several generations of my grand children will ever need. With that being said, I don't blame WOTC for releasing 4E. They need to do it to keep the company financially strong. And it keeps the game alive for future generations. However, I do think WOTC is EXTREMELY greedy in their nature, and the way they are presenting 4E. It is not just a WOTC traight. WOTC is a corporation at this point. Most (if not all) U.S. corporations are extremely greedy, and are driven by higher and higher profits. The more money a corporation makes, the greedier it becomes. This is reflected in its marketing tactics, product plan of record, and sadly often times in cutting employee benefits\pay despite increasing profits. For a good example of this "greed" and "what is to come", you only need to look at the "lame, IMHO" Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. and Wizards Presents: Races and Classes "4E Preview" products WOTC just released. I was looking at them in my local hobby store, and they are largely nothing more than "design diaries". What really got me, was the price. $19.95 for a thin paperback "pre-view of 4E"!?! I honestly laughed in the game store; and thought how foolish it would be to purchase such of an overpriced, lame, product. It does give you an idea of what is to come. Mark my words on the following points: 1 - 4E is going to be expensive, VERY expensive. I wouldn't be surprised to see the core books approaching the $40.00 price point each. Some of this will be driven by the increased cost of oil, but most of it will be driven my WOTC's greed. Similar to the new generation of video games, most of them are now $10 higher ($59.99 MSRP). 2 - 4E is going to have a RAPID release schedule once WOTC gains momentum with this thing. If you think 3.x is drowning in supplements and numerous books, wait until 4E is 2-3 years into its lifecycle. 3 - 4E will only be current for about 5 years. WOTC definitely has a complete plan of record for its 4E product lifecycle. And I mean just that "lifecycle". WOTC will be releasing either a 4.5 edition, or 5.0 edition in about 5 years. What does this mean? We are going to go through this all over again, with the same anti 4E edition marketing, with the message "you must upgrade to 4.5E or 5E "if you want to be in" encoded in their communications. The problem with the above is that D&D does not need to be treated like a corporate product with a lifecycle. It takes the fun out of the game (at least for me), and makes it remiscent of a computer MMO game. D&D is timeless; there are plenty of folks that play the old original D&D boxsets. They are just as fun today as they were then. MY ADVICE: 1 - Vote with your wallet. I will be playing the 3.x system with elements of 1E and 2E mixed in for years to come. 2 - Once 5E is released, you will be able to purchase all of the 4E stuff at deeply discounted prices. At that point, most of the content will also be available online in digital format. 3 - Have fun playing the 3.x system. Don't get focused in having the "latest version of D&D", and buying into WOTC's marketing tactics. I PROMISE YOU, 4E will not be any more fun than 3.x. It will just be newer and more expensive. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-25-08 01:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? 3 - Have fun playing the 3.x system. Don't get focused in having the "latest version of D&D", and buying into WOTC's marketing tactics. I PROMISE YOU, 4E will not be any more fun than 3.x. It will just be newer and more expensive. Actually, I suppose most people in this forum play AD&D or OD&D anyway... G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-25-08 03:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, if you don't like 3e at all, then you might not like 4e. It's still the basic d20 system. I just hope that those designing 4e realize that the d20 system can be (for lack of a better term) "adapted" so that doesn't rely so heavily on just combining the best possible groupings of stats and bonuses, that it doesn't have to be so formulistic. I'm not saying that they should go back to 2nd edition, but I think that because of the way the rules for 3.x were presented that it resulted in a monumental shift of the way the game was perceived and played by people. I sincerely wish and hope that the 4e design crew will go back and find what was best with 1st/2nd edition and what was best with 3.0/3.5 and use that as a guidepost on how to improve the game. I sincerely wish and hope that they don't look back at the other editions and focus solely on what was wrong with them. If they do that they are, in my opinion, doomed to fail. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-25-08 03:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The problem with the above is that D&D does not need to be treated like a corporate product with a lifecycle. I would disagree. Look at how many people these days are playing Pac Man or Donkey Kong or Space Invaders. Not very many. And those that do play the game are either old school video gamers who played the games when they first came out or they are newer people who play them as a novelty once in a while. The truth is that video games evolved. As they evolved the tastes of the people who played the games evolved. They expected better games. The companies knew that they were selling a corporate product. That is a simple fact of doing business. The companies also realized that video games had a lifecycle. If they hadn't evolved with the tastes of their customers they would have gone out of business. I know that I'm talking about video games and not roleplaying games but I think that they are very similar in nature. Roleplaying games have evolved. The players that play them have evolved. It is a simple fact. There are a lot of factors involved with these evolutions (not least among then being the internet and computers), and one factor that cannot be avoided is that these games have a life cycle. If D&D had stayed with 1st edition the game would be just like PacMan and Donkey Kong and Space Invaders. Sure, the die hard fans would still be playing, but very few new people would be playing them and if they were it would probably mostly be only as a novelty. As people's tastes and needs in roleplaying games evolved they would have moved on to different games. Games have to evolve. It is a simple fact. Because they evolve the companies have to treat them as if they have lifecycles. If they don't they won't make money off of the games and the companies will either go out of business or drop the game from their product line. Even though the companies that make the games might be devoted to the game and truly love the game, they have to treat them like corporate products in order to survive and keep doing what they love doing. I think that 2nd edition D&D is a perfect example of this. When TSR went out of business game sales for D&D (from what I remember) had pretty much stagnated. Even such great products as Planescape couldn't bring in the newer players needed for the game to survive. Sure, Planescape boosted sales, but it was primarly from those already in the game and sales once again stagnated. As much as I love 2nd edition and still run a 2nd edition campaign, I do realize that compared to the younger generation coming up behind me, it was an outdated system. I don't think it needed as drastic overhaul as it got, but it needed to be updated. My point is that potential newer players were being more greatly influenced by games like Magic: The Gathering and the ever evolving video games, as well as society around them. Their tastes were different from those who had been playing the game for years. If the game wasn't updated to try and meet those tastes it would die. It had pretty much already stagnated. As much as a vilify GW for constantly updating Warhammer 40k, they are always constantly in touch with the current crop of gamers and their needs and desires. I think that is why, despite all the updates over the years, they are still successful. So, D&D had to evolve. It was behaving exactly like a corporate product with a lifecycle. The companies had to treat it that way or they would die. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Extempus Date : 01-25-08 04:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I will not be purchasing 4E. I don't need to. I literally have all of the D&D content I need to keep me busy way past the time I am laid to rest 6 feet under. Heck, I have enough 1st edition stuff to play when I am in a retirement home. Same here, and considering I don't have all the 1e Greyhawk stuff ever published and am still collecting it (ebay and amazon are wonderful sites), I'll be good to go for another 27 years of 1e gaming... It does give you an idea of what is to come. Mark my words on the following points: 1 - 4E is going to be expensive, VERY expensive. I wouldn't be surprised to see the core books approaching the $40.00 price point each. Some of this will be driven by the increased cost of oil, but most of it will be driven my WOTC's greed. Similar to the new generation of video games, most of them are now $10 higher ($59.99 MSRP). 3 - 4E will only be current for about 5 years. WOTC definitely has a complete plan of record for its 4E product lifecycle. And I mean just that "lifecycle". WOTC will be releasing either a 4.5 edition, or 5.0 edition in about 5 years. What does this mean? We are going to go through this all over again, with the same anti 4E edition marketing, with the message "you must upgrade to 4.5E or 5E "if you want to be in" encoded in their communications. When I first heard the news regarding the imminent release of 4e, I laughed long and hard, and predicted these very same things in these very threads... 3 expensive, overpriced editions in less than 8 years (August 2000-May 2008) means that we'll be seeing new ones like clockwork about once every 4 years now. 4.5e will be out in 2012-2015 to "correct" the (planned) problems with 4e, and guess which suckers are going to have to buy the very same overpriced books all over again??? I most certainly will not be one of them... MY ADVICE: 1 - Vote with your wallet. I will be playing the 3.x system with elements of 1E and 2E mixed in for years to come. 2 - Once 5E is released, you will be able to purchase all of the 4E stuff at deeply discounted prices. At that point, most of the content will also be available online in digital format. Been voting with my wallet since 2000, when I got the first few overpriced books and realized that 3e was not D&D but some other bizarre game with the same name. For the one or two other books I want to get (like Expedition to Castle Greyhawk), I plan to wait until the release of 4e so I can get a cheap one that a new frustrated player is trying to unload on ebay... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-25-08 04:56 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The companies also realized that video games had a lifecycle. If they hadn't evolved with the tastes of their customers they would have gone out of business. I know that I'm talking about video games and not roleplaying games but I think that they are very similar in nature. Indeed, they are very similar, and one might also notice that, in the video game market, there hasn't been a good, novel idea in the last decade, more or less. All you get are graphically pumped-up remakes of the well known classics, Civilization, Dune 2, Elder Scrolls: Arena, Baldur's Gate, Sim City or Doom. Pac Man itself may be very old, but in its class (simple puzzle/arcade games) I can't think of anything more modern than Arkanoid -- it's a type of game that has exhausted its potential years ago. At most, you get technical advances that make certain games more feasible -- thus Morrowind is certainly much better than Arena, but the idea was there more than a decade ago, it's just a more fitting implementation, allowed by technological advances. And NWN, while technically well done, doesn't even compare to Planescape: Torment (and if you consider the storyline, it doesn't compare to the much older Dark Sun: Shattered Lands or Ravenloft games). It's more or less the same for rpgs (except that there aren't technological advances to speak of) -- sure, there's a lot more polish on the "core", but the highest points of the past (e.g., Planescape, Birthright, Al Qadim, parts of Mystara, the later Ravenloft stuff) remain unrivalled, and the average product seems much blander. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-25-08 05:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Games have to evolve. That's part of the issue. The other part is that publishers need to pay the bills. You can't do that by putting out some core books and then raking in the cash. That cash tapers off. To keep it flowing, you need to keep publishing fresh material for people to buy. The biggest bang for your development buck is expanded rules (splat books) and monsters. But the more you expand the rules, the more top-heavy the game becomes, until it finally topples under the weight of its own 'optional' manuals. 2nd Ed. toppled, and so has 3.5. To 'save' the game, all that clutter needs to be swept off the table and replaced with something that's once again clean and accessible. In other words, publishers and players exist in what's basically a destructive, co-dependent relationship. To survive, WotC must publish regular game expansions. The players' #1 desire in expansions, as demonstrated by where they spend $, is for additional rules. So we publish them, players buy them, and initially they enrich the game. Eventually, however, their presence becomes an insupportable drag on the game, and the only way to fix it is to wipe the slate clean. Who's fault is that? Is it WotC's because the company needs to maintain a steady stream of revenue, or is it the players' because they clamor for material that's ultimately destructive (more and more rules) and turn away from material that doesn't upset the status quo (adventures and, to a lesser extent, settings)? The answer is that everyone involved contributes to the problem. Your neighborhood coke dealer doesn't peddle drugs because he's a big supporter of getting high. He'd happily sell Bibles instead, if he could make as much money pushing Bibles instead of crack. But dollars-per-hour, he gets a much better payoff for selling dope because that's what his customers want, even if it eventually kills them. It's a crass comparison but not illegitimate. So yes, it's a cycle. It's driven partly by the need to attract new passengers with new expectations and partly by the need to scrape off the barnacles and plug the holes in the hull so the darned ship can make headway again. In an ideal world, WotC would put out one edition of D&D and follow it with only occasional, carefully-considered expansions that never challenge the game's structure. If it did so, it could support an R&D department of about two people, and eventually the game would fade away as players drift off to other interests faster than they're replaced. As to whether the new game is right for you -- think of it like buying a car. Every year, a new model appears that's shinier, more efficient, and more reliable than last year's, but that doesn't mean you need it. My daily driver is 10 years old, but it moves me from place to place as well as a new car would and it's paid for. My 'hobby' car is 18 years old, because I like driving and tinkering with that particular car -- it suits me and holds my interest. If that's the way you feel about OD&D, Basic/Expert, 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., or 3/3.5, then you won't find anyone here who'll proclaim that you need to switch. I'm excited about 4E, just as I was excited about all the previous editions, but that's me. Everyone else is not only free to play what they want, they should play what they want. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : tvknight415 Date : 01-25-08 05:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I started playing in 82 on the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules, went to AD&D, AD&D 2E, 3.0 D&D, and 3.5 D&D. I spent a bit of time perusing the 4E race/class book at B&N, and what I saw did not impress me. I was unimpressed enough to decide not to go with 4E. Long live Moldvay Basic/Cook & Marsh Expert D&D!!!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-25-08 06:08 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The problem for many of us who remember the "Golden Age" of Basic/ 1st/ 2nd editions is, we used to role-play. Now it's all about roll-play. Why should players verbally haggle to get something when they can roll a 20-sider, and apply whatever bonus they have for a skill such as Diplomacy? The same goes for the proper applications of titles, et cetera; just roll it on the appropraite skill. No research or role-play needed. If I thought that 4.0 would bring "role-play back", I'd buy it. But I have no illusions of it. And from what I've read, to stay "current", you need to be online. It also seems like they're trying to turn it into a table-top wargame (I wasn't around for Chainmail, but I've heard things...) as much as an "RPG". There is no longer a physical magazine to support the game; you need an online subscription. If it's the wave of the future for RPGs, count me out; I'll just find people to play the 1st/ 2nd hybrid campaign I've had ready to go for awhile now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Varl Date : 01-25-08 08:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That's part of the issue. The other part is that publishers need to pay the bills. You can't do that by putting out some core books and then raking in the cash. That cash tapers off. To keep it flowing, you need to keep publishing fresh material for people to buy. The biggest bang for your development buck is expanded rules (splat books) and monsters. But the more you expand the rules, the more top-heavy the game becomes, until it finally topples under the weight of its own 'optional' manuals. 2nd Ed. toppled, and so has 3.5. To 'save' the game, all that clutter needs to be swept off the table and replaced with something that's once again clean and accessible. For how long though? You might be able to sweep the table clean of all past edition detritus, but I wonder how WotC is going to be able to pay the bills without re-building the pile on that now-empty table with yet another series of clone products. That's the repetitive cycle I've grown so weary of. It's one thing to need to create products to pay the bills, products that are truly original and fresh that people could get behind and excited about buying again, but it's entirely something else to perpetually release new editions and expect people to not get weary of it. I mean, come on. They came out with 2 PHBs and DMGs for 3.5 and duplicated Complete books. Why should people think that's not going to happen again with 4e, and more importantly, realistically how many times can WotC afford to "upgrade" and completely abandon yet another edition (and loyal) fans? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-25-08 11:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Who's fault is that? I blame the Moops. :D Everyone else is not only free to play what they want, they should play what they want. Quoted for truth. I have said it before here on these forums, and I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it. It doesn't matter which version of the game you play, because through all the years two letters have never changed, and that is the D and the D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-26-08 12:01 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The problem for many of us who remember the "Golden Age" of Basic/ 1st/ 2nd editions is, we used to role-play. Now it's all about roll-play. Why should players verbally haggle to get something when they can roll a 20-sider, and apply whatever bonus they have for a skill such as Diplomacy? The same goes for the proper applications of titles, et cetera; just roll it on the appropraite skill. No research or role-play needed. If I thought that 4.0 would bring "role-play back", I'd buy it. But I have no illusions of it. And from what I've read, to stay "current", you need to be online. It also seems like they're trying to turn it into a table-top wargame (I wasn't around for Chainmail, but I've heard things...) as much as an "RPG". There is no longer a physical magazine to support the game; you need an online subscription. If it's the wave of the future for RPGs, count me out; I'll just find people to play the 1st/ 2nd hybrid campaign I've had ready to go for awhile now. I will freely and proudly admit that at the age of 37 I'm an ancient relic (as I was called by someone here on these forums) when I expressed "shock and horror" when I learned that some players actually made an Intelligence check to solve a riddle! Granted, that isn't the fault of the rules (but rather the fault of the DM for allowing it), but I do honestly believe that the rules help contribute to this mentality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-26-08 12:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? For how long though? You might be able to sweep the table clean of all past edition detritus, but I wonder how WotC is going to be able to pay the bills without re-building the pile on that now-empty table with yet another series of clone products. That's the repetitive cycle I've grown so weary of. It's one thing to need to create products to pay the bills, products that are truly original and fresh that people could get behind and excited about buying again, but it's entirely something else to perpetually release new editions and expect people to not get weary of it. I mean, come on. They came out with 2 PHBs and DMGs for 3.5 and duplicated Complete books. Why should people think that's not going to happen again with 4e, and more importantly, realistically how many times can WotC afford to "upgrade" and completely abandon yet another edition (and loyal) fans? Unfortunately I think that part of the formula for successful roleplaying games is that you have to periodically brush off of that table a bunch of your loyal fans. The key, to a certain extent, is to attract newer players and let the older players go. I think the companies realize that a certain percentage of their customers will not upgrade to the new rules set. It happened between 2nd and 3rd and a lot of people are saying that they won't convert to 4.0. So, the companies figure that a certain percentage of the old timers are expendable. Sooner or later most of a particular generation of gamers will stop buying your product. So, they have to attract new gamers when they start to rebuild that pile on the now empty table. Those new gamers will fill those now empty chairs from those who didn't convert, and this will allow them to keep going with new versions every so often. Short of the entire roleplaying industry or D&D going the way of the Edsel I don't think it will stop. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 01-26-08 12:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? To 'save' the game, all that clutter needs to be swept off the table and replaced with something that's once again clean and accessible. Steve Not to put too fine a point on it, but this strikes to the heart of my complaint. Ze game deed not remain ze same. Dungeons and Dragons hasn't had the clutter swept off the table since 1988, and the sprawling mess which necessitated that overhaul (Which was better work than most grognards will admit, mostly due to the laughably silly names for devils and demons, although loose-leaf really looks like an even worse idea as more years pass) is nothing compared to the sprawling mess we had by the mid 90s. When it was past time for that cleanup, what did we get? Dungeons and Dragons was discontinued and replaced by a completely different game which really wasn't that bad with just core stuff, once you get past the fact that it's mis-labeled as Dungeons and Dragons. At least Dungeons and Dragons needed the better part of a decade for any given edition to grow unwieldy, but the M:tG business model means Wizbro's third different non-Dungeons and Dragons FRPG will bloat to the point of uselessness somewhere around August 2008, and Castles and Crusades will be back to a qualitative edge (assuming it ever loses one, which I'm doubting) by Christmas--probably still without ever publishing the Castle Keepers Guide. I'd love to have Dungeons and Dragons tidied up and a clean new edition released. I really would. This doesn't have anything at all to do with killing game systems and seeing how fast a different system can turn into a waste of $2000.00, though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Ampolitor Date : 01-26-08 12:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm frustrated that I will have to start over AGAIN buying books. The thing that I didn't like about 3.x are the monsters. Gone are the days when you write a adventure and have a monster stat block thats a one liner, no now you need the 3 saves, all the bonuses to hit with each weapon etc....It used to say monster, , HD, HP, AC , armor type, XP, and weapons or treasure carried. Now its a ton of info, way to much IMO. It makes simple combat a long math equation. I just finished another module. In the older editions the longest part about writing a mod was the story, not now, now its stating all of the creatures. Thats my only gripe, make the monsters simpler! It makes me feel like each creature is a individual, and its a pain to keep track of all that! I don't want stats like that for my goblin horde, do I really need to know what skills and feats they have, really! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Ampolitor Date : 01-26-08 12:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I learned that some players actually made an Intelligence check to solve a riddle! Granted, that isn't the fault of the rules (but rather the fault of the DM for allowing it), but I do honestly believe that the rules help contribute to this mentality. Man I'm 35 myself, I agree with you all the way, like my last post. The game seems to be a endless dice rolling session. I know we don't have to use all of the rules, but do we really need all of them? I mean they have a dice roll for everything, what ever happened to creativity on the DM's part. I knew it was bad when they had to put out a players handbook and DM's guide 2. I was like what the heck! We used to use a simple small cardboard boxed set, and they pretty much covered everything. I just got my brother in law playing. I gave him a copy of the players guide. I told him, ok here you go, heres the rulebook for your end. (He used to play the old purple box set back in the day) When he looked at it i thought he was going to have a stroke. So a few eeks later and a millino confused phone calls i think he has a grasp on it. Anyway I hope 4E is better, because 3.5 was the rules lawyer bible. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-26-08 12:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm frustrated that I will have to start over AGAIN buying books. This seems to be a common feeling but the fact is you DONT have to buy the books again. If you like the edition you play and see no reason for a revision then keep playing the version you are comfortable with. There is no shortage of material for any edition currently out. I am thinking I will return to 2nd edition myself with elements of 1st edition thrown in. I dont plan to initially buy any 4th edition but I may check it out if someone else in my group does and wants to run us through a session. Also I find that the core rules of any edition are all you need, the rest of the books just cater to the powergamers and clutter the system. So if I do buy the new edition, it will just be a few core books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-26-08 02:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Look at how many people these days are playing Pac Man or Donkey Kong or Space Invaders. Not very many. And those that do play the game are either old school video gamers who played the games when they first came out or they are newer people who play them as a novelty once in a while. The truth is that video games evolved. As they evolved the tastes of the people who played the games evolved. They expected better games. The companies knew that they were selling a corporate product. That is a simple fact of doing business. The companies also realized that video games had a lifecycle. If they hadn't evolved with the tastes of their customers they would have gone out of business. I know that I'm talking about video games and not roleplaying games but I think that they are very similar in nature. But surely Pac Man and Donkey Kong and Space Invaders would be more akin to one-shot modules like "Barrier Peaks" and "White Plume Mountain" and "Forbidden City". ...??? You're only going to get so much fun out of the experience. Granted, you can't play Xbox games on a Wii, but you don't need to switch to an entirely new platform to play RPGs. If you've got a group of people and some dice, you can play anything... RPGs aren't tech-based. You don't have to get more memory for your dice, and you don't need the latest kick-ass processor for your Monster Manual. So, while video games become obsolete because the technology driving them becomes obsolete, I would reckon that RPG editions get "updated" for one reason only - to force gamers into re-purchasing the (expensive) core books. If 1e were still the going model, I could give my set of core rulebooks to my kids, and they could hand "grandpa's copies" down to their kids. Substantial loss of revenue for the company. I quit the game when the second edition came out. I haven't "come back" to it (I don't play), but I did get some wicked-hurt nostalgia when I heard that David C. Sutherland III died, and I started browsing around the 'Net to see what had ever become of D&D. I bought a couple of Dragon issues to see what was new, bought Lords of Madness (beholders and illithids? I'm totally there), and in 2006 I started buying the "Savage Tide" issues of Dungeon. Love the Isle of Dread, love that two-headed prince of demons. But I have to ask... Thought experiment: Is there any reason any of that stuff needed to be in 3.5 ed, instead of 1st edition rules? I mean, from my point of view, "Savage Tide" is practically begging for someone to reverse-engineer it into a proper set of 1e modules, with illustrations by DAT and EO. (And DCSIII, RIP man). Am I wrong? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-26-08 02:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? publishers need to pay the bills. You can't do that by putting out some core books and then raking in the cash. That cash tapers off. To keep it flowing, you need to keep publishing fresh material for people to buy. [...] Your neighborhood coke dealer doesn't peddle drugs because he's a big supporter of getting high. He'd happily sell Bibles instead, if he could make as much money pushing Bibles instead of crack. But dollars-per-hour, he gets a much better payoff for selling dope because that's what his customers want, even if it eventually kills them. It's a crass comparison but not illegitimate. So why not publish 1e and 2e versions of what you're already selling? It's not like there isn't an entire generation of gamers already purchasing 3.5 materials and modding them as needed. You're obviously on the boards, listening to us talk about what we've bought and how we've used it. While you might sell less of the current edition, you might sell more in total because older gamers would be more likely to buy a product that's already compatible. I will go on record as saying that I would buy more product than I have if it were in stats I understood, and I don't even play anymore. Also, it might be worth mentioning that, while youngun's might have a lot of disposable income (i.e., target audience), Generation X is already in or moving toward our 40's. Our peak income years are within a decade's reach. As a generation, we are practically defined by nostalgia. (Who else would buy the entire run of Three's Company on DVD? Who else would watch re-runs of all three series of "I Love the 80's" on VH1?) So, WoTC_Huscarl, here's an equally crass yet not illegitimate comparison. You're the coke dealer, and I'm happy that you're making more money by selling wonderful new meth instead of stodgy old crack. Good for you. But can't you sell me just a little more crack? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-26-08 03:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Love the Isle of Dread...Is there any reason any of that stuff needed to be in 3.5 ed, instead of 1st edition rules? Isle of Dread is a 1st edition module that came with the Expert boxed set. They made a sequel to it for 3rd edition in Dungeon magazine entitled Torrents of Dread which used Demogorgon, the two headed demon prince. As for why they wont release more material for earlier editions, they are afraid it would cannabalize 4th ed sales. It's just business. But there already is a ton of stuff out there for the earlier editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-26-08 03:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? But surely Pac Man and Donkey Kong and Space Invaders would be more akin to one-shot modules like "Barrier Peaks" and "White Plume Mountain" and "Forbidden City". ...??? You're only going to get so much fun out of the experience. Granted, you can't play Xbox games on a Wii, but you don't need to switch to an entirely new platform to play RPGs. If you've got a group of people and some dice, you can play anything... RPGs aren't tech-based. You don't have to get more memory for your dice, and you don't need the latest kick-ass processor for your Monster Manual. So, while video games become obsolete because the technology driving them becomes obsolete, I would reckon that RPG editions get "updated" for one reason only - to force gamers into re-purchasing the (expensive) core books. If 1e were still the going model, I could give my set of core rulebooks to my kids, and they could hand "grandpa's copies" down to their kids. Substantial loss of revenue for the company. I quit the game when the second edition came out. I haven't "come back" to it (I don't play), but I did get some wicked-hurt nostalgia when I heard that David C. Sutherland III died, and I started browsing around the 'Net to see what had ever become of D&D. I bought a couple of Dragon issues to see what was new, bought Lords of Madness (beholders and illithids? I'm totally there), and in 2006 I started buying the "Savage Tide" issues of Dungeon. Love the Isle of Dread, love that two-headed prince of demons. But I have to ask... Thought experiment: Is there any reason any of that stuff needed to be in 3.5 ed, instead of 1st edition rules? I mean, from my point of view, "Savage Tide" is practically begging for someone to reverse-engineer it into a proper set of 1e modules, with illustrations by DAT and EO. (And DCSIII, RIP man). Am I wrong? But the tastes of the new potential generations of gamers is constantly evolving. That, in my opinion, is the primary reason for new editions of the game. I honestly think that 1st edition D&D, as the rules are now, would completely bomb as a new product (assuming, of course, that it hadn't been around the first time). The rules just aren't "sophiscticated" enough for today's generation of gamers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-26-08 03:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Isle of Dread is a 1st edition module that came with the Expert boxed set. They made a sequel to it for 3rd edition in Dungeon magazine entitled Torrents of Dread which used Demogorgon, the two headed demon prince. As for why they wont release more material for earlier editions, they are afraid it would cannabalize 4th ed sales. It's just business. But there already is a ton of stuff out there for the earlier editions. I think Isle of Dread was not 1st edition, but was part of the Expert Set (which was an offshoot of Basic D&D). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-26-08 03:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I tend to lump Basic and Expert together with 1st edition since they all went away with 2nd. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-27-08 01:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? But the tastes of the new potential generations of gamers is constantly evolving. That, in my opinion, is the primary reason for new editions of the game. I honestly think that 1st edition D&D, as the rules are now, would completely bomb as a new product (assuming, of course, that it hadn't been around the first time). The rules just aren't "sophiscticated" enough for today's generation of gamers. Tastes may change, which is why new settings are developed. But rules don't have to change to accommodate a new generation of gamers - like, what 13-year old is sitting around looking at 3.5 going, "Man, just not sophisticated enough for me... hope they add more rules and change a bunch of stuff!" Consider how often the rules of football or chess or golf change (i.e., never), yet those games are still popular from generation to generation. No, the editions are not the work of "taste" - WoTC_Huscarl laid down the rules in an earlier post; gamers buy rules add-ons more than any other product per edition, therefore the company assumes that the way to manage revenue is to constantly add more rules until the thing is unplayable and then you get to start over. Churn = profit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-27-08 02:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Isle of Dread is a 1st edition module that came with the Expert boxed set. They made a sequel to it for 3rd edition in Dungeon magazine entitled Torrents of Dread which used Demogorgon, the two headed demon prince. Right. I know what the Isle of Dread is. Which is why I love it. My question was, is there anything so unique about 3.5 that "Savage Tide" had to be built on those rules, because no other edition or version would work? I maintain a solid "no"; In the 80's I modded at least three different games (Jorune, Gamma World 2nd ed, and Call of Cthulhu 4th ed) into 1e AD&D rules, and it worked fine. RPGs are just people and dice. Problem, roll, outcome. I fail to see the real burning need for a completely different set of rules every few years to do that simple thing. As for why they wont release more material for earlier editions, they are afraid it would cannabalize 4th ed sales. It's just business. Cannibalize sales? Here's another thought experiment. Let's say WoTC puts out a run of 10,000 copies of Product A in 4e. We already know that old gamers buy new product and retrofit it to their existing campaigns. Let's say that old gamers account for 10% of the total market, but only half of those old gamers will buy 4e. 10% is 1,000 copies, of which only half sell. The remaining 500 go unsold. Now let's say that WoTC does a run of only 9,000 copies of 4e and 1,000 copies 1e. The 90% market of new or trade-up gamers buys their 90%, as predicted. Fine. There's no loss because fewer copies were printed. Those players are happy and the company is happy. Now there's 1e, printed in 1,000 copies. Old gamers are a small market, only 10%, and only half of them buy any product. So that's an automatic 500 copies sold. The company was already living with a 5% margin of unsold product, so everything is even. It's the 5% of the market who plays, but doesn't buy 4e, that is attracted to the remaining 500 copies. If only 1 person in that market buys a copy, the company is selling more than they used to (i.e., 9501 copies instead of 9500). And it seems likely that more than "just one" person in the 5% play-but-don't-buy market would be attracted to a product in rules and format that speaks to them. It's just business. WoTC seems intent on ignoring a market that wants to be heard. That's not "just business," that's bad business. There's an online petition to bring back 1e and 2e. Goodman Games is totally scoring on marketing retro-style modules, and they even sell a couple in 1e. HackMaster is a parody of 1e, and it's doing very well for itself. Erol Otus is doing retro-style art for both companies; the SnarfQuest graphic novel is back in print (thanks, Larry!); Dave Trampier was on the "most wanted" list until he told KenzerCo to, umm... "lose his number." There's clearly a profitable market to be had from old school gamers; it seems unbelievably stupid to ignore a customer base that is still loyal to a product line that hasn't existed since the late 80's. A customer base (coughs, clears throat) that is still buying and entering peak income years. But there already is a ton of stuff out there for the earlier editions. Do you mean the old stuff we already have or didn't want the first time, or do you mean there's a company that's not WoTC who's churning out a bunch of legit 1e/2e product? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-27-08 08:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Tastes may change, which is why new settings are developed. But rules don't have to change to accommodate a new generation of gamers - like, what 13-year old is sitting around looking at 3.5 going, "Man, just not sophisticated enough for me... hope they add more rules and change a bunch of stuff!" Consider how often the rules of football or chess or golf change (i.e., never), yet those games are still popular from generation to generation. But give that 13-year old a copy of 1st edition D&D and chances are he won't like it. He might not be consciously sitting there saying the rules are not sophisticated enough, but chances are that they aren't. Kids these days who are interested in D&D are more than likely going to be influenced (among other things) by the video games that they play. They will want characters who can act like their favorite video game character and their favorite cartoon characters. The old 1st edition rules, as they are, don't easily allow for someone to have video-game like superhero characters. Yes, it can be done, but it would take a lot of house rules and a very creative DM. But, with the 3rd edition it is much easier to have this type of a character (especially with feats). As for updating the current rules, well, 3.5 is probably sophisticated enough for most 13-year olds out there, but the corporate heads have to be thinking about those younger kids coming up behind those 13-year old kids. They are just as if not more important that people who are currently playing the game. Without new player growth the game just won't survive. One would think that that shouldn't be the case when compared to games such as football, golf, and chess, but those games are of a different style than D&D. Additionally, those games have a fan base that completely dwarfs that of D&D and similar games. Such smaller games have to operate by different rules in the corporate world in order to survive. No, the editions are not the work of "taste" - WoTC_Huscarl laid down the rules in an earlier post; gamers buy rules add-ons more than any other product per edition, therefore the company assumes that the way to manage revenue is to constantly add more rules until the thing is unplayable and then you get to start over. Churn = profit. But, you have left off the point that those editions eventually become a detriment to the game that do more harm than good. And he also mentioned that part of the "solution" to the problem is the need to attract new players. He also said that if you stick with just one system and just add on that the game will eventually fade away. Dvalin, your arguments about 1st edition would be valid except for one simple fact: Sales of 1st edition products had stagnated. Yes, Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, and the Wilderness Survival Guide added some vitality to those sales, but they were just abnomolies that quickly went away. The fan base of the game had also stagnated. Yes, new people were still coming to the game, but not enough, especially when compared to the number of people who quit playing the game. If the Creators could have stayed with just 1st edition don't you think they would have? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-27-08 11:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I noted this elsewhere. I'm an old WEG guy, and some of the changes to the D20swrpg have similar problems IMO. I think there may be big differences here between the young guys and the old guys in what they want. RPing is less important than it used to be. I know a lot of people might bring up the stormwind fallacy, but I'm not stating that min-maxing is necessarily opposed to roleplay, but inductively, I've noticed that a lot of the younger guys are only interested in the former, not the latter. Excellent, another WEG player! I ran a couple of sessions of the D20 SW game after one of players wanted shiny and new. The other, once suitably curious, agreed to give it a go and came in with open minds, seeing it as a opportunity to play a different character, different area of the galaxy, etc. The one overwhelming response from the players at the end of session 2 was "it's good, but it just doesn't feel right." This is my argument against 3rd edition (I have no solid argument about 4th as I lack sufficent information) - "it just didn't feel right" Role-playing and description, common-sense and ingenuity are the hallmarks of 1st and 2nd edition games. You had to think on your feet, talk to NPC's and rely on each other otherwise the trap/monster/plot would kill you and the rest of your friends. I've noticed a generational shift in what players want from a game. When running D&D for a group that is about twelve years younger than I am, I have to remind myself that these guys are min-maxing, prefer to roll over roleplay, rack up a body count kind of players. It doesn't seem to be just this group either. I've been to cons just to wander around, listen to the chatter and see what people are excited about. The players in the early twenties (and younger) are excited about far different things than those of us thirty and over. 3.0/3.5 and now 4th are all speaking to the younger generation and disenchanting the older generation. I know this is a braod sweeping statement, but I feel that on the whole it is true. I'll say it again "it just doesn't feel right" Oh, and I still show up for character creation, I've never done a character build. I've got no better idea where my character will be in four levels than he does. In fact, back in the day, you were just lucky to be alive in four levels time... let alone pining over what feat you were going to take. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Extempus Date : 01-28-08 04:09 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Role-playing and description, common-sense and ingenuity are the hallmarks of 1st and 2nd edition games. You had to think on your feet, talk to NPC's and rely on each other otherwise the trap/monster/plot would kill you and the rest of your friends. That's how we play: role-playing and problem-solving for the most part, and we often don't even use the dice, cast any spells or get into melee at all!!! In fact, back in the day, you were just lucky to be alive in four levels time... let alone pining over what feat you were going to take. :P I remember those days... my first two characters (magic-users) never made it past 1st level, but my third character (a cleric) is my oldest surviving and highest-level character (24th). I'm not sure how he managed to survive those early adventures, when his brother (also a cleric) died at 2nd level, IIRC... I suppose I can go back and resurrect them all now if I wanted to, but 21 game years have passed and they're all buried on a parallel Oerth... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Varl Date : 01-28-08 12:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? As for updating the current rules, well, 3.5 is probably sophisticated enough for most 13-year olds out there, but the corporate heads have to be thinking about those younger kids coming up behind those 13-year old kids. They are just as if not more important that people who are currently playing the game. This part I agree with. In every gaming industry, there's always the new generation that replaces the old. It's what keeps MMOs viable imo. You play a game long enough, eventually it gets old and so you decide to move on to something else. That vacuum is filled by the 13-year olds that just discovered the game. It's like Diablo and Diablo 2. Can you believe those games still have a fan base? Of course they do, because of the new generations of gamers that have never play Diablo. D&D is no different. Without new player growth the game just won't survive. TTRPG companies are fighting an uphill battle. They're limited print-run companies, meaning volume matters. New player growth in tabletop gaming has a finite shelf life. I believe that by changing the game the ways they have, they're trying to corner a small piece of the MMO market, which is fine, but they're never going to be able to garner the numbers a successful MMO can. Never. Can they be successful with the limited audiences they harvest under every edition? They must be, but I really wonder how long an industry like D&D can last when, with every new edition, you schulff off a percentage of the orange juice (old players that prefer old editions) for the oranges (the new 13-year olds) when both are just as nutritous to the industry. For an industry trying its best to emulate the MMO industry, they sure go about it strangely. But, you have left off the point that those editions eventually become a detriment to the game that do more harm than good. And he also mentioned that part of the "solution" to the problem is the need to attract new players. He also said that if you stick with just one system and just add on that the game will eventually fade away. That's ironic, seeing how the only way for them to grow is to add on to what they create (and with every new edition they create, I might add), which by your account, leads to them fading away should they stick to one system. That to me sounds like a no-win scenario. They create, they add on to it, they bloat, they realize they've bloated, and finally, they scrap the whole thing in favor of yet another new edition. Round and round we go. What a crappy way to make a buck. Heh. But, I guess if it makes everyone money in the short-term, that's the important part. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-28-08 01:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I remember those days... my first two characters (magic-users) never made it past 1st level We didn't even give our characters names until they reached 2nd level. It didn't pay to get too emotionally attached ... Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-28-08 02:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? We didn't even give our characters names until they reached 2nd level. It didn't pay to get too emotionally attached ... Steve Strange... I never had a character die 'ere level 4. Tough-assed Gygax modules... "I survived the Dungeon of Dread, and all I got was this lousy... Waitaminute..." But really, if you have your party set up right, with the mage in back and the cleric beside the mage, you shouldn't have too much trouble keeping him/ her alive in the typical dungeon passage. One or two fighters can easily stand side-by-side and hold the front. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : LordToron Date : 01-28-08 04:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I have been following the development with a bit of interest, but I'm not going to play 4E. They are moving away from what makes D&D well, D&D. They have this "Kill all the Sacred Cows" attitude about the previous editions of (A)D&D. It's fine if they don't like to play D&D, but let those of us who like it play it! 3E isn't that bad (1/2E are my favs) but 4E is just the game Mike Mearls wants to play INSTEAD of D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : havard Date : 01-28-08 05:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? back in the day, if you entered a room where they thought there might be an abmush, the players would say, "I'm going to scan the room for anything out of the ordinary." The DM would then make a roll or tell the player to make a roll. In 3.x, in the same situation, players simply say, "I make a spot check" and roll the dice. I'm sorry. I couldn't let this one go. I don't mind criticism of 3e, but this sort of criticism is unfair IMHO, and sadly I see alot of it. While the skill "spot" might seem like a novelty for those who have only played D&D type games, skill based systems have had skills like that since the 1970s. If people try to say "I make a notice check" in a skill based system, that is something I consider bad roleplaying. Crtiticizing the rules because of the players is unfair. OTOH, I could see a reasoning for turning Spot type checks into a new category of saves. That would make it easier to understand that Skills are active actions, while saves are called by the DM. An Awareness category of skills could be based on Wisdom, turning Will saves into Cha based saves which they should have been in the first place. OTOH, I could also envision 4e getting rid of saves and integrating them, along with Melee and Missile Attacks into the skill list as well. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-28-08 05:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm sorry. I couldn't let this one go. I don't mind criticism of 3e, but this sort of criticism is unfair IMHO, and sadly I see alot of it. While the skill "spot" might seem like a novelty for those who have only played D&D type games, skill based systems have had skills like that since the 1970s. If people try to say "I make a notice check" in a skill based system, that is something I consider bad roleplaying. Crtiticizing the rules because of the players is unfair. OTOH, I could see a reasoning for turning Spot type checks into a new category of saves. That would make it easier to understand that Skills are active actions, while saves are called by the DM. An Awareness category of skills could be based on Wisdom, turning Will saves into Cha based saves which they should have been in the first place. OTOH, I could also envision 4e getting rid of saves and integrating them, along with Melee and Missile Attacks into the skill list as well. Havard You left a bit off the end of your quote of my words: back in the day, if you entered a room where they thought there might be an abmush, the players would say, "I'm going to scan the room for anything out of the ordinary." The DM would then make a roll or tell the player to make a roll. In 3.x, in the same situation, players simply say, "I make a spot check" and roll the dice. While the end result is still the same (i.e. the characters scan the room for suspected danger and a dice roll determines their success) I think that how that outcome is reached is very important. There has been a subtle but very important change in the thought process of the players, a shift that I think is greatly induced by the rules. I think that this shift has been a detriment to the game. I hope that the creators of the game have seen this and work to try and remedy it for 4.0. I think that what you left off completely changes the overall message of what you quoted. My point wasn't about the spot check (or the notice check or whatever). That was merely an example. My point was about how the current rules system is more heavily focussed on stats and bonuses and how, in my mind, the current rules make it easier for players to adjust their thought process and focus on those stats and bonuses, that it is easier for players to become too focussed on their dice. And, in my opinion, after having played 3.0 and 3.5 quite a bit over the last 7 or so years, it is a fair criticism. Far too often have I heard "I make a ____ check" instead of saying "I scan the room for anything out of the ordinary" or "I put my ear against the door and listen for any sounds on the other side" or some other action. And, Yes, that is bad roleplaying. But, like I said, I think that the current rules set makes it more likely for people to be guilty of this. I will freely admit that I prefer 2nd edition, that I still run a 2nd edition campaign, but I have played 3.x quite a bit over the years, especially at conventions. And, my personal observations have led me to conclude that 1st/2nd edition players are more inclined to reach for their thinking caps when in any given non-combat situation and 3.x players are more inclined to reach for their dice. Again, the end result is the same in that the players have to roll the dice to determine success, but I see the difference in the thought process of the players. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Extempus Date : 01-28-08 07:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That's ironic, seeing how the only way for them to grow is to add on to what they create (and with every new edition they create, I might add), which by your account, leads to them fading away should they stick to one system. That to me sounds like a no-win scenario. They create, they add on to it, they bloat, they realize they've bloated, and finally, they scrap the whole thing in favor of yet another new edition. Round and round we go. What a crappy way to make a buck. Heh. But, I guess if it makes everyone money in the short-term, that's the important part. And that's precisely the problem: there is no planning for the long-term. Think about it: 2 editions lasted roughly 26 years, and then 3 more in less than 8. Looks like the original game designers did make things to last (albiet unintentionally), eh? We didn't even give our characters names until they reached 2nd level. It didn't pay to get too emotionally attached ... Steve Nachor and Zaron were my two magic-users... I didn't have a chance to get emotionally attached, however, since they both died in the first 2-3 months of gaming... Strange... I never had a character die 'ere level 4. Tough-assed Gygax modules... "I survived the Dungeon of Dread, and all I got was this lousy... Waitaminute..." But really, if you have your party set up right, with the mage in back and the cleric beside the mage, you shouldn't have too much trouble keeping him/ her alive in the typical dungeon passage. One or two fighters can easily stand side-by-side and hold the front. That was precisely my plan with my 2nd and 3rd characters, but once my magic missile was cast, I waded into combat with a dagger so as not to feel too useless, and I still died even though my cleric was nearby... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Varl Date : 01-28-08 08:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And that's precisely the problem: there is no planning for the long-term. Think about it: 2 editions lasted roughly 26 years, and then 3 more in less than 8. Looks like the original game designers did make things to last (albiet unintentionally), eh? Absolutely, and I'll be the first to say 2nd edition anyway needed to be revised, and I'm not talking PO. It needed to be upgraded in a way consistent to the original design, much like the transition that occurred between 1e and 2e. A lot of 1e fans might not have liked the changes made to 2e, but they can't deny that it still remained AD&D in spirit. That spirit was exorcised when they created d20. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : vornargith-glee Date : 01-29-08 06:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? 2nd Edition remains my all-time favorite .... game-wise and in appearance. The artwork was not "manga," halflings were stubby and had hairy feet. I still rely on my monstrous compendiums. I've tried 3rd edition, but it never agreed with me ... like eating a Cicada po-boy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Webster Date : 01-29-08 07:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I am of the opinion that the older rules sets induced people to first reach for their thinking caps in a lot of situations, but the current rules set induces people to first reach for their dice. For example, back in the day, if you entered a room where they thought there might be an abmush, the players would say, "I'm going to scan the room for anything out of the ordinary." The DM would then make a roll or tell the player to make a roll. In 3.x, in the same situation, players simply say, "I make a spot check" and roll the dice. See, that's the DM and player's problem, not a problem with the game. "I'm going to scan the room for anything out of the ordinary." "Okay, make a spot check." Clatter. "17" "You notice there's a crack in the wall about the size of a walnut." It's the DMs and players who aren't describing things in detail. But- having said that I don't think it's true that every group is doing it wrong. I certainly had plenty of descriptions for the players during our last game. They described their actions. And I described the actions of the NPCs and what happend. ;) (Edit:) Of course, the older books didn't really push on the side of roleplaying much either. Nobody to date has ever pointed out what page of the 1st edition PHB says "If you're playing an elf, talk in a high voice and always try to attack dwarves." or somesuch. It didn't teach improvised acting, or how to whip up some fake tears if your character was crying. Combat has always been a big part of D&D, and most of the rules in every edition covered those things. Everyone starts out with hack and slash. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-29-08 12:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And that's precisely the problem: there is no planning for the long-term. Think about it: 2 editions lasted roughly 26 years, and then 3 more in less than 8. Looks like the original game designers did make things to last (albiet unintentionally), eh? Nachor and Zaron were my two magic-users... I didn't have a chance to get emotionally attached, however, since they both died in the first 2-3 months of gaming... That was precisely my plan with my 2nd and 3rd characters, but once my magic missile was cast, I waded into combat with a dagger so as not to feel too useless, and I still died even though my cleric was nearby... That's probably why you got killed; leave the fighting to the fighters, and you'll live to see the levels where you get several spells. Or play a fighter/ mage... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-29-08 01:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? See, that's the DM and player's problem, not a problem with the game. In part, yes. But, in my opinion it is a problem that is more likely to crop up and/or more likely to get fueled by the current rules system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-29-08 02:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'll offer another insight based on what may be a rather unique perspective. Right now, I'm playing in both a 4E playtest (2nd-level halfling ranger who fights with two weapons, is unusually perceptive, and has 32 hit points) AND an OD&D campaign using only Chainmail and the original three, folio-sized books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures -- 4th-level cleric with three spells and 14 hit points). The differences and the similarities between these two games are striking. In terms of combat action, 4E wins hands down. It has options and tactical decisions galore. OD&D involves round after round of vanilla flavored dice-rolling that can seem to drag on forever with few actual hits. Even though we use miniatures* (on a bare table with no grid), the biggest tactical decision is usually, do we fight another round or do we run away? In 4E, a fight is usually over in 4-6 rounds. In OD&D, a fight between low-level characters can easily go 10-12 rounds, because so many attacks miss their marks. If someone wants to inject tactical variation -- by, say, climbing onto a ledge or leaping across a chasm for an advantageous shooting position -- there's no rule to cover it. The DM wings it, which is fine when you have a competent DM. A DM who has a solid grasp of both gaming and drama uses this to his advantage. If being on that ledge is good for the adventure, then he makes it easy, and if it's bad for the adventure, he makes it hard. But an inexperienced DM, or one who doesn't have a good handle on dramatic pacing, or one who doesn't react well on the fly, is more likely to fumble the situation and create frustration. And none of that guarantees that the same situation will be handled the same way the next time it comes up. In 4E, it's still up to the DM whether the ledge is easy or hard to climb, but the character knows up front whether he's a good climber or a poor one. What happens outside of combat is just as different, but here, the question of which is 'better' is a lot more subjective. 4E can involve frequent Diplomacy, Bluff, Perception, and Streetwise checks (e.g.), whereas all of that must be handled through dialog in OD&D. "Dialog" doesn't necessarily mean role-playing. Much of it is Q&A between the DM and the players. For example, in our last OD&D gathering, we spent the entire session organizing a town militia and arranging the town's defenses for the local warlord. It was a couple hours of enjoyable back-and-forth between us and the DM with nary a die thrown. That would have played out very differently in 4E. If the DM didn't want to spend time on it, it could have been handled with just a few quick die rolls, all-in-all-done. OR, if everyone is into that sort of thing, it could have been dragged out for hours, exactly the way we did it in the absence of any rules. Playing these two side-by-side campaigns has been a real joy for me, in terms of reminding me where D&D came from and how much it's changed. I enjoy both, but they're different experiences. For the most part, we don't even need the rulebooks for OD&D. There's not much in them to look up anyway except the combat table and monster hit dice. It's much more freewheeling than 4E, but that's often by necessity rather than choice. You can play 4E that same way, but most people won't. Whether that's because the new way is better or because people will opt for the 'lazy' way out is a matter of opinion. In many ways, all of this reminds me of a common analysis of Rome's method of fighting during the Republic. They had fairly rigid rules for deploying and fighting battles. Because most of their generals were prominent civilians with little military background, this "by the book" approach worked well -- it guaranteed that a certain level of competence would always accompany the army and prevented tactical idiots from screwing things up too badly. At the same time, it left the door open for generals with talent and experience, such as Marius, to do things better. Newer versions of D&D are sort of like that. The wealth of rules supports inexperienced DMs and keeps them from falling below a minimum threshold of performance but leaves the door open for talented, experienced DMs to use or ignore them as they want (that second condition has always existed, of course). Steve * Mostly either unpainted lead or badly painted with glossy Testor's paints, just like in the old days. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-29-08 04:38 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'll offer another insight based on what may be a rather unique perspective. Right now, I'm playing in both a 4E playtest (2nd-level halfling ranger who fights with two weapons, is unusually perceptive, and has 32 hit points) AND an OD&D campaign using only Chainmail and the original three, folio-sized books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures -- 4th-level cleric with three spells and 14 hit points). The thought of a 2nd level character having 32 hit points makes me shudder. In terms of combat action, 4E wins hands down. It has options and tactical decisions galore. Are you able to give some examples of these options and tactical decisions and how they actually speed up combat? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-29-08 05:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Strange... Every group I was in for 1st and 2nd editions used tactics... then again, we were also all (or mostly) military brats (and later, in the military ourselves). I kind of get irritated with the "older editions are inferior" mindset (especially after those little "comparison films" WotC did nae long ago); it really was rather condescending and insulting to those of us who have been involved in the hobby for so long. Nothing but pennies and pencil erasors for character models? BS. I still have about 40 or so Grenadier models. We never used them much (at least in the groups I was in, except for good luck pieces or whatever), but we had them. They just weren't as intrinsic a part as the game as they are for 3.x, and evidently are going to be for 4.x. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-29-08 05:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Here are the 'class power' options that my 2nd-level halfling ranger has available. Other halfling rangers might have a different menu. He can -- use a Careful Strike that gives him a +4 bonus to hit; use a Hit & Run attack that lets him move away from the target afterward without drawing an attack of opportunity; attack twice and add his Wisdom bonus to the damage if both attacks hit; attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day); select a specific enemy in this fight and do an additional 1d6 damage per hit against it; force the DM to reroll an attack against him with a -2 to hit (once per encounter). Plus, for a variety of class/race/option reasons, he recovers quickly from fear, he's good at noticing things without being noticed and at most acrobatic/athletic-type actions -- climbing, jumping, balancing, slipping out of restraints. As an anecdote of how this sort of thing can actually aid role-playing rather than hindering it, in our first outing, we needed to cross a chasm. The strongest character leaped across (barely) and then bridged it with a rope which everyone else crawled across. My halfling, ever the showman, walked across as if it were a tightrope. I risked a much harder die throw simply because I had better balance than everyone else. Without those differences in skills, that would have been a vanilla moment. After all, even with my bonus, I was still more likely to fall by walking than by crawling. But I wanted to show off, which is purely a role-playing thing, and the skill bonus let me -- nay, encouraged me -- to do that where I otherwise wouldn't have. Now, in an OD&D-style game, there's no reason why the DM couldn't say, "everyone can crawl across with a roll of 5+ or walk across with a roll of 12+, and you get a +4 bonus if your Dex is 15 or higher." In this case he didn't need to, because I knew I'd get a +10 bonus either way. The real point, I think, is that this is not an objective decision. You pick the rules that suit your style of play, not the rules with the most correct copyright date or with the cover that matches your shoes. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Varl Date : 01-29-08 05:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, I have to admit Huscarl makes it sound intriguing, but I'm comfortable with my old ways and systems, and besides, I'm not entirely convinced every combat should even try to attain its maximum possible resolution speed. Fact is, some combats simply take longer. There isn't a magic formula for combat. Every group of 4 hobgoblins you meet shouldn't take precisely 5-6 rounds to complete because there's simply too many variables to account for. What the hobgoblins are using, tactics they use, terrain, weather, PC readiness, surprise, movement, PC tactics, and even hesitations or delays. I'll give it looksee when the time comes. I'm thinking of waiting until people respond here and elsewhere on how its combat system works before I decide to buy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 01-29-08 05:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? encounter). [/LIST] we needed to cross a chasm. The strongest character leaped across (barely) and then bridged it with a rope which everyone else crawled across. My halfling... What? The two strongest players didn't just grab the hafling, tie a rope around him, and toss him over the chasm first? How odd. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Varl Date : 01-29-08 05:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day) You had me, right up until you mentioned this one. I hit air, therefore, I do damage? Please. I know some people will now say it's not truly a miss, but a glancing blow or a grazing flesh wound....no it's not! It's a miss! When did the definition of miss become redefined to hit, that's what I want to know... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-29-08 05:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, in fact, it's always been that way. Because of the way D&D treats armor, it has always been considered that "a miss" is no more than "an attack that didn't cause damage." Maybe it was a miss, or it glanced off a shield, or it was parried, or it banged solidly into the enemy's breastplate and failed to penetrate. It's not as if there's no precedent for half-damage-on-a-miss going all the way back to OD&D; it's just that in the most prevalent cases, it applied only to spells and not melee attacks. Now there are limited cases where it applies to melee attacks as well. Although, I'll tell you up front that if this really puts a burr under your saddle, then you're right to shy away from 4E. Pretty much everybody can cause half damage on a miss every so often, under the right conditions. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-29-08 07:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? use a Careful Strike that gives him a +4 bonus to hit; use a Hit & Run attack that lets him move away from the target afterward without drawing an attack of opportunity; attack twice and add his Wisdom bonus to the damage if both attacks hit; attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day); select a specific enemy in this fight and do an additional 1d6 damage per hit against it; force the DM to reroll an attack against him with a -2 to hit (once per encounter). Are these tactics available to the minions of the DM, too? Are there other tactics that could be used to counter or negate these tactics? Also, how are these tactics gained? Is it some sort of a point-based system similar to learning skills? Are they innate "powers" based on class and/or race that the player chooses for his character? Well, in fact, it's always been that way. Because of the way D&D treats armor, it has always been considered that "a miss" is no more than "an attack that didn't cause damage." Maybe it was a miss, or it glanced off a shield, or it was parried, or it banged solidly into the enemy's breastplate and failed to penetrate. If I remember correctly this is pretty much how a round of combat was summed up in the 1st edition DMG. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-29-08 07:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Are these tactics available to the minions of the DM, too? Are there other tactics that could be used to counter or negate these tactics? Also, how are these tactics gained? Is it some sort of a point-based system similar to learning skills? Are they innate "powers" based on class and/or race that the player chooses for his character? That would be pretty much "yes" and "all of the above." Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Extempus Date : 01-29-08 07:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That's probably why you got killed; leave the fighting to the fighters, and you'll live to see the levels where you get several spells. Or play a fighter/ mage... That's why my third magic-user is now 23rd level... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-29-08 07:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Huscarl, can you explain the 32 hit points for a 2nd level ranger? Are hit points greatly boosted now? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-30-08 10:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, in fact, it's always been that way. Because of the way D&D treats armor, it has always been considered that "a miss" is no more than "an attack that didn't cause damage." Maybe it was a miss, or it glanced off a shield, or it was parried, or it banged solidly into the enemy's breastplate and failed to penetrate. It's not as if there's no precedent for half-damage-on-a-miss going all the way back to OD&D; it's just that in the most prevalent cases, it applied only to spells and not melee attacks. Now there are limited cases where it applies to melee attacks as well. Although, I'll tell you up front that if this really puts a burr under your saddle, then you're right to shy away from 4E. Pretty much everybody can cause half damage on a miss every so often, under the right conditions. Steve Which is why, even when I started playing waaaaay back in 1st edition, I was always a proponent of armour REDUCING damage. After all, armour doesn't do a damned thing for you UNTIL you're hit... it's your own skill in a fight and "dexterity" that make you hard to hit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-30-08 11:09 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Kids these days who are interested in D&D are more than likely going to be influenced (among other things) by the video games that they play. They will want characters who can act like their favorite video game character and their favorite cartoon characters. The old 1st edition rules, as they are, don't easily allow for someone to have video-game like superhero characters. Yes, it can be done, but it would take a lot of house rules and a very creative DM. Mock26, you bring up some excellent points. One of my concerns about changing the structure of the rules is that "form follows function" - so, by the standards of, "today's kids want pen-and-paper versions of video games", I suppose the form of 3.5 and (presumably) 4e fit that function. My point all along has been, if you want to role-play, all you need is people, dice, and a plan. I've said elsewhere that I don't currently play, but I have been buying the magazines (right before they went t!ts-up, natch) and a few other products. One of the most dismaying thing I read was an editorial (Erik Mona, I think?) complaining about what a pain it is to build stats for NPCs and monsters, and how the new guys in the department got the crappy job of working on stats. My thought is, if the game designers are having a hard time with this, how must the guy on the street be handling it? On the boards, I've read over and over about a whole play session devoted to character builds. ??? In 1e, you could get the party up and running in 30 minutes (in my experience, anyway), so from my point of view, complex rules in 3.5 aren't an improvement for anyone. But give that 13-year old a copy of 1st edition D&D and chances are he won't like it. He might not be consciously sitting there saying the rules are not sophisticated enough, but chances are that they aren't. Well, this is another form/function point. If a 13-year old is looking for an RPG equivalent of WoW, then you're right. But. I would argue that you could take the original Basic/Expert set of D&D and sell the system, the rules, as the "Harry Potter" role-playing game (or "Golden Compass" or whatever). Simple rules, familiar good v evil setting, loads of family fun. I don't think that 13-year old would be turned off. And, call me cynical, but I also don't think that those 13-year olds are as sophisticated as everyone assumes: the more things change, the more they stay the same. I think WoTC could probably get away with marketing 1e/2e as a super-streamlined, "this-ain't-yo-daddy's-D&D" 5th edition. Dvalin, your arguments about 1st edition would be valid except for one simple fact: Sales of 1st edition products had stagnated. Yes, Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, and the Wilderness Survival Guide added some vitality to those sales, but they were just abnomolies that quickly went away. The fan base of the game had also stagnated. Yes, new people were still coming to the game, but not enough, especially when compared to the number of people who quit playing the game. If the Creators could have stayed with just 1st edition don't you think they would have? I would argue that sales stagnated because the products being produced in the latter part of the 80's were not of any decent quality. Dragonlance was great in the early and mid-80's (the post-"classic modules" era). The add-ons for dungeons and wilderness were "okay", and (IMO) Oriental Adventures was interesting, but lacked any decent support. Not enough adventures released, the art in the original manual was practically non-existent (a real departure from the classic days of the original MM, DD, DMG, PH, and FF)... it was an interesting possibility, and a lot of people liked it, but I feel that it was doomed from the beginning. So, in my opinion, 1e stagnated because the products were lousy, not because the rules were. Everyone remembers 2e as a golden era of imagination primarily because of the art and settings... not because the rules were substantially different from 1e. In fact, 1e and 2e are basically the same rules, with slight changes to what sub-class goes where, etc. If you can 1e, you can 2e, and vice versa. Mystara, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Planescape, etc. are remembered fondly as highlights of 2e, but they were just settings. Not stand-apart, totally different rules. I have to point out that the creators - Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax - kept the basic/expert rules as is, and created the stand-alone-but-also-beside system of AD&D; and while they were with the company, no, they didn't see fit to scrap 1e and start over with completely different rules. And as I said, 2e didn't change the entire structure of the rules, they made tweaks that you could live with or ignore. It's possible that, if TSR hadn't imploded, if they could have made it out of the 90's, there wouldn't be a change to the rules at all - 3e might have been another set of tweaks that 1e/2e people could use or avoid, but not a significantly different set of rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Varl Date : 01-30-08 11:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Well, in fact, it's always been that way. Because of the way D&D treats armor, it has always been considered that "a miss" is no more than "an attack that didn't cause damage." Maybe it was a miss, or it glanced off a shield, or it was parried, or it banged solidly into the enemy's breastplate and failed to penetrate. It's not as if there's no precedent for half-damage-on-a-miss going all the way back to OD&D; it's just that in the most prevalent cases, it applied only to spells and not melee attacks. Spells? I thought we were talking melee here? The precedent for spells is the saving throw, yes? You fail it, you take half damage. With magic, that's always been a given. With melee, that's a different beast altogether. Missing in melee cannot be compared to missing with a Fireball because magic does not require to- hits in order to hit the target. AOE spells in particular, you merely have to be close with those, but even targetted spells such as Melf's Acid Arrow doesn't require a to-hit. They never have, unless I've missed something even greater than I thought. Also, that precedent in melee that the weapon glanced off a shield, or it was parried, or it banged solidly into the enemy's breastplate and failed to penetrate has never been linked to residual damage being inflicted, at least not by me or anyone I've ever known to play D&D. It's always been treated as flavor text, nothing more. Are you saying that's no longer the case? Now there are limited cases where it applies to melee attacks as well. Although, I'll tell you up front that if this really puts a burr under your saddle, then you're right to shy away from 4E. Pretty much everybody can cause half damage on a miss every so often, under the right conditions. Hmm. Yeah, I'll admit it, that does put a burr under my saddle. D&D has never been about calculating "near-hit" damage potentials in melee; it's about abstractions and assumed parries, feints, bluffs, and side-steps that occur between the real hits during the course of a fight, not actually applying damage thresholds to them. Every time I think of the near-hit causing melee damage, I can't help but think of campy, ridiculous scenarios like this one where an archer shoots at a foe, misses, the arrow impacts 2 feet just to his left, and he falls over dead.... Player: "OH! I just missed! Drat!" DM: "He's dead." Player: "What? How's he dead when I missed?" DM: "The arrow actually glanced partially off of his head before missing, causing fatal wounds." Player: "Really? I guess I should miss more often!" :nonono: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-30-08 11:58 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? (Mixing quotes from different posters here.). can you explain the 32 hit points for a 2nd level ranger? Are hit points greatly boosted now?You start with more at 1st level. arguments about 1st edition would be valid except for one simple fact: Sales of 1st edition products had stagnated.Care is called for when tossing around words like 'stagnant'. The impetus to create 2nd Edition came from R&D, not from sales or marketing. Work on Oriental Adventures and similar products showed that AD&D, like an old bridge, had significant, hidden structural defects. You wouldn't notice them much under everyday use, but as soon as you tried to flex the game in unusual ways, the cracks showed up wide and clear. So we started pushing for a revision to deal with those issues, because we knew that the game was going to be pulled more and more into new shapes. Ultimately, the decision to go came from the executive board with concurrence from sales and marketing, but we were given two years to do the work. If stagnant sales were the driving force behind the revision, two years would have been far too long for any company to survive. D&D has never been about calculating "near-hit" damage potentials in melee; it's about abstractions and assumed parries, feints, bluffs, and side-steps that occur between the real hits during the course of a fight, not actually applying damage thresholds to them.If you can abstract all those nicks, glancing blows, and shallow cuts into one whole miss, then occasionally abstracting them into one whole hit isn't much of a conceptual leap. As noted, this is not the norm. The halfling in the example can do it once per day, when he makes an extraordinary, superhuman effort to put everything he has into that killing blow. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : sckeener Date : 01-30-08 01:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The rules can change and I won't mind (much.) As another post said 'form follows function'...the rules will influence how the game is played... That said, the only part I am having trouble with is the fluff. I'll probably keep playing with my older versions of source books and use the new rules. The disappointing thing for me is I'll be losing new material. Example, 3rd edition didn't have several of the old campaign worlds (Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, etc) but you could see hints and teasers...Dragon publishing Darksun material...planescape's sigil being mentioned in accessory or module books.... but changing the fluff in 4e will leave places like planescape (or Dragonborn Unther) fundamentally changed from the past.... it is the disconnect that I have issues with. Change is in the wind and I'll find my cheese. I'm just sad about the loss. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : ukplayerX Date : 01-30-08 02:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I started with the basic/red box set!! and came back to D&D with 3.5 after a looooong siesta of 19 years. After shelling out for 3.5 and getting along fine with it as a player there is no way i'm forking out for the Core Rulebooks again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Extempus Date : 01-30-08 05:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Amen! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-31-08 04:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I started with the basic/red box set!! and came back to D&D with 3.5 after a looooong siesta of 19 years. After shelling out for 3.5 and getting along fine with it as a player there is no way i'm forking out for the Core Rulebooks again. I am with you on this one. I intend on getting a lot of mileage out of the books I already own before upgrading in any form. I already have recieved fifteen years of fun from my my 2nd ed collection and the possibilities are still looking endless. One quote I'd like to share with you is from a gaming store in the next city. The owner was talking up the compatibility of 3.5 and 4e products and the fact that you can cherry-pick ideas (I just nodded and tried not to smile). Then he said "If you have a decent collection of 3.5 books, you should be able to get about another 5 years of play out of them before you need to be looking for new books". I pointed out the fifteen years and counting of 2nd ed gear and he looked remarkably stunned. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-31-08 11:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Of course, he has immediate reasons to disapprove of that sort of thing. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-31-08 04:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Mr. Huscarl, I don't know how much pull you have with the powers that be, but I think it would be great if you could maybe plant a seed within someone's ear that it would be a great idea for a Complete Dungeon Magazine Archive and a 2nd Dragon Magazine Archive to be made. ;) Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 01-31-08 06:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Pull? What's pull? I voluntarily surrendered most of my pull years ago. I'm just a happy peon once again. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Extempus Date : 01-31-08 09:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Mr. Huscarl, I don't know how much pull you have with the powers that be, but I think it would be great if you could maybe plant a seed within someone's ear that it would be a great idea for a Complete Dungeon Magazine Archive and a 2nd Dragon Magazine Archive to be made. ;) Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. Hmm... where have I heard that before??? ;) I am with you on this one. I intend on getting a lot of mileage out of the books I already own before upgrading in any form. I already have recieved fifteen years of fun from my my 2nd ed collection and the possibilities are still looking endless. One quote I'd like to share with you is from a gaming store in the next city. The owner was talking up the compatibility of 3.5 and 4e products and the fact that you can cherry-pick ideas (I just nodded and tried not to smile). Then he said "If you have a decent collection of 3.5 books, you should be able to get about another 5 years of play out of them before you need to be looking for new books". I pointed out the fifteen years and counting of 2nd ed gear and he looked remarkably stunned. 27 years this year for me... :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : cavemanjed Date : 02-02-08 03:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I bought my first AD&D book in 1980, holy crap!! LOL. I honestly rarely play anymore but continue to keep abreast of the game. I will admit that I am a 1st/2nd edition loyalist. I really liked 2nd because it felt like a logical revision of first. I bought the 3rd edition core books when they came out and honestly felt sorely disappointed by the changes at the time. 3.5 just struck me as an attempt by hasbro to squeeze cash. I realize that D&D is a business and as such needs to stay fresh. I feel however that it has become that at the expense of it's heart. I don't know maybe I'm just too old school. Anyway, glad I could post my opinion somewhere. cavemanjed -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-02-08 02:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I too have decided of late to revert games I run back to 2nd edition (though I still play in other's 3rd edition campaigns) and I've been prowling Amazon and Ebay looking for all things 2nd and 1st edition as I am running a hybrid of both. The books are cheap to buy and the sense of nostalgia when I look at my collection of modules and books really makes the switch worthwhile. It used to be that you could not run a module like Against the Giants without half the party knowing every item in every room but now most younger players coming up have never seen these older 1st and 2nd edition modules and they get the same kick out of them we did when we first played in them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : gawain_viii Date : 02-02-08 09:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I began gaming in the mid-80s as a young child (my first game I was 5 or 6 years old, although I didn't exactly know what I was doing at the time) using the classic BECMI Mentzer books. I later moved to the RC and continued to play that well into adulthood. I completely skipped both editions of AD&D (although I did have several books & modules which I would borrow elements from). It wasn't until after 3.5 had come out that I tried 3e. With that said--Both new and old games have their good and bad points. But in the end, they are essentially 2 different games. While the ultimate theme is the same, and some of the mechanics and terminology is very similar--they have a very different "feel". I don't think I can really compare them, but I do look forward to 4e--if for no other reason than to get more ideas. However, I will continue playing classic and 3e independant of anything else. Rambling nonsensically, Roger -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : Eonar Date : 02-06-08 12:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I have only been playing D&D for about 9 years now but I can truly say that I enjoy 1e and 2e the most. My first game of D&D ever was a 1e homebrew where I was a bow-wielding fighter with 12 hp (I had an awesome con score of 17 :D ). I loved the two sessions we played. The rules were fairly easy after I finally figured out how to do THAC0, and the cool retro look of the books made the experience even more mysterious and cool. Then there was the 3e game that followed. It wasn’t a bad game, it was just totally different. The emphasis seemed to move away from lets try to tromp through a dungeon after we have figured out where it is to: lets build awesome characters with way, way too many options and then go fight repetitive generic monsters. Don’t get me wrong options are good, but if there are 20+ skills to choose from, 30ish feats, and spells or special conditions that do all sorts of weird things to affect my character then I think it is too much. Also I have had the oddity of seeing people my age (22 years) pick up 3.5 and treat it exactly like WoW or another computer RPG. I sit down to play my old, slightly psychotic, trust no one Gnome Bard and I get yelled at because he doesn’t want to go on some crackpot adventure with a group of strangers; which since we are all players we should automatically want to work together. I wasn’t being a jerk, I just wanted to role play my inclusion into the group. The rogue tried to use diplomacy (I hate that skill with such passion): DM: You see a Gnome in the bar. PC 1: I walk up to him and say: “Hey, we have a mission from the king to go kill these goblins in the sewers.” Me: “So? Your bloody government mission not mine.” PC 2: He doesn’t want to come? DM: Seems not. PC 2: I will use diplomacy to try and get him to come with us. DM: Ok. You (to PC 2) roll diplomacy, you (to me) roll sense motive. PC 2: 12 Me: 17 DM: You failed to influence his attitude. PC 2: Ok, was worth a try. Let us go. Things like that are not D&D to me. It is something else. If 4e look to cater to players like the ones around me then I will vote with my wallet and not but it like I did with 3.5. Instead I will get out my complete 1e collection and maybe run a game of that.:) (Disclaimer I know not every group is as dysfunctional as the one that I played in. I have also seen 1 or 2 really good ones that interact through role-playing and not roll-playing.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : havard Date : 02-06-08 01:23 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Things like that are not D&D to me. The example you provided has nothing to do with any edition of D&D. It is simply bad roleplaying, and actually a misunderstanding of the rules. I understand your dislike for the Diplomacy skill if that's the way your group uses it, but it actually doesn't work that way. Yet another groundless point of criticism towards 3e. There is also no indication of 4e moving in this direction. OTOH I am worried about what role of miniatures in 4e...' Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 02-06-08 05:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The example you provided has nothing to do with any edition of D&D. It is simply bad roleplaying, and actually a misunderstanding of the rules. I understand your dislike for the Diplomacy skill if that's the way your group uses it, but it actually doesn't work that way. Yet another groundless point of criticism towards 3e. There is also no indication of 4e moving in this direction. Havard If it is something Eonar experienced while trying to play a game of 3e, it is not a "groundless point of criticism", it is a real life anecdote. He has a right to criticise something he personally experienced and did not like. The event he described played out due to a misunderstanding of the 3e rules concerning PC to PC interactions, that is true, but is that the fault of the DM and players or is there something about 3e rules as written that pushes them into the mind set Eonar described? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : Varl Date : 02-06-08 05:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The example you provided has nothing to do with any edition of D&D. It is simply bad roleplaying, and actually a misunderstanding of the rules. I understand your dislike for the Diplomacy skill if that's the way your group uses it, but it actually doesn't work that way. So, give us your example of how Diplomacy is supposed to work then. I've only ever encountered three ways to run skill checks: you either roleplay them out without a roll, you roleplay them out with a roll, or you simply roll them out using the dice. The first method is strictly player roleplaying skill. How well can I talk someone into going with us on the adventure without any kind of die roll influencing the outcome? The second method combines the two, where player's roleplaying is combined with a skill check roll (my least favorite method) to determine whether the NPC goes with you on the adventure. The third method is the mechanical and entirely character-oriented. Is my character skilled enough to convince the NPC to join us on the adventure without having to roleplay it out? All three methods work. As a DM, I don't have a preference. I typically let the players decide which one they like to employ. All three get the job done, though the roleplayed out method is much more fun imo. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : Eonar Date : 02-06-08 09:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I think that the rules as written tend to encourage the kind of gaming that I described. Some people, and yes I said some people not all people, tend to want to do everything with the dice. Some of my generation of gamers look unto the PHB, DMG, or any of the splat books and see them as a computer manual or a math equation that gives only fixed rules that cannot be disputed in a way that excludes the rules in the book. It is as though the book is a binding code of the laws that must be followed precisely or something may go wrong. That kind of mentality helps to sell books. The rules are like Vlad the Impaler: good in combat, but bad when at Princess Peach's tea party. I see D&D as equal parts Vlad the Impaler and Princess Peach. Killing and talking. Die rolling and role-playing. And yes Vlad is a cool guy and he does have his place in the game but not so big so as to nearly push role-playing and thinking out of the game with his big pointy sticks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-07-08 02:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? If someone wants to inject tactical variation -- by, say, climbing onto a ledge or leaping across a chasm for an advantageous shooting position -- there's no rule to cover it. The DM wings it, which is fine when you have a competent DM. A DM who has a solid grasp of both gaming and drama uses this to his advantage. If being on that ledge is good for the adventure, then he makes it easy, and if it's bad for the adventure, he makes it hard. But an inexperienced DM, or one who doesn't have a good handle on dramatic pacing, or one who doesn't react well on the fly, is more likely to fumble the situation and create frustration. And none of that guarantees that the same situation will be handled the same way the next time it comes up. In 4E, it's still up to the DM whether the ledge is easy or hard to climb, but the character knows up front whether he's a good climber or a poor one. Situations like this are the ONLY reason I dm. It's no fun watching someone play and occasionally looking up a rule in a book. Adjucating stuff on the fly is fun. If I wanted to look stuff up, I'd just quit gaming and browse the net. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-07-08 03:10 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? One of my biggest beefs with what I've heard so far about 4e is that they have completely removed low level play. If some people don't like the lethality of it, they could always start at 2nd level, or 4th, or 9th. Instead they have removed 1st level altogether. Gone is quietly creeping through the dungeon, watching for a hidden 10 feet pit, or spear trap in the wall. Gone is the orc rolling well and taking down the THIEF with 6 hit points in one swing. Gone is making damn sure our precautions are in place when crossing the hastily fabricated rope bridge. If we fall, we'll just get back up, dust ourselves off and go on, nobody will die or even get seriously hurt. We have 32 hit points at first level. Every character can heal, and if we do go into negatives, we might just pop back up at 25% of our full health. If something does put us in the negatives, he can beat on us for 20 rounds, doing 100 points of damage after we went negative and somehow manage to heal us with a sword in our guts and we jump back up! "Hang on guys, I'm down to 2 hit points! Quick, somebody kick me in the head, I'll get a quarter of them back!" That's if anything manages to hit you in the first place. Hell, combat is so easy we do damage even when we miss! There's an orc running away to sound the alarm. I turn, ram my dagger into the wall, and he drops dead. My invisibility spell only lasts til the end of the encounter, somebody take a goblin alive. We'll drag him along behind us and slap him every 6 seconds. That way, the combat isn't over and therefore, neither is the encounter. Sound silly? All of this has been confirmed by playtest reports. There may be details that we don't know about, you may have to be in melee to miss and kill something. Maybe you'd stab yourself in the foot and watch your foe die. Triple hit points at first level. Every class can heal. Going into a coma and popping back up with 1/4 max hit points after being whacked for 37 rounds. Fighters have spells too. (Or spell like abilities.) Stupid aggro mechanics with an even stupider name: "I'm Batman: a ranged attack gets your opponent's attention and lures it towards you. You then jump up and deliver a follow-up attack." Just why must he attack you? Maybe your piddly arrow is simply a distraction and he really needs to kill the mage before his fireball goes off. Oh and better yet, most of tis only applies to the pcs because they are SPECIAL. Poor npcs don't get a pop-up with 1/4 hit points. They don't get to crit as often as the special pcs. How in the hell can you keep dramatic tension going? It's almost impossible to kill a pc. Not to mention making it necessary to stop and decapitate every downed opponent as if they were a vampire and might rise from the dead at any moment. Originally Posted by WotC_Huscarl * use a Careful Strike that gives him a +4 bonus to hit; * use a Hit & Run attack that lets him move away from the target afterward without drawing an attack of opportunity; * attack twice and add his Wisdom bonus to the damage if both attacks hit; * attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day); * select a specific enemy in this fight and do an additional 1d6 damage per hit against it; * force the DM to reroll an attack against him with a -2 to hit (once per encounter). A 2nd level character can do all this crap that only prolongs combat. You not only control your dice, but the dms as well. Give me a basic D&D or AD&D "vanilla" combat any day. If baseball had rules like this, I'd never pick up a bat (dice) again. When I take my 3rd strike, I want, I NEED to go back to the dugout and break stuff. Not keep swinging until the pitcher (DM) falls down from sheer fatigue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : Extempus Date : 02-07-08 04:51 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Every class can heal. What then is the point of having priests with healing magic and potions of healing??? Fighters have spells too. (Or spell like abilities.) This was actually one of the few beefs I had with 1e: as rare and awe-inspiring as magic is supposed to be... just about every damn character class can cast spells!!! WTF? Clerics, druids, magic-users, illusionists, paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins and bards could all cast spells one way or another. The only ones who couldn't were fighters and monks, and with the addition of Unearthed Arcana, cavaliers, thief-acrobats and barbarians could not either... but that's still 9 out of 14, or 2/3 of the character classes!!! In my campaign, only the usual types can use magic: wizards and priests and their subclasses, and high-level paladins and rangers. Even then, my 22nd level ranger has cast maybe half a dozen spells (if that) in our 27-year campaign so far, and none of us has ever had the desire to play a paladin (we also use the NPC archer subclass from Dragon which has limited spellcasting ability, and my dad's archer has cast maybe 2-3 spells). Otherwise, that's it. No others. None at all. We don't have many thieves (2, I think), and we have never utilized their ability to use magic scrolls, nor have our assassins... it's a class ability that we just ignore. We've encountered a few bards too, but none have ever cast spells either (a bard having fighter, thief and druidic ability never made sense to me anyway). I've considered allowing them to "cast spells," but they'd really be nothing more than spell-like effects actuated by their music... they'd have to be playing their lute or whatever, and should their song be interfered with, the "spell" would be spoiled, just like a wizard or priest during casting... Magic is supposed to be rare and evoke a sense of wonder (at least in 1e and 2e), but it seems a little disingenuous to me when everyone and their grandma can use it in later editions (if this is in fact what is happening, like with fighters)... I suppose it's kinda like you can be any character race and character class you want, with no apparent limitations like there was in the first two editions... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-07-08 11:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Sound silly? All of this has been confirmed by playtest reports. JRRN: If these are the conclusions you've drawn from playtest reports, then either we've done a terrible job of writing playtest reports or you've thoroughly misinterpreted them, because your impressions of what's in 4E are way off base. They're so far off base that the right fielder could tag them out. A 2nd level character can do all this crap that only prolongs combat.I listed six things my character could do. Four of them shorten combat by causing more damage in less time. Two of them give the PC a better chance to survive that more intense battle. That you turned this example of how combat is shortened into evidence that combat is being prolonged leads me to believe that the fault does not lie with those of us writing playtest reports. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Agathokles Date : 02-07-08 02:39 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I listed six things my character could do. Four of them shorten combat by causing more damage in less time. Two of them give the PC a better chance to survive that more intense battle. Uhm, if characters have the ability to do X% more damage/round, and to withstand X% more damage/encounter, in the end combat will be as long as before in terms of combat rounds, assuming both parties get the same increases. OTOH, the time to resolve each combat round might well increase -- choosing maneveurs in a larger set will take more time. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : otisew Date : 02-07-08 03:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm curious what you guys think of the upcoming 4th Edition. Personally I started playing back in 2E, and have found 3.x not to my liking at all. At this point, I'm really starting to miss 2E and am beginning to contemplate talking the game I'm running to switch to the old ways. That being said, I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. I agree 100%, I do not like 3.0 or after editions at all, 1st or 2nd edition is my choice. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-07-08 03:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? WotC_Huscarl, do you have any thoughts, comments, or viewpoints on the increased hit points at first level? Has it in any way affected your view of your character or your enjoyment of the character? Especially at 1st level? Personally I have always loved low level because of the danger of losing the character. I think that it made me a better player because when you only have 8 hit points you have to really be on your toes and playing at your best ability. Sure, there are some things you can't anticipate or be prepared for, but I loved the thrill of just starting out, of only being a small hero and being only slightly better than your average commoner. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-07-08 04:37 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? JRRN: If these are the conclusions you've drawn from playtest reports, then either we've done a terrible job of writing playtest reports or you've thoroughly misinterpreted them, because your impressions of what's in 4E are way off base. They're so far off base that the right fielder could tag them out. I listed six things my character could do. Four of them shorten combat by causing more damage in less time. Two of them give the PC a better chance to survive that more intense battle. That you turned this example of how combat is shortened into evidence that combat is being prolonged leads me to believe that the fault does not lie with those of us writing playtest reports. Steve Those 6 things might speed up combat for a CHARACTER, but a player will inevitably hem and haw around deciding what to do. And sooner or later, players will figure out the optimum feat or talent to use and the othere will get ignored anyway. I want to like 4e, but what with the triple hit points, stabbing the mage and somehow dropping the fighter, the proliferation of healing, all the things I listed above are just stupid. If I've interpreted them wrong, please enlighten me. I realize a competent dm could stop you from stabbing a rat and watching the orc king drop dead, but by the rules I've seen it's possible. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-07-08 05:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? One of the comments that's been heard repeatedly from playtesters, including me, is that playing a 1st or 2nd level character in 4E feels more like playing a 3rd-5th level character in 1st and 2nd ed. That's definitely my impression. This is a very good thing, IMO, because I've long felt that levels 3-6 are the "sweet spot" in D&D. That's where your character is sturdy enough to survive a few battles but still fragile enough for you to worry about. Under old-school dying rules (0 hp = dead), my 2nd-level ranger should have died at least twice that I recall, and the paladin should be dead about six times over. It's no secret that I play Biggie like a maniac, but even so, only one of those 'deaths' was because of recklessness. The other was because the enemy double-teamed him and hammered him down before he could escape. And the paladin is being played by James Wyatt, who has shown only wisdom and tactical finesse in encounters (except in those cases where Biggie's impulsiveness forced the whole party into a disadvantageous position). Just like PCs, monsters now have well-defined roles. Without going into detail (I'll save that for my blog), some are intentionally wimpy to serve basically as speedbumps and some are scary beyond all reason. You do not want to be hit by a brute -- he might have low odds, but if he connects, you could see half or three-quarters of those generous hit points demolished in one blow. So, the short answer is, yes, those numbers look like a lot of hps. Against minions, they are a lot of hps. Against hard hitters, you'll find yourself scrambling to the back rank to avoid taking even a second hit. The overall effect, again one that I like very much, is that combat is dynamic. It's not a matter of wearing down the enemy by a statistically predictable number of hps every round, while balancing that against the statistically predictable number of hps it's scrubbing off you every round, until one or the other topples. The advantage swings dramatically. We haven't had a session yet that didn't include at least one near-death experience and hair's-breadth escape for the whole group. We've been on the cusp of a TPK several times and pulled it out only by triggering once-a-day powers at exactly the right moment plus getting some luck. I'm not reluctant to admit that I lost my enthusiasm for 3/3.5 several years ago. I crunch numbers and analyze probabilities more than most players, and it got too actuarial for me. 4E has changed that. I haven't had this much fun, or been this jazzed about, playing D&D since the early 80s. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-07-08 05:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Those 6 things might speed up combat for a CHARACTER, but a player will inevitably hem and haw around deciding what to do. And sooner or later, players will figure out the optimum feat or talent to use and the othere will get ignored anyway.Complexity comes in different flavors. In most cases, selecting one item from a list of eight simple options (the 4E approach) is easier and quicker than selecting one from a list of four complex options (the 3.5 approach). From the list I gave, only four are attack options. They're simple and situation-specific: take the straight-up bonus to hit (I use that one 80% of the time), avoid an AoO (the obvious choice when I need to slip away from trouble), attack twice with the normal bonus (useable only once per encounter, making it an obvious opening move to soften up the target), or attack twice for potentially quadruple damage (being a once-per-day special, this one gets saved for do-or-die moments). There's neither hemming nor hawing. I realize a competent dm could stop you from stabbing a rat and watching the orc king drop dead, but by the rules I've seen it's possible.I'm going to assume that remarks like this are typed in frustration. If you genuinely believe that we're all this stupid, then any discussion is pointless. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-07-08 07:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Complexity comes in different flavors. In most cases, selecting one item from a list of eight simple options (the 4E approach) is easier and quicker than selecting one from a list of four complex options (the 3.5 approach). From the list I gave, only four are attack options. They're simple and situation-specific: take the straight-up bonus to hit (I use that one 80% of the time), avoid an AoO (the obvious choice when I need to slip away from trouble), attack twice with the normal bonus (useable only once per encounter, making it an obvious opening move to soften up the target), or attack twice for potentially quadruple damage (being a once-per-day special, this one gets saved for do-or-die moments). There's neither hemming nor hawing. I'm going to assume that remarks like this are typed in frustration. If you genuinely believe that we're all this stupid, then any discussion is pointless. Steve No frustration involved. All I'm saying is it seems that BY THE RULES it is possible. If not, then fine. Is not stabbing the rat MISSING the orc? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-07-08 07:37 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? This is the www. I can't read your facial expression or intonation. Are you honestly, with a straight face, asking this question? Because what you propose is identical to throwing a fireball and then insisting that characters who weren't in the area of effect must take half damage because "they didn't make their saves." Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-07-08 09:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? No, it's nothing like that. There is no rule (as far as I know) stating that once a day people outsie the blast radius still take half damage from a fireball. The rule states * attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day); Hitting a rat means I missed the orc, right? Therefore the orc takes half damage. Yes, it's stupid. That's my point. It's a stupid rule and open to all kinds of abuse. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-07-08 09:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? One of the comments that's been heard repeatedly from playtesters, including me, is that playing a 1st or 2nd level character in 4E feels more like playing a 3rd-5th level character in 1st and 2nd ed. That's definitely my impression. This is a very good thing, IMO, because I've long felt that levels 3-6 are the "sweet spot" in D&D. That's where your character is sturdy enough to survive a few battles but still fragile enough for you to worry about. Under old-school dying rules (0 hp = dead), my 2nd-level ranger should have died at least twice that I recall, and the paladin should be dead about six times over. It's no secret that I play Biggie like a maniac, but even so, only one of those 'deaths' was because of recklessness. The other was because the enemy double-teamed him and hammered him down before he could escape. And the paladin is being played by James Wyatt, who has shown only wisdom and tactical finesse in encounters (except in those cases where Biggie's impulsiveness forced the whole party into a disadvantageous position). Just like PCs, monsters now have well-defined roles. Without going into detail (I'll save that for my blog), some are intentionally wimpy to serve basically as speedbumps and some are scary beyond all reason. You do not want to be hit by a brute -- he might have low odds, but if he connects, you could see half or three-quarters of those generous hit points demolished in one blow. So, the short answer is, yes, those numbers look like a lot of hps. Against minions, they are a lot of hps. Against hard hitters, you'll find yourself scrambling to the back rank to avoid taking even a second hit. The overall effect, again one that I like very much, is that combat is dynamic. It's not a matter of wearing down the enemy by a statistically predictable number of hps every round, while balancing that against the statistically predictable number of hps it's scrubbing off you every round, until one or the other topples. The advantage swings dramatically. We haven't had a session yet that didn't include at least one near-death experience and hair's-breadth escape for the whole group. We've been on the cusp of a TPK several times and pulled it out only by triggering once-a-day powers at exactly the right moment plus getting some luck. I'm not reluctant to admit that I lost my enthusiasm for 3/3.5 several years ago. I crunch numbers and analyze probabilities more than most players, and it got too actuarial for me. 4E has changed that. I haven't had this much fun, or been this jazzed about, playing D&D since the early 80s. Steve How, then, do 1st and 2nd level characters fare against kobolds and goblins? Do they slaughter them? Are they a challenge? Have the smaller monsters become a bit obsolete? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-08-08 10:52 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? JRR -- We post playtest reports and respond in these forums for the benefit of people who want to be informed, not to be baited with absurd arguments. Mock26 -- Kobolds and goblins have given us some tough fights. As with most monsters, there's no longer a one-size-fits-all goblin. Some are paper-thin minions, some are 'standard' soldiers, some are hard-hitting brutes, and some are very dangerous leaders. Typically, you don't know which is which until they hit you. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Varl Date : 02-08-08 11:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm not reluctant to admit that I lost my enthusiasm for 3/3.5 several years ago. I crunch numbers and analyze probabilities more than most players, and it got too actuarial for me. 4E has changed that. I haven't had this much fun, or been this jazzed about, playing D&D since the early 80s. Not saying I won't look into 4e closer when the time comes, but I find it funny that the game you reference to having this much fun with since the 80s is the same one we all enjoy still. :D Also, until I read and know more, and as it has been described thus far, that moronic miss damaging rule is right out before it ever even gets a chance to breed. Dead on the vine. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : Votan Date : 02-08-08 11:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Also, until I read and know more, and as it has been described thus far, that moronic miss damaging rule is right out before it ever even gets a chance to breed. Dead on the vine. Not wanting to overly defend it, but I keep in mind that a melee round is a series of thrusts or strikes that is abstracted into "effect or not". It's clear that a 20th level fighter is not actually taking 25 hacks of a sword to kill (or, if he is, then then is already way out there). So I picture the flavor text of that attack as being a flurry of very fast and hard blows -- kind of like a heroic surge. And, in that vein, something gets through even if the opponent blocks most of the effect through speed or armor. I think that, in all editions, thinking of an attack as a single blow is rather dangerous. Heck, I remember (with enjoyment) when a round was an enture minute and it was completely clear that this could not be a single sword stroke. That leads to the discussion of how badly D&D (all editions) mangles ranged attacks but that is another story. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 02-08-08 03:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? JRR -- We post playtest reports and respond in these forums for the benefit of people who want to be informed, not to be baited with absurd arguments. Steve It's not an absurd argument. In 4e, as the rule stands now, it is possible for Paul to hit Joe for 10 points of damage and do 5 points of damage to Bill who is standing adjacent to Paul. Or at least as you have described here and I have read elsewhere. Yes, a dm can step in and disallow that, but he is in effect making a house rule, just to avoid stupidity inherent in the rules. I am asking ONE single question that you keep refusing to answer. I'll have to assume your refusal is because you know no one will like the answer. Yes, it IS possible. But since you keep dismissing my concerns, calling my comments "absursd" (among other veiled insults I'm sure I'd be banned for) I'll refrain from posting further about this nonsensical rule. At least here, maybe the internet works like said rule and I can post on Enworld and it'll show up here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-08-08 05:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Apparently my statement was not clear, so I'll try one last time to be understood ... First, I did not quote the rule. I paraphrased a technical function in simple, loose, non-technical prose. Second, there is no precedent I am aware of, in any edition of D&D, defining the lack of an attack as a miss. I find it absurd that anyone can conceive the equation Attack vs. Joe = Miss vs. Bob If I attack only Joe, then Joe is my only target and Joe is the only thing I can miss. No matter how badly I roll, I can't miss Bob if I don't attack Bob. Bob is not part of the equation. Joe is the sole target of my attack. I attacked Joe, I missed Joe, and Joe is the only person who can suffer half damage from that attack. I hope that makes it clear, because I cannot think of a simpler way to put it. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : Varl Date : 02-08-08 05:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Not wanting to overly defend it, but I keep in mind that a melee round is a series of thrusts or strikes that is abstracted into "effect or not". It's clear that a 20th level fighter is not actually taking 25 hacks of a sword to kill (or, if he is, then then is already way out there). So I picture the flavor text of that attack as being a flurry of very fast and hard blows -- kind of like a heroic surge. And, in that vein, something gets through even if the opponent blocks most of the effect through speed or armor. Oh, I know and understand the rationale behind the reason. I simply don't believe that collateral damage or effects of that kind have a place in D&D. It feels to me like micromanaged combat. All those abstract misses suddenly aren't so abstract any longer, and one or two of them just might cause damage now and then, or worse. No thanks. I get bad thoughts going through my head whenever I think of abstract creature misses that actually hit, such as: "Oops, my purple worm, while bobbing and weaving to make its strike, accidentally swallowed your halfling on an abstract attack that really missed. Got another character sheet?" Halfling player: :mymy: :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : Alas Date : 02-08-08 06:22 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? attack twice for double damage on each attack and still do half damage on a miss (once per day);Sounds to me like the intent of the half-damage is that even if the ranger flubs his attack roll, he hasn't wasted his once-a-day ace-in-the-hole. It's more like the super-attack is guaranteed to have an effect, and the attack roll is just a determiner of quality. I'm comfortable with that. In the same week that I bought the second 4E preview book, I finally managed to pick up a copy of the 1st edition Fiend Folio (awesome condition!). I've played every edition of the game since 1985, and see no reason to stop now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-08-08 07:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? If I attack only Joe, then Joe is my only target and Joe is the only thing I can miss. No matter how badly I roll, I can't miss Bob if I don't attack Bob. Bob is not part of the equation. Joe is the sole target of my attack. I attacked Joe, I missed Joe, and Joe is the only person who can suffer half damage from that attack. But you still miss Jillian, Oscar, Kevin, and Edith, right? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 02-08-08 09:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? So on this missed but hit thing, now I'm wondering what happens if you have poison on your weapon, or a magical weapon with a special property such as say a sword of wounding or life stealing. Does the poison/magic still not work because you actually missed, or does it work because although you missed you actually hit? If not why not, if so, then, how is that balanced? Do you only take half damage from the poison if you fail to save, or only bleed half as much as you would from a hit that actually hit with a sword of wounding? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : gawain_viii Date : 02-09-08 01:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm not sure about this, as I have not kept up with the previews and playtest reviews... but if I were to guess what Huscarl is describing is that if a TARGETED creature is missed, some damage is still done... the adjacent creature doesn't take hald damage as he was not the target, therefore could not be "missed"... As to why a missed creaure would do any damage--I would assume that the "half damage" is a rule meant to simulate when an attack strikes armor but "misses" the flesh of the creature. The "half" damage would indicate the reverberating shock of the blow, while the full damage of a "hit" would indicate both the pain of the blow AND the blood-loss of an open wound. Just guessing, but it makes sense... (not sure I like it though--my opinion). Roger -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : motley36 Date : 02-11-08 05:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I liked some of the changes in 3.x, some I didn't (combat just takes way too dang long). 4e by the looks of it is going to give us even more to keep track of, and more effects to apply. The debate has gone back and forth, but it sounds like it might be more like a tabletop RPG with MMORPG combat feel. But I'm withholding judgment until I see the ruleset. I'll be testing some encounters with PC builds at various levels to see what it's like. From that I should have a decent idea what to expect. i agree the combat in the 3.x dose take too long. in the 2E the combat was much more easy and more fast pace. i have yet to read the 4th dnd books to get the whole scope of the 4th vs. 3.x vs. 2E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : motley36 Date : 02-11-08 05:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm curious what you guys think of the upcoming 4th Edition. Personally I started playing back in 2E, and have found 3.x not to my liking at all. At this point, I'm really starting to miss 2E and am beginning to contemplate talking the game I'm running to switch to the old ways. That being said, I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. i do not blame you for going back to the 2E from the 3.x, the 3.x can get way to complex and sometimes hard to keep track of everything. but keep in mine (and it is sad to say) that oneday the 2E will go the way of the 1E and be hard to fined. good luck to you -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : Agathokles Date : 02-11-08 05:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? but keep in mine (and it is sad to say) that oneday the 2E will go the way of the 1E and be hard to fined. Not a big issue, given that most AD&D 2e books are available as ESDs. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : Cranewings Date : 02-12-08 12:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Just replying to the first post. I don't really like the changes they are making... at least not the ones I've heard about. I don't like the fact that they are getting rid of gnomes, paladins, and druids. I understand that paladin is becoming the champion class, but it isn't nearly as cool. The term Paladin carries weight with gamers. Champion is boring. I guess I don't see what they are getting at with dnd now days. Back in 1st and 2nd ed, there was a definite understanding that the characters were coming up from nothing to save the day. Now it seems like the writers have a different idea. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 02-12-08 04:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Howdy all. I have found this board extremely informative, and am infinitely pleased to find that there is quite a large community of folk still rockin' 2nd edition. However, I have noticed that my generation's opinion doesn't seem to be represented here on this board. This leads me to a realization: I, and my life-long friends and fellow D&D players are apparently a rare, pocket generation. Ya see, we are all between the ages of 21 and 25, yet we are adamant and fanatical players of AD&D 2nd edition. We started playing back in '96, during what I guess was the beginning of the end for TSR and AD&D 2nd edition, although we did not know this. As 12 year olds, we happily devoured every TSR product we could get our parents to pay for, and never knew that the ship was sinking the whole while. With the advent of 3rd edition, we were disgusted. What I have seen many of you post is absolutely true: it ain't D&D, it's a doppleganger that needs to be sent back to the pit it came from, via an a$$-whoopin' from a group of high-level 2nd edition characters that don't need feats to get the job done. Our group's opinion so far about 4th edition is that we really hope it's great, and some of us are even so hyped by the hype that we're optimistic about it, but here's the bottom line: AD&D 2nd edition works just fine (give or take a few things, as with any rpg), and the only reason we are even interested in 4th edition is because we want to keep abreast of the current goings on in the Realms, and not be left behind. As such, the only important things to us are the stories, not the endless revisions of rules. If 4th edition proves as lame as 3 and 3.5, we'll just buy a few supplements and novels here and there for the info, and keep subtracting those d20 rolls from those thacos. We do hope that the game system will prove to be to our liking, so we can explore newly mapped areas and role-play the current events of the Realms without having to adapt all the new stuff to the old rules, but only time will tell. Besides, there is enough 2nd edition stuff out there that to keep us busy until we're Elminster's age. Anyways, sorry about the long rant. My real reason for posting this is to toss in the opinion of some younger, yet like-minded gamers, and at the same I want to find out if there are any other players out there like us. We are the 25 and under crowd who knows how to actually role-play, and not just ROLL-play. So, are there any more of you guys out there? p.s. I am not at all knocking older gamers with this post. We learned to play from you guys, and are most grateful for that. Thank you for your living legacy. I'd rather be in Waterdeep... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-12-08 11:20 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I don't really like the changes they are making... at least not the ones I've heard about. I don't like the fact that they are getting rid of gnomes, paladins, and druids. I understand that paladin is becoming the champion class, but it isn't nearly as cool. The term Paladin carries weight with gamers. Champion is boring. I guess I don't see what they are getting at with dnd now days. Back in 1st and 2nd ed, there was a definite understanding that the characters were coming up from nothing to save the day. Now it seems like the writers have a different idea. The classes are different, the races are different, the mechanics are different, the progression and even theme of the game are different. If I withheld the name and described 4th edition to you a few years ago who would have guessed I was describing D&D? Noone because it wouldn't be D&D it would be a different fantasy RPG. I think I'll just stick to playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Author : Keryth Date : 02-12-08 02:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I think that 2nd edition D&D is a perfect example of this. When TSR went out of business game sales for D&D (from what I remember) had pretty much stagnated. Even such great products as Planescape couldn't bring in the newer players needed for the game to survive. Sure, Planescape boosted sales, but it was primarly from those already in the game and sales once again stagnated. As much as I love 2nd edition and still run a 2nd edition campaign, I do realize that compared to the younger generation coming up behind me, it was an outdated system. I don't think it needed as drastic overhaul as it got, but it needed to be updated. My point is that potential newer players were being more greatly influenced by games like Magic: The Gathering and the ever evolving video games, as well as society around them. Their tastes were different from those who had been playing the game for years. If the game wasn't updated to try and meet those tastes it would die. It had pretty much already stagnated. As much as a vilify GW for constantly updating Warhammer 40k, they are always constantly in touch with the current crop of gamers and their needs and desires. I think that is why, despite all the updates over the years, they are still successful. So, D&D had to evolve. It was behaving exactly like a corporate product with a lifecycle. The companies had to treat it that way or they would die. Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree with you. As i said in my previous post, WoTC is following the GW formula, and the GW formula works. And I reluctantly agree that 2nd Ed needed a new edition. Now, if i ha dmy choice, I'd be playing and running 2nd Ed, but the rest of ym group doesn;t agree with me (3 of us DMs have a shared campaign world and if I had stayed 2nd ed, one of the others would have stated with Runequest and the other gon 3rd Ed which would have made it unbearable, so, we all agreed on 3rd Ed). I've had fun with 3rd Ed, though I've got my share of complaints and I miss the streamlined and quick compbats of 1st/2nd Ed. I will pick up 4th Ed, in the hopes that it is in fact better than 3.5. Beyond the core books though, and perhaps the New Realms Sourcebook (out of morbid curiosity) I do not see myself insvesting anything else in 4e -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Author : Keryth Date : 02-12-08 02:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I will freely and proudly admit that at the age of 37 I'm an ancient relic (as I was called by someone here on these forums) when I expressed "shock and horror" when I learned that some players actually made an Intelligence check to solve a riddle! Granted, that isn't the fault of the rules (but rather the fault of the DM for allowing it), but I do honestly believe that the rules help contribute to this mentality. Well, I too am a relic, at 35 :) I can honestly say though, I have seen and participated in something similar, but this was only done after it was obvious that no one at the table was going to get the answer, or even come close (after 20 min of trying to figure the puzzle, help was needed) However, all this check did was get the group a hint, it did not solve the riddle for them As for 3rd eds skill system, my group has found ways of using it in synergy with regular role playing. Diplomacy checks, gather information checks, etc do not stop the role playing, but are used to influence the responses to the role playing. For example, the gorup has captured a lackey of the bad guy. They have him tied up and want information out fo him. The Elven warrior in the group, Jackuthien Bauretius, want sot get some information form this guy and begins questioning him. A long, involved role playing session begins, with questions and answers. Jack employs various unsavory means (read torture) to get his answers. Jack's player has put skill points into diplomacy, and as the questioning continues, makes a diplomacy check to change the lackies mood to a more friendly one to simulate the torture's effects. The check is successful, and the lacky begins providing more information. The DM applies modifiers to the checks based on the quality of the roleplay by the player. This makes the Charismatic skills useful in a group that RPs heavily, like mine does, but does not make those skills wasted points either. The drawback, of course, is lazier players will just make the roll and ask for the results. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Author : Varl Date : 02-12-08 03:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? We are the 25 and under crowd who knows how to actually role-play, and not just ROLL-play. So, are there any more of you guys out there? Thank you for posting this. It's nice to see younger people that still see the AD&D spirit that lives within 2e. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 02-12-08 06:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Thank you for posting this. It's nice to see younger people that still see the AD&D spirit that lives within 2e. :) I agree. Now turn down that music and get off my lawn! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Author : Extempus Date : 02-12-08 08:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Just replying to the first post. I don't really like the changes they are making... at least not the ones I've heard about. I don't like the fact that they are getting rid of gnomes, paladins, and druids. I understand that paladin is becoming the champion class, but it isn't nearly as cool. The term Paladin carries weight with gamers. Champion is boring. Getting rid of druids??? While I admit I wasn't all that crazy about druids 27 years ago, we have several druids now and they are a powerful force to be reckoned with... in contrast, we have two priests, only one of which goes on adventures regularly. None of us has ever played a paladin, and we have one gnome character, but I don't like that 4e is doing away with them at all... Same name, different game that bears no relation to 1e or 2e. I still have a few old 1e and 2e things to round up online, and they will keep us plenty busy with 1e for another 27 years... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 139] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 02-12-08 09:49 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Thank you for posting this. It's nice to see younger people that still see the AD&D spirit that lives within 2e. :) You are most welcome. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 140] Author : Webster Date : 02-12-08 11:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? It's entirely possible that antyhing that's "taken out" is put in a later book. While that doesn't sound fantastic consider that rather than getting a page or two for class description, getting an 8 or 10 page writeup. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 141] Author : Cranewings Date : 02-12-08 11:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Red Wizard, dnd is just wierd. When Gygax made it, it was clearly based on LOTR, a few other stories, and whatever he could find reading old stories. It was original, old school fantasy. Back when I first heard about this stuff, that was my idea of fantasy. Dragons, dungeons, magic swords, wizards, little hobbits fighting giant orcs, stuff like that. Dragon Lance was my main idea really. Now dnd is more like a hodge podge of things from movies and video games all put together into one big wierd thing. Other fantasy games like Ars Magica and Palladium Fantasy come with a world built into the game, so when you play, it isn't just a system but a world. Dnd is more like... I don't know... just wierd. Like a day dream... Extempus, the druid was always my favorite character (short of my multi-class druid / mage with the mystic and shape shifter kits) :) but now days... the paladin is my favorite. I love playing that character. My last character was a paladin I based off Von Hellsing. Druids are awesome because there is a definite struggle between good and evil, nature and society, and druids keep the balance. They are replacing the druid with a shape shifter class and something else... I'll have to see it, it sounds crappy. And the Paladin being called, "Champion." So what, the fighter class is chop liver? Guess can't no one else be a champion anymore, this guy gots it covered. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 142] Author : Extempus Date : 02-13-08 04:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I've certainly come to appreciate druids more in the last several years, and we always have them around on adventures now, but I never got into paladins... the closest is my 22nd level ranger. But like I said before, 4e may have the same name, but it's a completely different game, and the more I hear, the less I like it (not that I was crazy about it in the first place, but it looks like they are purposely trying to make it as different and incompatible as possible)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 143] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-13-08 03:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? When Gygax made it, it was clearly based on LOTR, a few other stories, and whatever he could find reading old stories. It was original, old school fantasy. According to Gygax, the writings of L. Sprague de Camp, Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, and the stories of Conan the Barbarian were more of an influence than Tolkien. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 144] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-13-08 04:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? According to Gygax, the writings of L. Sprague de Camp, Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, and the stories of Conan the Barbarian were more of an influence than Tolkien. While I can clearly see the similarities of each of the author's Gygax credits, I also think he is underplaying the influence of Tolkien's work as one has but to look to halflings, rangers, orcs, treants, and any number of other beings and things found in the origional game. The halflings of 1st edition are even detailed with clans such as hairfeets and tallfellows or some such names. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 145] Author : Cranewings Date : 02-13-08 08:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I think saying Love Craft is in there is a stretch asides from the original fiend folio or whatever. Conan I can see. If you never read the original stories, you have to, they are amazing. I can definitly see Conan in there. Original DnD was really gritty. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 146] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-13-08 09:39 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? [I think saying Love Craft is in there is a stretch asides from the original fiend folio or whatever. Conan I can see. If you never read the original stories, you have to, they are amazing. Not really, you can see Lovecraft's influence many places in the 1st edition. Jublex, The Faceless Lord; Gibbering Mouthers, Ochre Jellies, Mind Flayers, Kuo Toans (Deep Ones), Tharizdun, The Elder Elemental God and the list really could go on. Howard's own Hyperborea where Conan lived is believed to simply be a prehistoric version of Lovecraft's world. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 147] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-13-08 10:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? While I can clearly see the similarities of each of the author's Gygax credits, I also think he is underplaying the influence of Tolkien's work as one has but to look to halflings, rangers, orcs, treants, and any number of other beings and things found in the origional game. The halflings of 1st edition are even detailed with clans such as hairfeets and tallfellows or some such names. While halflings, rangers, orcs, treants, and Tolkien's take on elves (being roughly human-sized and not the comical Santa variety) were obviously an influence on Gygax, I think that mythology was a much bigger influence. I'm not saying that Tolkien wasn't an important influence (because I think it is), but Gygax has said that most people assume more influence from Tolkien than there actually was. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 148] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-13-08 11:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? It's obvious he dipped into Tolkien's well, just not sure why he would downplay what is so obvious. There is of course nothing wrong with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 149] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-13-08 11:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Not to mention the Balor/Balrog and his take on dwarves. But we agree that Tolkien was a large influence. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 150] Author : Alas Date : 02-14-08 10:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And Edith Hamilton, by way of Ray Harryhausen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 151] Author : Dvalin Date : 02-14-08 11:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I've posted a few opinions in this thread, and I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on 4E. I found a great book review online, which provided sample text, that just jelled everything together for me. I thought it would be appreciated here. The Innovator's Dilemma When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail Clayton Christensen 1997, 225 pages $20 Harvard Business School Press Reviewed by Kevin Kelly Link (http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/000462.php) I keep coming back to this book when change gets difficult. Christensen says that every innovator has an inevitable dilemma: serve the current game (customers) or the next game (new customers). You can't serve both. Therefore innovators have to ignore the demands of the present in order to create the reality of tomorrow. Excerpts: The research reported in this book...shows that in the cases of well-managed firms ... good management was the most powerful reason they failed to stay atop their industries. Precisely because these firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively in new technologies that would provide their customers more and better products of the sort they wanted, and because they carefully studied market trends and systematically allocated investment capital to innovations that promised the best returns, they lost their positions of leadership. Dvalin says: WoTC_Huscarl basically confirmed that the company pushes product that people buy (profit-driven model, understandable), until the current edition becomes unusable and it's time to start over. Occasionally, however, disruptive technologies emerge: technologies that result in worse product performance, at least in the near-term... Generally disruptive technologies underperform established products in mainstream markets. But they have other features that a few fringe (and generally new) customers value. Dvalin says: There's been plenty of talk about how WoW and other MUDs/MMPORPGs have been disruptive to the pen-and-paper model that traditional PRGs have enjoyed. By and large, a disruptive technology is initially embraced by the least profitable customers in a market. Dvalin says: Online gamers may try a pen/paper RPG for a larf, but they're not necessarily hard-core fans that will continue to support the product line. It's a diversion for them. But while a $40 million company needs to find just $8 million in revenues to grow at 20 percent in the subsequent year, a $4 billion company needs to find $800 million in new sales. No new markets are that large. As a consequence, the larger and more successful an organization becomes, the weaker the argument that emerging markets can remain useful engines for growth. It was as if the leading firms were held captive by their customers, enabling attacking entrant firms to topple the incumbent industry leaders each time a disruptive technology emerged. Dvalin says: I commented earlier (and probably elsewhere, sorry) that, when TSR was a couple of guys working out of a garage, quality was high and sales were great. As the company grew, the need to churn out a profit resulted in worse quality products. Anyway, I thought it was a remarkably relevant review, hope the community thinks so, too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 152] Author : cool_dude1010 Date : 02-14-08 08:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? They've published two awful RPGs so far, and the second one might actually have been worse than the first. I guess that's a no. You old people are disgusting! You mean there is a better edition than 3.5? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 153] Author : Cranewings Date : 02-15-08 12:59 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Red Wizard..... I guess. :) Lovecraft and the gent that wrote the Conan stories wrote for the same mag. It wouldn't suprise me one bit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 154] Author : Varl Date : 02-15-08 11:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I found a great book review online, which provided sample text, that just jelled everything together for me. I thought it would be appreciated here. Horrible excerpts. There's not a single blue quoted excerpt in here I agree with. Not one. I'll address each one. I keep coming back to this book when change gets difficult. Christensen says that every innovator has an inevitable dilemma: serve the current game (customers) or the next game (new customers). You can't serve both. Therefore innovators have to ignore the demands of the present in order to create the reality of tomorrow. I refuse to believe that you can't serve both. Innovators that ignore the present in favor of tomorrow are cutting their ties to why they're innovators in the first place. It's rare to have someone create a truly innovative product without reference to a predecessor. The research reported in this book...shows that in the cases of well-managed firms ... good management was the most powerful reason they failed to stay atop their industries. Precisely because these firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively in new technologies that would provide their customers more and better products of the sort they wanted, and because they carefully studied market trends and systematically allocated investment capital to innovations that promised the best returns, they lost their positions of leadership.[/I] Good management was the most powerful reason they failed to stay atop their industries? That's just retarded. Is he saying it's better to have a crappy management team where schedules are bungled, timelines are missed, and deadlines are failed in order to stay near the top of your industry? Yeah, I could see how that would make you a force in your industry. :rolleyes: Listen to your customers, have a good, solid management team in place, invest in new technologies that will stand you out above the crowd (or the clones), and making wise investment of capital towards innovative features of your product, yeah, I can see how those things could cause you to fail. LOL. :rolleyes: By and large, a disruptive technology is initially embraced by the least profitable customers in a market. That's a nice broad generalization. It depends on what he means by 'disruptive' and what industry. But while a $40 million company needs to find just $8 million in revenues to grow at 20 percent in the subsequent year, a $4 billion company needs to find $800 million in new sales. No new markets are that large. Heh. That's what he thinks! He obviously hasn't done enough research to conclude that. As a consequence, the larger and more successful an organization becomes, the weaker the argument that emerging markets can remain useful engines for growth. It was as if the leading firms were held captive by their customers, enabling attacking entrant firms to topple the incumbent industry leaders each time a disruptive technology emerged. If they collapsed, it was because they were managerially weak and didn't implement all the positive things he condones above that can take a company to the forefront of its industry. I've heard enough. His book (from the excerpts quoted anyway) sounds like the quintessential advice tome on how to guarantee your business fails. :nonono: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 155] Author : RedWizard Date : 02-15-08 12:02 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Actually one of the basic rules of business: it is cheaper and more profitable to retain an existing customer base then to try and expand to a new base. Studies found that when companies spend a little bit more on the quality of their service to existing customers rather then go out on huge ad campaigns to attract new customers they make a higher profit at less expense. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 156] Author : Keryth Date : 02-15-08 01:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Actually one of the basic rules of business: it is cheaper and more profitable to retain an existing customer base then to try and expand to a new base. Studies found that when companies spend a little bit more on the quality of their service to existing customers rather then go out on huge ad campaigns to attract new customers they make a higher profit at less expense. It is obvious to me that WoTC has yet to learn of the folly that was NEW COKE -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 157] Author : Dvalin Date : 02-15-08 08:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Varl, I'm a little surprised at your reaction to the "innovator" excerpt. This wasn't intended as a defense of WoTC/Hasbro's decision to continually churn product. Rather, I thought it was eerily descriptive. The idea that innovators can't please the existing customer base if they're pursuing a new one - like, every WoTC staff member has said the same thing. Isn't that why the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon were discontinued - to "innovate" serial content to an online format? Isn't that why 3.5e characters look so different (Harry Potter meets Perdido Street Station meets Warcraft) compared to 1e characters (LOTR meets Conan meets the rest of medieval Europe)? He's not saying that "poor management" builds companies, he's saying that when companies lose their position of leadership, the most powerful reason tends to be "good management" in the face of unexpected technologies ~ listening to your current base of customers and investing in the wrong products. I hate to keep bringing it up, but WoTC_Huscarl said that, because customers buy a lot of crap, the company produces a lot crap, until the entire system is crap. Then they "have" to start over. In the meantime, another generation of gamers gets ****** off, and game systems which are more stable (i.e., non-churning) start to gain in popularity. Or, as Christensen puts it, Precisely because these firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively in new technologies that would provide their customers more and better products of the sort they wanted, and because they carefully studied market trends and systematically allocated investment capital to innovations that promised the best returns, they lost their positions of leadership. My favorite quote from Huscarl is that the company would rather sell Bibles, but everyone wants to buy crack. (pause as Dvalin wipes tear from eye) That's the most beautiful thing I've ever heard. Anyway, the book isn't a business how-to. It's about how new technologies cause powerful companies to falter because they don't adapt properly. They're too big and can't change quickly enough. They listen to the wrong customer base. They have to make too much profit to stay in the black. The Internet and online gaming has clearly affected pen-and-paper RPGs - I thought this book review and its excepts were an interesting glimpse into the way WoTC is handling the situation. I think the bottom line that Christensen's trying to propose is that large, successful companies shouldn't try to stay ahead of the curve. They should continue to do what's successful, and make gradual changes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 158] Author : Extempus Date : 02-15-08 08:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? The research reported in this book...shows that in the cases of well-managed firms ... good management was the most powerful reason they failed to stay atop their industries. Precisely because these firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively in new technologies that would provide their customers more and better products of the sort they wanted, and because they carefully studied market trends and systematically allocated investment capital to innovations that promised the best returns, they lost their positions of leadership. That's pure BS. Here's an example of how things work in real life: in Star Trek: The Next Generation, the fans clamored for 7 seasons for Picard and Dr Crusher to get together, and the suits at Paramount told us all to F off. We wanted Riker and Troi to get together, and they told us for 15 years to F off, and instead of the entire ceremony, they had only the reception for the wedding in the last (terrible) movie, Nemesis, which was yet another FU to the fans. We all wanted episodes about Jack Crusher, and the suits said FU. They finally included a holographic version of him for a few minutes in a single episode, which was still a big FU to the fans. Fast forward to Enterprise. The suits at Paramount actually approved the garbage we saw: emotional Vulcans who showed outright hostility toward humans, we had Vulcans who lie and Vulcans who were junkies... and those were 3 more big FU's to the fan base (is it any wonder they went from 14 million+ viewers in the first season to around 2 million in the third, and had to slash their budget by more than 50% in order to stay on the air for the fourth, and was finally cancelled in disgrace due to poor ratings because of all the FU's to the fanbase?). By the time the producers extracted their crania from their rear ends and said, "Maybe we should actually write Star Trek episodes," and hired Manny Coto, a Trekkie, to steer them back on course for the fourth season, the fans by and large could care less about the garbage they called "Star Trek" (but was very obviously not), which is why it was cancelled due to abysmal ratings. And, to add insult to injury, Brannon Braga, one of the executive producers, blamed US, the fans, for the failure of Star Trek!!! So... whoever claims that if one listens to their fan/customer base, then you will lose your "positions of leadership," obviously that person is full of it and has no idea what they're talking about. Cater to the fanbase, and you will still be on the air... or producing a certain game system for the same people who have been into it for going on 3 decades instead of 3 years or 3 months... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 159] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 02-16-08 04:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Cater to the fanbase, and you will still be on the air... or producing a certain game system for the same people who have been into it for going on 3 decades instead of 3 years or 3 months... Bravo, Extempus. The problem that I see here is one that has been discussed on other forums on this website. People will still buy a new product, usually in enough numbers that those who do not like the direction/content/them are sidelined. 4e is very obviously catering to a feel of a younger computer-game-playing sector. I haven't seen many comments on the 4e forums that don't include the phrase "just like World of Warcraft!" and at the moment the Living Forgotten Realms mailing list has spent a week debating how much/little the Tiefling looks like one of the WoW races. I have nothing against WoW. I'm not into computer games as a rule, I don;t have the time as I'd prefer to spend my leisure time role-playing with friends rather than sitting at the keyboard (although my presence here could be called into question :D ). I can't get excited about an online game at all. If there are elements that make WoW a great game (I refuse to add the descriptor role-playing to that title) then that is fine; incorporate those into D&D that will enhance it's flavour, not replace it with a new one. It has been the 4e discussions thus far that have made me not want to purchase the product. It seems to be a deviation from what I consider to be Dungeons and Dragons; but then, the mentality I've seen among younger gamers at my FLGS for the last many years has been that shiny + new = must have; with little regard for quality, or even the duration of playability of the item in question (in this particular case I'll point the finger at GW, but WotC seems to be following suit. As an aside, GW has had a long-time association with a new edition of their games every few years, new Codexes, models, etc and little to no support for their veteran players and in the last two quarters have recorded a very steady drop in profits - maybe they'll wake up to themselves). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 160] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-16-08 12:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That's pure.... And Star Wars fans were clamoring for years for Lucas to do the second trilogy and when he finially did it it was utter crap. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 161] Author : Dvalin Date : 02-16-08 01:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? So... whoever claims that if one listens to their fan/customer base, then you will lose your "positions of leadership," obviously that person is full of it and has no idea what they're talking about. Cater to the fanbase, and you will still be on the air... or producing a certain game system for the same people who have been into it for going on 3 decades instead of 3 years or 3 months... Extempus, As I said earlier, the most powerful reason good companies fail in the face of new technology is because they listen to their customers. No one ever said a company shouldn't listen to their fans/customers. No one ever said listening to the fanbase makes a company fail. Your example re: Star Trek doesn't really make sense - there wasn't a disruptive technology at hand, and ST:TNG was a success, despite the company not listening to the fanbase. Here's a point of contrast: Dragon and Dungeon magazines were in print for over 30 and 20 years, respectively. The Internet and online publishing are definitely "disruptive new technologies" compared to traditional print. In the face of 1) a large segment of the fanbase already using online resources and 2) apparently wanting more online resources, WoTC decided to end print publication of those magazines and move them to an online model, which is apparently free for now but I'm sure will eventually cost something. Was this the right move? Too early to tell. But there are print competitors who are happy to have the print field cleared away for them. Pathfinder, Kobold Quarterly, White Dwarf, No Quarter... the newsstands are fair game, now. (I know I won't be buying PDFs, because I like something in print that I can carry around and put on a shelf.) If the online models for Dragon and Dungeon fail, isn't it because the company was listening to the largest part of the fanbase and giving them what they (supposedly) want? Yes, companies should listen to their customers. I never said they shouldn't. But that sword cuts both ways. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 162] Author : Agathokles Date : 02-16-08 05:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Here's a point of contrast: Dragon and Dungeon magazines were in print for over 30 and 20 years, respectively. The Internet and online publishing are definitely "disruptive new technologies" compared to traditional print. In the face of 1) a large segment of the fanbase already using online resources and 2) apparently wanting more online resources, WoTC decided to end print publication of those magazines and move them to an online model, which is apparently free for now but I'm sure will eventually cost something. Was this the right move? Too early to tell. But there are print competitors who are happy to have the print field cleared away for them. Pathfinder, Kobold Quarterly, White Dwarf, No Quarter... the newsstands are fair game, now. (I know I won't be buying PDFs, because I like something in print that I can carry around and put on a shelf.) If the online models for Dragon and Dungeon fail, isn't it because the company was listening to the largest part of the fanbase and giving them what they (supposedly) want? Actually, I'd say it's exactly the opposite: subscribers/buyers of the print Dragon/Dungeon probably aren't that enthusiastic about moving the magazines to an online model -- e.g., you aren't. So in this case WotC is gambling on the potential of reaching a different (and larger) customer base via the online medium, rather than focusing on the existing customers. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 163] Author : Dvalin Date : 02-16-08 11:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Actually, I'd say it's exactly the opposite: subscribers/buyers of the print Dragon/Dungeon probably aren't that enthusiastic about moving the magazines to an online model -- e.g., you aren't. So in this case WotC is gambling on the potential of reaching a different (and larger) customer base via the online medium, rather than focusing on the existing customers. But I'm not part of the large fanbase. I'm a lone creep who never got on the boards until late September 07, and didn't join Gleemax until December. And that's part of "listening" to the fanbase - if there are more customers interested in an online medium, then those are the customers they're listening to - in fact, has WoTC listened to anything the grognard community has said? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 164] Author : Extempus Date : 02-17-08 02:27 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And Star Wars fans were clamoring for years for Lucas to do the second trilogy and when he finially did it it was utter crap. Depends on who you talk to. I actually rather liked them, my only real problem was that the story was too rushed. An extra 20-30 minutes per episode would have been perfect. Extempus, As I said earlier, the most powerful reason good companies fail in the face of new technology is because they listen to their customers. No one ever said a company shouldn't listen to their fans/customers. No one ever said listening to the fanbase makes a company fail. Your example re: Star Trek doesn't really make sense - there wasn't a disruptive technology at hand, and ST:TNG was a success, despite the company not listening to the fanbase. I appreciate that argument, but that's not what I was getting at. With Star Trek, you are correct: there was no disruptive new technology, what we had there were the producers who had their own agenda and did not cater to the fans that made the new shows possible in the first place. With WoTC, we're seeing precisely the same thing: those in charge of product design are not catering to the fanbase that made the game they are redesigning possible in the first place. Are they going with new technology? Sure... but are they flipping the bird at the rest of us by unnecessarily redesigning a game that I suspect is planned to be obsolete in a few years anyway and that bears no resemblance to the older editions other than the name and perhaps a few vague similarities? IMHO, yes... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 165] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 02-17-08 06:09 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Actually, I'd say it's exactly the opposite: subscribers/buyers of the print Dragon/Dungeon probably aren't that enthusiastic about moving the magazines to an online model -- e.g., you aren't. I'm certainly not a fan of the direction of either of the magazines. My subscription via my FLGS outlived three such business and now take up a sizeable shelf on my bookcase. The reason why these are a core part of my gaming collection is their browse factor. I can pick one up at random, wander all over the house, public transport, and work and read at my leisure and always pick up something new for my campaign. The thematic labelling on the spine makes selection easier. The new system is not what I want from a gaming product. I have no interest in online content, .pdf sourcebooks or any such articles. What I do look online for is community, of which there is a limited amount in my town. The conversations I have hear would never have taken place without this technology, and I'm exceedingly grateful for that. I'm probably in the minority, and my argument is primarily tactile-based, and given the overwheleming responses I've read and listen to (on various podcasts) there is an assertion that electronic magazines are the new way to go. I'm just thanksful I have tweleve years of issues that now, in the cancellation of the magazines, I'm thoroughly enjoying re-reading. That is, in my opinion, the only good to have come from this situation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 166] Author : Agathokles Date : 02-17-08 01:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? if there are more customers interested in an online medium, then those are the customers they're listening to - in fact, has WoTC listened to anything the grognard community has said? The "if" is the important part. There's no proof that the majority of fans prefer an online Dragon/Dungeon to the print version. There's proof that people did like the print version -- the magazines were a viable businness (at least for Paizo). Actually, the "innovation" argument you quoted fits quite nicely: there's an established businness (selling print magazines); innovation, in this case, is in leaving that established businness to jump on a potentially more profitable one (but we really don't know how profitable it will be, and neither does WotC -- all forum posters have free access to Dragon/Dungeon for now, but they'll not necessarily keep it under a subscription regime). And even if the customer request was for more online content, well, WotC wouldn't be doing much in that respect -- the old website columns had more or less the same amount of content as the new Dragon/Dungeon. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 167] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-17-08 05:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Depends on who you talk to. And the same can be said for the various Star Trek shows. I rather liked Enterprise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 168] Author : Extempus Date : 02-18-08 02:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I gave it a chance, and so did 14,000,000+ others during the first season. The fact that in a mere 3 seasons viewership dropped about 85% is quite telling... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 169] Author : Varl Date : 02-18-08 03:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? He's not saying that "poor management" builds companies, he's saying that when companies lose their position of leadership, the most powerful reason tends to be "good management" in the face of unexpected technologies ~ listening to your current base of customers and investing in the wrong products. I'm fairly confident he and I are referring to two entirely different industries, so that may be one reason for his rationale being so far off base from mine. Being someone that can personally identify with the idea of attempting to implement new technologies/ideas to improve an already existing industry, it's not the customers that need to be convinced that any new technology is viable. It's the investors or shareholders, unless you already happen to have the capital behind you to innovate brand new ideas into the industry yourself. And it's not necessarily just the money either; the idea itself has to pass rigorous inspection and critiques before it can be qualified as viable, and I can tell you from firsthand experience dealing directly with those that would sign off on a project, that the bottom line doesn't have anything to do with team, the fans or its customers. It's whether the investors have trust in the product itself, and can see the vision, the future as shown to them. ROI baby. So many investors are all about the ROI, but even that doesn't matter for nothing if they don't believe. I hate to keep bringing it up, but WoTC_Huscarl said that, because customers buy a lot of crap, the company produces a lot crap, until the entire system is crap. Then they "have" to start over. I know. That's the cyclical spiral they're stuck in. They may claim it's all about the quality of the products they produce, but something isn't being done right if they have to reinvent a game every 3 years or so. And to be fair, they're not exactly in an easy industry to make a profit off of, seeing how there is very little repetitive puchasing going on by customers (I mean, once you own a book....), so from a fiscal standpoint, I can understand the need to want to upgrade the game every so often, but at the same time, we the customers have very finite shelf space (much less time!) to dedicate to the latest, greatest edition of the game. I've said it before to my friends: they want my money, dedicate those think tanks to making accessory products that make my game experience better, not merely repackage the same old rules in a new volume and tell me how much more improved they are. I'm a DM. That's MY job! ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 170] Author : Eonar Date : 02-18-08 06:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? [QUOTE=True_Atlantean;15113036]The new system is not what I want from a gaming product. I have no interest in online content, .pdf sourcebooks or any such articles. What I do look online for is community, of which there is a limited amount in my town. The conversations I have hear would never have taken place without this technology, and I'm exceedingly grateful for that.QUOTE] I have no interest in the online content beyond what usually was included in the publications either. It seems that the effort put into the online content so far has been very minimal at best. Once or twice a month we get an article saying, "Look here! This is awesome!" but we don't get much more.:whatsthis But the forums are wonderful. There is always something interesting being discussed with people all over the world weighing in. It is a fun and exciting experience to be apart of and I enjoy reading all the posts. There is a small bright point to Dungeon and Dragon being online: we might only have to pay $15 for access to both magazines online ‘stuff.’:twitch: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 171] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 02-20-08 04:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Once or twice a month we get an article saying, "Look here! This is awesome!" but we don't get much more.:whatsthis But the forums are wonderful. There is always something interesting being discussed with people all over the world weighing in. It is a fun and exciting experience to be apart of and I enjoy reading all the posts. There is a small bright point to Dungeon and Dragon being online: we might only have to pay $15 for access to both magazines online ‘stuff.’:twitch: I do concur with your assessments. The only point with the subscription fee to Dungeon and Dragon magazines is that I have found the content of both the online versions to equal about that of a single issue of their print counterparts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 172] Author : Kursk Date : 02-20-08 12:45 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm curious what you guys think of the upcoming 4th Edition. Personally I started playing back in 2E, and have found 3.x not to my liking at all. At this point, I'm really starting to miss 2E and am beginning to contemplate talking the game I'm running to switch to the old ways. That being said, I'm really liking what they're doing with 4E, and wonder what you guys think. From what I've seen. (not enough) It is breaking from 1st - 3.X concept of the game and is D&D in name only. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 173] Author : adidamps2 Date : 02-20-08 01:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? i have shelved my 3.x crap and dusted off ALL of my AD&D stuff. 4E is deffintly not what i want. although i may rent* it for the weekend to see how/what was changed mechanically. * purchase said products to read at home and then return it to the store after i am done. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 174] Author : Hugin Date : 02-20-08 04:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? From what I've seen. (not enough) It is breaking from 1st - 3.X concept of the game and is D&D in name only. From what I've seen, it is turning back towards the concept of earlier editions. 3E did some good things with D&D but it tried to be too comprehensive and mechanical. The sense I get with 4E is it's a return to treating D&D as a game where the players enjoyment come before the importance of PCs and monsters following identical formulaic rules; getting back to creating characters instead of builds. It's hard for me to say how, but when I read about 4E I get a 'that reminds me of classic D&D' feel. I hope so anyway. The worst that could happen is I'd go back to my RC (which wouldn't be that bad at all). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 175] Author : Kursk Date : 02-20-08 04:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? From what I've seen, it is turning back towards the concept of earlier editions. Yah, I remember the non-vancian spell system in 1st Ed... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 176] Author : Hugin Date : 02-20-08 05:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Yah, I remember the non-vancian spell system in 1st Ed... I apologize for looking beyond purely mechanical aspects. (Btw, there is still a vancian spell system in 4E.) I'm much more interested in an enjoyable experience with friends assuming roles in a fantasy adventure. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 177] Author : Kursk Date : 02-20-08 05:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I apologize for looking beyond purely mechanical aspects. (Btw, there is still a vancian spell system in 4E.) I'm much more interested in an enjoyable experience with friends assuming roles in a fantasy adventure. I've probably been playing the game since you were in diapers. I played with some of the original authors. 4E doesn't move the game back towards its roots. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 178] Author : Hugin Date : 02-20-08 05:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I've probably been playing the game since you were in diapers. I played with some of the original authors. 4E doesn't move the game back towards its roots. How wonderful. I've been playing for a respectable 20+ years and have had the privilege to enjoy the game with my friends. I find it discouraging for the hobby that someone can't have an enjoyment of older editions and newer ones at the same time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 179] Author : otisew Date : 02-20-08 06:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? How wonderful. I've been playing for a respectable 20+ years and have had the privilege to enjoy the game with my friends. I find it discouraging for the hobby that someone can't have an enjoyment of older editions and newer ones at the same time. I could never get into the newer edition rules. The only tme I have to deal with them is when I play the PC games, even then some of the 3.0/3.5 rules really bug me. I find the 3.0/3.5 rules actually take away from the enjoyment of roleplaying, you spend most of your time turning your character into some super killing machine. Not for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 180] Author : Varl Date : 02-21-08 11:18 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I find it discouraging for the hobby that someone can't have an enjoyment of older editions and newer ones at the same time. For some of us, that's like mixing oil and water, beer and chocolate, or DDI and a printed Dragon magazine. The game wiring in our heads gets all tangled up. One minute you're playing a human fighter, and the next you're playing a half-female, half-tiefling, half-celestial moon elf paladin/assassin/rogue/shujenja/priestess of Blipdoolpoolp, and wondering what bonuses I get for that.... ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 181] Author : otisew Date : 02-21-08 11:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? For some of us, that's like mixing oil and water, beer and chocolate, or DDI and a printed Dragon magazine. The game wiring in our heads gets all tangled up. One minute you're playing a human fighter, and the next you're playing a half-female, half-tiefling, half-celestial moon elf paladin/assassin/rogue/shujenja/priestess of Blipdoolpoolp, and wondering what bonuses I get for that.... ;) Couldn't have said it better lol...;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 182] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-21-08 01:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Yah, I remember the non-vancian spell system in 1st Ed... Uh, in 1st edition AD&D mages and clerics had to memorize their spells and were limited to the number of spells that they could cast each day. Isn't that exactly what the Vancian system is about? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 183] Author : Kursk Date : 02-21-08 01:22 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Uh, in 1st edition AD&D mages and clerics had to memorize their spells and were limited to the number of spells that they could cast each day. Isn't that exactly what the Vancian system is about? That post was sarcasm... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 184] Author : Hugin Date : 02-21-08 01:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? For some of us, that's like mixing oil and water, beer and chocolate, or DDI and a printed Dragon magazine. The game wiring in our heads gets all tangled up. One minute you're playing a human fighter, and the next you're playing a half-female, half-tiefling, half-celestial moon elf paladin/assassin/rogue/shujenja/priestess of Blipdoolpoolp, and wondering what bonuses I get for that.... ;) I can respect that. (On a side note, I've never allowed those half-crap and multiclassing rubic's cubes in my games anyhow; I find the idea of 'builds' abhorrent). I was giving my opinion on 4E as per the OP's request. Just because opinions differ doesn't mean we have to be hostile - something you managed to avoid quite easily and I thank you for it. I view rules as mere tools. What would be the difference in creating a house-rule for your 1E game or taking a rule idea from 3E and porting it into your 1E game? As far as I can see, nothing. Most people tend to change the game to their liking anyway and that's why I took 3E and rebuilt it to my own tastes. I took BEMC elements into my d20 game because I like them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 185] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-22-08 01:59 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? That post was sarcasm... :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 186] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 02-22-08 10:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? i have shelved my 3.x crap and dusted off ALL of my AD&D stuff. 4E is deffintly not what i want. although i may rent* it for the weekend to see how/what was changed mechanically. * purchase said products to read at home and then return it to the store after i am done. I just find a nice comfy chair at Borders. Read their little previews, laugh at the price-tags, then put them back on the shelf when finished... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 187] Author : Mock26 Date : 02-22-08 10:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I just find a nice comfy chair at Borders. Read their little previews, laugh at the price-tags, then put them back on the shelf when finished... And be glad that you don't play Warhammer 40k which updates everytime you blink! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 188] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 02-23-08 10:37 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And be glad that you don't play Warhammer 40k which updates everytime you blink! Actually, I do... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 189] Author : adidamps2 Date : 02-25-08 04:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I just find a nice comfy chair at Borders. Read their little previews, laugh at the price-tags, then put them back on the shelf when finished... i wish, but my 10yr old, 4 yr old and almost 2yr old would not let me in piece long enough to able to do that in the store...other wise i would do it that way. :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 190] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 02-25-08 06:18 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? i wish, but my 10yr old, 4 yr old and almost 2yr old would not let me in piece long enough to able to do that in the store...other wise i would do it that way. :( I can sympathise - I don't remember the last time I had five minutes to myself in a gaming store. I steal what time I can in my lunch hours but given travel time, I get about fifteen minutes of browse time. That is why I do most of my browsing online and rely on forums like this to get my gaming info. It's a different sort of community; but community nonetheless. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 191] Author : adidamps2 Date : 02-25-08 06:28 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I can sympathise - I don't remember the last time I had five minutes to myself in a gaming store. I steal what time I can in my lunch hours but given travel time, I get about fifteen minutes of browse time. That is why I do most of my browsing online and rely on forums like this to get my gaming info. It's a different sort of community; but community nonetheless. yep this too is why i have migrated to a place like this...:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 192] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 02-26-08 11:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? From what I've seen, it is turning back towards the concept of earlier editions. 3E did some good things with D&D but it tried to be too comprehensive and mechanical. The sense I get with 4E is it's a return to treating D&D as a game where the players enjoyment come before the importance of PCs and monsters following identical formulaic rules; getting back to creating characters instead of builds.This is close to the mark. It's the chief reason I've so enjoyed playing 4E. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 193] Author : Extempus Date : 02-26-08 12:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? This is close to the mark. It's the chief reason I've so enjoyed playing 4E. Steve And that's the reason we never stopped playing 1e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 194] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 02-28-08 03:11 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And that's the reason we never stopped playing 1e. It is definately about the flavour. I second the motion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 195] Author : havard Date : 02-28-08 08:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? For some of us, that's like mixing oil and water, beer and chocolate, or DDI and a printed Dragon magazine. The game wiring in our heads gets all tangled up. One minute you're playing a human fighter, and the next you're playing a half-female, half-tiefling, half-celestial moon elf paladin/assassin/rogue/shujenja/priestess of Blipdoolpoolp, and wondering what bonuses I get for that.... I can respect that. (On a side note, I've never allowed those half-crap and multiclassing rubic's cubes in my games anyhow; I find the idea of 'builds' abhorrent). I was giving my opinion on 4E as per the OP's request. Just because opinions differ doesn't mean we have to be hostile - something you managed to avoid quite easily and I thank you for it. I'm glad you don't allow those kind of characters that Varl describes here Hugin, because frankly, they don't exist in the rules! I don't think 3E is the best of all rulesets, but it bothers me when everytime I see criticism of 3E I see these outrageous examples that I have never seen in play *ever*. First of all Templates are mainly intended for monsters. Sure, there are rules for playing monsters as PCs (There were in older editions too), but that is hardly a standard part of the game. Furthermore with the multiclassing: If you are playing a character with 10 different classes, what few people seem to realize is that the character only picks up one class per level so that means he will be a 10th level character by that time. If it is even possible to do so, I am pretty sure that the result will be disappointing as you would probably be better off playing a 10th level single classed fighter. Things I liked about 3E: * More flexibility. We were no longer stuck with pointless stereotypes with limitations based on the sole reasoning of game balance. 3E showed that game balance can be achieved in ways other than class restrictions. * the D20+ mechanic. I don't miss ThaC0. At all. * Integrated skills. Roleplaying games need rules for other things than combat and magic. That's my opinion anyway. Things I didn't like about 3E: * Focus on game mechanics. I agree that this "builds" mentality is strengthened in 3E, though I suspect WoW and other CRPGs are also to blame for this attitude. * Rules heavy: Especially for higher levels, this game can be a nightmare for people like me who don't really like to spend all my hours learning rules, when I'd much rather be spending them cooking up exciting adventures. * Focus on dungeons. I don't like dungeons. I much prefer wilderness and city adventures. * Miniatures as default rules. I don't like using miniatures, especially in 3E since it does make the game feel like chess. It is easily solved by *not* using minis, but the fact that the rulebooks assume you will be using them is a problem. Does 4E adress any of these problems? I'm not sure. My impression is that for every edition D&D moves one step forward and then another step backward. The result being a different game that satisfies some of my needs, but at the expense of some of the things I liked. Hmmm... Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 196] Author : Varl Date : 02-28-08 11:38 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I'm glad you don't allow those kind of characters that Varl describes here Hugin, because frankly, they don't exist in the rules! I don't think 3E is the best of all rulesets, but it bothers me when everytime I see criticism of 3E I see these outrageous examples that I have never seen in play *ever*. Can you say that about every 3e game ever played? I don't think so. The fact is, while the system might not actively encourage such abomination-creation, the presumption bar that one could create them has unquestionably been set much lower than it ever was pre-d20. They might not come right out and say it, but I truly believe that there can be too much of a good thing (if wide open character options were a good thing in the first place), such as allowing so much openness in character creation that it opens up the possibilities of characters such as the one I described. You've had to have seen them online here or there. I know I have. Who knows if the original posters of those "character types" were just joking around, testing just how far they can tweak the system until it breaks, or were completely serious. Still, I don't think it can be argued against that d20 changed the way we look at the unusual or "extremely rare" character, and made the possibility of such characters much more likely. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Sure, there are rules for playing monsters as PCs (There were in older editions too), but that is hardly a standard part of the game. I agree, but it was much less likely in older editions. In fact, in the 28 years I've been DMing AD&D, the oddest character I ever ran across was a werebear ranger, that as you can guess, dealt with two lives instead of one. The character was very well devleoped and rich in description, which made the odd choice even better to tolerate. Furthermore with the multiclassing: If you are playing a character with 10 different classes, what few people seem to realize is that the character only picks up one class per level so that means he will be a 10th level character by that time. If it is even possible to do so, I am pretty sure that the result will be disappointing as you would probably be better off playing a 10th level single classed fighter. I can't argue with that. Things I liked about 3E: * More flexibility. We were no longer stuck with pointless stereotypes with limitations based on the sole reasoning of game balance. 3E showed that game balance can be achieved in ways other than class restrictions. Pointless? They're there for a reason: to avoid exactly what I described above. * the D20+ mechanic. I don't miss ThaC0. At all. Ehh. Either one works. I prefer THAC0 because it's ingrained into my gamer soul, and why change just so the math is easier? Math was never a problem... * Integrated skills. Roleplaying games need rules for other things than combat and magic. That's my opinion anyway. Not sure what you mean here. AD&D has plenty of non-combat, non-magic NWPs. Things I didn't like about 3E: * Focus on game mechanics. I agree that this "builds" mentality is strengthened in 3E, though I suspect WoW and other CRPGs are also to blame for this attitude. And to think way back in early 1999, pre-d20 arriving on the scene, some of us were chided rather excessively (that's saying it nicely btw) on making this very point. Go figure. * Rules heavy: Especially for higher levels, this game can be a nightmare for people like me who don't really like to spend all my hours learning rules, when I'd much rather be spending them cooking up exciting adventures. Well, I agree, but this can occur with any high level game regardless of edition. It naturally happens when you get higher level. * Focus on dungeons. I don't like dungeons. I much prefer wilderness and city adventures. I didn't know it did. Huh. * Miniatures as default rules. I don't like using miniatures, especially in 3E since it does make the game feel like chess. It is easily solved by *not* using minis, but the fact that the rulebooks assume you will be using them is a problem. Yeah, miniatures should never be mandatory in a rules set. Does 4E adress any of these problems? I'm not sure. My impression is that for every edition D&D moves one step forward and then another step backward. The result being a different game that satisfies some of my needs, but at the expense of some of the things I liked. Hmmm... I can't argue with that. That probably explains why I run a hybrid. :D And for the record, so this post doesn't appear to completely comdemn d20, there are things about it I like, most of it regarding creature changes. I know, hard to believe, but it's true! *Increased Creature Hit Points- I like how d20 has put the monster into monsters, and made them frightening in regards to how much damage they can take. AD&D 1e was pathetic in this regard (anyone remember the 88 hp Red Dragon?), 2e improved this quite a bit, but d20 increased them up to a level I find just right. *Ability scores for creatures- It's about time. This is something AD&D should have done a long time ago. *Speed- Changing movement to a universal constant like feet per round (!) instead of that incredibly lame inches (12") move rates of AD&D made a whole lot of sense. *Inspired to add initiative, space/reach, and saves to the creature stats blocks saves a lot of lookups. *Oh, and I almost forgot: psionics. While their approach was typical d20, the overall approach to how they placed every psionic power into levels and got rid of the general mish-mash listings for power in 1e/2e made psionics much more in line with how magic was organized, and I think that made a lot of sense too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 197] Author : havard Date : 02-28-08 01:38 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Can you say that about every 3e game ever played? I don't think so. The fact is, while the system might not actively encourage such abomination-creation, the presumption bar that one could create them has unquestionably been set much lower than it ever was pre-d20. They might not come right out and say it, but I truly believe that there can be too much of a good thing (if wide open character options were a good thing in the first place), such as allowing so much openness in character creation that it opens up the possibilities of characters such as the one I described. Basically its getting closer to GURPS, where you *can* play anything. IMO this is a good thing. However, there is a catch. If the DM requires you to begin the game with a 1st level character, which most DM's will, pretty much anything outside of the PHB is out anyway. If the DM decides to allow for everyone else to start as 10th level characters, then yes, you can cook up something weird. But there will always be munchkins and there will always be people who come up with silly concepts. Personally, I have as much a problem with weird monster concepts as I have with the guy who shows up wanting to play his 100th Greedy Dwarf Fighter who wields an axe... I agree, but it was much less likely in older editions. In fact, in the 28 years I've been DMing AD&D, the oddest character I ever ran across was a werebear ranger, that as you can guess, dealt with two lives instead of one. The character was very well devleoped and rich in description, which made the odd choice even better to tolerate. Sounds like a cool character :) Restrictions: Pointless? They're there for a reason: to avoid exactly what I described above. When I was talking about restrictions I meant things such as Clerics only being able to use blunt weapons, no shields for Rogues etc. 3E still has some of that, but there are ways around it, which are balanced. Ehh. Either one works. I prefer THAC0 because it's ingrained into my gamer soul, and why change just so the math is easier? Math was never a problem... Trust me it was a problem for alot of people. I played with it for decades, but I always hated it. Even if I now consider going back to Classic, I will keep the D20+ mechanic. Not sure what you mean here. AD&D has plenty of non-combat, non-magic NWPs. Yes, but IMO it is not a very good system. Also it remains an optional add-on. This IMO says to the player: This game is about "killing stuff and taking its treasure". Also reinforced by the XP rules. Something we should get away from IMO. Having the Thief skills integrated into the General Skill system was a brilliant move IMO. Personally I would have liked to see Combat ability moved in there aswell. And to think way back in early 1999, pre-d20 arriving on the scene, some of us were chided rather excessively (that's saying it nicely btw) on making this very point. Go figure. I still dont agree that 3E runs like a computer game. I think the problem is that players, having played computer games bring with them this attitude at the gaming table. I had a great game going set in Mystara, when a new player shows up and comes up with the idea that they are going to bring with them every single weapon and armor they found on monsters they killed into town to sell and get money from it. Up till then we hadnt even bothered with the encumbrance rules (since we all hate maths, lol). Well, I agree, but this can occur with any high level game regardless of edition. It naturally happens when you get higher level. Sure. I think BECMI handles it the best so far. Yeah, miniatures should never be mandatory in a rules set. They still aren't mandatory, but getting rid of them requires a bit of thought, and affects some of the rules a bit. In particular, some feats become less useful without minis. I can't argue with that. That probably explains why I run a hybrid. :D Probably the best way to go. Im thinking my next D&D game will be based in Classic D&D (BECMI) with some ideas taken from 3E. Though I might just stick with Savage Worlds, which is what Im using mostly these days. And for the record, so this post doesn't appear to completely comdemn d20, there are things about it I like, most of it regarding creature changes. I know, hard to believe, but it's true! All good points snipped. :) What I like about 3E that hasn't been brought up yet, is that they took a look at AD&D and took away alot of things that just weren't fun. Like Level Drain. Or frustrating limitations, old stereotypes etc etc. Different people like different things ofcourse. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 198] Author : Alas Date : 02-29-08 03:49 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Does 4E adress any of these problems? I'm not sure. My impression is that for every edition D&D moves one step forward and then another step backward. The result being a different game that satisfies some of my needs, but at the expense of some of the things I liked. Hmmm...Great summation! This could be why I always love the edition I've got, miss the previous edition, and can't wait for the next one... :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 199] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-01-08 04:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? When I was talking about restrictions I meant things such as Clerics only being able to use blunt weapons, no shields for Rogues etc. 3E still has some of that, but there are ways around it, which are balanced. It's just trading one restriction for another. AD&D has several restrictions based on classes, 3e has major restrictions on multiclassing instead, 4e seems to be going back to class-based restrictions (e.g., a rogue will be basically restricted to light weapons). Even if I now consider going back to Classic, I will keep the D20+ mechanic. It will take some math, but it's otherwise easy to do. Yes, but IMO it is not a very good system. Also it remains an optional add-on. This IMO says to the player: This game is about "killing stuff and taking its treasure". Also reinforced by the XP rules. Something we should get away from IMO. Having the Thief skills integrated into the General Skill system was a brilliant move IMO. Personally I would have liked to see Combat ability moved in there aswell. OTOH, I think it was a terrible move. When you give a choice between a combat skill and a general skill, 99% of the players will go for the combat skill. Thus, general skills are simply ignored. Having non-combat, non-class specific general skills only is the only way to get combat effective characters who also have non-combat skills. I still dont agree that 3E runs like a computer game. Hopefully. The only game that implements most of 3e is Temple of the Elemental Evil, and its the paragon of badly done CRPGs... GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 200] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 03-01-08 07:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? And that's the reason we never stopped playing 1e. Hear, hear...HUZZAH!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 201] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-02-08 03:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? *Increased Creature Hit Points- I like how d20 has put the monster into monsters, and made them frightening in regards to how much damage they can take. AD&D 1e was pathetic in this regard (anyone remember the 88 hp Red Dragon?), 2e improved this quite a bit, but d20 increased them up to a level I find just right. Too bad the PCs' HP grew even more. *Ability scores for creatures- It's about time. This is something AD&D should have done a long time ago. Why? Except for humanoids, I see no point in knowing a monster's Dex or Str. Intelligence is universally needed, the rest is only useful on occasions. 3e only makes monster construction slower. *Speed- Changing movement to a universal constant like feet per round (!) instead of that incredibly lame inches (12") move rates of AD&D made a whole lot of sense. Letting aside the fact that feet are not any more universal than inches (ever heard of an international system?), most D&D versions (BECMI, RC, AD&D 2e) use feet or yards. Inches were used in older versions because of a more widespread use of miniatures. *Inspired to add initiative, space/reach, and saves to the creature stats blocks saves a lot of lookups. And makes stat blocks (in encounters) enormous and unreadable -- average AD&D/OD&D stat block for a simple, low level monster in a module encounter: 1-2 lines. The same in 3e takes half a column. *Oh, and I almost forgot: psionics. While their approach was typical d20, the overall approach to how they placed every psionic power into levels and got rid of the general mish-mash listings for power in 1e/2e made psionics much more in line with how magic was organized, and I think that made a lot of sense too. The point of psionics is that it should be different from magic. Otherwise, there's really no reason to have the psionicist as anything else than a specialist wizard. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 202] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-02-08 11:43 AM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? *Ability scores for creatures- It's about time. This is something AD&D should have done a long time ago. They did. Found in the 2nd edition Creature Crucibles. Allowed stats to be applied to creatures. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 203] Author : Varl Date : 03-03-08 12:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Too bad the PCs' HP grew even more. Ha! Good point. Good thing I decided not to do that, too. Why? Except for humanoids, I see no point in knowing a monster's Dex or Str. Intelligence is universally needed, the rest is only useful on occasions. 3e only makes monster construction slower. Yes, but instead of pulling one's strength numbers out of one's, umm, muscles, I find it infinitely easier to assign them from the start. Plus, it's only one extra line of text in the stat block. And makes stat blocks (in encounters) enormous and unreadable -- average AD&D/OD&D stat block for a simple, low level monster in a module encounter: 1-2 lines. The same in 3e takes half a column. This isn't 3e; it's a 2e hybrid stat block with minor bits from 3e. Big difference. I only took parts I wanted. The size of any stat block only matters anyway if it's intended for publication. The point of psionics is that it should be different from magic. Otherwise, there's really no reason to have the psionicist as anything else than a specialist wizard. Different doesn't have to mean mish-mashed, hackneyed organization of the powers themselves with 9th level powers in the same grouping and under the same discipline with 1st level ones. Separating them into levels simply makes sense. It's how the rest of the game works. They did. Found in the 2nd edition Creature Crucibles. Allowed stats to be applied to creatures. I didn't know that. Thanks for the tip! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 204] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-03-08 05:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? I didn't know that. Thanks for the tip! Note: the Creature Crucible series is for OD&D (BECMI/RC) not for AD&D 2e. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 205] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-03-08 05:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Old timers opinion on 4E? Note: the Creature Crucible series is for OD&D (BECMI/RC) not for AD&D 2e. You are indeed correct. My mistake. Though the point still stands that the older versions of the game did produce a resource to stat creatures.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.