Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests! [Archive]

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-04, 05:12 PM

From the last thread:

You know, I don't think I've ever asked you. Why do you care so desperately about the 3.5/4e edition wars? Everyone got into it at least a little, all those years ago. But you wrote more about it and talked longer about it and started more arguments about it than anyone else. I remember one period of a good few months where you put something Edition-War-related in literally every single post you wrote, no matter how unrelated the topic might have been.

Over the years, most of the Edition Warriors drifted away. They picked their system and stuck with it, or they learned to like both, or they decided they didn't like either, or they just got sick of arguing. They all drifted away, one by one . . . except you. You're still trying to convince 3.5 players of why they should be playing 4e instead, even though you have to know that virtually no-one cares anymore. Why do you still do it? I'm genuinely curious.
The short answer is that there are still 3.x Players trashing 4e on empirically unsupportable grounds. No, not you or Kurald Galain (mostly :smalltongue:) but every so often the call of "4e is so much like WoW" or "everything in 4e plays the same" rekindles that old flame. No, I don't post to "prove" anyone wrong, mind you, but rather to keep new players from shying away from 4e for the wrong reasons.

Long Answer
I started playing AD&D (2nd Edition) as a kid. It's not a great system, but it was all I knew at the time. I ran games for my friends and we didn't pay much attention to the rules. When 3.0 came out, we were excited because Feats looked like a good way to design characters who were, well, heroic -- they could do awesome things according to the rules. Needless to say the early promise of 3e was never fulfilled for me, but I was playing other systems and so I just put D&D on the shelf.

Later, in college, I hauled out my 3e books to try to run a few games. In the intervening years I learned a lot about how rules work and, indeed, that good rules can make a game better and bad rules can make it worse. Rules are the backbone of any RPG and while you can just "house rule" around them, it was usually better to just use a system that did what you wanted it to do. At the time this knowledge was still in its infancy, but picking up 3e after all those years did a lot to rekindle it. I saw a lot of pointless rules (e.g. Profession Skills) and a lot of badly written rules (e.g. Grappling) all of which I tried to deal with on the fly. As a DM this was a burden because I needed to make the game make sense for my Players and the books I had paid for weren't helping. The real shock was when I had to deal with a munchkin who ran a 3.0 mid-level Wizard loaded up with scrolls and such -- he trivialized the adventure until another Wizard fried him to a pulp. I swore off running 3e at that point -- the rules didn't work for my Players, and they sure as hell didn't work for me.

A couple of years after that I was invited into a 3.5 game. I was in the middle of a RPG famine and, while I thought 3.0 was silly (and had the same opinion of 3.5 via the SRD) I figured I'd give it a shot. I rolled in with Twitch, a Human Fighter/Rogue and spent much of the early building time chuckling about the sillier points of 3.5: taking Rogue 1 for the skill points and later Fighter 1 for weapons and such seemed like laughable metagaming to my mind raised on the "Class is Life" that was AD&D; managing skill points and modifiers based on a Take 20 check or for synergies rather than what my character should know. To many veteran 3.x Players I'm sure this seems trivial but as I had been leaning towards the more rules-light games up to then it caused me to approach the whole "character building" in 3.x as an absurd mini-game. Still, it was a great campaign thanks to the RP and storytelling of the DM but towards the end (i.e. mid-level play) my humor turned darker.

This was the game with the novice Player (she had only ever played Diablo before) who decided to play a rather greedy Cleric. It was good fun but she had no idea how to deal with a prepared caster. Well, she liked having pets so I took a crack at the Monster Manual and realized that Celestial Bison were ludicrously good for combat (it was just Twitch, a kobold Sorcerer, a halfling pistol rogue, and the Cleric) and that Celestial Monkies were ideal for trap springing. In fact, Rogues are terrible for trap-springing as most traps target flatfoot AC rather than Reflex and my foot-pad soon took to hauling around a suit of heavy armor in case he was on "trap finding" duty. Having failed as a traditional thief, I had hoped Twitch might still be a good brawler yet as we increasingly faced foes with magic (e.g. Flight and Hold Person) and the undead I began to realize that Twitch didn't stand a chance in these sorts of fights. He was neither Fighter nor Rogue and the Cleric was both.

In the very last sessions of that campaign Twitch spent most of the fights sidelined. In one he was gazed at by an Umber Hulk and simply could not make a Will Save (Fighters and Rogues being awful at such) while in the final one I managed to carve up two minions before getting Held (and saved from being Couped by the mercy of the DM) and later Confused. During this the n00b Cleric was flying around, smiting enemies and basically holding her own against the assembled foes. It made the campaign bittersweet, and yet these moments were not the fault of the DM -- they were the fault of the system. 3.x privileges magic over mundane to such a degree that the most mundane of classes cannot function on the same battlefield as a caster once you hit levels 5-8; indeed, the DM (an experienced fellow) said he would not run a game past LV 8 because he could not handle the power levels.

I had sworn off 3.x at the point (or thought I had -- I later played a heavily homebrewed 3.5 game that was a disaster due to the DM, not the system) and went back to playing other games. Mostly, this meant taking up Indie RPGs like Bliss Stage and Mountain Witch -- games where the rules are simple, clear, and functional. Bliss Stage, for example, purports to be a game of high drama roleplaying and has rules that deliver on that promise. Here I really understood the value of rules not just to create a game, but to create a specific game, with specific gameplay and themes. You saw this to a lesser extent in some of the older systems but usually the core themes and mechanics were obscured and polluted by a crust of "realism" or ancillary concerns that were bolted onto the system for no real reason. Shadowrun, for example, purports to be a game of cloak & dagger intrigue in which high-powered criminals fight a shadow war for powers that be; the mechanics (pre-SR4) are exclusively concerned with killing things and blowing them up. While this experience was revelatory to me, there was not yet an example of this principle of design being applied to any mass-market game.

Then came 4e. Now, I mostly skipped out on the fanfare and I probably would have ignored it were it not for the fact that I was invited to play in a game of it. This was with a new DM who was new to roleplaying in fact, but because it was game, and I rarely turn down a game, I accepted. He passed onto me the 4e Core books and I read them over and delighted. Gone were the clunky wordings of 3.x and instead there was a streamlined system that did what it said. It helped, of course, that Classes were Strong again (a fact I missed from AD&D) but more importantly the various metagame features of 3.x I so disliked were gone. Thieves were good at thieving; Fighters were good at fighting; and everyone could contribute to the battle. The more I read about the rules the more excited I became -- this was a system I could play without constantly clarifying and amending rules; it was a system I could use.

I played the heck out of 4e in the following years -- primarily as a Player but later I got back into my familiar DM's chair and really stretched my wings. I introduced new gamers to RPGs with it, and was able to refine my storytelling abilities while the system basically ran itself. I didn't need to spend hours stating up NPCs (or making a library of them), nor did I need to agonize over the make-up of every Encounter (the rules told me how to do that). When the rules didn't work quite as I liked them I was able to tweak them, yes, but that was the exception and not the rule.

When the Edition Warz broke, I first came in on the side of 4e, defending it against nonsensical complaint such as "it's just like WoW." Over time, I became curious as to why people would cling so fervently to what -- IMHO -- is a strictly inferior system by any measure of mechanical elegance you wish to use. As was once said, the designers of 4e had "done the math" of game design and produced a coherent system that facilitated a party of adventures going into dungeons and slaying dragons. A debater at heart, I engaged in a Socratic inquiry on these forums to better understand the 3.x proponents -- was there something in 3.x I had missed? After lengthy discussions I learned what held the fascination of many 3.x Fans: flavoring aside, they mostly enjoyed the intricacy of multiclassing and feat-chains, not to mention the raw power of certain classes. Neither mechanical complicatedness nor raw power held my fascination, so as the Warz died down, I moved on.

This does not mean I gave up liking 4e, nor believing that it is strictly superior to 3e from a systems perspective. Rather, I felt I had learned all I could about what drove people to continue with 3.x and knew that further questioning was unlikely to give me greater enlightenment. However, there persisted threads in which folks would gather to bash 4e. Mostly, I wouldn't bother to enter those threads unless the OP was asking as to whether they should play 4e or not -- as a fervent supporter of 4e, I think everyone should at least give it a try. There I would do my best to simply refute the false and highlight the good of 4e. Even here, I usually only swoop in when I feel a particularly egregious point is being made regarding 3.x or 4e.
I can't help but wonder whether it is true that "virtually no-one cares" about the Edition Warz when a simple scan through these thread show countless folks decrying the ruin that 4e made of D&D and crowing about the success of Pathfinder and how 5e had better look like it if it has any chance of surviving. I do not dispute that I am still an Edition Warrior -- I believe that WotC introduced a radically new and sorely needed paradigm of Big RPG design with 4e -- but I do wonder whether I am really the only one left around here.

Seerow

2012-05-04, 05:46 PM

I can't help but wonder whether it is true that "virtually no-one cares" about the Edition Warz when a simple scan through these thread show countless folks decrying the ruin that 4e made of D&D and crowing about the success of Pathfinder and how 5e had better look like it if it has any chance of surviving. I do not dispute that I am still an Edition Warrior -- I believe that WotC introduced a radically new and sorely needed paradigm of Big RPG design with 4e -- but I do wonder whether I am really the only one left around here.

I've always been a fence sitter with the edition wars. I personally prefer playing 3e, because I do enjoy the mechanical complexity, but I saw a lot of design goals in 4e I agree with that I really wish had been a core part of 3e. Having 4e style monster design in 3e alone would have made 3e a much more enjoyable experience to me. The healing model (healing surges, healing surge value, and second wind mechanics primarily) I really liked, as well as making sure everyone has level appropriate abilities (even if I may disagree on the specifics of what they determined as level appropriate at higher level)

I like the complexity of 3.5, but I really can't play it without a ton of house rules. At the least I need to do quite a bit of banning, or at least discouraging (ie 'hey guy you probably don't want to play that Monk unless you'd rather be playing your iphone game than actually play D&D with us'). 4e I can play without house rules, and pretty much enjoy it as is (with the exception of some things like skill challenges). I probably wouldn't play 4e outside of the 5-15 range, but that's a wide enough range to cover a solid campaign.

Reverent-One

2012-05-04, 06:38 PM

Saph

2012-05-04, 07:04 PM

The short answer is that there are still 3.x Players trashing 4e on empirically unsupportable grounds.

And lots of 4e players trash 3.x on stupid and prejudiced grounds, too. So what?

{{scrubbed}}

Doorhandle

2012-05-04, 07:46 PM

TLDR: Why not just stop fighting the edition war?

Way I see it, it’s because this is the internet. New people arrive to D&D, to the world wide web, and then to the intersection of such every day, and they may not know about the edition war. Thus the entire thing kicks up again when someone decries the new’s guy’s edition of choice, without realising that battle has already been fought a hundred times.

Not quite a vicious cycle, but nerveless this long-running flame war keeps going because there’s always fuel for the fire.

(Also personally, I prefer pathfinder to 4th ed but I don’t mind 4th either. For one, the mechanical-fluff interplay of the monk works perfectly, and they are now the mobile fist-fighting wuxian they were always meant to be. Also I like the ideas behind some of their classes, like the seeker. It’s just that I wish you could decrease stats in point-buy so that you could take advantage of a race with bonuses in stuff you don’t need and thus play against type. It’s very bad at that.)

kaomera

2012-05-04, 07:54 PM

So, let's take bets: what do you think the chances are that WotC will eventually give up on calling it "D&D Next" and just start calling it 5e as everyone else is already doing? :smallbiggrin:
None. In all likelihood it won't launch as ''Next'', but since they can't call it ''D&D 20XX Core Set'' they will just call it ''Dungeons & Dragons''. Or maybe they'll flip out completely on their obsession with the design of the punctuation and call it ''&mpersand''...

Crow

2012-05-04, 08:22 PM

Oracle, your Shadowrun example is bork.

Cloak and dagger intrigue is supported by the Shadowrun rules just fine. I think in most systems, combat will take up the most rule space, because just like combat IRL, combat is one of the most dynamic events that can take place.

But of course, I would argue that Shadowrun doesn't consider itself a cloak and dagger game how you describe. That is only one aspect of what it can be, and depending on the campaign, even a tiny one. But if you want to run a C&D campaign in SR, it will do so pretty well.

As for 4e, all the classes felt samey to me. Completely subjective. But to use SR as an example (SR3 specifically), mages, deckers, riggers, samurai...they all have some specialized rules, and play quite differently. I like it. Is it easy? No. Is it good game design? I doubt it. But I like it. A lot. At first I thought it was nostalgia, but having recently gone back to playing SR3, I realize that I genuinely enjoy the ruleset.

You can't just tell me that the classes are different. This needs to be supported by the ruleset.

Doorhandle

2012-05-04, 09:11 PM

I'd say that they're more different than what you think, but I agree. They're very short on unique mechanics.

navar100

2012-05-04, 10:18 PM

I tire that not a day goes by where someone doesn't bash 3E complaining about the imbalance of it all, shouting Tiers, and whining about Gate, Natural Spell, and/or Fighters can't fly, or just say "Monk". I don't care for 4E, but I don't feel the necessity to go onto 4E Forums (here and other sites) to complain about it.

When asked I will share my reasons for disliking 4E, but otherwise I ignore 4E stuff. I'm too busy dealing with people who have 3E derangement syndrome.

Talakeal

2012-05-05, 01:27 AM

Lot's of Stuff.

That is a very well thought out post and I can't disagree with anything you said. However, my complaints with 4th edition are purely based on role-playing concerns. If you are directly opposed to a game that simulates a fictional reality and don't care about making a narrative character to fit alongside the mechanical one, and your game revolves around exploring dungeons and killing the monsters within, then yes, 4E is an objectively superior game.
However, that simplistic style of play, and a focus on mechanics over story and RP is, for myself at least, very boring and certainly not the main draw of a game. While 4E does the parts of the game I care least about slightly better, it did so at the cost of the almost complete removal of all the parts of the game I liked best.

Totally Guy

2012-05-05, 02:35 AM

Here I really understood the value of rules not just to create a game, but to create a specific game, with specific gameplay and themes. You saw this to a lesser extent in some of the older systems but usually the core themes and mechanics were obscured and polluted by a crust of "realism" or ancillary concerns that were bolted onto the system for no real reason.

I always like your posts because you get it. I may not enjoy D&D 4th edition but that's because it's designed to create an experience that I am not so interested in. Of course I didn't make a move to learn the above lesson myself until after I was already disheartened and frustrated with the end of the D&D 4th edition campaign I was running.

WitchSlayer

2012-05-05, 02:51 AM

From the last thread:

The short answer is that there are still 3.x Players trashing 4e on empirically unsupportable grounds. No, not you or Kurald Galain (mostly :smalltongue:) but every so often the call of "4e is so much like WoW" or "everything in 4e plays the same" rekindles that old flame. No, I don't post to "prove" anyone wrong, mind you, but rather to keep new players from shying away from 4e for the wrong reasons.

Long Answer
I started playing AD&D (2nd Edition) as a kid. It's not a great system, but it was all I knew at the time. I ran games for my friends and we didn't pay much attention to the rules. When 3.0 came out, we were excited because Feats looked like a good way to design characters who were, well, heroic -- they could do awesome things according to the rules. Needless to say the early promise of 3e was never fulfilled for me, but I was playing other systems and so I just put D&D on the shelf.

Later, in college, I hauled out my 3e books to try to run a few games. In the intervening years I learned a lot about how rules work and, indeed, that good rules can make a game better and bad rules can make it worse. Rules are the backbone of any RPG and while you can just "house rule" around them, it was usually better to just use a system that did what you wanted it to do. At the time this knowledge was still in its infancy, but picking up 3e after all those years did a lot to rekindle it. I saw a lot of pointless rules (e.g. Profession Skills) and a lot of badly written rules (e.g. Grappling) all of which I tried to deal with on the fly. As a DM this was a burden because I needed to make the game make sense for my Players and the books I had paid for weren't helping. The real shock was when I had to deal with a munchkin who ran a 3.0 mid-level Wizard loaded up with scrolls and such -- he trivialized the adventure until another Wizard fried him to a pulp. I swore off running 3e at that point -- the rules didn't work for my Players, and they sure as hell didn't work for me.

A couple of years after that I was invited into a 3.5 game. I was in the middle of a RPG famine and, while I thought 3.0 was silly (and had the same opinion of 3.5 via the SRD) I figured I'd give it a shot. I rolled in with Twitch, a Human Fighter/Rogue and spent much of the early building time chuckling about the sillier points of 3.5: taking Rogue 1 for the skill points and later Fighter 1 for weapons and such seemed like laughable metagaming to my mind raised on the "Class is Life" that was AD&D; managing skill points and modifiers based on a Take 20 check or for synergies rather than what my character should know. To many veteran 3.x Players I'm sure this seems trivial but as I had been leaning towards the more rules-light games up to then it caused me to approach the whole "character building" in 3.x as an absurd mini-game. Still, it was a great campaign thanks to the RP and storytelling of the DM but towards the end (i.e. mid-level play) my humor turned darker.

This was the game with the novice Player (she had only ever played Diablo before) who decided to play a rather greedy Cleric. It was good fun but she had no idea how to deal with a prepared caster. Well, she liked having pets so I took a crack at the Monster Manual and realized that Celestial Bison were ludicrously good for combat (it was just Twitch, a kobold Sorcerer, a halfling pistol rogue, and the Cleric) and that Celestial Monkies were ideal for trap springing. In fact, Rogues are terrible for trap-springing as most traps target flatfoot AC rather than Reflex and my foot-pad soon took to hauling around a suit of heavy armor in case he was on "trap finding" duty. Having failed as a traditional thief, I had hoped Twitch might still be a good brawler yet as we increasingly faced foes with magic (e.g. Flight and Hold Person) and the undead I began to realize that Twitch didn't stand a chance in these sorts of fights. He was neither Fighter nor Rogue and the Cleric was both.

In the very last sessions of that campaign Twitch spent most of the fights sidelined. In one he was gazed at by an Umber Hulk and simply could not make a Will Save (Fighters and Rogues being awful at such) while in the final one I managed to carve up two minions before getting Held (and saved from being Couped by the mercy of the DM) and later Confused. During this the n00b Cleric was flying around, smiting enemies and basically holding her own against the assembled foes. It made the campaign bittersweet, and yet these moments were not the fault of the DM -- they were the fault of the system. 3.x privileges magic over mundane to such a degree that the most mundane of classes cannot function on the same battlefield as a caster once you hit levels 5-8; indeed, the DM (an experienced fellow) said he would not run a game past LV 8 because he could not handle the power levels.

I had sworn off 3.x at the point (or thought I had -- I later played a heavily homebrewed 3.5 game that was a disaster due to the DM, not the system) and went back to playing other games. Mostly, this meant taking up Indie RPGs like Bliss Stage and Mountain Witch -- games where the rules are simple, clear, and functional. Bliss Stage, for example, purports to be a game of high drama roleplaying and has rules that deliver on that promise. Here I really understood the value of rules not just to create a game, but to create a specific game, with specific gameplay and themes. You saw this to a lesser extent in some of the older systems but usually the core themes and mechanics were obscured and polluted by a crust of "realism" or ancillary concerns that were bolted onto the system for no real reason. Shadowrun, for example, purports to be a game of cloak & dagger intrigue in which high-powered criminals fight a shadow war for powers that be; the mechanics (pre-SR4) are exclusively concerned with killing things and blowing them up. While this experience was revelatory to me, there was not yet an example of this principle of design being applied to any mass-market game.

Then came 4e. Now, I mostly skipped out on the fanfare and I probably would have ignored it were it not for the fact that I was invited to play in a game of it. This was with a new DM who was new to roleplaying in fact, but because it was game, and I rarely turn down a game, I accepted. He passed onto me the 4e Core books and I read them over and delighted. Gone were the clunky wordings of 3.x and instead there was a streamlined system that did what it said. It helped, of course, that Classes were Strong again (a fact I missed from AD&D) but more importantly the various metagame features of 3.x I so disliked were gone. Thieves were good at thieving; Fighters were good at fighting; and everyone could contribute to the battle. The more I read about the rules the more excited I became -- this was a system I could play without constantly clarifying and amending rules; it was a system I could use.

I played the heck out of 4e in the following years -- primarily as a Player but later I got back into my familiar DM's chair and really stretched my wings. I introduced new gamers to RPGs with it, and was able to refine my storytelling abilities while the system basically ran itself. I didn't need to spend hours stating up NPCs (or making a library of them), nor did I need to agonize over the make-up of every Encounter (the rules told me how to do that). When the rules didn't work quite as I liked them I was able to tweak them, yes, but that was the exception and not the rule.

When the Edition Warz broke, I first came in on the side of 4e, defending it against nonsensical complaint such as "it's just like WoW." Over time, I became curious as to why people would cling so fervently to what -- IMHO -- is a strictly inferior system by any measure of mechanical elegance you wish to use. As was once said, the designers of 4e had "done the math" of game design and produced a coherent system that facilitated a party of adventures going into dungeons and slaying dragons. A debater at heart, I engaged in a Socratic inquiry on these forums to better understand the 3.x proponents -- was there something in 3.x I had missed? After lengthy discussions I learned what held the fascination of many 3.x Fans: flavoring aside, they mostly enjoyed the intricacy of multiclassing and feat-chains, not to mention the raw power of certain classes. Neither mechanical complicatedness nor raw power held my fascination, so as the Warz died down, I moved on.

This does not mean I gave up liking 4e, nor believing that it is strictly superior to 3e from a systems perspective. Rather, I felt I had learned all I could about what drove people to continue with 3.x and knew that further questioning was unlikely to give me greater enlightenment. However, there persisted threads in which folks would gather to bash 4e. Mostly, I wouldn't bother to enter those threads unless the OP was asking as to whether they should play 4e or not -- as a fervent supporter of 4e, I think everyone should at least give it a try. There I would do my best to simply refute the false and highlight the good of 4e. Even here, I usually only swoop in when I feel a particularly egregious point is being made regarding 3.x or 4e.
I can't help but wonder whether it is true that "virtually no-one cares" about the Edition Warz when a simple scan through these thread show countless folks decrying the ruin that 4e made of D&D and crowing about the success of Pathfinder and how 5e had better look like it if it has any chance of surviving. I do not dispute that I am still an Edition Warrior -- I believe that WotC introduced a radically new and sorely needed paradigm of Big RPG design with 4e -- but I do wonder whether I am really the only one left around here.

Yeah. Edition war... Edition war never changes.

willpell

2012-05-05, 04:52 AM

Long Answer

This forum so needs a "thank" or "+1" button.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 09:01 AM

TLDR: Why not just stop fighting the edition war?

*shrug* Because I'm not fighting an edition war.

(remainder spoiler'd for length)

I play many, many games. I can point to every game I own and name the design flaws it has (at least, the ones I've found so far), and I can discuss the successful elements as well. D&D was not my first game.

However, I meet all sorts of players (in person or online) who somehow equate their fond memories with the systemic integrity of 3.x., as though a criticism of 3.x is somehow a criticism of them or an attempt to retroactively take away their fun.

I really am happy for those folks who don't encounter 3.x's flaws, but their success doesn't make those flaws go away. I'm not attacking D&D3.Saph. I can't take your game away from you. I'm not even going to try. I wouldn't want to. That's yours, and power to you. Have fun in the way best suited to your group and your needs.

And that's what it really comes down to. Meeting needs and wants. Throughout my gaming experiences (both as a personal hobby and as a professional "get paid real money-dollars" career), I've met all sorts of folks who never really understood that you could, in fact, evaluate a system. You could, in fact, evaluate your needs. And you could, in fact, realize that maybe the system and your needs didn't match. And that that was perfectly fine.

I love Exalted. There are people I will not play Exalted with. It's the wrong fit. That doesn't mean I don't want to play something else with them or Exalted with someone else. It doesn't mean I had any less fun with the people I did play it with. And the knowledge that high-end Exalted possesses mechanical flaws doesn't bother us, because it's never been a problem -- but I'm not going to deny the existence of real flaws, and I'm not going to be mad that those are deal breakers for someone else. But I sure am glad I know about them, just in case.

I've also met a great number of folks who were frustrated by a system and couldn't figure out why, because they didn't know what to look for or how to even begin looking or even that they should have been looking. Sometimes, it's good to help folks understand that.

But in a discussion about D&D5e, comparisons to previous editions are a thing that is going to happen. Having a rational discussion about the realities of those systems can be a positive thing. Evaluating positives and negatives of previous systems in an open format is a good thing if 5e really is going to involve player feedback (...it's a big if, but hey, we're all into the fantasy vibe, eh?). Even if 5e isn't going to be influenced by player feedback, people talking about the intricacies of how we play games and how games influence us is a positive thing. It helps us better understand our games. It helps us better express what we want from them. It helps us be better customers, and someday, better game designers of our own. Over the years, I've gained a great deal of my understanding from listening to and talking with other players. So if someone else hears what I have to say and learns something from it, then it's worth saying. And if I listen to what someone else has to say and learn something from it, hey, that's a win in my book.

Do I believe that 4e is a fundamentally better game system than 3.x? Yes. Every time I tried to play 3.x, I ended up unhappy because of the mechanics. I make no secret of that. But rather than just saying, "3.x sucks!" I try to understand why, exactly, I dislike specific mechanics, and what those mechanics were attempting to accomplish. I want to learn what other people like about the mechanics that I dislike, and why. I love game design and all sorts of related subjects. A greater understanding has helped me enjoy my hobby all the more.

Do I believe that no one can have fun with 3.x? Good Lord, no I do not. If you enjoy it, go enjoy it. I'm not going to stop you.

Short version: I enjoy games and I enjoy learning about games. I'm not out to fight anyone. I am out to learn. If others learn from me, that's fine by me. If others feel like I'm attacking their fun, believe me, I'm not. I just want to know why you're having fun and I want to do so in a clear and honest way.

--

Also, Oracle_Hunter? You're a tough act to follow. Very nice post.

Somebloke

2012-05-05, 09:02 AM

Hmmm.

I had issues with 3.5- mostly related to imbalance issues (when I DMed it was almost entirely low-magic campaigns) and overcomplications.

4e fixed everything I hated about it. Unfortunately, it had it's own issues, mostly related to overly long battles and choice paralysis, which I won't bore you with.

Nowadays, if I run d20, I run pathfinder (homebrewed for low magic settings) or Saga- in my mind, the best d20 system would incorporate the class/level/abilities and feat choice system of saga and the action economy/defences/BAB/simplified attack and skill system of 4e. But I doubt I'll see that any time soon.

Right now I'm running Savage Worlds. I'll think I'll stick with this for a while.

Erom

2012-05-05, 09:34 AM

Great post Oracle Hunter. Captures a lot of what I liked (and disliked) about 4e. I wish I could just upvote or +1 or rep you or whatever but since we don't do that here, I'll just leave this post of approval.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 10:40 AM

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 10:56 AM

I really hope this guy isn't part of the drawing team (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120502). :smallsigh:

He just misses the point completely. "I will do what makes more money"

You mean he's concerned about what the audience wants and tries to give it to them. Which is what he should be doing.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:03 AM

You mean he's concerned about what the audience wants and tries to give it to them. Which is what he should be doing.

Then why did he create an article about sexism then? Was he trying to bring attention to the fact that the industry draws women in a degrading fashion (Most of the time)?

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 11:14 AM

Then why did he create an article about sexism then? Was he trying to bring attention to the fact that the industry draws women in a degrading fashion (Most of the time)?

Because he was discussing what sexism is, and how it varies depending on who you ask. Thus leading to his question about what the reader wants to see.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 11:16 AM

I really hope this guy isn't part of the drawing team (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20120502). :smallsigh:

He just misses the point completely. "I will do what makes more money"

Well, yes. It's his job.

D&D isn't in business to be an engine of social change. It makes a product, and if people like that product, they pay money for it. If you do not like that product, then do not pay money for it.

I am not sure why producing a product which appeals to your chosen market is a bad thing. Nor am I sure why making money doing something you enjoy is a bad thing, either.

What, exactly, is he supposed to "get?"

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:18 AM

I really don't get why HE brings it up. I get that its his job. I won't blame him for it. But why bring it up at all? Why write an article about sexism If all he says at the end amounts to "I draw women in degrading outfits because it sells better".

Was he trying to bring attention to that?

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 11:19 AM

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:22 AM

Because he's trying to figure out what the audience wants.

Im sure its pretty freaking obvious. Its a dumb question to ask.

"So do you want your woman drawn in a ridiculous fashion to satisfy your sexual urges?"

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 11:27 AM

Im sure its pretty freaking obvious. Its a dumb question to ask.

"So do you want your woman drawn in a ridiculous fashion to satisfy your sexual urges?"

Except, as he discussed in the article, what is sexist varies. For every complaint about Tisha he gets, there's 10 other people who love her. So he's opening up discussion on a topic to get people's input.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 11:30 AM

Im sure its pretty freaking obvious. Its a dumb question to ask.

"So do you want your woman drawn in a ridiculous fashion to satisfy your sexual urges?"

Drawings do not satisfy urges.

But, given a choice between paying to look at ugly people and paying to look at beautiful people in my fantasy escapism game, then yeah, it's scantily-clad lovely ladies all the way.

Why does he ask? Well, it's a free look inside of their customer base. If there's a sudden and unexpected outpouring of hate for fantasy artwork, then Wizards might change the direction of their art style. You can pay folks to do polls, or you can host your own for no real additional cost. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

If nothing else, it helps contribute to the idea that 5e is actively seeking out player input.

Oh, and it has a tertiary benefit of being a plug for Tisha and that comic thingy. I'm gonna go check that out.

(Behold! Marketing!)

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:32 AM

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 11:36 AM

Nonetheless, getting reading input is a good thing. As he said in the article, they're determining where the lines are drawn and the guidelines they'll follow. They should be talking to the audience about it, rather than simply making all decisions themselves.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:39 AM

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 11:44 AM

It was a stupid question to ask. The chainmail bikini is a staple of negativity aimed at RPGs, even the guy knows about it.

So why the hell is he bringing this up? He knows that its degrading, he knows that its a thing done for sales. Does he honestly expect anybody to say "I want the woman drawn sultry and in degrading poses".

What does he expect as an answer?

There's more than just two extremes. As you said, he knows that there are plenty of people who don't like one extreme, but there's more to the art design than just "not chainmail bikinis and DD cups". What he expects to get is each person's personal opinion, a reasonable thing for someone working on setting the design goals for the new edition to want.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 11:54 AM

Again: What is he expecting as an answer?

"I want my women drawn SOMEWHAT sultry. Like a boob hole. But not THAT sultry".

I get this might be an interesting argument about beauty, our standards as a culture ex.

But why title it "Sexism". Why mention "Its OK that I draw a character that goes into a battlezone with nothing but a bra- People that enjoy her boobage outnumber the haters"

This was just a casual mentioning of everything that happens to him as an artist. I KNOW why he must do it. But why make an article about it that does nothing but mention it?

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 12:02 PM

What he's expecting is a range of opinions, if all he wanted was one specific answer, he wouldn't honestly be getting input, but seeking to validate himself.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 12:15 PM

So what does he expect from that range of answers?

Reverent-One

2012-05-05, 12:32 PM

I can only assume a range like he got, everything from "no sexy" to "some if it makes sense for the character" or "some as long as it's not the entirety of how the gender is depicted". From a mix of body types, attractive and non, to a higher percentage of more attractive individuals to being mostly fantastic. Then there's the entirely separate desires, such as less clean shaven men since it makes more sense to them.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 01:05 PM

SD, here's a question:

What would you have done if you wanted to discuss fantasy artwork with your audience?

And now, here's a few more:

What title would you have used?

What terminology? What definitions?

What information would you have mentioned to help describe your subject?

What would you have asked the audience?

Who is your audience?

What if your audience has different ideas than you do?

What would you have been looking for? What would you have wanted to learn?

Discuss!

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 01:12 PM

What title would you have used?

Well first of all, I would have to ask: What is the point of my article? What do I hope to gain that isn't blatantly obvious already?

What do I plan to change?

Not just bring up this rather obvious thing for no reason that changes nothing.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 01:16 PM

Well first of all, I would have to ask: What is the point of my article? What do I hope to gain that isn't blatantly obvious already?

What do I plan to change?

Not just bring up this rather obvious thing for no reason that changes nothing.

Okay, so this begs the question: What is the point of your article and what do you plan to change?

I'm legitimately asking you: if Wizards of the Coast came to you and said, "SD, we want you to write an article on fantasy artwork," what does that look like?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 01:20 PM

Dienekes

2012-05-05, 01:26 PM

Its very annoying in a way. Its like if Michael bay said:

"So people, do you want me to stop slutting up all my female characters? Just so you know. For every person that complains about the gratuitous ass-shots I shoot I get ten people that say that megan fox was the best part of the movie"

I doubt that the ten people say "I sure love her sultry outfit". Im sure they said something along the lines of "I like her character and personality".

I am sure nearly no one who liked Megan Fox did so for her character and personality, as she had very little and what she did have was insultingly generic. Mostly I figure if folks said anything at all it would be: Damn Megan Fox was so HOOOTTT! Either way it gets the message across.

As to the article, sometimes articles are just set up to explain the creative process. Why something is as it is, is enough reason to write an article. This goes beyond the potential for gathering some information.

Now personally, I think the "sexy" females look pretty stupid. But not nearly as much as the equipment everyone has. It's ridiculous. It looks nothing like armor, and that sword is horrendously unbalanced to the point of uselessness. But I understand that I'm in a minority on that score and so do not expect to see any change on that score in the near future.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 01:31 PM

I would talk about art through the editions. A topic thats a nice nostalgic field trip. How some editions had lower quality art that was better suited and stuff.

Compare monster drawings (Maybe the invisible stalker?). Talk about the importance of art in DnD

Okay. That's a fair topic. Exploring the changes over time within the hobby is fun and has an appeal for followers of any edition.

What if they want you to write an article about the future? What would that look like?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 01:38 PM

What if they want you to write an article about the future? What would that look like?

Id ask them: WHY! You force me to draw cheesecake. Don't make me bring attention to it!

If I had free reign, I would implement a policy of no cheesecake. I mean, yes we all want to draw beautiful men and women. But stripper wear is a different issue altogether.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 02:01 PM

Id ask them: WHY! You force me to draw cheesecake. Don't make me bring attention to it!

If I had free reign, I would implement a policy of no cheesecake. I mean, yes we all want to draw beautiful men and women. But stripper wear is a different issue altogether.

That's not what I asked. I asked what you would write about regarding the future of fantasy artwork.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 02:06 PM

That's not what I asked. I asked what you would write about regarding the future of fantasy artwork.

Im not sure there is anything to say without infringing on Hasbro.

I would talk about removing cheesecake, making it more genderally and racialy balanced (where appropriate)...Thats it really.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-05, 02:23 PM

Im not sure there is anything to say without infringing on Hasbro.

I would talk about removing cheesecake, making it more genderally and racialy balanced (where appropriate)...Thats it really.

Okay. And why would you write those things?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-05, 02:28 PM

Okay. And why would you write those things?

I honestly don't know. There isn't much to write about art unless there is a major change underway. I can make a really generic article, but I just wouldn't write one about the future period.

ATEKazul

2012-05-05, 11:51 PM

I was wondering if anybody had in one of this topics versions made a post that brought up the main divergences that are discussed as liked or disliked in these edition wars and broken them down into their components while comparing them with their equivilents in the other editions?

Has anybody made any lists like this or is it not even possible?

If this could be done I think it could contribute to this discussion by a large margin.

Also don't ask me to do it I mostly collect the books for the story stuff and can't make much heads or tails of the rules.

Yora

2012-05-06, 04:38 AM

On the Enworld forums, there are a number of threads which discuss what rules from each edition were really good and should be retained, and which ones were problematic and should be replaced with something new. They are all titled "The Indispensible 3e" and something like that.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-06, 08:20 AM

On the sexism article: I read it myself when it went up a few days ago, and the author made a point that I think Scowling Dragon is missing.

It's possible to be attractive without being degrading.

Following this, I don't really think showing unrealistically attractive women (keeping in mind that males in art are similarly idealized just as often), by itself, is sexist or degrading. What makes a piece of fantasy art (as relevant to D&D) sexist and degrading? Here are some possible examples:

1. Always showing the female as the one in trouble and needing to be rescued or protected by her male teammates.

2. Having the female characters stand back while the males take care of the dirty work of getting up close and personal with the monsters. At best, the females get to heal or blast with spells from a distance.

3. When showing wounded characters, always showing injured males, never females.

All three of these examples are sexist because they serve to portray the idea that women are frail and delicate and need men to protect them. And notice precisely zero of them require the female to be wearing three band-aids in the process. It's clear that making the females butch and ugly won't solve the problem, so what will?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 08:41 AM

On the sexism article: I read it myself when it went up a few days ago, and the author made a point that I think Scowling Dragon is missing.

I didn't miss the point. I get it. People want to see pretty women/ men. I was just questioning the necessity of bringing up that his character was essentially wearing a leather bikini (Any armor that exists to deflect blows from the breast into the stomach is not armor but a fashion statement).

Also I got this (http://theuniblog.evilspacerobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/shortpacked-2011-12-02-sexy.png)

Fatebreaker

2012-05-06, 08:46 AM

On the sexism article: I read it myself when it went up a few days ago, and the author made a point that I think Scowling Dragon is missing.

It's possible to be attractive without being degrading.

I very much agree with this. I've met plenty of strong women who enjoyed fantasy games and fantasy artwork and who never felt degraded. And it's really hard to take the "attractive = degrading" argument seriously when a beautiful, spunky, and very independent woman is enjoying the pretty pictures just as much as you are.

To me, the most important thing about art (in a game) is the fusion of Do I like it? and How does it make me feel about the game?

I'm looking to play a game of escapism and fantasy fulfillment. That's why I'm playing a game that involves magic, or colossal death robots, or dragons, or starships, or whatever it is that's caught my interest -- if I want to play a game about ugly people doing normal things, well, they made a game for that. We call it real life.

If you fill your game with ugly girls, you may pat yourself on the back for defying convention, but you are encouraging me not to play your game. I can see ugly people anytime I want to. For free.

But if you put some hot chicks with lasers in your game, I will pay you real money-dollars to forget about the fact that I have to pay taxes.

Eric Tolle

2012-05-06, 12:31 PM

I think that attractive vs unattractive is a false dichotomy that is a diversion from the real issue of sexism, which is outfits and posing. Impractical "sexy" outfits and ridiculous"thrust put the ass and boobs" poses are more of a problem imo, especially when there's a clear difference in what men and women are wearing. For example the iconic Pathfinder sorceress is wearing an outfit that needs double sided tape to stay on, but the male magic users are covered chin to feet with heavy robes. Impractical outfits are a bad idea, especially when they show clear gender bias. Seriously, if the sorceress is dressed like a stripper, why aren't the men dressed like Chippendales or the cover of a romance novel?

Personally I want female and male characters both wearing practical clothing appropriate to the situation. That means no armor with boob windows, and if a character is described wearing armor, a leather bikini won't cut it, especially since in my experience players don't describe their characters in such embarrassing outfits. Also it means drawing female characters in poses that look appropriate to the action, not in a "look at my cleavage and as"pose- 4E cover I'm looking at YOU.

These changes are ones that won't detract from the art and excitement value of the product. D&D has already made strides in getting more racial diversity, so I don't regard this as an impossible task.

Lord_Gareth

2012-05-06, 12:43 PM

To be fair, there are sometimes excuses for boob windows. Most of these excuses revolve around magic, but such is life (favorite example: made a character in Shadowrun with an enchanted section of her suit that reflected bullets. The field was over her boob window. Hilarity ensued).

Eric Tolle

2012-05-06, 12:48 PM

If you had been playing a male character, would the window have been over his crotch?

Lord_Gareth

2012-05-06, 12:55 PM

If you had been playing a male character, would the window have been over his crotch?

Well, the guy who did it with his male character (after seeing the success rate of mine) did it over his upper torso for the same reason I did it with boob window; to expose the heart.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 01:06 PM

Eric Tolle

2012-05-06, 01:37 PM

I recall one guy on a forum objecting to that strip because it made Batman "a freak". Thus without realizing it, pretty much making the artist's point.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 01:56 PM

I recall one guy on a forum objecting to that strip because it made Batman "a freak". Thus without realizing it, pretty much making the artist's point.

It has to do with sexuality:

If I was a Muscle bound guy in a barbarian outfit I would go "HECK YEAH!" and the chicks would be just a bonus.

But THAT image is drawn from a purely sexual standpoint. It would make me feel uncomfortable.

Eric Tolle

2012-05-06, 02:08 PM

Which is what female comic readers (or in our case female gamers) have to put up with constantly. Except it's worse for female readers because they get depictions of Wonder Woman impossibly twisted around to show both her ass and her cleavage.

But at least people are calling artists on that now, and there's at least the start of a dialogue on sexist imagery. And at least rpgs are better than comics in this respect...not that that that's saying much, given how comics these days are basically tracing porn.

Seerow

2012-05-06, 02:13 PM

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 02:18 PM

So I guess all the anime/manga and such is incredibly sexist?

Im sure that it was reference to the hyper creepy ultra feminine male looking fellows drawn in some manga and anime.

Sith_Happens

2012-05-06, 02:35 PM

If I was a Muscle bound guy in a barbarian outfit I would go "HECK YEAH!" and the chicks would be just a bonus.

Of course, this brings up an important question, namely, how many women have that same attitude? Or, to put it differently, how many women would choose to look approximately like a typical comic-book or sword-and-sorcery if they could? Probably less so than the number of males who would, but probably not an insignificant number either. Which itself leads to the obvious question, why the difference (assuming there is one)?

Really, it seems like most of the arguments/controversies about character art are only possible because most people have so heavily internalized the double standard regarding how male vs. female "flaunting" is viewed. THAT'S the real issue that people should be talking about*.

*Preferably on other threads, because this one's gone way far off the rails.:smalltongue:

DefKab

2012-05-06, 02:47 PM

Personally, if I open a copy of 5th edition, and it's packed cover to cover with images of scantily clad women, and impeccably muscled men, I would be okay with it, because I'm positive that NO where in the rules does it say "Female players will buy armor for cheaper than males, because they use less material." Never has a fantasy game made someone design their character after a particular image. When players do design their characters, their clothing is always in league with the personality. Yes, some female fighters are overtly sexy, but explained away as such. Some are more rigorously clothed, and also explained as to why... However, I've NEVER met a player that made an obese woman his/her avatar. Never... Is that sexist? Maybe. Prejudicial, definitely so. But is it wrong to do so?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 02:54 PM

Of course, this brings up an important question, namely, how many women have that same attitude?

Its not the same comparison.

Boobholes in armor is not the same thing as being ultra buff.

Im sure some women want to be ultra buff, but Im sure no woman wants to be a slutty boob exposed character with only a leather bra bikini in a warzone nearby buff men dressed in practical clothing.

Seerow

2012-05-06, 02:58 PM

Its not the same comparison.

Boobholes in armor is not the same thing as being ultra buff.

Im sure some women want to be ultra buff, but Im sure no woman wants to be a slutty boob exposed character with only a leather bra bikini in a warzone nearby buff men dressed in practical clothing.

As opposed to men who are never depicted doing anything of the sort...

http://images.wikia.com/heman/images/5/53/He-man02.jpg

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 03:01 PM

As opposed to men who are never depicted doing anything of the sort...

http://images.wikia.com/heman/images/5/53/He-man02.jpg

Again, Unfair comparison. Because hes drawn that way for power fantasy reasons and not sexual ones.

Men kinda have that advantage over women in the sense that there are allot more ways women can be sexualized in art.

A guy not in a shirt is not the same thing as boobhole macchainbikini

Seerow

2012-05-06, 03:09 PM

Again, Unfair comparison. Because hes drawn that way for power fantasy reasons and not sexual ones.

Men kinda have that advantage over women in the sense that there are allot more ways women can be sexualized in art.

A guy not in a shirt is not the same thing as boobhole macchainbikini

So a guy in his underwear slaughtering enemies is a power trip, a woman doing the same thing is sexualization.

You really don't see the double standard there? The sexism isn't in the art, it's in the double standards people hold towards it because of their own sexist perceptions.

I mean really every argument I've seen has boiled down to "it's only sexist when it involves women"

Edit: Oh man imagine if Beowulf had been a woman instead? "Yeah she's a great strong female character... but she literally strips naked to fight Grendel, that's so sexist."

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-06, 03:27 PM

BECAUSE ITS DRAWN FOR THE SPECIFIC PERPOUS OF TITALIATION!

If beowulf was a very buff naked lady for whatever reason here, then its not sexist.

If she was drawn naked for the express perpous of sexualization (With a thin feminine physique because buff women aren't as sexy) then thats a different story.

Why aren't woman drawn buff? As in not "Pretty" buff but as in the buff like men.

Because it doesn't titalate.

Ping Pong Along

2012-05-06, 03:31 PM

My personal opinion is we should go for realism whenever possible. While that's not quite possible because magic was never real (or was it?...duh, duh, DUH!), we should look at various cultures to make costuming make sense. The boob window could work as ceremonial clothing. Something like that. The culture could even be a male-dominated patriarchal society. By acknowledging this, you can begin to make deeper statements of the world and characters. But that's probably way too much for most people.

Talakeal

2012-05-06, 03:33 PM

I think Shortpacked did a really good strip about this issue:

http://theuniblog.evilspacerobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/shortpacked-2011-12-02-sexy.png

And personally I think its right. I do get that feeling of uncomfortability when males are drawn like that.

The whole thing is a totally sexist double standard.

People complain about women in fantasy, comics, and comics wearing little clothing, but:

Conan wears less than Red Sonja.
HE-man wears less than She-ra.
The Hulk wears less than She-Hulk.
Aqua-Man wears less than Wonder Woman.
The Rock wears less than Ivy
Speaking of pro wrestling most male wrestlers wear nothing but a pair of tights scarcely bigger than a speedo while women wear what amounts to a one piece singlet).
Beowulf wears less than, well, any female character in all of fantasy.

Honestly the reason most "chain mail bikinis" look so impractical is because the artist wants to show a lot of skin, but still has to cover the female chest to keep the art descent, a problem they don't have with men. Still doesn't explain Hennet's belt armor in the 3.0 phb though.

Also, people complain that women about how over sexualized the proportions of women are. But it is much much worse for men. I remember playing Resident Evil 5 and looking at Chris' muscles and thinking to myself "My god, he has been hitting some hard core steroids between Code Veronica and now. You know, if Jill and Sheva's breasts were as over developed as Chris' muscles they would need a wheelbarrow to escape the zombies."

And yes, as that comic is saying, this is because it is a stereotypical fantasy. Well, two things:

First, the stereotypical feminine woman has a small waist, large hips, large bust. The stereotypical manly man has huge muscles, small hips, broad shoulders. This is not a conscious decision on the part of the artist, this is just how our culture and biology view the ideal male and female forms, they are different and have different ideals.

Second: Just because it is a fantasy which appeals to males does NOT NOT NOT mean it is sexism.
My god, if everything that was meant to appeal to a certain demographic was racist that would be insane. Gi joe, transformers, hot wheels, and he man are sexist because they are made to appeal to boys! Barbie, My Little Pony, Rainbow Bright, and Strawberry shortcake is sexist because they are made to appeal to girls!
Virtually every media, from commercials to serious journalism and literature are all intended towards a certain demographic. If that is sexist (or any other sort of discrimination) then all of human society is horribly offensive.

Also, it is simply impossible for a female to be a muscular as a stereotypical male warrior. There simply isn't enough testosterone in their body to achieve that level of muscle mass no matter how much they work out. And these are the same people complaining about "Realism" in armor.

KnightDisciple

2012-05-06, 03:36 PM

First, for good female fantasy art: Weomen Fighters in Reasonable Armor. (http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/)

Second, Seerow: OK, how about this. He-Man is a franchise/show/comic/story/etc made by males for males. It's not a strong leap to say that the intent is for fans to imagine themselves as He-Man, which is to say "a male in incredible shape with phenomenal physical power, able to show off his powerful physique, with loyal followers and a scantily-clad girlfriend".
In the same way, many superheroes (and this admission pains me as a long-time fan of comics) are meant to be characters the fans (again, mostly male) "inhabit" in their fantasies, while the female characters are clearly designed, posted, drawn, shaded, and colored to be taken/possessed in the fantasy of those same male fans. That's why you have horribly impractical superheroine costumes while the males are covered totally from the neck down, or perhaps only expose their arms. No that's not a total sampling. And in some ways it's getting better.

But it seems odd to deny it's a thing that happens, and that it's not good in any way for the genre.

To put this another way, I shouldn't feel awkward or ashamed if someone looks over my shoulder at the comic book, at least not for the costumes of the people within it (unfounded prejudice of comics as a "kid thing" is a different discussion entirely). I shouldn't feel like I'm reading something 1-2 steps away from a mature magazine as the females trot about in skimpy, super-duper form-fitting outfits that are improbably cut. Outfits that make it hard for girls to comfortably cosplay or Halloween costume as these characters.

There's nothing wrong with attractive females in fantasy art. There is something wrong with blatantly objectifying them, both in patently ridiculous body proportions (that tiefling in the article is absurdly, ah, shaped), and in patently ridiculous pieces of clothing (PF sorc, the tiefling, others who might as well be taping everything on, because those laces don't look like they'd hold anything on). As well as in making them less capable (though Pathfinder at least is not as guilty of this).

thegurullamen

2012-05-06, 03:41 PM

So a guy in his underwear slaughtering enemies is a power trip, a woman doing the same thing is sexualization.

You really don't see the double standard there? The sexism isn't in the art, it's in the double standards people hold towards it because of their own sexist perceptions.

There is the part where it's a pre-existing archetype. Show a man in a loincloth with an axe and leather boots to a group of men and their first thoughts aren't "Sex model!" They'd be more along the lines of Conan, D&D barbarian, prog rock cover, He-man, primitive warrior or the like with sex appeal taking a very low placing, if it shows up at all. Same type of outfit, but for a woman instead will have sex appeal in the top three guaranteed. Why? The idea of a half-naked viking woman isn't as ingrained in the fantasy zeitgeist, except as cheesecake/titillation. Shamefully, women's place in fantasy literature, movies, gaming, etc. is still largely oriented around sex appeal--just look at the ratios of fully clothed/properly armored men versus the women. Huge slant there. That slant undermines the supposed equivalency here--the artist's intent might have been to make a viking warrior woman in line with the male archetype, but because of everything else going on around depictions of females in gaming/fantasy, the intent isn't as relevant as the baggage the image will have with it. Fantasy depictions of women are going to have to work out that baggage before images of half-clad women are ever going to be considered the same as Conan-style men.

Seerow

2012-05-06, 03:48 PM

To put this another way, I shouldn't feel awkward or ashamed if someone looks over my shoulder at the comic book, at least not for the costumes of the people within it (unfounded prejudice of comics as a "kid thing" is a different discussion entirely). I shouldn't feel like I'm reading something 1-2 steps away from a mature magazine as the females trot about in skimpy, super-duper form-fitting outfits that are improbably cut. Outfits that make it hard for girls to comfortably cosplay or Halloween costume as these characters.

So you would be comfortable cosplaying as He Man? You wouldn't be embarassed if someone saw you watching a couple of nearly naked sweaty guys fight on screen? Why is it that skimpy/practically not-there clothing for men is totally acceptable, but women wearing similar clothing (often more as Talakeal points out) is bad? It's a double standard created by sexist people who subconsciously believe that women should not show off their bodies, as it demeans them, while men are encouraged to show off their own.

Now I wouldn't mind seeing more fantasy art with women in full plate, decent dresses, etc. But I also would very much prefer the men in fantasy art to be dressed appropriately. My entire point is that both men and women are equally being displayed in their skin, but people have their own innate prejudices that immediately say nude women = bad, nude men = good. A half naked woman is considered sexualized only because society refuses to accept a woman can wear less clothing without being a sexual object. That is the source of the sexism, not art that if anything is far more egalitarian than society.

*snip*

If that is sexist (or any other sort of discrimination) then all of human society is horribly offensive.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, Talakeal but that last part... there is an argument that could be made there. Something about the way the human mind works lends itself towards stereotyping. It's all pretty much done on the subconscious level to the point that even the most radical egalitarians have their prejudices. I wouldn't consider it too far of a stretch to say that the entire world can be a very offensive place for anyone looking close enough to care about the stereotypes presented often without even thinking about it.

But that's getting pretty far afield from the topic, and probably skirting board rules of serious discussion, so I'm gonna drop it at that.

Eric Tolle

2012-05-06, 03:54 PM

Again it's not a double standard when the depictions themselves have different goals- power fantasy vs. sexual fantasy, and when there's differences in the power projection. That is, the posture and attitude is as important as actual outfits. Consider the cover of the 4E players handbook; the mage is depicted with her ass and her breasts thrust out in a purely impractical pose. Both the characters on that cover are depicted in a way that satisfies the male gaze- power fantasy and sexual fantasy.

Nobody is saying they don't want attractive characters- the issue is a more subtle on.e of male gaze and portrayal vs. inclusiveness. Is the art going to be by men for sexist men, our is there going to be at least some effort towards bringing in female gamers?

Talakeal

2012-05-06, 04:04 PM

Another two observations / questions on the subject:

1: How do people define "possess" in regards to women? Is it being in any relationship? I would, for example, love to be in a relationship with Cat Woman, but I can't for a second imagine that I would possess her in any way, she would be in control all the time in just about every aspect of a relationship, she is even dominant over the goddamn batman!

2: What do you think of the film Batman and Robin? This movie was directed by a homosexual man, and has plenty of sexualization of batman and robin, including giving them nipples and frequent gratuitous butt shots. Their suits are covered with layers of rubber muscles, and many of the extras are muscular men in speedos. One of the main plot pots of the movie is that both men are stupid and easily manipulated by poison ivy, and require the female bat girl (who does not have rubber nipples) to snap them out of it.

holywhippet

2012-05-06, 06:49 PM

From the last thread:

When the Edition Warz broke, I first came in on the side of 4e, defending it against nonsensical complaint such as "it's just like WoW." Over time, I became curious as to why people would cling so fervently to what -- IMHO -- is a strictly inferior system by any measure of mechanical elegance you wish to use. As was once said, the designers of 4e had "done the math" of game design and produced a coherent system that facilitated a party of adventures going into dungeons and slaying dragons. A debater at heart, I engaged in a Socratic inquiry on these forums to better understand the 3.x proponents -- was there something in 3.x I had missed? After lengthy discussions I learned what held the fascination of many 3.x Fans: flavoring aside, they mostly enjoyed the intricacy of multiclassing and feat-chains, not to mention the raw power of certain classes. Neither mechanical complicatedness nor raw power held my fascination, so as the Warz died down, I moved on.

On a similar note, one of the things that I felt was a letdown in 4E was the magical items. In 2nd and 3rd edition you could go to the magical items section of a book (or a magical items book) and start drooling as you found all sorts of items you'd love to get hold of and think about how you could use them.

In 4E for the first campaign I played the DM gave us one free starting magical item - it just had to be 4th level or lower IIRC. I spent a fair amount of time searching my books. I wasn't looking to decide which one I wanted, I was trying to find one I would actually want. Most of them were so limited, weak or so use specific that I just wasn't interested in them.

Ironvyper

2012-05-06, 08:32 PM

I am sure nearly no one who liked Megan Fox did so for her character and personality, as she had very little and what she did have was insultingly generic. Mostly I figure if folks said anything at all it would be: Damn Megan Fox was so HOOOTTT! Either way it gets the message across.

As to the article, sometimes articles are just set up to explain the creative process. Why something is as it is, is enough reason to write an article. This goes beyond the potential for gathering some information.

Now personally, I think the "sexy" females look pretty stupid. But not nearly as much as the equipment everyone has. It's ridiculous. It looks nothing like armor, and that sword is horrendously unbalanced to the point of uselessness. But I understand that I'm in a minority on that score and so do not expect to see any change on that score in the near future.

This forum needs a +1 button.

Except that I like sexy females in my fantasy. Its fantasy for christs sake. If you fill it with ugly people it becomes reality. And getting away from that is exactly the point of the game.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-06, 09:06 PM

Weomen Fighters in Reasonable Armor. (http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/)

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2itpnFoaj1rty7tao1_500.jpg

Look at the way the metal armor is molded to fit around her breasts! It's so unrealistic! Seeeeexiiiiiiiiist.....

kaomera

2012-05-06, 09:14 PM

On a similar note, one of the things that I felt was a letdown in 4E was the magical items. In 2nd and 3rd edition you could go to the magical items section of a book (or a magical items book) and start drooling as you found all sorts of items you'd love to get hold of and think about how you could use them.
By 3e a number of players had the idea (which is at least partially supported by the rules) that the ''magic-mart'' experience was the default assumption in D&D. They were not just looking at the magic items in the book, they were having their characters go out and buy (or create or trade in other items for) just the ones they wanted. 3.x handled this, just not to the satisfaction of every player / DM. I've had to sit through (and even participate in, in some cases) a number of arguments about magic item balance and/or capabilities. I've seen quite a few players who would take it very personally if they were not allowed to have exactly the magic item they wanted.

With 4e they had to make a decision: if they wanted the system to be robustly balanced they had to either embrace this concept or else make it clear that it was not a core concept in 4e. With the ability to pick and choose magic items well-entrenched in 4e they then had to make sure that none of the items were particularly powerful... And of course there were still balance problems with the system...

How magic items were handled was one of the biggest disappointments I had with 4e. It had been announced, ahead of the launch, that they were moving away from enhancement bonuses or whatever being an integral part of ''the math''; I thought some of what I saw suggested that we would see such purely mechanical bonuses done away with entirely. Unfortunately (for me, at least) it didn't pan out that way - and the later attempts to do away with magic items in favor of just handing out the bonuses I just found to be unsatisfactory.

I think that, in the end, 4e was trying to fix a lot of things that were at least in part an ''issue'' with the players / DM. Not that one side or the other was right (totally lying here, the DM is always right), but if they were not in agreement on how things should be going then the system really wasn't going to change that. Hopefully Next will not fall into the same trap. (Someone should maybe buy the designers a ten-foot pole.)

Dienekes

2012-05-06, 09:31 PM

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2itpnFoaj1rty7tao1_500.jpg

Look at the way the metal armor is molded to fit around her breasts! It's so unrealistic! Seeeeexiiiiiiiiist.....

And to be honest, the sexism doesn't bother me. The fact that having armor designed that way would cause all the pressure from a blow to the breasts to go directly into into the wearer's chest as well as deflect the sword inward instead of away from the body as good armor is supposed to does. And that sword, it's three times as wide as it has any right to be.

And honestly, I'm a completely amateur novice when it comes to recognizes flaws in weapons and armor. It should take 0 effort to actually learn the most basic details of how this stuff works.

Now the black and white chick wearing mail looks perfect. And the fifth one down looks decent, but that sword with parrying hook-bumps annoys me because they serve no purpose.

MukkTB

2012-05-06, 10:18 PM

Last female NPC I dealt with was evil. We didn't really worry about whether her breasts were showing or not. We were too busy trying to figure out if she was telling the truth about the evil plan after we captured her.

Acanous

2012-05-06, 11:33 PM

So you would be comfortable cosplaying as He Man? You wouldn't be embarassed if someone saw you watching a couple of nearly naked sweaty guys fight on screen? Why is it that skimpy/practically not-there clothing for men is totally acceptable, but women wearing similar clothing (often more as Talakeal points out) is bad? It's a double standard created by sexist people who subconsciously believe that women should not show off their bodies, as it demeans them, while men are encouraged to show off their own.

Reply in spoiler so as not to derail.

Men aren't encouraged to show off their bodies, they are explicitly told there is nothing sexually attractive about the male form, and that it doesn't matter if they go without a shirt, so long as they are not *Un* atractive.
Therin, it is embarassing for a man to go around shirtless, unless he is thin and well muscled, in which case it simply doesn't matter. If a woman were to do the same thing, it would be a statement of sexuality.

Assume the case of a topless beach. Men who go there aren't going there to show off, they're going to see the women show off. This IS a double standard, and a pretty horrible one. Men have very specific, extremely hard to attain standards for what is "Sexy". Most notably you're going to have to be tall, broad shouldered, with a firm behind and a six pack.

Name one superhero that doesn't have a firm behind and a six pack, or who'se costume covers both.

Women can be sexualized pretty much no matter the body type, because society tells us that Women are Sexy. There's something sexually attractive in any woman, just by virtue of her being born the fairer gender.

For example, you have Power Girl, who is the biggest slice of cheesecake I can think of. She's got the wasp thin waist, large bust and hips, with clinging clothing. She's one steriotype. Then there's X-23, who is more muscular, thinner and more waifish, smaller bust, different skin is shown off. Then there's She-Hulk, who is more muscular than any of the female bodybuilders I've seen, but she's STILL sexy.

So women can be sexy while thin, curvy, or muscular. Short, medium, or tall.
Blonde, Brunette, or green-haired, it doesn't matter.

Even the nerd-girl type (Short, thin, pale, small-chested) has a sexualized following.

Just by virtue of them being women who are not obese, they are sexy.

The same is very much untrue for men. We're just told to shut up and take it like a man, because life's not fair.

As far as 5th Ed goes, has there been any news on what they mean about the "Modular" aspect of the game? I've been hoping they aren't simply talking about releasing core rules and a succession of splatbooks ("Moduals") that you can choose to use or not, but that's the impression I keep getting.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-07, 04:13 AM

As far as 5th Ed goes, has there been any news on what they mean about the "Modular" aspect of the game? I've been hoping they aren't simply talking about releasing core rules and a succession of splatbooks ("Moduals") that you can choose to use or not, but that's the impression I keep getting.

Alright, wall of text ahead. Please keep in mind that much of this is based on speculation, and could be horribly, horribly wrong.

The impression I'm getting is that most of the stuff will be in the core books, with the exception of the relatively rarely-used stuff like mass combat rules.

If I had to model their particular approach, I'd do it like this:

Players
|
V
Mechanics
|
V
Bare Bones
|
V
(Modules)

(I say "Bare Bones" because "Core" implies that the optional modules won't be available at launch, which doesn't seem to be the case.)

The idea is the central game mechanics (attack rolls, the action economy, ability checks, etc.) make calls only to the bare bones, to which the bare bones responds either with a default answer OR with an answer provided by a module, should the DM choose to use one.

For example, how skills work: All checks the player makes are actually ability score checks, with a "skill" being a situational bonus to this ability check. So a "bare bones" character sheet might look like this:

18 STR
10 CON
10 DEX
8 INT
11 WIS
14 CHA

The game mechanics described in the PHB state that, for example, attempting to get the subject to believe a lie (bluff), is a Charisma check, so the character has a 14 to use for charisma checks.

However, if the DM is using the skills module, the skills module contains an extra rule that "Whenever the player attempts to get someone to believe a lie, they add their Bluff skill to their Charisma for the purposes of that check."

So a character sheet using the skills module with, let's say a +5 bonus to Bluff, might look like this:

18 STR
10 CON
10 DEX
8 INT
11 WIS
14 CHA (+5 when attempting to bluff)

So this character has a 14 on their checks for Intimidate attempts, but a 19 on their checks for Bluff attempts. The key idea behind modules is that the main system doesn't reference skills, it only ever references the ability scores.

If you know how Object-Oriented programming works, an easier way to describe this is that modules encapsulate the optional game mechanics, so the main body of the program (the core system) can use data returned by functions (modules) without having to worry about the exact nature (or side effects) of what that function is actually doing.

Furthermore, this encapsulation structure is recursive: Modules can have sub-modules which can have sub-sub-modules. For example, the default way skill selection works within the skill module is that the character gets the background associated with their class, which comes with a bundle of skills. OR, at the DM's discretion they can choose a background that fits their character (2E style), OR they can make their own background with skill points (3E style). (Well, skill points are speculation: We know that building your own background will be possible, but we don't yet know exactly how background construction will work. Still, including skill points as at least a sub-module for background creation to appeal to 3E-lovers sounds plausible enough.)

--------

My big concern with all of this is how they'll balance this all out on the monster design end of the spectrum: A character who has feats (a module confirmed to be in the core book) is strictly superior to a character without feats. How do you design a monster that both the group WITH feats and the group without them can handle? I can think of a few answers but none of them sound like attractive options.

Doorhandle

2012-05-07, 05:46 AM

I hope they do what legend does and use the same system for both players and monsters.

Granted, it COULD lead to taking "levels in beholder..."

As for the feats things, I... don't have great faith in that, but neverless maybe making one version of a monster with and without feats would work? I dunno.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-07, 05:53 AM

Actually I like the idea of characters being built EXACTLY the same as monsters.

I just hope its a bit more clever and vertisile than in legends.

Because in legends in order to achieve balance lots of monster uniqueness was stripped away.

Size became inconsequential, and lots of type specific abilities and immunities where gone to ensure balance.

I want balance, but not by stripping things away.

I hope they do this thing that some racial things (Like undead) would either come with lots of penalties to make up for the large power boosts (Like in return for my undead immunities I get lower HP, and easier to mind control and get a penalty to my ability scores) or automaticaly counts for more (So taking a level in Undead is actually worth 4 levels in return for all the immunities)

bokodasu

2012-05-07, 07:50 AM

My big concern with all of this is how they'll balance this all out on the monster design end of the spectrum: A character who has feats (a module confirmed to be in the core book) is strictly superior to a character without feats. How do you design a monster that both the group WITH feats and the group without them can handle? I can think of a few answers but none of them sound like attractive options.

There are two ways I can see it going - the first would have your base monster, with power options. So at green, which everybody gets, you've got your stats and maybe a grapple attack or something, then at yellow its stinger does poison damage, and at red level it's incorporeal. Or whatever. That could be pretty cool, if done well. The second would be to group monsters - so you could use "green" monsters for any group, "yellow" ones for groups who use the theme/background packages, or "red" monsters for all out optimizers. This would be less good, I think.

But if you compare it to the 3.5 CR system - I'm running two groups through the same campaign. One is very powergamey, reading charop boards, scouring books for an extra +1 to this or supercombo for that. I give them encounters that are about 2-4 levels above what the math says they should be handling, and it takes them about 4 before they need to rest. The other group is a combination of newbies and people who still miss 1e, who just play when they play and don't think about it any other time. I give them encounters at or slightly below their level, and they need to rest after 2 or 3. And this is all stuff I've had to figure out on my own; some guidelines that take into account relative power level based on playstyle would be pretty handy.

navar100

2012-05-07, 08:04 AM

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-07, 08:06 AM

As for the feats things, I... don't have great faith in that, but neverless maybe making one version of a monster with and without feats would work? I dunno.

This was one of the unattractive solutions I had in mind. A few reasons why I find it suboptimal:

1. When you want to balance a monster by including different parts used with different modules, you don't have to just balance one monster, you have to balance every possible module combination. Unless the number of modules is very small, this is an insane amount of work. And if you don't do it, then you inevitably get the types of situations where there's monsters who are, say, reasonable without Module X but once you apply Module X they become walking TPKs just ready to happen. I can totally see a situation where an otherwise fun and challenging monster gets completely neutered when you take its feats away.

2. What if they want to add new modules that change how players/monsters work? Like, say, 4E-style themes (obviously they'll have to be called something else)? Do you update the old monsters to work with this new module?

3. So this one's a more minor complaint, but the best way to display monster information is to have everything in one place. However, if you have monsters where stuff only applies depending on what modules are in place, you have worthless bloat when those modules AREN'T in place (of course they could just completely disregard the players who want to leave some subsystems out, but that kinda misses the whole point of this "bring everyone together" theme). And if you separate the information, it just leaves you with having to flip back and forth. Though I guess that would be a great push for DDI tools...

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-07, 08:10 AM

Too often people equate "balance" as low power, low optimization so they take away the nifty stuff because players doing "powerful" stuff is broken. When balance is understood as different characters having equivalent contribution, "power" is irrelevant. Power level becomes a matter of taste, not One True Way.

Im not talking power. Im talking fluff/crunch interaction. I just dislike legends for stripping to many things away.

Eric Tolle

2012-05-07, 09:23 AM

This forum needs a +1 button.

Except that I like sexy females in my fantasy. Its fantasy for christs sake. If you fill it with ugly people it becomes reality. And getting away from that is exactly the point of the game.

Once again, there is a difference between having attractive characters and having sexist art. Hell, there's a difference between having sexy characters and having art that promotes sexual stereotypes. BUt if you want to have sexy females in your fantasy art, then it's only fair that the men should be wearing similar outfits and be in similar poses. Note- Conan and He-Man aren't really sexually posed. If you want men depicted the way women are depicted in games you'll want something like

This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/vincent_valentine_by_sraointe-d2w3r40.jpg

Or This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/Sexy_Kinky_Man_Demon_Returns_by_tygrax.jpg

See the difference between this and the usual pictures of He-Man and Conan? The difference in posing and expression? That's the difference between a power fantasy and a "sexy" fantasy.

A little too sexy you say? You don't like that kind of posing in your fantasy? Well that's what female gamers have to put up with constantly.

Yora

2012-05-07, 09:38 AM

Seerow

2012-05-07, 09:43 AM

Actually I like the idea of characters being built EXACTLY the same as monsters.

Oh god no. This was the absolute worst part about D&D3.5 and Legend. Monsters should NOT be nearly as complex as PCs, and this means they NEED to follow different rules to function.

PCs need to have a lot of complexity to keep their players interested. If you have a PC without unique powers or a resource system, you have a Fighter, a boring character that can't contribute to much of the game that anyone else can't contribute better. Managing resources, action economy, and large power sets is what keeps a player engaged in combat, rather than just saying "I hit it" they have to weigh their options, and often need to pay attention even when it is not their turn.

Trying to make a monster that follows the same rules doesn't work, because if it's a solo monster the result will be too squishy and not have quite enough action economy to pose a threat to 4 or more enemies that can do the same thing. If you try to jack up the level, while the one may become more durable, it can also quickly become a TPK due to power scaling and pushing the RNG further in their favor.

On the other end, if you try to send a group at the PCs, now you are overwhelming the DM, because each individual monster has the same abilities that is intended to keep an player occupied by itself. He's effectively trying to run four full characters simultaneously, this is not easy, and quickly leads to either DM burnout or the DM playing sloppily ignoring the majority of the monsters' abilities anyway to make life easier on himself.

On top of that complexity, the DM also doesn't have time to ease into it. Play a character from 1st to 10th level, then create a brand new character at 10th level. You are basically guaranteed to know the one you played from first level better. You will have had time to get to know all of the feats and powers available to you. This is why complexity is able to keep rising as level goes up (and I believe why 4e was so unsatisfying, because the complexity didn't really rise at higher level). But just statting up a new character straight at 10th level? It takes years of experience with a system before you're familiar enough to do something like that and be able to play it competently. This means years of playing 5e with GMs taking it slow and playing sloppy while they try to get the hang of all these different abilities.

And all of this for what? To ensure that monsters whose intended lifespan is an hour or so, if that, is built the same way as a PC, whose intended lifespan is months or years? Yeah, no thanks. They need to be different because they're being made for different purposes. Sure the DM might occasionally want to break out a full blown wizard, or fighter, or whatever, as a important NPC. But for 99% of situations, a stat block that gives you defenses, and a handful (like 2-5) of powers is all they really need. Giving more than that is simply extra unneeded information that bogs the game down in an attempt to appease people who think having a fully written stat block somehow translates into better immersiveness or stronger worldbuilding.

Ichneumon

2012-05-07, 09:43 AM

It's strange, but after watching their video and reading some of the stuff, I got to say I'm excited for this next edition! I stopped playing D&D soon after 4th edition came out (we liked it as a good designed game, but it just wasn't D&D for us any more) and started playing other RPGS, but what they say about the modularity, how you can keep things simple and add what you like, I like that. They even mentioned not having to use a map, if you don't want to. Personally, I really like that, since I often play online.

Dienekes

2012-05-07, 09:47 AM

This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/vincent_valentine_by_sraointe-d2w3r40.jpg

Or This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/Sexy_Kinky_Man_Demon_Returns_by_tygrax.jpg

See the difference between this and the usual pictures of He-Man and Conan? The difference in posing and expression? That's the difference between a power fantasy and a "sexy" fantasy.

A little too sexy you say? You don't like that kind of posing in your fantasy? Well that's what female gamers have to put up with constantly.

To be honest, these pictures doen't bother me. I don't exactly see anything wrong with titillation in general. If it sells more books, good on you, you came up with a way to make more money. I would suppose you're aiming for a more female demographic, and I would likely be curious how the mechanics and fluff of the system would reflect the feminine target audience, and if "feminine game mechanics" is even possible.

Clawhound

2012-05-07, 10:08 AM

3.X had a sham that said "monsters are built like characters." After the monsters were "built", the designers then piled on abilities scores until the monsters came out "right". In other words, the monsters were often just as arbitrary as ever, except that we pretended that they weren't.

The rules for characters and the rules for monsters really serve two different purposes, and those purposes are at odds with one another. Character rules should be tuned to creating interesting and engaging characters, while creature rules should be tuned to making interesting and engaging opponents.

Johnny Sunshine

2012-05-07, 10:33 AM

So, new topic. I'm lamenting all of this focus on mechanics (as are, I feel, many in the pre-3.x crowd).

Now, I enjoy crunch as much as anyone. My favorite (rules-wise) edition is 3e. I understand the satisfaction from all of the optimizing, tactical combat, and other crunchy meaty aspects. I realize 4e has some interesting ideas that improved on various parts of 3rd. I have opinions on all of the points being discussed now in anticipation of 5th, and will enthusiastically examine the new system when it's revealed. But despite this, I think we're losing focus.

D&D is primarily a cooperative storytelling game, where the purpose of rules is to simply provide some loose representation we can use to avoid disputes, a-la Cowboys and Indians. ("I shot you!" "No you didn't!") Gygax himself said something along the lines of "The secret is...that they don't need any rules."

This view was much more prominent in the game's early days - even with all the complexity and confusing piecemeal rules - and I feel this ability to easily personalize the game is the primary reason why D&D became a phenomenon.

Alan Lee, famous Tolkien illustrator, shares this sentiment:

"The illustrations that I enjoy looking at most are those which strengthen, rather than replace, the imagery which the author is creating, and often sketches do this with a greater potency than highly finished paintings. The graphite or charcoal lines suggest, rather than dictate, and the picture is completed in the viewer's mind. The looseness of a sketch...often creates a more immediate connection with the viewer."

The DM and players are the authors, the game mechanics are the paints and brushes. They should be tools to outline an idea, while the true art exists within the imagination.

Today? No more. The debate over mechanisms and balance, options and precise numerical values, has overwhelmed the game, and clamoring over what D&D “truly is” is to miss the point of roleplay completely, in my opinion.

Today's DM and player "artists" are standing at their canvases, wearing a robotic suit that controls their arms and brushtrokes. They enthusiastically welcome this, and are concerned only with the design of their controling robot masters. The idea of tossing the robot and only keeping the paints and brushes - you know, creativity? - is seen as a laughably childish idea, or backwards and quaint at best.

I find it ironic that those who profess to play RPGs because they stimulate the imagination are often the least imaginative people, who spend hours eagerly waiting for the official word on how their fantasies should play out, and spending even more hours arguing with others over how their fantasies should conform to another’s ideal.

Instead of imagination, we get tomes of rules and hundreds of options. Yet another ironic twist in how RPG'ers think of themselves as more intelligent than average, yet being dependant on official protocols and geting uncomfortable in the face of unstructured or contradictory rulings. Hasbro thrives on this inability of players to use their own damn brains and imaginations. Like any company producing a product, they rely on our insecurities. This is especially pronounced in today’s world of submitting to "higher authority."

How many people design adventures for themselves anymore? Design monsters? And even if they do, how often do they take hours painstakingly trying to make their efforts conform to the rules, or to make them “balanced”? (yes, yes; I'm guilty of this myself :smallamused:)

The game has a built-in balance mechanic, which works much more simply, reliably and quickly than any rules system: the players and Dungeon Master.

/rant

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-07, 10:34 AM

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

in an attempt to appease people who think having a fully written stat block somehow translates into better immersiveness or stronger worldbuilding.

And EXCUSE ME I AM one of those people. :smallmad:

If it sells more books, good on you, you came up with a way to make more money.

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

Seerow

2012-05-07, 10:53 AM

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Why? Why does this need to be a viable PC concept? Hell an Undead Demon Beholder I don't think is something that is even a viable monster concept.

Either way here you're talking about something totally different, the ability for PCs to use monstrous races. This is a completely different argument, and you can make playable monsters without making monsters PC level complexity. Basically once they switch which side of the screen they're on, you let them regain some of the complexity that gets chopped off for DM ease of use. For example you might have a Vampire who is attuned to the Arcane Power Source, his default powers might be a couple of level appropriate spell-like abilities he can use. But when a player plays a vampire, they get those abilities, and can add their Vampire hit dice to their arcane caster level.

It would require some playing around and fine tuning to get the balance right, but it is possible and doesn't require having fully fleshed out characters for a DM to play.

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

How so? Are you saying it is impossible to have a single monster that is stronger than a single PC? Why is it impossible to imagine a dragon that is strong enough to fight off a whole party of PCs? The [solo] tag is there to allow challenges for a whole group from just one monster without needing to up the level dramatically thus destroying the RNG. This makes it easier to predict how the fights will play out, easier to balance for the DM.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

Keeping a couple numbers in their heads would be keeping defenses, hp, attack bonuses, etc. They'd be doing this anyway. You're completely glossing over not just keeping numbers in their head, but available resources. A mid level PC should have anywhere from 10 to 30 powers at his disposal. A high level PC even more. Not to mention any special effects or modifications from feats, any special abilities granted from skills, etc. Also these various powers should have various action type and resource costs. You need to know that one ability is an immediate action and takes a 6th level slot, or 11 points, or whatever the resource is, while that other ability is only a 2nd level/3 points/whatever and is a standard action. You need to be aware of this for all 30 of your abilities, particularly for any swift action or immediate action abilities, and you need to be aware of this for every monster on the field.

No, that is not something an average person can do. It is not something every DM should be expected to do. It is not something that actually increases immersiveness, because 90% of the time the PC won't even know the difference if you take the majority of those options away from the monster. If the Monster has 4 abilities instead of 20, does it matter to the PC if the monster with 20 abilities only actually used 4 anyway? The only thing it did was cut down on the headache of the DM and make things simpler for him.

And EXCUSE ME I AM one of those people. :smallmad:

What's your point? You're one of the few that they would be trying to appease by using overcomplicated rules for monsters. Monsters and PCs serve different purposes in the game, they should be treated differently.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 11:00 AM

-essay-

Johnny, I like your argument. It's well phrased, well supported, and well thought out. High five!

That said, a little bit of devil's advocate: the people who can make up their own stuff are able to do so with or without the permission of the rules. The folks who can't (or don't want to), however, need rules to fill in for what they cannot or will not do. Note that there's nothing wrong with being unable to write your own script or rules -- we all start somewhere, or maybe we just don't have time, or maybe you want to direct your energies towards another aspect of the game.

In other words, folks pay money for the game. Imagination is free. If the book tells me to use my imagination... what did I pay for?

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

Most monsters exist for a brief moment in time for the purpose of being defeated. They are obstacles, not characters. The narrative does not require their life history or a massive stat-block, because they're not going to live long enough to use it.

And let's not forget about monsters who really are solo creatures, the monster-monsters, the lone beast prowling the wilderness, without any larger thoughts to rattle around in their brain than "food is tasty." Or the massively powerful monsters (like dragons!) who don't need anyone else. How is it immersion-breaking for them to be solo creatures when that's what they are?

Of course, having options to build fully fleshed-out monster characters is a positive thing for those times when they are more than just a chunk of xp on the road to godhood, but does every kobold, goblin, and zombie really need the kind of intricate detail given to the players?

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

Well, there's a world of difference between fantasy artwork and porn.

A combat photographer buddy of mine used to say, "A statistic is like a bikini. What it reveals is interesting, but what it doesn't show is vital."

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-07, 11:11 AM

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

Dienekes

2012-05-07, 11:12 AM

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

That's the equivalent of me saying, because they get armor wrong they should just dress everyone up like He-Man. The goal is to draw in buyers. to be clear, they're selling the game system, the words on the page, and the fluff they create. Everything else is there to make people want to buy it. If selling hardcore porn would do this, I personally have no problem with them trying. But I believe that would actually hinder their profits by a wide margin, as D&D is being sold to younger folks and being forced to be put in the special back room of a bookstore will definitely hurt their market.

Speaking of, is there a "special back room?" I wonder how bookstores would sell that, or if it means they would just not pick up the book at all, which would hurt the profits even further.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-07, 11:14 AM

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 11:23 AM

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

Well, why don't you explain why having large stat blocks of information which most monsters won't use in most games creates a greater sense of immersion for you?

Speaking of, is there a "special back room?" I wonder how bookstores would sell that, or if it means they would just not pick up the book at all, which would hurt the profits even further.

I used to work in a Borders, right across from the magazine section. They put that sort of thing out in the open. Special sleeves let you see the title without seeing anything else, and it was on the top shelf. We always got a kick out of watching teenagers pretend to not be trying to scope out the porn section. One of our female employees always made a game out seeing how well she could sneak up on them before they managed to open the sleeve. Hilarity ensued.

Well, hilarity for us. Embarrassment for them.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 11:32 AM

Well, why don't you explain why having large stat blocks of information which most monsters won't use in most games creates a greater sense of immersion for you?

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-07, 11:39 AM

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?
Could you unpack this a bit? :smallconfused:

Is the problem that the stat block does not include "+2 when tracking in New Jersey after a rainstorm?" Or a piece of text that says "Jersey Goblins are master trackers in their native terrain and can talk to moist objects to learn where their prey has gone?"

Basically, what exactly is it that you desire in monster rules and where do you get it?

Dienekes

2012-05-07, 11:40 AM

I really don't get some people.

A company that needs to flash softcore porn in order to lure buyers shows me that it has no self respect. I feel insulted when In an anime Im flashed fanservice.

But whatever.

I'm a practical guy. A business' goal is to make money for itself. That's it. How they go about it is their own problem so long as they don't break any laws. Wizards had the largest share of the rpg gaming market by a huge margin until 4e. If they want that back I'd assume they would try every method possible to get it. Respect doesn't go into the equation, especially since I've found what some people believe lowers their self respect others find does not bother them at all.

Now personally, I've only watched a handful of anime and never took note of the appearance or absence of fanservice. If the fanservice in question increased their profits, then good on them. Of course if the implementation of fanservice lost them an audience, for shame. It's a balancing act, just like the game. I'll take a note for a show I'm watching, Game of Thrones. Personally I find the use of a brothel in every other episode actually detracts and causes abrupt halts in the story. While it has not caused me to abandon the show, it's going just a bit too far to potentially lose my interest if it grows further out of control. However, I would bare them no ill will if they do decide to expand it and they end up making more money off of the show. Once more good on them for making a show with an expanding audience.

Now for me, I really care very little about the pictures in the book when compared to the mechanics. I'd rate that even slightly lower than the fluff in the book (I make my own fluff when I GM, so don't see much a use for theirs except to maybe steal an idea or three). So in order to gain my money they would have to present me with interesting, varied mechanics that seems fun. But I definitely think that someone, somewhere would look into the books view the pictures and be captured by the world present from them. After that it's simply taking note of what demographic is most likely to do that, and making pictures that cater to them yet do not distract too much from their larger gaming market.

I used to work in a Borders, right across from the magazine section. They put that sort of thing out in the open. Special sleeves let you see the title without seeing anything else, and it was on the top shelf. We always got a kick out of watching teenagers pretend to not be trying to scope out the porn section. One of our female employees always made a game out seeing how well she could sneak up on them before they managed to open the sleeve. Hilarity ensued.

Well, hilarity for us. Embarrassment for them.

You know, I spend a lot of time in Borders and Barnes and Nobles and I never noticed sleeved books. But thank you, now I know, and partake in a cackle at the embarrassment of younguns.

Seerow

2012-05-07, 11:44 AM

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

Saying something is an opinion doesn't automatically make it so you cannot be incorrect. If someone told you they were of the opinion women were good for nothing other than being sex objects, would you not tell them they're wrong? Sure it's an extreme example, but the point is not all opinions are equal, and if you cannot adequately defend your opinion, shouting "It's my opinion you're insulting me by saying I'm wrong" doesn't actually help you at all.

Objectively, monsters don't need the complexity of PCs. Objectively, giving monsters that level of complexity hurts the game directly by making things harder on the DM, the person at the table already doing the most work, discouraging players from wanting to DM themselves. Objectively, monsters will die long before they have a chance to use more than a handful of these abilities against the PCs in the first place.

Your argument to this is that subjectively, you feel this extra work makes the game feel more real. This is a meaningless statement because it only applies to you, and does not directly argue against the facts that what you are arguing in favor of is detrimental to the game. More importantly, it's impossible to quantify. If you face a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer, and he dies after 3 rounds, does it matter to you if he had 30 spells known instead of 5? Does it matter to you if his abilities had a recharge mechanic rather than spell slots? Without directly looking at his stat block (thus breaking immersion) how would you personally ever know the difference?

I can understand not liking 4e monster building, because they get arbitrary powers that can't be reproduced that aren't drawn from any other source than what the writer felt like coming up with. I can understand disagreeing with that, and wanting a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer actually casting Sorcerer spells. I can understand wanting the Breath Weapon of two different monsters to act in similar ways. Yes, when you have four different abilities of the same name, with no description, that all do different things for different monsters, I can see where that is bad. If these are the issues you have, however, your problem isn't with the idea of simpler monsters, but with 4e design. These are not one in the same.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 11:47 AM

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

And that's a fair point. But -- and this is a key but -- due to a variety of limitations, from cost to page count, including one thing means you exclude another.

How many monsters did you not put in the book because you gave room to "block-bloat" stats?

How much artwork was cut? How many magic items? How many spells? How many rules? How many examples? How much fluff?

There's only so much room in the books and only so much money you can spend to make them. So what do you prioritize? And where's the cutoff line?

Something that finds a home in one out of five games? One out of twenty? A hundred? A thousand?

There aren't necessarily any right or wrong answers here, but at some level, something has to be left out.

--

Edit:

You know, I spend a lot of time in Borders and Barnes and Nobles and I never noticed sleeved books. But thank you, now I know, and partake in a cackle at the embarrassment of younguns.

It never got old, man. It made slow days all the better. You could always tell who was going to try and sneak a peek, too, and since we were all on headsets, the game meant that if one person knew, everyone knew.

Ah, memories.

Seerow

2012-05-07, 11:56 AM

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

Like others said, what sorts of things are you talking about? I'm talking specifically about building things like PCs. ie the 10th level monster has 10 hit dice, so he must have 40 skill points spent, 4 feats allocated, and powers/resources as a 10th level character. Almost nothing needs that level of detail.

You want a monster who can track as a part of his ecological role, toss on a note that the monster always has track trained, or has a +15 track modifier, or whatever. It doesn't mean you need to spend the other 30 skill points and everything else on the monster. The point is minimalization of detail, you provide as many details as the monster needs to be useful at what it does/what you want it to do. Anything beyond that gets cut.

killem2

2012-05-07, 12:12 PM

Is there a compilation of known info about 5E?

Talakeal

2012-05-07, 12:55 PM

Stuff. And two pictures.

I am weirded out by those pictures. Not because of sexual content or amount of skin shown, but because I don't understand what they are doing. Why is the first guy taking off his pants before his holster, and why did he stop to put his arms behind his head half way through doing it?

As for the second guy, oh my god what is wrong with your spine?

I am not sure where you find that stuff "constantly" unless you are really into Rob Liefeld comics.

Also, positioning is different between the genders because women don't, as a rule, like submissive men. I am told that it is why male strippers are so rare compared to their female demographic, it is hard to have a man who is paid to take his clothes off and dance for women without appearing submissive.

Draz74

2012-05-07, 01:13 PM

New article about the Rogue's design goals. I disagree with their first point -- "Rogues don't fight fair, they're wimpy enough that if they get cornered they should just run away."

But I actually LOVE their last point -- "the Rogue makes routine tasks look trivial" -- talking about how the Rogue should have NO chance of failure except when a real challenge shows up. That's actually a pretty good description of a lot of what makes roguish fantasy characters awesome ... I might have to figure out how to include this concept in my system. It's the first thing I've really liked about these "5e class design" articles.

bokodasu

2012-05-07, 01:29 PM

This was one of the unattractive solutions I had in mind. A few reasons why I find it suboptimal:

1. When you want to balance a monster by including different parts used with different modules, you don't have to just balance one monster, you have to balance every possible module combination. Unless the number of modules is very small, this is an insane amount of work. And if you don't do it, then you inevitably get the types of situations where there's monsters who are, say, reasonable without Module X but once you apply Module X they become walking TPKs just ready to happen. I can totally see a situation where an otherwise fun and challenging monster gets completely neutered when you take its feats away.

Not unless you insist on each monster being exactly tuned to a particular party's builds. Monsters have always fallen into a relative "power area", and sometimes having the right spell memorized or having a +1 flaming sword instead of the +1 frostbrand is going to be the thing that turns the tide. Unless every Level X monster has the exact same powers/stats/abilities, there's going to be more variation than can be accounted for by tuning. And if they ARE exactly the same, you still have to worry about DM tactics - a monster who is run intelligently is always going to be harder to fight than one that isn't.

2. What if they want to add new modules that change how players/monsters work? Like, say, 4E-style themes (obviously they'll have to be called something else)? Do you update the old monsters to work with this new module?

If it's how players work, they should be balancing that with how monsters work already. If it's how monsters work, they'd do the same thing they've always done - release more MMs.

3. So this one's a more minor complaint, but the best way to display monster information is to have everything in one place. However, if you have monsters where stuff only applies depending on what modules are in place, you have worthless bloat when those modules AREN'T in place (of course they could just completely disregard the players who want to leave some subsystems out, but that kinda misses the whole point of this "bring everyone together" theme). And if you separate the information, it just leaves you with having to flip back and forth. Though I guess that would be a great push for DDI tools...

I wouldn't call it worthless just because it's not something you want to look at at one particular instant in time. Are CR20 monster writeups "worthless bloat" because you're playing E6? Are the CR1 monsters worthless because you're starting a campaign at L5?

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 03:25 PM

I should perhaps specify that my problem is when the monster is basically boiled down to its in-combat nature and literally nothing else. Which really leaves no room for other ideas. How about eliciting help from a monster instead of fighting it; convincing it to ally with you for a common cause? What skills could it use that could benefit the party in that instance? How easy is it to barter with, and what sort of temperament does it have? Would it be willing to negotiate, or is it violent and murderous?

The goblins in the 4e Monster Manual are all listed basically as 'stealth, thievery' without any variation in that, and the rest of it consists of combat abilities. In that same book, the red dragon's only non-combat abilities are 'flight', and having 'bluff', 'insight' and 'intimidation', for instance, and the rest consists of its frightful presence, breath weapon and melee attacks.

Naturally, yes, you can list other things about a given monster in its ecology write-up. The problem is, 4th edition doesn't have one. The red dragon's description is this;

Red dragons breathe fire and make their lairs inside mountains and volcanoes. They are the mightiest of the chromatic dragons, and the oldest of them rival demon princes and demigods in power.

There's more after that. A knowledge check. This is what you get from that non-combat knowledge check;

DC 20: Though red dragons prefer to lair deep underground, they often have high perches aboveground where they survey their territory, watching for intruders.

What else is listed? More combat abilities, and the tactics it would use in a fight. Now, naturally, one of you has rightfully pointed out that there wouldn't have been room for anything else on the page. Except... have you looked at the 4th edition books? Not only are the fonts much larger, but they leave a good third of the page around the edges as white space. Yes, seriously.

For example. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/samples/MonsterManual3/Monster_Manual_3-61.png)

Contrast that to the 2nd or 3rd edition monster books, which practically fill the page, and have a smaller font. This is the description of a red dragon:

Red dragons are the most covetous of all dragons, forever seeking to increase their treasure hoards. They are exceptionally vain, which is reflected in their proud bearing and disdainful expression. The small scales of a wyrmling red dragon are a bright glossy scarlet, making the dragon easily spotted by predators and hunters, so it stays underground and does not venture outside until it is more able to take care of itself. Toward the end of young age, the scales turn a deeper red, and the glossy texture is replaced by a smooth, dull finish. As the dragon grows older, the scales become large, thick, and as strong as metal. The neck frill and wings are an ash blue or purple-gray toward the edges, becoming darker with age. The pupils of a red dragon fade as it ages; the oldest red dragons have eyes that resemble molten lava orbs.

Red dragons lair in large caves that extend deep into the earth, which shimmer with the heat of their bodies and are marked by a sulfurous, smoky odor. However, they always have a high perch nearby from which to haughtily survey their territory, which they consider to be everything in sight. This high perch sometimes intrudes upon the territory of a silver dragon, and for this reason red dragons and silver dragons are often enemies.

Red dragons are meat eaters by preference, and their favorite food is a human or elven youth. Sometimes they charm villagers into regularly sacrificing townsfolk to them.

In addition, the sample dragon listed, whose stat block actually takes up les space... includes skills such as appraise, its trapmaking skills, its knowledge of things like arcane lore and religion, and its skills with using magic items and spells. In addition it has a long list of sorcerer's spells available to it, one or two of which could indeed provide aid to a party (heal and restoration) were it persuaded to ally with them, even if only temporarily.

This sort of thing gives the monster a list of abilities that it has which make it part of the world that it lives in. It feels less like a collection of hit points when it has most of the same features as your own characters.

Certainly to a better degree than 4th edition, at the very least.

Yora

2012-05-07, 03:53 PM

Forum screwed up again. Reveal to me Narsils post!

Seerow

2012-05-07, 03:54 PM

KnightDisciple

2012-05-07, 04:08 PM

On art: Ok, if we need something that's practically softcore just to sell books, the game's better off dying in a trash heap. D&D should stand on its own feet of a solid, balanced, fun system, not "that one game with the pictures, you know what I mean!".
I think that there's a happy middle ground between "totally realistic" (wherein males and females in anything more than cloth can barely be told apart in armor) and "totally absurd" (hyper-sexualized poses and body-forms, as well as outfits designed only to show off either set of bodies but that otherwise would explode/tear apart/fall off as soon as the wearer breathed or took a step). That middle ground is "mildly stylized".

What's "Mildly Stylized", you ask? Some of the outfits on "Women fighters in reasonable armor" have "boob plates" that show that, well, they're girls, but still cover the torso overall. Or the armor for Fem!Shep in the 3 Mass Effect games. The iconic PF Paladin. All those examples are stylized to show off a bit of the feminine nature of the subject, but also still look comparatively practical, functional, comfortable, etc.
Yes, "boob plates" focuse blows a different way or whatnot. But there's still metal there. Plus, D&D has all sorts of enhancing magic, or super-materials, ME has future-composites, and so on.

The point is that it's not totally wrong to show they're a girl, give the girls a somewhat stylized, mildly unrealistic look, if it's fitting the genre to a point, and not going overboard (and the guys get similar treatment).

It does seem less good to go further and further in the "stylized" direction. After a point the outfits become less about "function" and more about "sexy".

One reason this is a big issue: getting female gamers interested without having to spend half an hour convincing them the game isn't totally immature sexist boy stuff (or however they'd word it). Guys and girls should both think the art's fun, rather than trying to "look sexy" for one group but not the other.

On Monster Rules: I'd say the "build monsters unique, but not with totally arbitrary abilities".
I mean, I think there should sometimes be abilities that PCs can't easily replicate; we want the monsters to be at least sort of special after all.
I know juggling a billion little things is one reason I don't really ever want to DM a traditional game.

On template-stacking shenanigans: If you really want an Undead Demon Beholder Squid Rogue, great. But, uh, maybe a point-buy based game is a better choice? That seems just silly and cheesy and breaks immersion worse than reduced monster stat blocks. I mean, at some point you need to realize that stacking that stuff is basically only for crunchy benefits.

On "REAL RPG's worry about imagination, not rules": Uh, I'm paying for a set of rules to arbitrate how we interact with the world. I mean, I guess it would be fun to say "I win, the bad guys die", but making some risk isn't a bad idea (though I'm not big on super-lethal games, I can enjoy them plenty without the "constant risk of death" or whatever).
Plus, it helps give guidelines on how things fit together.

The reason you see so many debates online about rules is because rules are tangible things. You can objectively calculate things within rules. You can objectively compare rules in various systems.

You can't really do that with imagination. The most you can do there is grammar critique, possibly literary criticism.

Really, the whole post about "imagination" seems rather condescending. What's wrong with us wanting to get an elegant, well-balanced system when we're paying money for it? :smallconfused:

DefKab

2012-05-07, 04:30 PM

The goblins in the 4e Monster Manual are all listed basically as 'stealth, thievery' without any variation in that, and the rest of it consists of combat abilities. In that same book, the red dragon's only non-combat abilities are 'flight', and having 'bluff', 'insight' and 'intimidation', for instance, and the rest consists of its frightful presence, breath weapon and melee attacks.

Naturally, yes, you can list other things about a given monster in its ecology write-up. The problem is, 4th edition doesn't have one.

I'll put a useless word about this... 4th Ed had a goal, in my eyes, to provide the rules in a case where a group of heroes (or whatever you want to call them) had to do tactical battle with various fantastic enemies. The rules are very good at presenting that goal, but if you're looking for more from the rules, yes, you'll be left wanting.
But if you realize the intent of the rule system, then you know that it's no good in a diplomatic situation, and some people adapt to that.

I guess my point is NO GAME WILL EVER BE A CATCH ALL.
And it shouldn't be. A game, like a book, or a movie, has an intended audience, one that aligns with the makers of the game. If you are NOT that audience, shrug it off, and move along. I don't like country music. Am I going to be angry when a country singer is voted best musician ever? (And one was, Johnny Cash, best ever.) No, of course not. So why are you mad when a certain game gets made? Find another. There's enough out there that you don't have to have animosity about the intent of a game. You can either accept it and play, dont accept it and move on, or sit, and grumble, and be upset about something out of your control...

So. Yes. 4th Ed doesn't fit your (or most it seems) playstyle. But it is by no means bad, just because of its intent.

It's bad on other levels, but that's another discussion...

Move on. Play YOUR game, and hope that 5th Ed is another like it.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 04:39 PM

Either way your complaints point to problems with how 4e handled monster design, not necessarily with the idea that monster design should not be the same as PC design.

It was more addressing one of the counterpoints that basically pointed to monsters as better off as minimalist, because there'd have to be something missing, than than actually supporting monsters-built-as-PCs with that post. And to continue the point of my post, while the average dungeon master doesn't need to know the individual djinn's basketweaving score... it does help to know what sort of random abilities a monster might expect to have outside of combat. Whether it's included in the stat block or in the fluff is irrelevant, but generally it would be nice to have it there. And not, for instance, completely absent.

As for monsters being built the same as player characters, I would actually like that to a degree. Because it would allow for, and this might be a shocking idea, actually playing those monsters as player characters. While 3rd edition didn't manage it especially well, the kernel of an idea was there, and it really only needed to be improved upon for the next edition. But instead with 4th edition they basically jettisonned the entire thing top-to-bottom in their quest to streamline and simplify things.

pffh

2012-05-07, 04:46 PM

To be honest, these pictures doen't bother me. I don't exactly see anything wrong with titillation in general. If it sells more books, good on you, you came up with a way to make more money. I would suppose you're aiming for a more female demographic, and I would likely be curious how the mechanics and fluff of the system would reflect the feminine target audience, and if "feminine game mechanics" is even possible.

Why can't we have both hot guys and sexy girls in the same game?

Crow

2012-05-07, 04:46 PM

You guys are vastly overstating the risque factor in the D/D art.

I've never seen anything in a D/D book that walked the line anywhere close to how people are describing it in this thread. I think a lot of people are mistaking don't like for offended by. If you're really offended by a piece of artwork, you'll know it.

Seerow

2012-05-07, 04:48 PM

It was more addressing one of the counterpoints that basically pointed to monsters as better off as minimalist, because there'd have to be something missing, than than actually supporting monsters-built-as-PCs with that post. And to continue the point of my post, while the average dungeon master doesn't need to know the individual djinn's basketweaving score... it does help to know what sort of random abilities a monster might expect to have outside of combat. Whether it's included in the stat block or in the fluff is irrelevant, but generally it would be nice to have it there. And not, for instance, completely absent.

But once again having those details has nothing to do with the stat blocks being minimalist. If you say in the fluff that a race is exceptionally good at stonework, putting a note to that effect in the stat block is fine. If a monster hunts for it's food, it should have tracking and stealth.

But the point is you can make your fluff, then set the crunch to represent that, and not need to worry about "Well what does he do with his other feats?" or "What are his other 15 powers?", etc.

As for monsters being built the same as player characters, I would actually like that to a degree. Because it would allow for, and this might be a shocking idea, actually playing those monsters as player characters. While 3rd edition didn't manage it especially well, the kernel of an idea was there, and it really only needed to be improved upon for the next edition. But instead with 4th edition they basically jettisonned the entire thing top-to-bottom in their quest to streamline and simplify things.

I'm pretty sure I actually addressed this several posts back. You can have minimalist monsters and let the player fill in the details/blanks when he actually picks up the monster as a race. This doesn't mean when the monster is on the DM side of the screen, that you need those things. Putting those details in the splat book simply slows things down, giving the DM needless information, and sets in stone details that aren't needed.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 04:49 PM

<words>

My problem kind of arose when 4th edition advertised as the next iteration of one of my favourite role-playing games. With fantastic new ideas and concepts that would fix many of the problems therein.

And it kind of failed to deliver on that front. My problem specifically here is that I'm an argumentative ******** with an incredible stubborn streak and obsessive compulsive disorder. So whenever someone posts something I disagree with, I tend to have reactions somewhat like this;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png

I do deeply apologise for that.

That said, while country music itself sucks, Johnny Cash is oddly awesome in a way that transcends genre.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 04:59 PM

I'm pretty sure I actually addressed this several posts back. You can have minimalist monsters and let the player fill in the details/blanks when he actually picks up the monster as a race. This doesn't mean when the monster is on the DM side of the screen, that you need those things. Putting those details in the splat book simply slows things down, giving the DM needless information, and sets in stone details that aren't needed.

Though the monster details in 4th edition didn't have the kind of information required to actually run most of those as player characters outside of a random entry at the end for some of the monsters listed. So that's a moot point, really, but I think it actually helps with running encounters to have many of the standard monsters with skills in things like trapmaking and use magic device, much like the sample dragon has.

I mean, that means that the sample dragon can be given things that it would almost certainly be using against the party. Wands, staffs, and scrolls. And it would have set traps for various attempted intruders. How is the fact that the dragon would be knowledgeable in magic and local events needless information to a DM who's probably not just using this monster for a fight, but for a campaign? And the healing and restoration spells aren't necessarily useless information in that fight either, when the dragon suddenly restores a good 130 of its hit points, and eliminates the effect of that enervation spell that was cast on it.

KnightDisciple

2012-05-07, 05:02 PM

You watch your mouth about the greatest music genre out there! :smallfurious::smalltongue::smallwink:

DefKab

2012-05-07, 05:02 PM

-More Words-

Oh, no need to apologize. I wasn't arguing, just seeing a point to be made. 4th Ed was kind of my game. Its... I really like it. But I'm not a marketer, I didn't even know it was out until way late, so I never got the pitch that WOTC was giving, so I completely understand your point.

And on another point, its ACTUAL GOAL DESIGN is not what the game represents. Which is upsetting. It's a really good game, if you have REALLY specific wants, and people who'll put up with it. And you're awfully creative...

That being said, I still love 3.5. I didn't for a while, but then I found things that make it interesting again. Like, I want to try E6, and see if that hits where I want 3.5 to be.

But I play a lot of different RPGs, and to someone who's only played DnD, it can be daunting to try and understand another way of playing...

I have to repeat an above question tho. Where are all these articles about 5E coming from?

Dienekes

2012-05-07, 05:15 PM

Why can't we have both hot guys and sexy girls in the same game?

Impossible.

You guys are vastly overstating the risque factor in the D/D art.

I've never seen anything in a D/D book that walked the line anywhere close to how people are describing it in this thread. I think a lot of people are mistaking don't like for offended by. If you're really offended by a piece of artwork, you'll know it.

I think this is partially my fault, as I mentioned that I personally don't care if it was porn if it theoretically helped sell more books then it served it's purpose. Somehow this became, D&D Next is going to be shipped with the lewdest, crudest images imaginable.

D&D artwork so far I've found rather tame, for instance the book I just flipped through (Tome of Battle) seemed to have nothing scandalous. Maybe 4E changed that, I do remember 1 picture in which there was a lizard with obvious breasts (that were covered in useless armor!). I guess this might be sexualizing lizards. Maybe? I personally thought it was just bad art.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 05:24 PM

<Additional Words>

Quite a few of them are here. (http://wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore)

Beyond that, pretty much all over the place. From various conventions and interviews, for instance.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 05:24 PM

I imagine, when you're writing for a non-setting-specific game like D&D, that it must be frustrating coming up with all this fluff that people replace with their own.

I imagine it must also be frustrating to pay for the development and inclusion of that fluff only for people to replace it with their own.

Not really arguing one way or another. Just thinking out loud, here.

--

Oh, and Narsil, the dragon is not a strong example, since dragons have not one (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/242100000), but two (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/217887200) books devoted to them. I see the point you're making, but, y'know... the fluff is out there.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 05:32 PM

However, 3rd edition had all of that information in the core Monster Manual, plus a Draconomicon, Races of the Dragon, and Dragon Magic, on top of that. And it wasn't fluff that had been filtered through 4th edition's rather distorted view of Dungeons & Dragons. I actually read the second Draconomicon for 4th edition, and stopped reading at the point with the Iron Dragon having been turned into an aggressive creature 'one step from chaotic evil'. Given that it was one of my favourites to have appeared in Dragon Magazine, as one of the ferrous dragons.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 05:43 PM

Well, now we can argue over the merits of one Draconomicon versus two Draconomicons.

*shrug* I, personally, did not find Races of the Dragon or Dragon Magic all that useful, but... to each their own. Still, to me, the quality of information and the clarity with which it is conveyed is paramount to simple quantity. I like 4e's approach to "here is the basic information you need to run a combat encounter" in the Monster Manuals. Fluff folks (which includes me!) could pick up the various campaign books, setting books (Nentir Vale, Feywild, Shadowgloom, Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea, etc.), or adventure modules.

And that's a totally viable strategy. If putting fluff in fluff-books creates space for you to put more monsters in your monster book, well, I'm not going to object.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-07, 06:25 PM

DeltaEmil

2012-05-07, 06:34 PM

The better Monster Manual books all came later in both 3.5 and 4th edition.

The 3.5 Monster Manual 3, 4 and 5 are better usable and have plothooks than both 3.5 Monster Manual 1 and 2.
4th edition Monster Manual 3, Demonomicon and Monster Vault plus Threats to Nentir Vale are also better than 4th edition Monster Manual 1 and 2, although these two had at least some plot ideas put inside.

jseah

2012-05-07, 07:15 PM

RE Monster design:
I admit I don't really use monsters. Virtually all my games involve creating a society of which the players are a not-really-special member of. The most interesting conflicts come about when the players are pitted against a foe who reacts, plans and otherwise does their own thing.

You might say this is a BBEG and thus worth a full statblock, I say fine. But the captain of the guard and the king and his advisor all have this too! I manage this mainly by creating NPCs on the fly. While key actors are statted out beforehand, random patrolman at east market gate does not have an attack bonus. When it becomes relevant, I refer to my notes of approximately which level he should be, decide what his bonus is and fill in abilities as I go. (this tends to result in a bias towards abilities that 'just happen' to be useful to the current situation, even though I try to be fair; but after that, guardsman Jim has a name now and he becomes an NPC in a file)

While monsters do exist and I do follow their stat blocks (which *are* conveinient), they tend to be... background fauna. A G. Cube or manticore tends to serve as a distraction or a centerpiece; but not actual actors in the world.

--------------------------

Now, what would be very useful is a series of guidelines that would say: "a level 4 guard in a town can be expected to have an attack bonus from 4 to 8, and at least three martial feats or two and one diplomatic/leadership type"

And macro guidelines that involve scaling up the individual character rules: "A town with a wizard's guild of size 30, highest level 7, can be expected to have a library covering most spells from level 1 to 3; be expected to have everlasting torches lining important streets or at least government buildings; have contributed apprentices and minor magic items for the town guard and richer segments of society; magic traps are to be expected"

It requires the creators of the system know their own system like the back of their hand. I need guidelines that govern how the world works, that still makes sense given individual abilities. They need to know how ability X impacts the world and society as a whole. I can't do this for *everything*. That is what I want out of a setting book.

The lack of this prevents me from running high level campaigns, not power creep.

This is hard. But I imagine that at 60 dollars for a book, they can afford to spend some time knowing how their system fits together.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-07, 08:31 PM

The natural problem arises when the 4th edition Monster Manual had information on, to count it up, four hundred and ninety-six monsters all-in-all. Most of those being variations on one central theme, such as goblins or orcs spread across multiple levels.

The 3.5e Monster Manual had statistics for about four hundred and seventy-four monsters, with guidelines for at least a hundred and ten more in the dragon age categories. You'd think with all of that needless fluff and information cut out that they would have had room for more than twenty-two additional monsters. But instead they're actually missing a few things, given the amount of monsters devoted to internal variants.

I'm going to go with the numbers you provide, because honestly, I'm not going to bother counting two editions worth of Monster Manuals, and the raw numbers aren't particularly relevant.

Why?

Because "beating" 3.x in raw monster count doesn't inherently make 4e better. 4e stands on its own merits.

When making 4e's Monster Manual, sure, maybe someone was tallying up and keeping score, but I imagine they were much more focused on questions like:

What do we want to fit in this book? What can we fit in this book? What artwork do we use? What layout? What levels do we focus on? What monsters need to be in here? What monsters can wait for the next book? What roles do we need to fill? What information do we need to present to the players and the DM? How do we make a quality sourcebook within the budget and resources available?

Again, it's not about raw numbers. When I say, "they can fit in more monsters," I don't mean, "they can fit in more monsters relative to 3.x." I mean, "they can fit in more monsters as compared to how many they would otherwise fit if they added in information which would mostly go unused." It's entirely an internal comparison. If the 4e book didn't meet the needs of my 4e game, then whether or not it has more monsters than its 3.x counterpart is irrelevant.

The relevant bits of most monsters most of the time is going to be their combat abilities. If the monster has additional noncombat traits, those are details which I as the DM am better suited to evaluate in terms of my campaign.

The better Monster Manual books all came later in both 3.5 and 4th edition.

The 3.5 Monster Manual 3, 4 and 5 are better usable and have plothooks than both 3.5 Monster Manual 1 and 2.
4th edition Monster Manual 3, Demonomicon and Monster Vault plus Threats to Nentir Vale are also better than 4th edition Monster Manual 1 and 2, although these two had at least some plot ideas put inside.

I found the Nentir Vale book to be superb. A variety of monsters, all placed within their environment, with some interesting interactions. Any DM looking to draw up a region and populate it with enemies would do well to use it as a guide. I'm just sad that they never released more books like it. I'd love to see a "Points of Light" campaign guide like the Eberron or Forgotten Realms books, especially if 5e moves away from the Points of Light style.

Ironvyper

2012-05-07, 09:39 PM

People are making this all much too complicated. It really is easy:

"Does the image evoke sexuality in a situation where it would not happen in real life"? If yes, don't use the image in the books.

Easy, nothing more to say about that.

Except that there IS NO SUCH SITUATION. Period. People hit on each other and often get it on in the damnedest places. Sexuality is part of mortal life and the human thought process. Trying to divorce the two is not only unnatural its harmful to the people its generally trying to protect.

Ironvyper

2012-05-07, 09:49 PM

Once again, there is a difference between having attractive characters and having sexist art. Hell, there's a difference between having sexy characters and having art that promotes sexual stereotypes. BUt if you want to have sexy females in your fantasy art, then it's only fair that the men should be wearing similar outfits and be in similar poses. Note- Conan and He-Man aren't really sexually posed. If you want men depicted the way women are depicted in games you'll want something like

This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/vincent_valentine_by_sraointe-d2w3r40.jpg

Or This
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/ericthetolle/Sexy_Kinky_Man_Demon_Returns_by_tygrax.jpg

See the difference between this and the usual pictures of He-Man and Conan? The difference in posing and expression? That's the difference between a power fantasy and a "sexy" fantasy.

A little too sexy you say? You don't like that kind of posing in your fantasy? Well that's what female gamers have to put up with constantly.

Neither pic bothers me one damn bit. There should be a variety of art in the books. The more art the better. More art variety means less pages of crunch for WoTC to screw up. See unlike some people I realize that no one is holding a gun to my head and forcing to me ogle a picture I dont find appealing. Neither am i so insecure in my appearance or sexuality that I'm rendered uncomfortable by such images.

Also you know nothing about women. Gamer or otherwise. If you did you would know that they enjoy looking at fantasy models in sexual poses and outfits just as much as we do. They enjoy the art and the fantasy too. Sometimes the psychology of why they enjoy it is different (and sometimes it isnt :smallwink: ) but what matters is that the vast majority of humanity, gamer or not, ENJOY sexy fantasy models.

Art is not a place where people should be forcing their outdated ideas of morality or social responsibility. Art is a place for freedom of expression. A place where your inner desires and demons are SUPPOSED to come out and play without some school marm or her proxy wiggling their fingers and saying no.

Perhaps if you actually know a woman, and she's one of the very small handful who are bothered by sexy images ( i know theres a few repressed and damaged souls out there who are) you and she would be better served by having a conversation about what the image actually makes her feel and why then by foolishly attempting to be a white knight in PC armor.

That way you'll be enjoying the purpose of art. Invoking free and provocative thought and expanding your boundaries.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 01:24 AM

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 01:38 AM

Players should be able to fail. But failure doesn't mean death 100% of the time. Failure means the bad guy got away, you got captured, your friend the NPC died, or the BBEG wizard completed his ritual initiating Armageddon. PCs that care about the world around them are going to find these threats serious. Even PCs that only care about themselves are gonna pay attention when their stuff gets taken and they get sold into slavery because they lost a fight.

One failure can segway into the next quest. 'Escape the slavers.' 'Find the man who took your stuff.' 'Try to survive Armageddon.'

I'm not saying don't kill players. When PCs slaughter npc enemies without a second thought their friends are more likely to return the favor. And an alligator isn't going in for convoluted plots so whatever it beats is gonna get eaten soon. However if you're feeling magnanimous as a DM you can hand the bad guys the villain ball now and then. Strap the heroes into a James Bond death trap.

As a player I'd feel worse knowing the people I was trying to protect died horribly than that my character had died horribly. My buddy doesn't really care at all about imaginary people. However he really rages when people take his in game stuff. There are multiple failure states.

I wouldn't care to play in a game where I knew I couldn't lose. I don't mind if that loss involves my death or not.

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 01:53 AM

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 02:24 AM

As for the setting, D&D has a generic default setting. It looks more or less like what you see in Order Of The Stick minus a bit of what OOTS admits is homebrew. The designers had a kitchen sink approach to the game when they drew up the players handbook and all the other player source books. Its generally assumed that all this material is available. In fact you're a bad DM if you don't let players choose from all the options! (/sarcasm)

Do you remember reading about the game where the DM said, "In my world the only magic users are druids (and rangers)." Have you played in a game like that very often? I've had people on this forum complain that a game like that would "Limit them" somehow, be angry at me for suggesting it. A world with only druid magic is very different than a world with only sorcerer magic. Its very very different from a world where every kind of imaginable magic coexists. A world where werewolves, and vampires run around but there aren't any magic users as such would be interesting. Van Helsing anybody? That world is totally not the generic D&D world.

The rules themselves have a massive effect. 3.X default is a world of demi gods. The most powerful people bend reality around themselves. Death is an inconvenience. The various planes of existence are your playground. 3.X 6E is entirely different. In 6E men are just men, not superheroes or gods. Death is a serious problem if not 'the last adventure.' Dragons are always threatening. A mortal man could kill a powerful wizard. The implications of the rules should have a huge impact on the setting.

Lets look at the Tippyverse. The Tippyverse is not the default D&D setting. Its very close to the default setting but Emperor Tippy figured out the implications of high level magic. Go read about it if you want. Its existence clearly demonstrates that the default setting is clearly something else.

KnightDisciple

2012-05-08, 09:00 AM

Art is not a place where people should be forcing their outdated ideas of morality or social responsibility. Art is a place for freedom of expression. A place where your inner desires and demons are SUPPOSED to come out and play without some school marm or her proxy wiggling their fingers and saying no.

Perhaps if you actually know a woman, and she's one of the very small handful who are bothered by sexy images ( i know theres a few repressed and damaged souls out there who are) you and she would be better served by having a conversation about what the image actually makes her feel and why then by foolishly attempting to be a white knight in PC armor.

That way you'll be enjoying the purpose of art. Invoking free and provocative thought and expanding your boundaries.Wow. Could you maybe tone down the condescension a little bit, please? :smallconfused:

I get that you apparently think it's better for the game to have everyone in the art be on the verge of nudity and sex, but it's pretty clear a lot of us don't prefer that.

Trying to sell your position as some sort of "one true way" and invoking "true art" doesn't actually help you any.

Can we maybe just drop this whole art conversation? It's pretty clear each side isn't going to convince the other, at least not at this time, and we've clearly degraded to the point of haughty insults, so it's better if we cut the head off the snake (as it were).

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-08, 09:52 AM

Its very very different from a world where every kind of imaginable magic coexists.

My preferred method of working around this is saying that the different types of magic are all actually the same thing, they just look very different and have slightly different capabilities because the styles were invented by different cultures who discovered magic independently. Like eastern vs. western swordfighting styles. So you can just say "The place you start off in only has wizards and clerics: You can be a Druid or a Psion if you really want, but you have to fluff yourself as being a traveler from a faraway land."

This way, you can have a more defined flavor and tone for your setting, only having a few PCs who are special and break the mold. (And being special is normal for PCs anyway.)

Reverent-One

2012-05-08, 10:43 AM

All of this material was left out when 4th edition hit. And has in fact not yet been provided in many cases, given entire categories of monster being changed and replaced as part of the new edition's sweeping alterations to the existing Dungeons & Dragons material.

That's simply not true. While that sort of material has been somewhat reduced, mainly for the most detailed 3.5 creatures, it's not nonexistant at all. As a rule of thumb, if the race had a "Society" section in the 3.5 MM, the 4e MM has noticably less information (but more than no information), but if they didn't then the two books are much closer, with 4e sometimes winning out. Compare the Harpy entries. In the 3.5 MM, it's primary concerned with what they look like, with a couple of notes of how they entrance people and sometimes become mercenaries. The 4e MM has that too, plus some information on mating habits and a mythological orgin story.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 10:58 AM

The amount of information, and for that matter the amount of different and unique monsters that aren't 'upgraded version' or 'minion version' of the same monster, still strongly favours 3.5e, however. While some areas might have improved, and I'll grant you that the harpy is an example - I just never got that far after suffering through how much angels, archons and dragons had been butchered and screwed up - most of it is still a distinctive step down for several reasons.

Reverent-One

2012-05-08, 11:03 AM

I'm not saying the 4e MM couldn't have used more fluff, which is something they fixed in later MMs, but was just disagreeing with your absolute statement that 4e got rid of it.

The amount of information, and for that matter the amount of different and unique monsters that aren't 'upgraded version' or 'minion version' of the same monster, still strongly favours 3.5e, however.

Which, if true, just means that 4e lets the DM have a greater variety of monsters of the same type without needing to put in additional work. Everything's a trade off.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-08, 11:09 AM

You seem to be under the assumption that Dungeons & Dragons exists to be a generic simulator that embodies various trends in fantasy literature. A blank canvas upon which the Dungeon Master can craft an entire world and set of concepts from scratch and customise various elements to their liking. And on some level, you'd be right, in that D&D - and especially the d20 system - is in fact meant to be customisable.

But the canvas isn't as blank as you want it to be, and hasn't been for quite some time now. Basically, Dungeons & Dragons has a default setting, and has pretty much always had a default setting, in a trend that has carried on since at least the mid-to-late-1980s with various campaign sourcebooks and adventures that existed as part of several pre-made worlds. Which happened to include Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Mystara, the Forgotten Realms and various others along those lines. There were existing characters, existing monsters, existing situations and existing villains.

Forgotten Realms is a setting. Eberron is a setting. Default D&D3.x? Not a setting.

This is something we covered in the last thread. I'll post some of my thoughts from there in spoilers.

An example of the [disconnected fluff] was prestige classes that had some sort of associated organization. A fair number of those would describe something exciting -- an order of paladins, a guild of religious assassins, a guild of mercenaries, a wizard's academy -- and then not connect them to anything in particular. The Purple Dragon Knights in Complete Warrior are the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr in literally all but name, but the Cormyrian version fits into its world while the Complete Warrior version is noticeably lacking in details. Reading the PDK fluff is a surreal exercise, because the fluff tells you nothing about where they come from, who their friends are, who they fight, or anything. It's just this ephemeral group of knights from nowhere in particular who fight unspecified battles against undescribed foes for no particular goal. For any individual example that's okay, because it makes it nice and modular, but taken together it makes for a world suspiciously absent of nouns.

The Purple Dragon Knights (Complete Warrior) opens with this:

"The famous Purple Dragons are regarded across the land as exemplars of disciplined, skilled, loyal soldiers. Their reputation is deserved partly because of the heroic actions of their leaders, the Purple Dragon knights."
- Complete Warrior, pg 70.

Who are the Purple Dragons? Why are they famous? What is "the land" and who lives there? Who are they loyal to? What heroic actions did the Purple Dragon Knights do to earn their reputation?

Who do they fight? Where are they based? How do they fight? Who founded them? What is their history? What are their goals? What is their chain of command? Are they a national army? Transnational knightly order? Mercenary company? Where do they get their supplies? How are they organized? What do they fight for? Gold? Artifacts? Justice? The culmination of secret prophecies known only to them?

It goes on in much the same vein, lots of words to say very little, and mentions the "War Wizards, an elite brigade of fighting spellcasters allied with the Purple Dragons," but it never says who they are, either.

Now, the real PDK are the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr, from the Forgotten Realms. They have a history, goals, and details aplenty. They fit into their world. But the Complete Warrior PDK? There's so much left unanswered. It's just weird. The fluff says nothing of value.

Once you start piling up a bunch of prestige classes like this, you run into all these famous and powerful organizations that are never described as interacting, have no history, and aren't working towards anything. It's very surreal.

The whole thing tried so hard to make fluff that was so noncommittal and modular that there wasn't any weight to it. You ended up with fluff that told you next to nothing and which wasn't represented in the mechanics anyway. It was very weird.

The points is that D&D3.x didn't have a default setting; it had default assumptions. It's the difference between the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr from Forgotten Realms and the Purple Dragon Knights from Complete Warrior. One exists as an integrated element of a world. The other is an idea without a home.

When I open up Exalted, or Eclipse Phase, or Shadowrun, or Dark Heresy & Co., or Legend of the Five Rings, I will find a setting. I will find organizations with goals and friends and enemies and places where they're strong and places where they're weak and places they want to go and things they want to do and things they have already done. I will find history -- some clear, some murky, some outright lies. I will find connections and relations. I will find stories and characters and plots and schemes and hooks. These are settings.

The same is simply not true in 3.x D&D. You, as the DM, must make your own maps, your own kingdoms, your own history, and so on and so forth. The various Planes have all sorts of fluff, but the Material Plane is conspicuously missing a few details. It's a placeholder. You make your own.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that. There's all sorts of freedoms associated with that. But at the same time, in a world where so many of the important facts are up for grabs, you don't really have a world at all, do you?

Forgotten Realms? Dragonlance? Eberron? These are settings, yes, but none of them is the "default" setting. Each functions in different ways, and emphasizes different assumptions made by the nebulous "default" of D&D3.x. You buy a campaign setting to augment your PHB. You do this because the PHB and the DMG don't have a setting.

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But in 3.x, what it creates is a series of default assumptions scattered across classes descriptions and monster entries which never quite connect with one another or actually follow through.

To go back to the original point, for me that approach is far more immersion-shattering than 4e's decision to make monster stat blocks primarily related to combat. The Nentir Vale exists as a setting described in the PHB, the DMG, and all sorts of other books (including an entire book on the Nentir Vale!). If you're looking for fluff, there are books for that.

I bought the Monster Manual(s) to know what these creatures are like in a fight. If I want them to do something else, I will make them do something else. That's the joy and the power of the DM.

Put another way, D&D is a system designed to function across a diverse range of settings. Making the monsters able to adapt to those settings in accordance with Our Monsters Are Different (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurMonstersAreDifferent) is a positive step. It's a recognition of the reality of the system.

While the ecologies and fluff are something that Dungeon Masters can often ignore or even alter at their whim, not all of them do. In fact, many of them prefer to use the existing material because not only does that make a lot less work for them, it also happens to explain to them where this monster might fit into the existing campaign setting that they're making use of.

All of this material was left out when 4th edition hit. And has in fact not yet been provided in many cases, given entire categories of monster being changed and replaced as part of the new edition's sweeping alterations to the existing Dungeons & Dragons material.

Have you read the "Threats to the Nentir Vale" book? Because it's an entire book dedicated to the ecology and fluff of the default setting for the Points of Light world, and it ties in and expands on information provided from the PHB(s), the DMG(s), various adventure modules, and all sorts of other sources throughout 4e's run.

The fluff is there. It's just in a different book than the monster combat stats book.

Clawhound

2012-05-08, 12:10 PM

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 01:19 PM

<stuff>

Actually, there is a generic underlying assumption in most of the 3.5e material as to what setting it takes place in. Given the deities, the reuse of various character names, and the default locations, 3.5e takes place in a version of Greyhawk with parts of the serial numbers filed off.

Which makes it a lot more strongly established than most of Nentir Vale, in fact, since most of those deities and settings and character names actually have some proper meaning there. The Vault of the Drow, Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Mordenkainen, Melf, Tenser, Boccob, Lolth, Bigby and various others all have their origins in Greyhawk material.

That Complete Warrior, with the note that this book exists pretty much on its own in this category, had an obsession with providing elements that were more connected to existing campaign settings is immaterial. The fact remains that the vast majority of material for 4th edition is pretty much created for Greyhawk.

<TV Tropery, Nentir Vale book>

Now, I'm going to have to stop you there, because this all brings me back to my other, earlier point.

The monsters were already different. What was so non-unique about a Solar or a Hound Archon? What needed to be so different about the elven race, splitting them into eladrin and elves? Why weren't the original ideas for the eladrin interesting enough to be kept as they were rather than retconned into nothingness?

All of these aspects were, for the most part, unique to D&D. They did not actually need to be changed. And most of these problems could have been avoided had they simply introduced the different monsters as exactly that - different monsters. Not replacing the old ones. I mean, the ruleset isn't something I like very much, but when the material basically takes a gigantic dump on the previous settings that I was a huge fan of, this tends to irritate me.

While Threats to the Nentir Vale might be very good and well-made, it doesn't escape the fact that it continues the completely and utterly irreversible changes from previous editions. The ideas in Nentir Vale are not the ideas that had persisted over thirty years prior.

Seerow

2012-05-08, 01:21 PM

Also 3.5 characters were built different than monsters. Racial HD with arbitrary abilities, arbitrary BA progression, arbitrary level adjustment ect. Its totally fine to just make up numbers for monsters. Its not totally fine to just make up numbers for NPCs. If I'm facing a human ranger I want him to be built using the same rules I would use to build a human ranger. That's what is important to verisimilitude for me.

Well let's consider this example. You want a ranger that acts like a PC built ranger. Now let's take it as a given that as a PC you're not going to look at his character sheet.

The GM knows he's building a ranger, he wants the ranger specced for ranged damage. So he consults the expected numbers for a ranged damage dealer, grabs an attack bonus, base damage, AC, and HP from there. He then goes to the selection of Ranger abilities, and picks out 3 ranger abilities, and gives the Ranger level appropriate stealth, tracking, and perception checks.

Now when you run into this Ranger, you have a guy who is good at hiding, tracking, and seeing things, can do damage from far away, and can use abilities you know are generally restricted to rangers, or at least abilities that you know rangers use.

If his attack bonus or HP is a bit off, that could be chalked up to odd ability score alotments (since those were left blank), or feat selections (since those were also left blank). The only reason you might have to feel like this creature wasn't built like a PC is that he only has 3 powers, which you'll only notice if he sticks around for some time, after all he could just particularly favor using those abilities. I mean, I've seen Warblades who spam 1 or 2 attacks and refresh, rather than going through all of their abilities, and only break out a different trick in a niche situation. The characters doing this didn't break versilimitude, so I don't see why an NPC doing something of the sort would either.

Now for a BBEG or some other rare but important NPC sure, stat up the NPC just like a PC. But 99% of the time you don't need that information even for a class leveled NPC.

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 01:49 PM

The GM knows he's building a ranger, he wants the ranger specced for ranged damage. So he consults the expected numbers for a ranged damage dealer, grabs an attack bonus, base damage, AC, and HP from there. He then goes to the selection of Ranger abilities, and picks out 3 ranger abilities, and gives the Ranger level appropriate stealth, tracking, and perception checks.

Sure as long as the ranger actually preforms more or less like a player made ranger would. If he produces twice the damage a player could pull out, or has abilities that a player could never access I'd have a problem. The fact that the DM didn't painstakingly build ranger mook #3 isn't really a problem. Approximation will get the job done.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-08, 02:04 PM

What needed to be so different about the elven race, splitting them into eladrin and elves? Why weren't the original ideas for the eladrin interesting enough to be kept as they were rather than retconned into nothingness?

Actually, I can somewhat agree with the changes to the elves: Finally giving them a separation from the mary sues you see everywhere was a much-needed breath of fresh air, and I went from completely despising elves in older editions to finding them vaguely tolerable.

Still, the Eladrin thing was completely unnecessary, I agree.

Anyway, I still think Fatebreaker's points hold: A setting is more than a list of names and deities. A setting consists of maps and history, something the core 3E books don't have. They refer to it, sure, but you don't actually get the greyhawk setting in the core books.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 02:19 PM

Which is the fault of Wizards of the Coast. And something which continues to irritate me about 4th edition as they basically just continued using many of those Greyhawk-based assumptions (such as deities, character names, etc.) and made a setting that had even less information. They really should have published a 3rd edition Greyhawk Campaign Setting. And, for that matter, they should have published 3rd edition books for Dark Sun and Planescape.

As for the elves, I don't think you could really notice much of a change from 'Mary Sues' when you consider what they actually did there. Which was giving the high elves and grey elves this super-special feywild connection that granted them special powers even beyond learned magic, which is to say their innate teleporting power, which was added in as part of the utterly needless name-change to eladrin.

And then they turned the baseline elves into the wood and wild elves.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-08, 02:30 PM

I mostly disliked Dragonborn (Well I always hated the Dragonborn. Such a Generic Dragon race for people that wanted dragons) and Eladrin is BECAUSE THEY SHOVED THE RACE INTO EVERY SETTING THE PRINTED!

ESPECIALLY DARK SUN. Why the setting thats ABOUT NOT having generic woodland elves? Why add the feywild when the story was ABOUT no escape from the plane? Why

[Dark Sun Rant]
Why replace the interesting setting of Ur Draxa (Who view themselves as the last bastion of culture when their actually all illiterate barbarians) with another zombie town! We already had an undead Dragon! No need for another undead based one!

[/Dark Sun Rant]

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 02:30 PM

Which was giving the high elves and grey elves this super-special feywild connection that granted them special powers even beyond learned magic, which is to say their innate teleporting power, which was added in as part of the utterly needless name-change to eladrin.

And then they turned the baseline elves into the wood and wild elves.

I think of it as less a needless name change, and more a downgrading of 3.5 eladrin from mighty celestial to slightly more powerful elf.

They even use the same names in various books- tulani, shiradi, ghaele, bralani, coure.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-08, 02:36 PM

Question is: WHY!

Outside of 4es general Idea of making all the monsters killable (If your monster was Good or neutral its evil now so its OK to kill), there was no reason to make eladrin elf like (Outside of making more stuff killable)

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 02:48 PM

Making it more playable from 1st level maybe.

Given how like elves they were in looks and role- making them actual elf-creatures wasn't a huge jump.

Craft (Cheese)

2012-05-08, 02:49 PM

When I say "Elves", I mean, the race called "Elves." The Eladrin are just the old elves with a new skin of paint, yes, but that's a whole different can of worms. Personally? I just pretend the Eladrin were removed entirely. It's far better than facing the truth.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 02:50 PM

And for hilarity's sake, they didn't actually do that. Within the Forgotten Realms, they actually retroactively changed many elven characters and places and situations so that they were now eladrin characters and places and situations. And, for complete and utter hilarity, no longer made any sense in most circumstances given that the separation between 'sun elf' and 'eladrin' was actually important to many recent novel series.

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 02:53 PM

In those book "eladrin" would probably become "archfey" - things vastly more powerful than eladrin, that can grant power to arcanists.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-08, 02:59 PM

Huh. I thought this was a thread about 5e. Could someone point me to that discussion?

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 03:05 PM

In those book "eladrin" would probably become "archfey" - things vastly more powerful than eladrin, that can grant power to arcanists.

Except that the original eladrin were celestial outsiders only partially related to fey to begin with.

Which, to bring this back into the topic at hand... will pose many, many problems for the 5th edition designers. They single-handedly succeeded at making two almost completely incompatible views of Dungeons & Dragons, and their job is to now attempt to reconcile that.

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 03:09 PM

Every edition's made changes- though some were more sweeping than others.

The "tree" model for Forgotten Realms in 3.0 was a big jump away from the old Great Wheel which it, like Greyhawk, used before then.

DefKab

2012-05-08, 03:12 PM

Wow, people are really up in arms about 4E being different.

Ok. We get it. No. We REALLY DO. 4th Edition should not be called Dungeons and Dragons because it's not the same as before. I get that you feel that way.

And you can be upset that Eladrin aren't outsiders (well, kinda, from the Feywild) but Elves, now, and you can be upset that they messed with the setting and fluff that you thought you knew, but...

Whatever.
How is that important?

As stated, Dungeons and Dragons does NOT. I repeat, NOT! have a campaign setting. Didn't in 3.5, doesn't in 4th, probably wont in Next. (Hate that name...)

Therefore, all this fluff, where Eladrin fit in, the ecology of the monsters, is only fluff, and mostly unusable. If you wanted to play DnD, you had to make things your own, which usually involved changing stuff. So, you did. But when Wizards changes things (Which, they can... It's their IP), you get mad over it, because it doesn't fit the way YOU saw the world?

That's seems a little close-minded, maybe?

So, you don't want 4E's Eladrin to be Elves. When you run a game, say "No." It's honestly that simple. I mean, in a 3.5 game, you're rattling off house rule after house rule, so is it so weird to rule fluff differently, too?

You should ignore the fluff when regarding a games potential. Now, if they redid an ESTABLISHED setting and changed it (like they did with Dark Sun. For SHAME WotC), then yeah. Arm the Masses. But the little things? Printed in the generic High Fantasy rule book? Really?

Seems a little petty to me.

Tell me that the rules are poorly written, that the mechanics don't achieve what they meant to, that the crunch and the play isn't fine, you can say all these things to say that you don't like 4E, but when your disposition against game design comes down to how their fluff isn't your fluff? Well, then you've avoided a non-biased review, and I'll write you off as not liking something because you don't like something.

TL;DR Fluff does not a game make, because no one can stop you from changing it.

Which brings me to something I saw on the NEXT stuff (always trying to return to Next), I saw that someone was mad about the rogue being the best SkillMonkey. They claimed that if they wanted to make a brutal thug Rogue, who was as good at fighting as a fighter, that they shouldn't be punished by choosing Rogue...

Are we really that narrowminded that we can't seperate the name of a class from the role that they play in a fake, made up society?

If you want a thuggy badass rogue that can kick butt like a fighter, MAKE A FIGHTER. And when he shows up in game, you tell them that he's a brutal thug of a rogue, a cut-purse and a vandal. Its the same thing, but doesn't blur the line between the mechanics of individual classes, like this player seemed to have wanted.

Now, if you wanted a master locksmith, a prized swordsmen, and acknowledge scholar all in one character, maybe you're playing the wrong game...

Yora

2012-05-08, 03:22 PM

The main issue with it is conversion-ability (or whatever that word actually is). As someone recently mentioned, new editions are rarely released just between two campaigns for most parties, so people want to be able to continue their campaign using the new rules.

Which with 4th Edition simply was not possible without significant retroactive changes to what exactly happen so far in the campaign. Not to speak of several classes and races being missing.
I know converting from 2nd to 3rd edition was much smoother. You still had all your planes and most of your common creatures, and all your races, and all your classes, and all your spells. That's what got people annoyed when 4th Edition hit the market and what made many people stick with their old rules.

5th Edition simply can't win on this particular issue, as it can only be made to be conversion-able to either 3rd or 4th Edition but not both. So they are doing what I consider the safe thing and don't attempt either and instead try something entirely new.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-08, 03:30 PM

5th Edition simply can't win on this particular issue, as it can only be made to be conversion-able to either 3rd or 4th Edition but not both. So they are doing what I consider the safe thing and don't attempt either and instead try something entirely new.

I don't think that's safe.

See, for me, there are exactly two outcomes.

1. I can use my existing materials and campaign in 5e.
2. I can't.

Obviously, I prefer option 1. Making sure that EVERYONE has option 2 instead of just some people is....not beneficial.

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 03:34 PM

DefKab

2012-05-08, 03:40 PM

I dunno... I like them seperating from the past... If I don't want to play 3.5 anymore, its because the mechanics are too bad to play anymore. Therefore, they HAVE to be different in Next, or else, why not play 3.5?

Same with Fourth... If it's not radically different from 4th, then why play? Nadir (my campaign world) works perfectly fine in 4th. Should I change JUST because they made a new game? No, never.

But when the new game comes out, I'll have lots of fun designing a new world based on its mechanics, even if it means I'll never use my old Nadir stuff ever again.

It has to be very different, or why change at all?

Tyndmyr

2012-05-08, 03:48 PM

Trying to straddle the divide as much as possible- allowing fighter-types to have exploits with a 4E flavour, allowing caster-types to wield magic that is close to 3.5 but a bit less broken- basically trying to get everything that was most liked in every edition- would that be a good goal for them to strive for?

I dunno, really.

Me? I love 3.5. Dislike the hell out of 4e. I want 5e to be something I can port existing materials from 3.5 over to, but I don't want it to be a complete redo of 3.5(what would be the point of that?).

I imagine that 4e people want something similar.

Is it possible to make a future edition that accepts both 4e and 3.5 ports? Maybe. But it's one hell of a design challenge.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-08, 03:50 PM

Actually, there is a generic underlying assumption in most of the 3.5e material as to what setting it takes place in. Given the deities, the reuse of various character names, and the default locations, 3.5e takes place in a version of Greyhawk with parts of the serial numbers filed off.

Right, and having "generic underlying assumptions" which tie to a setting which isn't included or described is basically a recipe for whatever fluff they provide to be, well, useless.

Names mean nothing by themselves.

Which makes it a lot more strongly established than most of Nentir Vale, in fact, since most of those deities and settings and character names actually have some proper meaning there. The Vault of the Drow, Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Mordenkainen, Melf, Tenser, Boccob, Lolth, Bigby and various others all have their origins in Greyhawk material.

Wait -- are you seriously putting forward the idea that an undefined set of vague assumptions is somehow "more strongly established" than a clearly defined setting?

If you come from the Greyhawk days, you may fill in the gaps. But when you say that some names "have some proper meaning" in Greyhawk, that presupposes that people know about Greyhawk, which is a bit of a problem, since 3.x was incredibly non-committal about what the Material Plane actually looked like or what its history was. Trying to be setting specific and setting neutral at the same time while not explaining the setting is not a "strongly established" setting. Proper meaning is provided by context.

That Complete Warrior, with the note that this book exists pretty much on its own in this category, had an obsession with providing elements that were more connected to existing campaign settings is immaterial. The fact remains that the vast majority of material for 4th edition is pretty much created for Greyhawk.

*ahem*

Black Flame Zealot. Hospitaler. Rainbow Servant. Seeker of the Misty Isle. Shining Blade of Heironeous. Warmage. Green Star Adept. Mage of the Arcane Order. Suel Arcanamage. Wayfarer Guide. Knight of the Chalice. Knight Protector. Master of the Unseen Hand. Thayan Knight.

Just skimming through Complete Warrior, Divine, and Arcane, these are all prestige classes which involve some vague organization or plot element, similar to the Complete Warrior Purple Dragon Knights. If I bothered looking through the rest of my 3.x books, I could (and would) find more. Some of them are even base 1-20 classes. Duskblades, for example.

Whether they're from Greyhawk or not isn't the point, and doesn't matter. What matters is that they're not archetypes, they're specific groups who exist without specific details. That kind of fluff may be nice and modular, but it also presupposes a world which may be very different than the one you designed. And since you had to design your own world, well... I'm sure you can see where this leads to problems.

Now, I'm going to have to stop you there, because this all brings me back to my other, earlier point.

The monsters were already different. What was so non-unique about a Solar or a Hound Archon? What needed to be so different about the elven race, splitting them into eladrin and elves? Why weren't the original ideas for the eladrin interesting enough to be kept as they were rather than retconned into nothingness?

All of these aspects were, for the most part, unique to D&D. They did not actually need to be changed. And most of these problems could have been avoided had they simply introduced the different monsters as exactly that - different monsters. Not replacing the old ones. I mean, the ruleset isn't something I like very much, but when the material basically takes a gigantic dump on the previous settings that I was a huge fan of, this tends to irritate me.

While Threats to the Nentir Vale might be very good and well-made, it doesn't escape the fact that it continues the completely and utterly irreversible changes from previous editions. The ideas in Nentir Vale are not the ideas that had persisted over thirty years prior.

What? Nothing can ever change, ever? Nothing can ever be clarified? Nothing can ever be reimagined? No old ideas can ever be improved?

Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it's good.

As for whether things needed to be changed, well...

There's a whole mess o' Your Mileage May Vary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/YourMileageMayVary) there. Me, I loved the switch from the celestial zoo to the angelic host. I love Eladrin, while elves from previous editions have only left me bored. And bear in mind, I play both High Elves (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=cat440018a&aId=2100004) and Dark Elves (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=cat440016a&aId=2100012) in Warhammer. And back when Warcraft was an RTS, I loved High/Blood Elves before they were cool. It took Eladrin to get me to like D&D elves, though.

I mean, heck, even sticking with dragons, the Forgotten Realms dragons are different than their Monster Manual cousins. They periodically go crazy, for one! And Eberron... man, a dragon is the sky, dude. What's the challenge rating on the sky?

Point is, games evolve over time. Stories evolve. And in a system like D&D, where the mechanics and the setting are two different things, that's okay. You can still play in Greyhawk. Nobody's forcing you to play in the Nentir Vale.

Anyway, I still think Fatebreaker's points hold: A setting is more than a list of names and deities. A setting consists of maps and history, something the core 3E books don't have. They refer to it, sure, but you don't actually get the greyhawk setting in the core books.

Correct. If you weren't already familiar with Greyhawk to begin with, you certainly weren't helped along by 3.x.

My group never, ever, ever, ever, ever played in "Greyhawk." Heck, I think I was the only member of our group who knew that Greyhawk was even a thing.

Which is the fault of Wizards of the Coast. And something which continues to irritate me about 4th edition as they basically just continued using many of those Greyhawk-based assumptions (such as deities, character names, etc.) and made a setting that had even less information. They really should have published a 3rd edition Greyhawk Campaign Setting. And, for that matter, they should have published 3rd edition books for Dark Sun and Planescape.

Less information? Man, there's all sorts of fluff in those books. I'm really not sure why you keep insisting that the fluff isn't there when it is. It's just organized in a way you don't like it. But whether you like it or not, it's still there.

Seriously, if you don't like the fluff, ignore it and make your own. And, happily enough, the combat-centric stat block style of 4e made it really easy to fluff your own monsters!

--

The point isn't whether 3.x or 4e is better than the other. The point is that:

There's a difference between a set of assumptions and an actual setting.

Fluff works best in a setting. In a game where you create your own world, fluff is what you make of it, so why bemoan something new and different for people who don't like what you do?

Having monster stats reflect combat prowess and leaving fluff up the DM is perfectly okay, especially in a non-setting-specific system. It's even better than okay when you have campaign-specific material to add fluff to the crunch.
--

It has to be very different, or why change at all?

I think that's going to be the big hurdle of 5e -- it's trying to appeal to everyone by being "their" game, but if it's too much like a game they already own, why would they buy a new one?

I do hope they continue the fluff-neutral mechanics, and let folks fill in their own campaign settings. Also, more campaign setting books. Like, lots more of them. It's D&D's biggest strength, and I'm baffled that they don't make greater use of it.

hamishspence

2012-05-08, 03:56 PM

Didn't 3.0 print a Living Greyhawk Gazetteer at one point? I know they also did a Greyhawk Gazetteer that was just a basic outline of all the nations and regions because I got it secondhand.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-08, 06:18 PM

Im really beginning to think that 5es "modularity" will be nothing more then inbuilt feats/ powers that become choosable under more difficult conditions.....Im not sure thats a bad thing but those changes are not worth a whole new edition. I could even do that in 3e!

Scots Dragon

2012-05-08, 07:23 PM

Black Flame Zealot. Hospitaler. Rainbow Servant. Seeker of the Misty Isle. Shining Blade of Heironeous. Warmage. Green Star Adept. Mage of the Arcane Order. Suel Arcanamage. Wayfarer Guide. Knight of the Chalice. Knight Protector. Master of the Unseen Hand. Thayan Knight.

Really? The Hospitaler, Rainbow Servant, Warmage, Green Star Adept, Mage of the Arcane Order, Wayfarer Guide, Knight of the Chalice, Knight Protector and Master of the Unseen Hand are basically all pretty much generic, with sample organisations attached in places. I mean, seriously. A hospitaler is as generic a term as templar, given that it has vaguely the same origins in an old religious chivalric organisation back in the Middle Ages. Are you going to call the paladin and ranger setting-specific now as well?

So that leaves the Black Flame Zealot and the Thayan Knight as prestige classes connected to the Forgotten Realms. The rest? All Greyhawk, with the Seeker of the Misty Isle, Shining Blade of Heironeous and Suel Arcanamach all being connected to Greyhawk deities or to Greyhawk nations.

Outside of that, no... there's nothing wrong with changes in theory. Except if they have this whole thing of contradicting what has come before to such a degree that it completely changes what many of the earlier fans liked about the setting. And yes, they made a lot of needless changes in the switchover from AD&D to 3e... but it's nowhere near the scale of change that was brought about during 4th edition.

From 2e to 3e, the following was true;
The monsters were still the same monsters
The planes were still the same planes (even if there was that whole separation of cosmology thing that everyone basically just ignored)
The alignments were still the same alignments.
The deities were still the same deities
The places were still the same places
The backstory was still the same backstory
The races were still the same races
And the classes were still the same classes.

Certainly, there were minor changes. And new introductions, such as the sorcerer and warlock, as well as most of the new psionic rules. But it still had much of the same aura in much of the same places, and the settings all still felt like they were the same settings that had been going on for years. The concepts were still the same at their heart, even if there were a few new bits and pieces added here, there and everywhere.

All of this was changed in 4th edition.

It's like going from a deep forest colour in OD&D, to varying shades of emerald in AD&D 1e and 2e, to viridian in 3e, to bright orange with purple polkadots in 4e. While gradual evolution is certainly to be expected, it feels very much like 4th edition skipped a few dozen steps in that chain.

And ultimately this is going to be a make-or-break for 5e when it comes many fans like myself, who came from older editions.

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 07:53 PM

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

KnightDisciple

2012-05-08, 07:57 PM

@Narsil: Yet unlike you, I found the changes in 4e's assumed "generic setting", and the "setting" as a whole, far more interesting than Blandhawk (Greyhawk is very meh, or at least the core rulebook presentation is).

So, it's a conundrum, isn't it?

navar100

2012-05-08, 10:28 PM

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

Eldan

2012-05-08, 10:50 PM

There is sort of a basic setting for pre-4E D&D, it is just never really explained out of Planescape, and even that only makes the barest attempt. Core never went into it much, I think.

It's based on the assumption that everything, all the settings ever published are part of the same universe. You can play any setting without ever going there, but it exists. A bit like how you can read comics without ever hearding of the big DC or Marvel universe, but more insane.

Everything you read in earlier books is sort of assumed to be a part of that.

Seerow

2012-05-08, 10:53 PM

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

I'm already predicting complaining a lot about 5e healing, if any of the rumors have any sort of merit.

Fatebreaker

2012-05-08, 11:02 PM

Really? The Hospitaler, Rainbow Servant, Warmage, Green Star Adept, Mage of the Arcane Order, Wayfarer Guide, Knight of the Chalice, Knight Protector and Master of the Unseen Hand are basically all pretty much generic, with sample organisations attached in places. I mean, seriously. A hospitaler is as generic a term as templar, given that it has vaguely the same origins in an old religious chivalric organisation back in the Middle Ages. Are you going to call the paladin and ranger setting-specific now as well?

So that leaves the Black Flame Zealot and the Thayan Knight as prestige classes connected to the Forgotten Realms. The rest? All Greyhawk, with the Seeker of the Misty Isle, Shining Blade of Heironeous and Suel Arcanamach all being connected to Greyhawk deities or to Greyhawk nations.

*sigh* That's not what I'm saying.

In my original example, I compared and contrasted the "Purple Dragon Knights" from Complete Warrior with the real Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr from Forgotten Realms. PDK of Cormyr exist within the context of a setting, complete with friends, enemies, goals, history, territory, and so on and so forth. The PDK of Complete Warrior is, to quote my past self, an "ephemeral group of knights from nowhere in particular who fight unspecified battles against undescribed foes for no particular goal." However, their fluff treats them as a very specific group, and conveniently avoids telling us anything relevant about them.

That the PDK of Cormyr is originally from Forgotten Realms is only important as a contrast between fluff within a setting and fluff without nouns. It doesn't matter if they were originally from Forgotten Realms, or Dragonlance, or Ravenloft, or Greyhawk, or Eberron -- just that they had a specific setting where their fluff was integrated with the whole.

The other prestige classes I cited are all further examples of classes which have class-specific fluff which requires a change in your setting. Some (such as the Hospitalers or the Knight of the Chalice) require a formal order which acts within the world. Some have a specific origin (such as the Rainbow Servants, who are taught their magic by couatls atop ziggurats deep in "the jungle"). Some have specific goals (such as the Seeker of the Misty Isle, whose existence creates not just an order, but an entire missing island paradise whisked away by a god). The relevance of citing them is that each of them, in some way, imposes on your setting, but makes no real effort to interact with anything beyond itself. So you could (theoretically) have a generic homebrew world which includes all of them, with no real sense of where each one is or how they interact with one another. It's like living in a house with a dozen strangers, but you never talk to one another or even make eye contact. That is a not a setting which inspires any real sense of immersion.

Now, you can refluff them... but if you're doing that anyway, it doesn't matter what their original fluff is.

Which draws back to the original point -- you contend that 3.x Monster Manuals were better because the monster entries had more fluff. But, much like our Purple Dragon Knights of Nowhere In Particular, that fluff was tied to a setting which didn't exist as a coherent whole (as opposed to the PDK of Cormyr, whose fluff was integrated with a coherent whole). So you either ended up shoehorning in the fluff to your setting or you ended up changing the fluff, which fairly neatly invalidates the point of having it in the first place.

I much preferred how 4e provided mechanical stats in the Monster Manual, and fluff in the various campaign guides and fluff books. It makes it much easier to swap monsters between campaign worlds ("here, orcs have formed a desert kingdom, while here, orcs have formed a dessert kingdom"), and it doesn't saddle you down with assumptions that don't always hold true. I'm not trying to convince you that 4e had better fluff than 3.x. The point I'm trying to make is that 3.x tried to have it both ways: fluff that was both setting specific and setting neutral. It comes off as weird and surreal. It does not create immersion, nor does it even create a setting. It lacks the context necessary to make anything relevant.

One of the biggest strengths of D&D (if not the biggest) is how it has within itself the capacity for so many fantasy worlds. It straddles the line between a genre system and setting specific system. Probably (one of) the best thing(s) Wizards could do for 5e is to make the rules are setting neutral as possible and crank out campaign books for each setting, and then crank out new ones. But the key to making that work is to not behave like the 3.x books. Make the mechanics viable in any campaign world, and let the DM's tell the stories they want in the world of their choosing.

Outside of that, no... there's nothing wrong with changes in theory. Except if they have this whole thing of contradicting what has come before to such a degree that it completely changes what many of the earlier fans liked about the setting. And yes, they made a lot of needless changes in the switchover from AD&D to 3e... but it's nowhere near the scale of change that was brought about during 4th edition.

-snip-

And ultimately this is going to be a make-or-break for 5e when it comes many fans like myself, who came from older editions.

How in the world is creating a new setting contradictory to your old setting? I still have the old Forgotten Realms books, and I use those just fine in my 4e games. It doesn't matter that 4e has a Forgotten Realms campaign setting, I own both old and new material and pick what is true from each. We are literally talking about a game where you define reality as you see fit at your table.

@Narsil: Yet unlike you, I found the changes in 4e's assumed "generic setting", and the "setting" as a whole, far more interesting than Blandhawk (Greyhawk is very meh, or at least the core rulebook presentation is).

So, it's a conundrum, isn't it?

When 4e first came out, we ran a "default setting" game just to test the system. No homebrew, no houserules, just took the system at face value and went from there.

We enjoyed the Nentir Vale so much, we never bothered to create our own world. Theirs was just way too much fun!

Edit: And fey. I always thought fey were silly pre-4e. The 4e Feywild was awesome.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-09, 02:35 AM

How in the world is creating a new setting contradictory to your old setting? I still have the old Forgotten Realms books, and I use those just fine in my 4e games. It doesn't matter that 4e has a Forgotten Realms campaign setting, I own both old and new material and pick what is true from each. We are literally talking about a game where you define reality as you see fit at your table.

It's contradictory for me because it uses several things from the old settings, but with many inherent changes.

But ultimately my experiences with 4th edition were soured early on, with the very anemic core system, the idiotic-as-hell 'fighters get special powers now' system, and the vast, sweeping changes to the Forgotten Realms and the overall setting cosmology pretty much turned me off from the game. The whole idea of Nentir Vale isn't even something I dislike, and if they'd stuck to making Nentir Vale the only setting where these changes were implemented, I'd actually probably feel a lot better about it. But they didn't, and most of the older settings were changed to fit the new paradigm.

Greyhawk was pretty much strip-mined for ideas to include in Nentir Vale, for the first instance. And then the Forgotten Realms was practically blasted apart and had needless tielfings and dragonborn inserted into it. And most of the elven characters became eladrin. The Great Wheel was just removed, and replaced with a pretty bland 'astral sea' model to the multiverse.

And then Ravenloft was retconned to be part of the Shadowfell. And then there were Eladrin in Dark Sun.

The simple fact of the matter is that if all of these changes had remained within Nentir Vale, there would not be a problem. But they didn't, and they'll now have an additional problem trying to reconcile it all with the shift over to 5th edition and bringing in the players of older editions. Hell, they pretty much know that, which is why one of their pre-5e products is an edition-neutral Forgotten Realms sourcebook written by Ed Greenwood to be released later this year.

I personally can't wait for that.

2xMachina

2012-05-09, 06:04 AM

Scots Dragon

2012-05-09, 06:23 AM

Then the fanbase is split again. This time, into 3 sides.

That would actually be a reduction, when taking into account all of the myriad pre-3e fans as well. Such as the Classic D&D fans, the 1st edition AD&D fans, the 2nd edition AD&D fans, the various fans of the Rules Cyclopedia and Basic D&D, and those who've become enthusiasts of the various retroclones released over the past ten years.

WitchSlayer

2012-05-09, 07:47 AM

Whoa whoa whoa

Hey

Eladrin in Dark Sun were AWESOME. Mad djinn raiders from a world that was destroyed.

Kurald Galain

2012-05-09, 08:04 AM

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

Prediction two: the complaint will be that 5E made the same mistakes as 4E, and that WOTC should simply put 3E back in print.

Prediction three: people will compliment 5E on going back to D&D's roots to resemble 1E mechanics, even if it does nothing of the sort.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 08:11 AM

Eladrin in Dark Sun were AWESOME. Mad djinn raiders from a world that was destroyed.

They can go die in a ditch in the para-elemental plane of silt for all I care about them.

Dark sun isn't about otherworldly influences or planes (Except for the hyper dangerous and uninhabitable elemental planes)

The point of the world is a post apocalyptic world that used to be a paradise!
The world itself was the wonderland, which was then destroyed! There is no escape!

In addition the Races of Athas are specifically different, as the effects of the world changed them after thousands of years. Elves are running nomads without the concentration to learn lots of magic. Instead they RUN RUN RUN and RUN some more.

Dwarves HATE hair, and are bald and beardless!

But NO 4e just HAD TO shove its pointless races into the mix!

Well I have a place where they can all be shoved!

Tyndmyr

2012-05-09, 08:23 AM

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

I admit, I don't understand the point of arguing over it yet...we don't know exactly what 5 will be like. Now, once I play 5, I'll probably have a strong opinion one way or the other, but until then, why bother?

That would actually be a reduction, when taking into account all of the myriad pre-3e fans as well. Such as the Classic D&D fans, the 1st edition AD&D fans, the 2nd edition AD&D fans, the various fans of the Rules Cyclopedia and Basic D&D, and those who've become enthusiasts of the various retroclones released over the past ten years.

I know a gent who is deep into the older D&D culture. As in, writing retro-modules and getting them published and such. His attitude toward 5e is "I'll buy it if it's compatible with the earlier versions". He considers 3.5 compatible because he can use those adventures in earlier versions with minimal changes, but does not consider 4e to be, because he can't.

Wotc doesn't need to make everyone HAPPY, just...happy enough to buy.

bokodasu

2012-05-09, 09:29 AM

I am really interested to see how the convertability works out. They claim to be trying for both. (And older editions too.) I can... sort of murkily imagine that it would be possible? But I haven't played 4th outside of Gamma World, so I'm no expert here.

Obviously you're not going to be able to convert your L20 character that used 15 different sourcebooks to build, no matter which version you're converting from. They're not going to put all the previous splats into the new core, so we can ignore that case right from the start. But what is reasonable to expect to be able to convert?

I would say any combination of core race/class from any edition, in such a way that it can create the same results as the original character, even if the mechanics of how those results are created change. If a 3e wizard can cast Fireball, the 5e conversion should be able to cast Fireball. If the 4e wizard has an encounter power that lets it shoot flame at an enemy, the 5e conversion should be able to burn an enemy once per encounter. Those don't really seem incompatible, given the right menu to pick from.

If the 3->5e conversion winds up being able to shoot flame once per encounter in addition to casting Fireball, I don't consider that an incompatibility. But does that mean that 5e character will have to be more powerful than either a 3e or a 4e one, just to encompass all of the possibilities? Again, given the right menu, I don't think so. How that menu is going to be set up, though, I have no clue.

Or maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle - maybe we should all be divorcing class from ability even further, as suggested by some of the previous arguments. If class describes what you can do, then there's no reason why a 3e wizard couldn't convert to "Vancian Wizard" and a 4e wizard to "Sorcerer" (or whatever name you like). Again, it's not the name that's important, but the functionality.

Does this sound like a functional track, or a recipe for a 700-page Player's Guide?

Tyndmyr

2012-05-09, 09:32 AM

Obviously you're not going to be able to convert your L20 character that used 15 different sourcebooks to build, no matter which version you're converting from. They're not going to put all the previous splats into the new core, so we can ignore that case right from the start. But what is reasonable to expect to be able to convert?

Depends on conversion guidelines. For instance, going from 2 to 3, or 3 to 3.5, you could convert fairly easily in most cases even if you used different sources. The same is true for 3.5 to pathfinder.

So, at least in theory, it's possible for a comprehensive conversion guide to exist. I'm glad I'm not the guy who has to write that, tho.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-09, 10:59 AM

Wotc doesn't need to make everyone HAPPY, just...happy enough to buy.

Indeed. Though it seems that the greatest compatibility is between the first three editions are inter-compatible enough, though with 3e being less so, so it's probably going to be the case that 5e takes more from those earlier editions. And, given what I've seen of preliminary materials, that does actually seem to be the case, with the wizard having a Vancian progression track, for instance.

Does this sound like a functional track, or a recipe for a 700-page Player's Guide?

You speak as if those two are mutually exclusive. Gigantic books of tomely goodness are to be encouraged.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 12:59 PM

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-09, 02:07 PM

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

Shush you. We don't need that kind of logic here. :P

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 02:22 PM

Tom Foolery

2012-05-09, 02:31 PM

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

I disagree it will still be 3ed vs 4th ed. Both sides will be blaming the other for whatever perceived flaws they think it has.

3rd ed ranter: This rule is clearly the same as 4th edition thus it sucks and ruins the game.
4th ed ranter: This rule is clearly the same as 3rd edition and thus no longer feels like my D&D.

KnightDisciple

2012-05-09, 02:48 PM

Also:

Stop the supplement treadmill. Its a (If not THE) edition killer.

It looks like it can give you some serious cash , but its the thing that kills your edition the quickest.

Everybody wants the splatbook, but with splatbooks come bloat. Bloat kills the edition.

Instead, make well-written campaign settings (With rare and appropriate splatbooks).

I think the problem is that most modern D&D fluff simply isn't very interesting. Its...OK, but its just based around shoveling more classes and splats rather then just being interesting or well written with a couple of splatty stuff thrown in.

Look at Dark sun. Its a very in depth setting.

In depth it describes Elves and Thri-Kreen (Highly in depth) with a book for each. At the end of the book are a couple of stuff made for the races. Very little bloat but incredibly useful for players and (Especialy) DMs.

I would Totally buy a reprint of the Veiled alliance even though it contains:

No new magic items or classes or anything. Just some well written stuff.
Ok, but how are they actually going to make money?

No, I'm dead seriously.

It seems like you're basically asking them to release 1 set of 3 core books (or 2, or whatever), then release a few campaign settings with similar numbers.

That's great in theory, but it won't make them money.
Which, you know, they kind of have to. To stay in business, pay their bills, repay their stockholders, etc.
I mean, this isn't a charity guys.

I don't think "no splatbooks" is reasonable.
"Better pacing on splatbooks", "well thought-out splatbooks", "splatbooks that don't revisit the same stuff", or things like that, those make sense and are reasonable.

But "no splatbooks ever" is just silly. We all know they'll do it.

And what if some of us players want options for something that's not released in the books they print initially (no matter what, this will happen)?
Are we relegated to Homebrew no matter what?

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 02:52 PM

Uh.....Isn't that what 2e did? And didn't it stay afloat for like....ten years?

Also: I mentioned that extra stuff is added to COMPLEMENT the new fluff. Not the other way around.

DefKab

2012-05-09, 02:54 PM

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

Really? o_O Because to me, it seems better than a 200 page 40$ rulebook.

Lookatit.... You got your cover page, your dedication page, your splash page, the intro page, the basic premise page, all in the front of every book, and then you have your glossary, index, location of tables, quick reference, and advertisement pages in the back... My PHB lost me some 20 pages due to fat, and still cost a rediculous amount of money... Adding 300 pages of actual worth for only a fraction of the cost? I dont care if that bee is 10 pounds, I'll buy it.

Then again, I'm a hypocrite, and a liar. I'll probably download it instead...

Draz74

2012-05-09, 03:39 PM

Ok, but how are they actually going to make money?

Lots of small, high-quality (probably paperback) books. Which are either Campaign Setting Supplements (mostly fluff; light on crunch except for monster stat blocks), or adventure modules.

Plus, continue 4e's subscription-based model for income. 21st century, and all that. 4e's Character Builder was generally a smashing success. If you make an equally good VTT (as 4e promised but never delivered), and tie it all to a system that doesn't have 4e's mechanical problems, I think you'd be able to build a very large customer base that is willing to pay you $10/month ongoing.

Tie all this to a SMALL base of crunch-heavy rulebooks (including, but not limited to, a Core PHB and DMG) and WotC can do just fine. As long as their game design skills don't suck.

* * *

Crazy new idea that just occurred to me:

For customers who just love new "crunch" material and don't care about bloat, what if you included a significant amount of new mechanical material in each Dragon magazine (which, like in recent years, is available in pdf form via monthly subscription), but you're just plain honest about putting a "DM beware of balance issues!" sign on the cover? Basically be upfront about giving Dragon content the same "caution: unofficial" status that most people assumed about 3e Dragon Content? And not consider it official material for e.g. tournament play? Basically, Dragon Magazine just becomes a big pile of published homebrew that can give groups ideas if they are looking for more mechanical options for their game.

Then, you could even make your few, crunch-heavy splatbooks a Compendium of the most popular, most balanced Dragon content that has been out for at least a year. Like, take all the best magic items from Dragon issues, slap some errata and fixes on them, and publish it as "Dragon Compendium: Tome of Artifice" or something.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 03:44 PM

That would work.

Point is that the "Treadmill of supplements" causes heavy burnout.

3e lasted for only 8 years, and that was with a huge errata. 4e lasted for barely 5.

If you can just make quality material, and just good writing, people will buy your stuff.

hamlet

2012-05-09, 03:50 PM

Point of order: TSR learned the hard way that you inherently limit your profits if you intend to make profit on selling books that, by their nature, appeal to only 1 out of 5 or 6 members of each D&D group. Adventures and DMG's are profit loss items, really.

What I'd love to see is the publication of lots of new setting books, either as two book sets separated into player knowledge and DM knowledge, or as one book but with a clear and explicit divider between player and DM sections like the original Arcana Unearthed did.

Modules can, and almost should in a way, be made available online either free or very cheap. Cut the cost of printing and still offer them for sale. Or POD if desired.

Much as I am loathe to say it, though, the best way to bilk money out of the gaming crowd is to print lots of books aimed at players with lots of fun new crunchy rules that they might not be required to have, but really really want.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 03:52 PM

Tyndmyr

2012-05-09, 03:53 PM

Also:

Stop the supplement treadmill. Its a (If not THE) edition killer.

It looks like it can give you some serious cash , but its the thing that kills your edition the quickest.

Everybody wants the splatbook, but with splatbooks come bloat. Bloat kills the edition.

Instead, make well-written campaign settings (With rare and appropriate splatbooks).

I think the problem is that most modern D&D fluff simply isn't very interesting. Its...OK, but its just based around shoveling more classes and splats rather then just being interesting or well written with a couple of splatty stuff thrown in.

Look at Dark sun. Its a very in depth setting.

In depth it describes Elves and Thri-Kreen (Highly in depth) with a book for each. At the end of the book are a couple of stuff made for the races. Very little bloat but incredibly useful for players and (Especialy) DMs.

I would Totally buy a reprint of the Veiled alliance even though it contains:

No new magic items or classes or anything. Just some well written stuff.

I'm pretty ok with splatbooks. I own all the 3.5 ones, I think. Well, the official ones, anyway. I've got a few of the others too, but there's rather a lot out there.

You don't HAVE to use them all for a given game, but lots of people like to use at least some. After all, we buy em, right?

I'm not against lots of campaign settings as well, but it need not be a "no splatbook" plan.

hamlet

2012-05-09, 03:57 PM

Unfortunatly it lasted 3e only 8 years (With a large errata so technically 5). So even with TSRs stuff its still better then what WOTC did.

Ive found the setting books of 3e and 4e to be SO BORING. Its just not conveyed in an interesting way!

I'd wager that that second bit is due to the ever increasing and falacious equation of more rules to depth of writing. I find the original greybox Forgotten Realms setting fabulously more interesting, by orders of magnitude, than the 4e Forgotten Realms setting. And I'm not talking about rules preference, just the basic writing of the setting in and of itself. The greybox is, simply put, more evocatively written, more inspiring, just flat out more interesting as a campaign setting than the latest WOTC version, and it has virtually no rules info in it except for a few NPC statblocks and an adventure.

I think WOTC would be greatly benefited if they went back to those old campaign setting books and just relearned what made them so good in the first place. That would be a great thing.

DefKab

2012-05-09, 03:58 PM

Ive found the setting books of 3e and 4e to be SO BORING. Its just not conveyed in an interesting way!

Mostly 'cause they're just 'here's a city of ALL UNDEAD!' and 'Here's one... in the sky'... Unless you're talking about Faerun, and Dark Sun, in which case, lolwut? You probably don't like their hype... Since neither 3e or 4e had a setting, their adventure supplements had to be stand alone, which made them feel exactly what they were: several pieces that if thrown together showed obvious stitchings and a lack of cohesion between writing styles. Like... Sticky notes, if someone wrote a different one each time, that tried to explain a setting, except no one was allowed to look at the other sticky notes that were already posted...

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 04:08 PM

2e Dark sun is just BETTER WRITTEN.

Its cities based off of ancient empires, each one cleverly embracing the savagery but uniqueness of it all.

You just don't get this type of clever stuff no more.

hamlet

2012-05-09, 04:15 PM

2e Dark sun is just BETTER WRITTEN.

Its cities based off of ancient empires, each one cleverly embracing the savagery but uniqueness of it all.

You just don't get this type of clever stuff no more.

I'd say all of 2ed campaign settings were just better written than the 3e versions. And certainly the 4e versions.

However, 2nd edition kind of dropped the ball in terms of Greyhawk. Neither here nor there, though.

The point is that what makes the campaign setting interesting and fun is not new rules, new classes, etc., but good writing, interesting ideas well thought out and exploited, and so on. That, and the ability to make use of the setting without having to go and empty your wallet entirely on various splat books just to make it work on even a basic level.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-09, 04:20 PM

I think.....Yeah. The secret to a good campaign setting is just Good writing.

Thats about it.

DefKab

2012-05-09, 04:32 PM

I've been looking into a lot of 3.5 homebrew, jus' cuz, and there's something I noticed... A lot of the best homebrew are fashioned using unique mechanics from splatclasses, or other additive features of the game... Meaning, the original stuff is actually improved on by adapting it to the new stuff... For instance, the Voldur (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238557) here uses a Warblade's manuever as it's racial ability.

Opinions aside, it is a unique way to build a race, but ultimately would require the knowledge that the Warblade was going to exist if this kind of building was established in the beginning.

I don't know if I'm getting my point across... Lessee. Gnomes. Gnomes get cantrips per their class feature, and it's limited to the spells produced in the PHB. That means, despite however many cantrips are developed in splat books (like even ones specifically partaining to Gnomes...) a gnome can ONLY have those spell-like-abilities.

I see this as the fault of lack of foresight, but is entirely understandable. For 3.5...

With all the material that has been presented in DnD's long run, how likely do you think it is that Next will incorporate ideas that they're not producing yet into books they are? Will they use an interesting PrC's ability as an idea for a racial feature, even though the PrC's not done yet, or will they do as they have done in the past? It's like making a clay pot.
You either start with a little, and slap on chunks as you go, giving it a hashed together feel, or you start with way too much pot, and slowly scrape away the excess unto you have what you want...

With the module idea, it SOUNDS like it'll be the latter... But what do you guys think?

Eldan

2012-05-09, 06:46 PM

Shush you. We don't need that kind of logic here. :P

All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-10, 01:33 AM

All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.

Well whatever. You know what I mean.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-10, 02:17 AM

All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.

I don't actually use dollars, and the conversion sometimes tends to vary, but the core books for 4e usually go for about £20, according to Amazon. Though they're on offer at the minute, apparently.

Yora

2012-05-10, 04:13 AM

All D&D books I've ever seen cost at least 50$. Probably 60+ now, that the dollar is so cheap.

Aren't you from Switzerland? Everything is super-expensive there. :smallbiggrin:
All my 3rd Edition books say $29.95 on the back.

LansXero

2012-05-10, 09:13 AM

What I would like to see is more modules that are fully usable outside of the box and pretty-ed up.

I would certainly buy them if a module came with:
- Cardboard pregen PCs
- Paper empty char sheets
- Apropriate tokens / minis for the encounters in the module, not random stuff
- Apropriate map grids for the encounters in the module, not generic stuff
- Stat cards for the monsters in the module
- Empty monster stat card
- Dice probably.
- Module with cardboard handouts that you can tear off and hand out, split between an adventure intro booklet, a mechanics summary for the DM to run encounters with, and the stuff he is supposed to read out loud.

I have no idea how feasible or economical would it be to make this, but Id love to see more of this. The main thing holding D&D back is how much of a time comitment it demands, and how much of the work is put on a single person.

russdm

2012-05-10, 05:11 PM

My only issues with the 3.5 splatbooks was the fact that they made the rules become bloated and crazy. Is it that hard to test the splatbooks to make them in line with the main rules, so there is no bloated broken craziness?

I found as I DMed 3.5 that the encounter system was really hard to get a handle on. It was hit or miss, and if you used what was in the Monster Manual, the encounters were fairly short. Also, statting up npcs took a while and would end up being a waste of time because they would die really fast.

I think one of the main things about 4e that i liked was that it was easier to DM it than it was to DM 3.5. You could be an inexperienced DM and have things running pretty quick. In 3.5, it was a challenge and still is for me. Learning to DM 3.5 has been a challenge and i still have issues. I get yelled at about having a bad tactical sense. I tried making encounters be tough but they ended up always being easy or too easy. Of course i have several min-maxers/powergamers in my gaming group. I can see already serious signs of similiar issues for the DM is running our current saturday game. I also had xp awards and treasure hand-out issues.

I hope 5e is fairly easy to DM for, and has a decently made encounter system. I think that for options, each class should have a skeleton to it, then you can add abilities and features that you can qualify for.

For example: The wizard class) You can do spellcasting and get some spells that represent a basic required learning for it. Then you pick spells/abilities/features to round out your stuff. As you level up, more options become available if you meet the preqs.

I wasn't particulary fond of Vancian Magic. It had its good points yeah, but it caused the odd wizard/sorceror spiel. Wizards knew alot of spells and cast a few. Sorcerors knew a few and cast alot. Otherwise they were just flipsides on a coin. Then you throw in the Tiers, and explain to me why you wouldn't just be a wizard anyway? or just a cleric or druid? Oh, you could be a fighter type, if you used the Tome of battle stuff.

Making the classes more equal was nice. That way, my high level fighter can do more than just make sandwiches for your high level wizard. Do we really still need the wizard to be able to defeat encounters all on their own? At higher levels, wizards tend to end up ruling the game. They can deal with all problems, find out everything they need to, and can handle pretty much anything that comes their way.

I would like to see 5e being something that would be enjoyable to play, but i don't it to be just a copy of pathfinder; which functions basically as 3.5 with house rules. Some stuff that worked in 4e should be viewed at or looked at for adding in.

I happen to like 3.5 aside from its issues i have when i try to run games. I liked 4th and enjoyed it alot, but i ended up just back to 3.5 since i could find a game for that, and the 4e stuff was absorbing money and shelf space.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-10, 06:49 PM

My only issues with the 3.5 splatbooks was the fact that they made the rules become bloated and crazy. Is it that hard to test the splatbooks to make them in line with the main rules, so there is no bloated broken craziness?

For people who know the system? Not hard at all. For WotC? Apparently so.

I'm sure by now you've heard the story about how WotC told the old CharOp boards "Hey guys, we've heard people think our books aren't very balanced. We'll let you playtest the next few books and tell us the broken stuff, and you'll get your forum names in the back under playtest credits." People liked the idea and enthusiastically offered their critique...but WotC ignored most of it, and what they didn't ignore went into the books uncredited.

It's perfectly possible to get a few competent people who know the game like the back of their hands to review and playtest things, and to do it quickly and efficiently, but WotC (A) doesn't hire good reviewers and playtesters, apparently, and (B) apparently doesn't like to hear criticism from outside sources. At least they were subtle about it, unlike Paizo's open playtest and their responses to criticism there, but still, playtesting has never been WotC's strong suit.

And this isn't just a 3e thing, either--keep in mind that the CharOp boards broke 4e in several ways before it was even officially released. It's just that the structure of 4e was strict enough that the devs couldn't release anything too crazy, and though it took the devs until the last year or two of each edition to get a better handle on how the system actually worked (and even then...truenamer....) that came a lot earlier for 4e because the inner workings were more visible.

I wasn't particulary fond of Vancian Magic. It had its good points yeah, but it caused the odd wizard/sorceror spiel. Wizards knew alot of spells and cast a few. Sorcerors knew a few and cast alot. Otherwise they were just flipsides on a coin. Then you throw in the Tiers, and explain to me why you wouldn't just be a wizard anyway? or just a cleric or druid? Oh, you could be a fighter type, if you used the Tome of battle stuff.

The sorcerer exists because there was no spontaneous casting before 3e and the devs wanted to try something new. The fact that they drastically overvalued it's usefulness, like they did for many innocuous mechanics over the years (cough cough warlock), is what led to sorcerers being strictly inferior to wizards in many scenarios, though again once the devs got their act together the sorcerer started to pull ahead in several areas.

If you play 3e using the assumptions of AD&D, it actually plays fine up through high levels. The devs meant to make a game that let you play AD&D in a more streamlined manner, and they did an excellent job of that. They just didn't realize that the changes they made would result in a very different playstyle when considering how the game actually works, which is why we got the Tiers and all that.

Eldan

2012-05-10, 06:53 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-10, 07:43 PM

Eh. Crazy overpoweredness was not so much a problem with the splatbooks. They made being overpowered a bit more easy and convenient, perhaps, but most of the strongest spells were in core, as were most Tier 1 classes.

But a lot of those books just didn't have much that was acutally interesting. Most of the prestige classes weren't really worth taking from a mechanical standpoint, and didn't offer much fluffwise. Except for casters of course, who would be stupid not to take a PrC, as they mostly don't lose anything.

Granted, Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law) applies to splatbook material as much as anything else, but there's plenty of arguably broken stuff in splats (DMM + nightsticks, truenamers, celerity, StP erudite, Planar Shepherd...) that the devs should have noticed easily but missed. The fact that the PHB is the most unbalanced book doesn't excuse the devs from at least trying to clean up their act with the later stuff, and that perception of splats being broken, even if untrue, was a big problem if only because it made people want to run core-only games.

russdm

2012-05-10, 11:46 PM

@PairOdiceLost: I was meaning the developers, not the players. I thought that the 3.5 CharOp boards were for shameless powergamers more interested in sucking the funness out of the game by making characters that made the rest of party redundent. As well as causing DMs troubles since the characters became able to trash the encounters without harm.

I would have thought that Wizards would have listened to the playtesting results and improve the game system thanks to it. Did they not simply care at that point? or was this during the build up of 4th edition?

Tome of Battle is one of the best splatbooks. It makes martial classes jump up the tier to tier 2 or tier 3. I didn't really care about 4e's brokenness. I happen to like the sorceror and warlock classes. They are both interesting kinds of casters. Sorcerors are really great when you add in the metamagic that lets them cast spells quickly.

I have played AD&D, Dark Sun to be precise, What were the assumptions?

In General: I agree that the splatbooks didn't have much that was interesting, but there were some hidden gems amongst the refuse.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-11, 12:31 AM

@PairOdiceLost: I was meaning the developers, not the players. I thought that the 3.5 CharOp boards were for shameless powergamers more interested in sucking the funness out of the game by making characters that made the rest of party redundent. As well as causing DMs troubles since the characters became able to trash the encounters without harm.

I was referring to the developers as well. My point was that there were and are plenty of people out there, whether freelancers or random people on the internet, who had the knowledge and the desire to help WotC playtest things but the devs just didn't want to take advantage of that opportunity.

I would have thought that Wizards would have listened to the playtesting results and improve the game system thanks to it. Did they not simply care at that point? or was this during the build up of 4th edition?

I'm fairly sure it was in the Tome of Battle-to-Cityscape time period, so that would put it in the second half of 2006, at least a year before the start of development on 4e was announced; all the original threads are gone since the WotC forums went down in flames after Gleemax, so I can't find any particular dates.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-11, 09:01 AM

Aren't you from Switzerland? Everything is super-expensive there. :smallbiggrin:
All my 3rd Edition books say $29.95 on the back.

They will. That said, good luck finding MiC for $29.95. The lack of supply of new books means many 3.5 books are climbing solidly in price.

The older 3.0 books seem generally still reasonable, though.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-11, 09:16 AM

If you play 3e using the assumptions of AD&D, it actually plays fine up through high levels. The devs meant to make a game that let you play AD&D in a more streamlined manner, and they did an excellent job of that. They just didn't realize that the changes they made would result in a very different playstyle when considering how the game actually works, which is why we got the Tiers and all that.

Well said!

Clawhound

2012-05-11, 11:25 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-11, 12:06 PM

Indeed, it was/is a simulation vs. implementation problem.

In one direction, the rules simulate the world, and in the other, the world implements the rules. Depending on which direction you choose, you get a significantly different answer.

For people who want to play in a world, the rules exist to simulate the experience of that world, but ultimately, the world defines the feel, not the rules. That which violates the world is discouraged for forbidden.

If you begin with the rules defining the world, then anything that the rules allow is allowed, and the implications of those rules are allowed as well. Thus, if spiked-chain wielders make the best infantry, then you would expect to find many spiked-chain wielding companies taking to the battlefield with their superior weapon.

Mix the two worlds, and you get conflict. My guess is that World-First is the predominant play style, but on the boards, Rules-First might predominate.
A novel concept, but I don't think this plays out the way you state.

The rules of a game are analogous to the physics of the world: they define how outcomes of actions are determined. A weapon that does 1d10 damage per hit is, all other things being equal, a more lethal weapon than one that does 1d4. If your "world" says daggers are incredibly lethal while battleaxes are not and yet the rules say getting hit with a battleaxe is going to kill you quicker, you have a "world" that operates under an illusion.

As much as I hate to say it, "worlds" that disagree with the rules they operate under lack verisimilitude and, to many people, that means they are bad worlds. "World-First" playstyles only work when Players don't read the rules of the game; they take the authors at their word. But, when they try to operate within the world using the rules they will quickly discover that the authors have lied to them and the world is very different than they had been lead to believe.

2xMachina

2012-05-11, 01:41 PM

Clawhound

2012-05-11, 03:41 PM

A novel concept, but I don't think this plays out the way you state.

The rules of a game are analogous to the physics of the world: they define how outcomes of actions are determined. A weapon that does 1d10 damage per hit is, all other things being equal, a more lethal weapon than one that does 1d4. If your "world" says daggers are incredibly lethal while battleaxes are not and yet the rules say getting hit with a battleaxe is going to kill you quicker, you have a "world" that operates under an illusion.

As much as I hate to say it, "worlds" that disagree with the rules they operate under lack verisimilitude and, to many people, that means they are bad worlds. "World-First" playstyles only work when Players don't read the rules of the game; they take the authors at their word. But, when they try to operate within the world using the rules they will quickly discover that the authors have lied to them and the world is very different than they had been lead to believe.

Exactly. You have the "rules first" point of view. That's what works for you.

Let's start with world first. If I am going to run a Arthurian style game, I can choose D&D to do that. Choices which works with Arthurian verisimilitude are smiled upon, but many options won't work with Arthurian. The problem here is not the world. The problem is that the rules set is imperfect. Should imperfections and quirks in the rules set then drive the setting, so that Sir Ninja and Sir Dread Necromancer go searching for the Holy Grail? No.

In a rules-driven world, if you change the rules system, then the world must change with it.

In world first, the rules only approximate the world, they do not define it. The game rules are merely a common language to engage in the adventure. You could just as easily use GURPS or Rock-Paper-Scissors to adventure. The world remains the same no matter which system that you use.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-11, 03:47 PM

It looks like they won't be releasing it this year (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120508)....But they could be lying.

If they did that the backlash would cause bleeding.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-11, 03:48 PM

Let's start with world first. If I am going to run a Arthurian style game, I can choose D&D to do that. Choices which works with Arthurian verisimilitude are smiled upon, but many options won't work with Arthurian. The problem here is not the world. The problem is that the rules set is imperfect. Should imperfections and quirks in the rules set then drive the setting, so that Sir Ninja and Sir Dread Necromancer go searching for the Holy Grail? No.

In a rules-driven world, if you change the rules system, then the world must change with it.

In world first, the rules only approximate the world, they do not define it. The game rules are merely a common language to engage in the adventure. You could just as easily use GURPS or Rock-Paper-Scissors to adventure. The world remains the same no matter which system that you use.
...unless you're talking about changing the rules to fit the world-view you're aiming for, it sounds an awful lot like willful ignorance to me. Which I guess is cool, but I'd rather play a game where the rules match the world, rather than have to pretend that certain rules don't exist.

If your world posits the increasing dominance of firearms over older tech, what do you do if the rules actually make old tech as good -- if not better -- than the new? Pretend that the legions of musketmen aren't getting slaughtered by some guy with two swords? Do people actually choose that sort of gameplay? If so, why? :smallconfused:

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-11, 03:51 PM

...unless you're talking about changing the rules to fit the world-view you're aiming for, it sounds an awful lot like willful ignorance to me. Which I guess is cool, but I'd rather play a game where the rules match the world, rather than have to pretend that certain rules don't exist.

Unfortunately that usually requires a system thats completely balanced.

Because otherwise I must ask: When you play 4e do you always play the optimal 300damage per round dealing rouge? Because otherwise your just not making sense. All other options would be willful ignorance :smallwink:.

edit:

In fact your entire campaign must be filled with nothing BUT these types of characters. I mean, If this is the most powerful build therefore everybody else MUST have to play it as well.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-11, 04:15 PM

Unfortunately that usually requires a system thats completely balanced.

Because otherwise I must ask: When you play 4e do you always play the optimal 300damage per round dealing rouge? Because otherwise your just not making sense. All other options would be willful ignorance :smallwink:.
Ah, hello strawman. Nice to meet you :smalltongue:

No, I am not making the argument that everyone always works with total optimality. That's false for many reasons; what I am arguing is that people operate with reasonable optimality.
Armies use good weapons and armor because they win wars. Armies which use inferior weapons and armor tend to lose, all other things being equal. At the smaller level, mercenaries can't afford to choose sub-standard gear because they think it should work better: when you are in a high-risk profession, natural selection tends to weed out people who hold fast to false assumptions.

That said, there is a lot of space between "the best" and "good enough." For individuals it is enough to kill the other guy before he kills you -- it doesn't usually matter whether you kill him in round 1 or round 3. In 4e in particular there are plenty of options which are "good enough" that they would be reasonable to choose between them -- not everyone should be a Caster.

But this isn't about Edition Warz; it's about (*sigh*) verisimilitude. Most people prize verisimilitude in their games for various reasons, but for me it has always been about satisfying expectations: it is easier to make decisions in a game where one can have a reasonable understanding of the costs and benefits of the decisions. If a game tells me that Fighters are the best at fighting then I'd expect to be at least good at fighting were I to play one; it would be jarring to discover that Fighters are actually pretty bad at fighting when compared to Clerics -- who are supposed to be good at healing, not fighting. On a larger scale, every time the fluff of the world does not match up with the crunch it prompts the question of "why is the world like this?" Why is The Empire rolling over everyone with their advanced technology when my character's sword & shield is more than a match for their guns? If Clerics can cast Mending at will, why does anyone bother to fix things by hand?

You can Hand Wave your way around a lot of it -- Clerics are far rarer than you'd think or your sword & shield technique is usable by one in a million while training with guns is easier -- but some things are harder to Hand Wave than others. The classic example is easy resurrection: why is the king afraid of assassins when he can be magically resurrected basically at will. If your world hinges on the assumption that death is final (see Arthurian Fantasy) it can become awkward to the DM when the Players roll up to Arthur's corpse and cast Raise Dead. Of course, there are ways to Scotch Tape over it, but wouldn't it be better to simply use rules that match your world rather than glaring at your Players every time they do something that is allowed but declasse?
The short of it is that people make sub-optimal choices for all sorts of reasons, but in high-risk situations there are intense selection pressures against making truly inferior choices. Verisimilitude is, to a large extent, the matching of Player expectations (i.e. the fluff) with reality (i.e. the rules); every time there is a disconnect the DM must either invent a reason why or tell the Players it isn't polite to point. IMHO games work better when the degree of verisimilitude is higher.

I also honestly can't imagine sitting down a game and being told to ignore the rules we are given. Why use a rules set at all if it isn't what the game is about? Every "world-first" game would work better diceless.

Scowling Dragon

2012-05-11, 04:24 PM

Ah, hello strawman. Nice to meet you :smalltongue:

Aw hello, its my twin brother "Izah. OK .whenitsanotsamygame".

No, I am not making the argument that everyone always works with total optimality. That's false for many reasons; what I am arguing is that people operate with reasonable optimality.

And thats a subjective thing. You ignore rules. You just pretend that your ignoring them "The right way".

Edit:

Mostly, this is not a game we play to win. Its to have fun and experiment with different combinations.

russdm

2012-05-11, 04:31 PM

Which makes little sense and turns things into the Forgotten Realms mess of alot npcs that pop up, hang out for quite a while, and then you are expected to adventure along. So you end up with alot of high level powerful characters who then do what? nothing? Are these powerful characters just going to do nothing or something like keep adventuring?

D&D works because of the sense of disbelief. Having characters that are not superly optimitized should be fine to play, not a mess and a problem the party has to overcome. The OOTS party works as a believable party because they are functional and certainly capable. Maybe they aren't in some crazy powergamering/minmaxing way, but parties with characters designed that way are not very fun in my experience. YOu have to constantly keep up with the others to be viable and not just some joke character.

As for a pair of swordsman fighting Musketmen, it does make sense. IF you miss with a musket, then you will likely be hitting something or someone else. Without Bayonets, muskets can not be used for melee combat well. They need space to shoot, so those swordsmen are able to get in real close and hack away with impunity. Add bayonets to the muskets, the swordsmen don't have a chance. Besides, compared to what spellcasters can do at higher levels, having an anti-matter rifle is actually weaker. A fireball cast by a 6th level 3.5 wizard does an equal amount of damage, and then surpasses it. I am assuming that the anti-matter is doing 6d6, it actually may different, but i don't want to grab my dmg right now.

Players should be always able to play the characters they want to, not whats most damage effective or most powerful leaving no room for fun. Waltzing through encounters without any trouble is just as unfun as being unable to fight anything you encounter.

The rules are intended as guidelines, not actual rules with concrete power. You can modify the rules to suit you, or just use them as written. Either way works to allow for a playable game.

When making characters, the concern should always be what kind of character do you want to play, not what kinds of rules you want to play. The Rules are made to fit the world you are making, not the other way around. IF you want a world without arcane casters, you can modify the rules to fit that world. IF you make a world to fit the rules, there is only one kind of world that can fit for the rules as written. Otherwise, you are usually changing the fluff around to fit the rules. IF you go past the fluff, then you are changing the rules around.

D&D has struggled with this issue its entire life. The rules either get beefed up at the expense of Fluff or the fluff gets beefed up at the expense of rules. Trying to do both in equal measures was hard, and i think it turned very much into 4th Edition. The fluff needs to be modular and adaptable so DMs can use it however they need to. The rules need to experience the same but still be workable across the full spectrum.

In 3.5, making characters using the PHB when you have access to TOme of Blade is foolish. The rules in Tome of Blade are considerably better than the rules in the PHB. THis is a major problem because renders the core book mostly useless for stuff that is supposedly the heart of the game!

I'm stopping my comments at this point in this post because i think i have lost trick of my point. More of my two coppers.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-11, 04:41 PM

The rules are intended as guidelines, not actual rules with concrete power. You can modify the rules to suit you, or just use them as written. Either way works to allow for a playable game.
QFT

My objection with Clawhound's point was that he seemed to be saying "play the game as the fluff says, not the way the rules say" which is not the same as "change the rules of the game to fit the fluff." I'm all for tweaking the rules of the game to fit whatever fluff you've set up -- if firearms are supposed to be dangerous, then make them dangerous -- but what I got out of his post was that one should instead simply pretend that the firearms are as dangerous as the fluff says, even if the rules don't support it.

@Scowling Dragon: I'm not going to say that my position doesn't have wiggle room in it -- verisimilitude is a very fuzzy concept -- but I did try to lay down some guidelines. As I elaborated above, it is one thing to say "the king was killed with a super-special weapon which does not permit resurrection" and another to say "no, don't try to resurrect the king. It wouldn't be in character."

In any case, I hope the excerpt from russdm's post better elaborates my position.

russdm

2012-05-11, 04:58 PM

Mostly, this is not a game we play to win. Its to have fun and experiment with different combinations.

What about the players who make characters this way or those who see the game in the terms of winning it? The game system encourages playing to win while hand-waving in having fun. Some classes are simply better than others and they happen to be also more fun to play. Think about the Tiers and they completely affect gameplay. Clerics and Druids are simply better than fighters and rogues, and end up being more fun to play. Being a fighter means being able to hit things in different ways, while being a rogue means being able to sneak attack rarely, be the trapsmith/skill monkey, and be sneaky. Being the cleric means being able to function just as well if not better at hitting things in different ways, find traps like the roguey, and have a decent amount of skills. A cleric has access to divination spells that remove alot of the benefit the rogue has for information gathering. Why not cast a spell that will give you the answers you need instead of having the rogue try to sneak in and get those answers while dealing with the fact the rogue could get caught and thus ruin any chance of finding anything out that you need to?

Druids have access to an animal companion, spells that are useful, and get abilities taht make them able to fight better than the fighter. They can also sneak better than rogue since they could just turn themselves into birds to fly around as. They can also gather intelligence alot easier. Take Wild Shape: Turn into a bird for a number of hours per day equal to level and then you can go into places to find things out. Birds are common enough in the D&D world that they aren't viewed as a concern.

Wizards are even worse than clerics and druids. Aside from the spells and special abilities taht clerics and druids get, Wizards can do anything the other classes do alot better and alot quicker. At 5th level, a fighter cannot take out a number of enemies without it taking a few rounds, while a 5th level wizard can just blast away with a fireball and get rid of the enemies in a round. Wizards can later gain the ability to polymorph, fight more effectively than the fighter, sneak more efficiently than the rogue, and gather intelligence even better than the cleric or druid can.

Yes wizards have to deal with armor issues and low hit points, but those are easily solved. pick up the toughness feat or improved toughness feat. Get spells that make it harder to hit you. Get items or make some that make getting hit hard or make you take less damage. Take a few levels in cleric or druid to get healing for yourself. You may take a hit at spellcasting some, but you can get wands and scrolls that will offset that, and picking up clerical magic is a worthwhile result from taking a level hit to your spellcasting.

These are all things i have seen from both playing and running 3.5 games. Each additional splatbook made the higher tier characters more powerfuller than the lower tier ones. Nearly every splatbook adds some kind of new spells for casters, which are pretty worth taking to some extent. The Spell Compendium adds even more options for wizards or clerics to not need characters of other classes. Spell resistence doesn't hurt a wizard that much and it happens to easily fixed as a problem. Use spells that don't allow it to be applied agaisnt them. Having to cast spells when at risk of getting hurt? mix out your concentration skill and cast defensively. the only real problem for wizards is the mageslayer feat, and unless you happen to know about it, most DMs probably don't give their enemies it. But you can get around mageslayer by using items, I think since i am not looking at the feat right now.

4th edition tried to bring the classes more in line in terms of power and alot of people complained about that. They wanted to have the tiers still be important to the game so they could make the other party members feel unnecessary or unneeded.

russdm

2012-05-11, 05:09 PM

As I elaborated above, it is one thing to say "the king was killed with a super-special weapon which does not permit resurrection" and another to say "no, don't try to resurrect the king. It wouldn't be in character."

In any case, I hope the excerpt from russdm's post better elaborates my position.

The school of bringing people back from the dead: Raise dead, True rez, Rez, Reincarnate is somewhat baffling to me. The game acts like death is a pretty big deal, but once you have accces to weakest of the school's spells, death is no longer an issue. You don't have to be worried about it and so can do more dumb stuff with the hope that your party is decent enough to bring you back. Also, when you add in the fact that some classes give abilities that mean you dont age, you dont have to worry about dying anyway. And dying of old age is rarely an issue anyway since most don't actually chart their characters' ages. I have played with characters who would stay the same age despite however how much time would pass. You can play for a long time and yet have your character still be 24 in game years without having added a year.

The king could let himself be killed by the assassins. THen he could have one of his high level priests/clerics raise him back from the dead or use something more powerful. Death is only a concern for characters who don't have enough money or are not high enough level to able to use raise dead or similiar stuff. And the rules say nothing about whether dead characters aren't able to adventure. Isn't Ghostwalk a supplement for deceased characters to use? and isn't there are rules allowing for undead to be used as character races?

Why should the king worry about being killed? He should only be worried old age, since he can't come back after that point. Since the DM or campaign is not very likely to reach the point where old age is his concern either, he has no worries.

Somethings in the game simply don't make any sense at all.

GRM13

2012-05-11, 08:08 PM

4th edition tried to bring the classes more in line in terms of power and alot of people complained about that. They wanted to have the tiers still be important to the game so they could make the other party members feel unnecessary or unneeded.

I agree with everything in your post, but like to add my view to this part. Yes, a lot of people complained about 4th ed. cause it remove the tier and prevented people from outclassing others. But just as many peoples complained cause they believe it was done in the wrong manner. I like 4th ed, it's quite fun with the right group and like the concepts of at will powers, the drop in Save or Die abilities and the fact that everyone can find something to do (especially with healers begin able to heal and still participate in combat), but I think they also went a bit overboard.

One of the problems I had was the fact that they all share the atwill/ecounter/daily format (psionics being one of the few that diverted from it, which I think was a step in the right direction). maybe put more focus on at-will on one class with different effects, and give more powerful dailies to other. Utilities I think were a missed chance to allow more stuff for people to do both in and out of combat like skill tricks and such (very few were at will meaning not much use.

I'll add that I have sadly not been able to get my hands on any essensials books since the only decent store to search for such items closed off a long time ago so if any of those were fixed there then disregard my complaints.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-11, 08:12 PM

4th edition tried to bring the classes more in line in terms of power and alot of people complained about that. They wanted to have the tiers still be important to the game so they could make the other party members feel unnecessary or unneeded.

The problem here is not that 4e brought the classes closer together Tier-wise. That's actually what a lot of people want out of the game, and as we've seen from all the focus on T3 classes on the forums, you can play mid-power classes and still have a lot of fun. To expand on what GRM13 said, the problem with 4e's ideas of balance is twofold. First, they brought the power level of everything down instead of bringing the power level up--in 3e terms, they made everything T4-T5 rather than T2-T3, taking the most interesting and varied classes and bringing them down to the level of the bland classes's level instead of the reverse.

That's not to say that 4e classes are inherently bland, but most people who wanted to balance 3e classes wanted to add mythical abilities like moving rivers, swimming for days, chopping tops off mountains, and such to martial types instead of taking away the world-changing stuff from casters and sticking it in rituals where it's not generally worth the bother to use; instead of making high-level fighters actually work, they spread the mid levels up to level 30. Most people wanted high level fighters and wizards to be larger-than-life like Cú Chulainn and late-series Rand al'Thor, not marginally-more-powerful-but-still-grounded like Achilles and mid-series Harry Dresden.

Second, all classes use the same mechanics. I'm not saying they all play the same (because they don't), but it's true that having different mechanics for different classes helps them feel more different and makes them more interesting for people who like to tinker with mechanics. 3e's T3 classes are the beguiler, dread necromancer, martial adepts, bard, binder, wildshape ranger, duskblade, factotum, and psionic warrior. Eleven classes, six or seven different resource management systems, and five or six general foci between them, yet they are all roughly balanced with one another while delivering quite different play experiences. D&D is kind of known for its subsystems as opposed to a universal system like GURPS, yet we didn't see any significant variation in the 4e power structure until psionics, and after that not again until Essentials. To someone who likes playing different classes to focus more on tactics with one class and more on strategy with another, or focus more on combat with one class and more on exploration with another, the similarity in mechanics can feel constricting.

The school of bringing people back from the dead: Raise dead, True rez, Rez, Reincarnate is somewhat baffling to me. The game acts like death is a pretty big deal, but once you have accces to weakest of the school's spells, death is no longer an issue. You don't have to be worried about it and so can do more dumb stuff with the hope that your party is decent enough to bring you back.

You lose a level unless using revivify or true resurrection, which not only means you lose abilities but you become easier to kill the next time. Death isn't trivialized until you have 9th level spells, at which point accounting for true resurrection becomes an expected part of your strategy and you actually need it to survive some threats.

The king could let himself be killed by the assassins. THen he could have one of his high level priests/clerics raise him back from the dead or use something more powerful. Death is only a concern for characters who don't have enough money or are not high enough level to able to use raise dead or similiar stuff. And the rules say nothing about whether dead characters aren't able to adventure. Isn't Ghostwalk a supplement for deceased characters to use? and isn't there are rules allowing for undead to be used as character races?

Why should the king worry about being killed? He should only be worried old age, since he can't come back after that point. Since the DM or campaign is not very likely to reach the point where old age is his concern either, he has no worries.

Thinaun, soul bind, and barghest's feast say hi. There are as many ways to prevent resurrection as there are ways to resurrect people in the first place. If you only have access to raise dead or resurrection, hiding or destroying the body will do it. If you have access to true resurrection, binding or destroying the soul isn't difficult at all.

Somethings in the game simply don't make any sense at all.

I see people say this a lot, and most of the time it's due to DMs and players not using all of the resources at their disposal and/or not understanding how things work very well. If assassins in your world don't take resurrection into account, of course assassinations won't be meaningful, but why wouldn't they? If bad guys in your world don't use the cheap and effective protections against divinations and teleportation, of course scry-and-die will be overly effective, but why wouldn't they? If royalty in your world don't use common protections against mind-control, of course you can get kings to do whatever you want with enchantment, but why wouldn't they? The game changes as you level, and it gives both the players and the DM new tools to work with to deal with those changes; you can't keep playing the same way at 15th level that you did at 5th level and expect things to remain the same--that's what level-based games do, though not always to the same degree as D&D.

I'm not trying to be insulting by saying people don't understand what's going on very well, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people think you have to start at 1st and play to 20th every time when you should really be playing at the levels that support your desired playstyle. If you want to play swords and sorcery, play at low levels. If you want to play heroic fantasy, play at mid levels. If you want to play epic fantasy, play at high levels. If you want to tell a story where a king getting killed shakes up the balance of power in a kingdom, you can tell that story at any level, but you'll need something more substantial than "some mundane schmuck with a dagger sneaks into the king's room at night and stabs him with a dagger, and that's it" at higher levels.

navar100

2012-05-11, 09:19 PM

4th edition tried to bring the classes more in line in terms of power and alot of people complained about that. They wanted to have the tiers still be important to the game so they could make the other party members feel unnecessary or unneeded.

Bullfeces!

Here's your goad result. It's on.

We hated 4E because:

1) The classes are samey. All powers are X dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round or someone moves. One character does it at a range, another in melee, one character does fire damage, another does radiant damage, but it's all basically the same thing.

2) Their response to magic being "too powerful" was to get rid of magic entirely. Magic is just another word for sword or bow, part of the sameness. A spell does X dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round. With the exception of portable hole, bag of holding, etc., all magic items do the same thing, give +# to hit and damage and once a day do an extra few dice of damage. You are forbidden to use more than a few per day. "Magic item" is just another way of saying "daily power". Healing potions don't heal; they just give you the privilege of using up a resource one more time in an encounter. Out of healing surges? So sorry, so sad, no healing for you! Rituals are admitted purposely designed so that players don't want to use them. They nickel and dime you and are a chore to do.

3) Skills are meaningless because the DCs are arbitrarily set based on your level instead of what the task is. Something that would be DC 20 at 1st level is suddenly DC 30 at 10th, 40 at 20th, etc., so what difference does it make?

4) They destroyed the cosmology. Evil archons? Elven gods were human gods in disguise? It's fluff, not game mechanics, but the fluff had been perfectly fine for all the D&D versions beforehand. The Great Wheel was D&D. Eberron was purposely designed by contest for a completely different cosmology, so its differences in 3E are accepted.

We hated 4E because we hated the rules.

russdm

2012-05-11, 09:23 PM

It has been a while since i played 4e or had anything for it. So I am just going on what i remembered. As for the rez stuff, I only know a small amount of the stuff. I know the core books plus the following: Tome of Battle, Races of Wild/Destiny/Dragon/Stone, Draconomican, Dragon Magic, Complete Adventurer/Arcane/Divine/Mage/Warrior, Heroes of Battle, Frostburn, Stormwrack, Sandstorm, Equipment book, Phb 2, DMG 2. I don't know the books beyond that and have not read them enough to recall anything.

Losing a level to come back from the dead is not really that bad. You could always die and have to come back as a lower level character when compared to the rest of party, where you are atleast 2-3 levels lower or worse. All the challenges are based for a party thats has a higher average level, so you are more likely to die. Losing a level is bad, but is it any real worse than getting hit with an energy drain or something? Atleast you are back in the game with the same character, meaning that you can play again immediately instead of having to spend the time to make up a new character which takes alot of time no matter how many times you have done so before.

My comment about some things not making sense is due to my personal playing experience. Important NPCs like a king would be brought back by the DM unless they had a reason not to. Also, giving the players an adventure to bring the king back would be do-able. I suppose a list of things that make no sense to me would be good. Note this is all for 3.5

My list is:

1)Monster design-a monster is given a bunch of abilities of which few will see actual play. Monsters are designed to fit into a ratio of 4 players for one monster in equal terms. Why is it that way? Few monsters will have the defenses to avoid getting hit at all and while it might take a while for the players to take the monster out, it won't be doing enough damage in return to concern them. Unless they happen to be squishy.

2)The Tiers, I guess. Why do wizards and other such casters need to be able to do everything else everyone else can do? Do wizards really need to be able to fight better than the fighter while already being able to manipulate and mess with reality anyway?

3)The magic item mess. Why so many items? Most adventurers in stories rely on personal ability or skills or some kind of innate talent rather than the junk they happen to be carrying around. Items with useful powers that they couldn't do themselves is understandable, but needing items to remain able to viable at higher levels? Doesn't that end up defeating the purpose of having such a variety since most players will just get the best items they can for their character and usually don't splurge for other stuff. some items are simply better than others and so they usually are picked up as soon as possible.

4)Vancian magic, wizards. Alot of the fluff for magic that i have read so far always mentioning about magical ability is innate or part of you. Then you have a class that treats magic like a science. Wizards use spellbooks and arcane formulas to cast spells. So basically they are math people? So, you learn magic by studying a book? How hard is it really to find that information then? IF you can gain magic by studying a book, then why are wizards so rare, and if it takes time to study then why aren't there more wizards schools or colleges in the world? How come there aren't more powerful wizards either? IF becoming a wizard is all about learning formulas and putting them in books, then shouldn't you be able to just put in a really powerful formula (like meteor swarm) and just be able to use it? What keeps wizards from doing that? It has to be more than just being difficult to read.

5)Vancian magic, sorcerors. So sorcerors are the flipside of wizards. They get alot of spellcasting with knowing only a small number of spells. Why? because if they worked more like wizards, then wizards would suck? Why can't a sorceror know as many spells as a wizard have if it is just arcane formula in a book? Don't sorcerors have to learn the same stuff anyway? Why can't a sorceror just get a wizard's spellbook and use it? Why makes that not work? And don't give me the answer from the gamebooks because it happens to be a rather idiotic answer.

6)Vancian magic, warmages. Warmages get to cast in a few way. They can cast any spell they know as many times as they can. They also know all spells on their list at a given level. Great, so why can't my sorceror or wizard do the same? Why does it also matter that the warmage apparently has a small spell list too? Why does that affect things, because a wizard can cast any spell they happen to know as long as they prep it or scroll it or wand it?

7)Vancian magic, in general. Apparently a wizard forgets a spell once it gets cast. But don't wizards have a spellbook with the spell in it on themselves at all times? Why can't the wizard just open the spellbook to the spell and just cast again? What has changed from prepping the spell and casting it that makes this unable to be done? And why does a wizard have to prep a spell first? What, they can't just persue their spellbook in case they forgot something? Are the spells that complicated if they can be written in arcane formulas in a book, like how you would write out math problems? What about scrolls then, they can be cast from too. Why are the spells that way? if you need to prep it, why can't you just prep all of them? IF you are smart enough to understand the formula involved and the effort to prepare one spell, then why can't you prepare all of them? According to the books, there is nothing that says the spells are using different formula and that it comes from one system/formula. It's all basically algrebra.

8)Non casters. Why do noncasters have to be so low powered compared to the spellcasters? From how the book treats things, it takes as just as much effort to learn how to use a weapon well as how to cast spells. But apparently the only things a fighter can learn is how to hit things with a weapon in different ways. A wizard can learn how to turn invisible, but a fighter cannot learn how use some special attack move? There are different schools of magic but apparently not different schools of fighting with weapons. Or that really different schools of monk learning. A monk can hit things with their fists or special weapons. Why couldn't a fighter learn a similiar thing for a weapon? why can't fighters learn a unique style of fighting? Wizards can specialize in a school of magic, but a fighter can't learn to specialize in doing more different things with their weapons beyond just hitting with it and a few tricks?

So thats my list of stuff. I don't know if people have answers to these questions, but these have always bugged me about the game.

russdm

2012-05-11, 09:40 PM

1) The classes are samey. All powers are X dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round or someone moves. One character does it at a range, another in melee, one character does fire damage, another does radiant damage, but it's all basically the same thing.

My issue with this is that the classes are not the same, the mechanics used for each class were duplicated across the board, making them fucntion like they are the same.

2) Their response to magic being "too powerful" was to get rid of magic entirely. Magic is just another word for sword or bow, part of the sameness. A spell does X dice of damage and bad guy is inconvenienced for a round.

I don't think handled magic well either. But they tried to fix it instead of just leaving it as is and crazy near-broken.

3) Skills are meaningless because the DCs are arbitrarily set based on your level instead of what the task is. Something that would be DC 20 at 1st level is suddenly DC 30 at 10th, 40 at 20th, etc., so what difference does it make?

Skills in 3.5 were just as meaningless. There was only one effective skill stragety to use if you wanted to be able to continue to make the DCs based on the tasks. If you didn't keep the skills maxed out, then you would fall behind in hitting the DCs that you should have been able to for the level that you were at. If you dabbled in alot of skills instead maxing out a few, you would become unable to hit DCs for tasks and so would fall behind. You suffered for dabbling in skills.

4) They destroyed the cosmology. Evil archons? Elven gods were human gods in disguise? It's fluff, not game mechanics, but the fluff had been perfectly fine for all the D&D versions beforehand. The Great Wheel was D&D.

The cosmology was bloated in 3.5 though. You had 19 planes in all, and nearly all of them were copies of each other. Most were solely differented by alignment in that one plane was LG while another was LN and alot of the monsters were copies with changes made to them. Some of the planes were rare, but then another plane existed (or get made) that duplicated it and then added some cosmatic changes. You had a plane for NGs, Ns, CGs, Special NGs, Special Ns, Special CGs. Every alignment had a plane and then each alignment had a plane. There was a plane for: Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, Evil, L Good, L Neutral, L Evil, C Good, C Neutral, C Evil, N Good, N Evil, Another kind of Good, Another kind of Evil, Another kind of Neutral, Another kind of Lawful, Another kind of Chaotic, Another kind of L Good, and so on. Then you had the 4 element planes, plus one for positive energy and negative energy, then one that was shadowy and another that ethereal. How often were the different planes visited even? Some of the planes had features that made it difficult to adventure on.

As for deities, there were way more deities than needed. Not all the deities had spheres of interest or concerns that would mean they would have adventuring clerics or a reason to need to have adventuring clerics. Why have so many deities when few of them actually encourage or need adventuring clerics?

Crow

2012-05-11, 10:09 PM

Vancian magic: The wizard does not forget the spell. The spell actually takes much longer to cast. While 'preparing' the spell, you are actually casting the bulk of the spell, and 'storing' it's power within you. Until later, when you incant the last portion of the spell and 'release' it. Unfortunately, this isn't explained well in the books.

There is nothing stopping you from leaving a spell slot empty, busting out your book, and incanting the whole spell from start to finish, given you have the time.

As for the daily limit? Apparently it's taxing on the mind? I don't know, but someone with more knowledge than me will.

The necessity of the spellbook? I don't know why somebody can't memorize a 1-page spell. 3.5 handled this with a feat that let you prep certain spells without a spellbook.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-11, 11:40 PM

Response to russdm, spoilered for length. I can post about this stuff all day, and often do. :smallamused:

Losing a level to come back from the dead is not really that bad. You could always die and have to come back as a lower level character when compared to the rest of party, where you are atleast 2-3 levels lower or worse. All the challenges are based for a party thats has a higher average level, so you are more likely to die. Losing a level is bad, but is it any real worse than getting hit with an energy drain or something? Atleast you are back in the game with the same character, meaning that you can play again immediately instead of having to spend the time to make up a new character which takes alot of time no matter how many times you have done so before.

Yes, resurrection is generally better than making a new character, but that doesn't mean that "death is no longer an issue" as you said. Dying once and coming back with a penalty, whether it's as the same character with fewer levels or a new lower-level character, is never negligible, and by the time you can come back without that penalty you have to worry about things like your soul permanently being destroyed.

1)Monster design-a monster is given a bunch of abilities of which few will see actual play. Monsters are designed to fit into a ratio of 4 players for one monster in equal terms. Why is it that way? Few monsters will have the defenses to avoid getting hit at all and while it might take a while for the players to take the monster out, it won't be doing enough damage in return to concern them. Unless they happen to be squishy.

Two points:

1) Monsters are not designed to be big bags of HP for PCs to beat on, they're designed to be a part of the world. All of those out-of-combat abilities that might rarely "see actual play" perhaps don't show up in combat but are there to provide them with utility, a place in the world, and plot relevance.

2) 1 monster per 4 PCs is not "equal terms." If you read the description of the CR and EL system, you'll find that a single CR X monster is supposed to be an easily handled encounter for a party of 4 level X PCs: it's only supposed to consume 20% of their resources, and doesn't hold much risk of death. If you want a fight that's actually on even terms, either use 4 CR X monsters instead of 1, so the PCs have numerical parity, or use a single "boss monster" of CR X+4, because 4 CR X PCs = 2 CR X+2 PCs = 1 CR X+4 PC by the EL rules. A full 5% of the encounters a level X party faces should be EL X+5 or higher! So no, single even-CR monsters aren't on even terms with the party.

2)The Tiers, I guess. Why do wizards and other such casters need to be able to do everything else everyone else can do? Do wizards really need to be able to fight better than the fighter while already being able to manipulate and mess with reality anyway?

No they don't. The Tiers are an accidental side effect of the WotC devs not understanding their own game--when they tried to renovate the game's core from 2e to 3e while keeping everything else the same, they massively buffed casters and nerfed martial types unintentionally. The Tiers are merely a description of that effect.

3)The magic item mess. Why so many items? Most adventurers in stories rely on personal ability or skills or some kind of innate talent rather than the junk they happen to be carrying around. Items with useful powers that they couldn't do themselves is understandable, but needing items to remain able to viable at higher levels? Doesn't that end up defeating the purpose of having such a variety since most players will just get the best items they can for their character and usually don't splurge for other stuff. some items are simply better than others and so they usually are picked up as soon as possible.

Perseus used flying shoes, a magic mirror, magic armor, a magic sword, and a cap of invisibility. The Fellowship in LotR had an average of 2-3 magic items each. Heroes in myths and fiction have always relied on magical items to do their thing to one degree or another, even if it's just the skin of the Nemean lion or Prospero's staff.

The reason D&D uses magic items is really three reasons: simplicity, pacing, and reward.

--In AD&D, when you hit a certain level you would have accumulated lots of magic swords and armor and belts and such, and the easiest way to make them magical and differentiate between them is to make them add different plusses to different stats.

--In 3e, when they made magic items buyable, they priced items such that you wouldn't get the same items until the appropriate levels because you couldn't afford them earlier, not realizing that people would rather save up to buy them early instead of waiting to buy them at the "right" level.

--There's no reason you couldn't change things to use inherent bonuses, but getting shiny things is always a nice reward--what's more exciting, getting +1 Str at 4th level, or getting gauntlets of ogre power? The shift has been going towards allowing inherent bonuses as the editions have progressed, but I doubt the Big Six-style items will ever disappear entirely.

4)Vancian magic, wizards. Alot of the fluff for magic that i have read so far always mentioning about magical ability is innate or part of you. Then you have a class that treats magic like a science. Wizards use spellbooks and arcane formulas to cast spells. So basically they are math people? So, you learn magic by studying a book? How hard is it really to find that information then? IF you can gain magic by studying a book, then why are wizards so rare, and if it takes time to study then why aren't there more wizards schools or colleges in the world? How come there aren't more powerful wizards either? IF becoming a wizard is all about learning formulas and putting them in books, then shouldn't you be able to just put in a really powerful formula (like meteor swarm) and just be able to use it? What keeps wizards from doing that? It has to be more than just being difficult to read.

7)Vancian magic, in general. Apparently a wizard forgets a spell once it gets cast. But don't wizards have a spellbook with the spell in it on themselves at all times? Why can't the wizard just open the spellbook to the spell and just cast again? What has changed from prepping the spell and casting it that makes this unable to be done? And why does a wizard have to prep a spell first? What, they can't just persue their spellbook in case they forgot something? Are the spells that complicated if they can be written in arcane formulas in a book, like how you would write out math problems? What about scrolls then, they can be cast from too. Why are the spells that way? if you need to prep it, why can't you just prep all of them? IF you are smart enough to understand the formula involved and the effort to prepare one spell, then why can't you prepare all of them? According to the books, there is nothing that says the spells are using different formula and that it comes from one system/formula. It's all basically algrebra.

So, this one requires some background. First of all: Did you know that D&D is post-apocalyptic? Really, it is. Ancient fallen empires with powerful artifacts, strange creatures, isolated civilizations, etc. This mostly fades into the background, of course, but one of the inspirations is Jack Vance's works, hence Vancian magic. In those books, spells are pseudo-alive intelligent constructs (sort of implied to be cybernetic things or intelligent programs or the like) that aren't memorized, but rather jammed into the mind until needed. Wizards could only prepare a certain number of spells because there were literally several other minds within theirs who didn't want to be there and were trying to influence the wizard to cast them.

In Vance's works, wizards generally could only memorize 4-5 spells on the top end of things, but even beginning magicians could memorize the equivalent of 9th-level spells. For game balance reasons, spells were classified by power and wizards were allowed to memorize more of them. The spell formulas aren't just mathematical equations, they're living things, so even if you can read the formulas describing a meteor swarm, if your brain can't handle having something that powerful inside, you can't cast it.

In the AD&D/3e interpretation of Vance, spells aren't alive per se, but rather you're pre-casting spells and storing those in your mind. Spells are still bundles of energy taking up space in your mind, but they're not actively trying to be cast. This is more obvious in AD&D where spells take 10-15 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare, and a 20th-level wizard can take over 2 days to prepare his entire spell allotment--a beginner just can't handle that much power and that much intense concentration.

And who says wizards are rare? Anyone with at least 10-11 Int (the human average) can learn at least a few spells. There are plenty of wizard colleges around in most settings, from the Arcane Order to the Towers of High Sorcery. People just don't pick up wizardry because it detracts from whatever else they're doing: higher-level characters don't gain much from a handful of wizard levels most of the time, and lower-level arcane spells tend to be less useful in day-to-day life than divine spells for laborers and such, so people don't bother spending years learning to cast spells if they can already do things like unseen servant and mage hand themselves.

5)Vancian magic, sorcerors. So sorcerors are the flipside of wizards. They get alot of spellcasting with knowing only a small number of spells. Why? because if they worked more like wizards, then wizards would suck? Why can't a sorceror know as many spells as a wizard have if it is just arcane formula in a book? Don't sorcerors have to learn the same stuff anyway? Why can't a sorceror just get a wizard's spellbook and use it? Why makes that not work? And don't give me the answer from the gamebooks because it happens to be a rather idiotic answer.

From a mechanical standpoint, sorcerers know very few spells because the designers overly-nerfed spontaneous casting to be on the safe side. Lots of quirky things in 3e can be chalked up to designer competence or lack thereof. :smallwink:

From a flavor standpoint, remember how wizards are casting long ritual spells and storing them in their mind to release them later? Yeah, sorcerers aren't doing that, they're trying to force raw magical power into a usable form without any preparation, safeguards, or theoretical knowledge. Their magic is baked into their bodies without their consent, so they can't just learn more spells. It's kind of like elemental bending from the Avatar series: punch this particular way, get fire to shoot out, and no amount of theoretical knowledge of techniques can help you "learn" how to bend water instead (the Avatar is a wizard. :smallcool:).

6)Vancian magic, warmages. Warmages get to cast in a few way. They can cast any spell they know as many times as they can. They also know all spells on their list at a given level. Great, so why can't my sorceror or wizard do the same? Why does it also matter that the warmage apparently has a small spell list too? Why does that affect things, because a wizard can cast any spell they happen to know as long as they prep it or scroll it or wand it?

Flavor-wise, that's already explained in the books: warmages go through a special training regimen that teaches them how to cast those spells, and exactly those spells. Because their inner magical potential is being shaped in a particular way, they can handle more magical techniques than a sorcerer whose talent manifests randomly, but since they aren't trained in any magical theory they can't expand their knowledge without divine intervention.

Mechanically, of course, it's an attempt to give new players a blaster-in-a-box; the fact that the sorcerer is still a better blaster is incidental.

8)Non casters. Why do noncasters have to be so low powered compared to the spellcasters? From how the book treats things, it takes as just as much effort to learn how to use a weapon well as how to cast spells. But apparently the only things a fighter can learn is how to hit things with a weapon in different ways. A wizard can learn how to turn invisible, but a fighter cannot learn how use some special attack move? There are different schools of magic but apparently not different schools of fighting with weapons. Or that really different schools of monk learning. A monk can hit things with their fists or special weapons. Why couldn't a fighter learn a similiar thing for a weapon? why can't fighters learn a unique style of fighting? Wizards can specialize in a school of magic, but a fighter can't learn to specialize in doing more different things with their weapons beyond just hitting with it and a few tricks?

Because the designers, once again, don't know how the game works. They seemed to think that 20th level is the peak of human achievement, when going by skills and HP and such that's actually closer to 5th-7th level. So they limited martial types to mundane abilities for their entire career, instead of doing what they should have and letting fighters become Beowulf at level 10ish and Cú Chulainn at 15ish. Meanwhile, magic gets a free pass because it's magic.

So thats my list of stuff. I don't know if people have answers to these questions, but these have always bugged me about the game.

Most of these questions have been answered before on these and other forums, since we've been answering them since before 3e came out. If you have any other questions, search around and you'll probably find what you're looking for.

The cosmology was bloated in 3.5 though. You had 19 planes in all, and nearly all of them were copies of each other. Most were solely differented by alignment in that one plane was LG while another was LN and alot of the monsters were copies with changes made to them. Some of the planes were rare, but then another plane existed (or get made) that duplicated it and then added some cosmatic changes. You had a plane for NGs, Ns, CGs, Special NGs, Special Ns, Special CGs. Every alignment had a plane and then each alignment had a plane. There was a plane for: Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, Evil, L Good, L Neutral, L Evil, C Good, C Neutral, C Evil, N Good, N Evil, Another kind of Good, Another kind of Evil, Another kind of Neutral, Another kind of Lawful, Another kind of Chaotic, Another kind of L Good, and so on. Then you had the 4 element planes, plus one for positive energy and negative energy, then one that was shadowy and another that ethereal. How often were the different planes visited even? Some of the planes had features that made it difficult to adventure on.

Explaining how the planes differ, what adventure opportunities exist, etc. would take way too much space here. If you're interested, search for Planescape material or send me a PM. I've been DMing planar adventures for years in 1e, 2e, and 3e alike.

As for deities, there were way more deities than needed. Not all the deities had spheres of interest or concerns that would mean they would have adventuring clerics or a reason to need to have adventuring clerics. Why have so many deities when few of them actually encourage or need adventuring clerics?

Why must all clerics be adventurers? Who is to staff the temples, heal the common folk, provide for the harvest, and such if not clerics of less adventure-y gods? And any god can have adventuring clerics given the right motivations. Gods of the harvest might send their clerics out to solve famines, reestablish trade routes, and the like, while gods of community and family might have their clerics serve as negotiators, and so forth.

navar100

2012-05-11, 11:54 PM

My issue with this is that the classes are not the same, the mechanics used for each class were duplicated across the board, making them fucntion like they are the same.

Snippage for brevity, and ...

This is really not about what you don't like about 3E. I'm not going to defend it for you. The main point was your initial misrepresentation and dismissal of why people didn't like 4E. We didn't like 4E because we didn't like 4E, not to make other players feel bad about their character choices.

russdm

2012-05-12, 01:37 AM

A major point first before my comments: The bulk of gaming experience comes from playing in a group comprised of 3 powergamers/minmaxers, with another player besides me, with the DM being a newbie. All three of the powergamers have DMed before. That really influences my thinking about the game and how it works. I have also DMed for this group too.

@Navar100: I understand that, but i am just pointing out how those things had applied to the previous edition before 4th. I have had someone i know, (One of the powergamers), mention about how he didn't 4e because it made the wizards less likely to have the fighters making sandwiches while the wizards handled the encounters. I frequently found stuff i liked about 4e but i prefered 3.5 because i found it way more fun, and more entertaining.

@Pair o Dice: I had assumed that the Devs had been competent when making 3rd and 3.5 editions. I was unaware of how much incompetentancy they had been doing. As for the monsters, from my understanding a single monster with a CR equal to the party's average level was the standard set, not so much an equal fight. For Example: A minotaur is CR 5, and so should be a standard/average encounter for a party of 4 5th level characters. Also consuming 20% of the party's resources in the encounter is pretty high considering how likely that is, in my experience. Last saturday in the game i play in, we took down a wizard that was level 11 or 12 in single round of combat and we were 7th-8th level.

My comments about the rez deal was mainly due to my experience of bringing in new characters of low levels into a much higher party, where the characters barely survive encounters. So my view on death and rezing is that it happens to be less of a hassle. Not everyone has had my experience.

I didn't know anything about Jack Vance's books as i have never read them. I know Vancian magic solely how it works in the game. The comment about wizards being rare is drawn from the books which to seem suggest that there are not that many, and not many high level ones too. Mages end up becoming the most powerful characters in the game though, so why not make an effort for that?

I have never had any adventures that didn't take place in the material plane so i have not experienced any of that. I also have rarely had characters that reached the levels to worry about adventuring to other planes. Most of my characters have stayed in the 1-10th level ranges, with one or two rare ones being higher than that. I have buried alot of below 10 characters before though.

What you say about clerics is true, but you can only do so much if you are out investigating system and re-establishing trade routes. Most characters have pretty strong reasons to adventure, in my experience (possibly not yours), and so a character who would perform to just hang out around is less likely for me to make into a character to play long term with.

I suppose my biggest desire for 5th would be that the developers end up being competent and figure out the game.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-05-12, 02:09 AM

@Pair o Dice: I had assumed that the Devs had been competent when making 3rd and 3.5 editions. I was unaware of how much incompetentancy they had been doing.

We on the forums give the WotC devs perhaps a bit more ribbing than they deserve, but it's certainly true that they exhibited a remarkable lack of knowledge of their system's functionality.

As for the monsters, from my understanding a single monster with a CR equal to the party's average level was the standard set, not so much an equal fight. For Example: A minotaur is CR 5, and so should be a standard/average encounter for a party of 4 5th level characters. Also consuming 20% of the party's resources in the encounter is pretty high considering how likely that is, in my experience. Last saturday in the game i play in, we took down a wizard that was level 11 or 12 in single round of combat and we were 7th-8th level.

An even-CR monster is indeed an average encounter, but average =/= equal power. Also, keep in mind that CR guidelines were determined based on an unoptimized blaster/smasher/sneaker/healer party composition played not-especially-tactically; an optimized party who knows what they're doing can take out encounters several CR above normal with equivalent effort. If your party has 3 optimizers vs. an inexperienced DM, then not only are those sorts of enemies that rely on good preparation and tactics going to be easier (e.g. that wizard, who probably wasn't played at anything close to full potential) but you'd have to shift numbers around quite a bit to figure out where the balance point lies.

My own group plays at a higher-than-usual power level, and when I DM the kinds of challenges I tend to send against them as routine encounters would be CR+4 or so by the books with boss encounters reaching CR+10 or more; plenty of new groups will struggle with on-CR encounters until they can figure out their own capabilities, learn to work as a team, and so forth. CR is a guideline, like magic item creation, and requires a good knowledge of one's group to get right.

My comments about the rez deal was mainly due to my experience of bringing in new characters of low levels into a much higher party, where the characters barely survive encounters. So my view on death and rezing is that it happens to be less of a hassle. Not everyone has had my experience.

Does your group have the "bring in new characters at 1st level" rule, or bring people in around 4-5 levels lower? The DMG recommends bringing new PCs in at average party level or perhaps 1 or 2 lower due to that survivability issue.

What you say about clerics is true, but you can only do so much if you are out investigating system and re-establishing trade routes. Most characters have pretty strong reasons to adventure, in my experience (possibly not yours), and so a character who would perform to just hang out around is less likely for me to make into a character to play long term with.

Well, those kinds of motivations are why temples of less adventure-y gods would train clerics at all in the first place; individual clerics can have whatever motivation they want to adventure, as with any other class.

I suppose my biggest desire for 5th would be that the developers end up being competent and figure out the game.

Say what you will about 4e's design goals, the dev team definitely shaped up after 3.5 came out, and the 4e devs are much better about knowing what their system can do than the 3e devs were. I'm fairly sure that will continue through 5e, though the developer turnover rate does make that less than certain.