The Direction of Dungeons & Dragons

[Dausuul]

Interesting. I have found 3e to really require acute spacial awareness for things like Attacks of Opportunity.

Only if you want to be really rigorous about getting everything right--and if you're trying to be that rigorous, you need minis no matter what edition you're playing.

AoOs are pretty easy to handle without minis. If you just attacked somebody, you threaten him and he threatens you (unless you have more reach, in which case you still threaten him but he may or may not threaten you). If you're in a general melee, it's much the same as with the fireball--the DM makes an on-the-fly estimate of how many people threaten you, over and above the guy you're currently beating on, and goes from there.

It does require more trust in your DM, and asking "How many threaten me? Can I move to flank?" takes a little extra time, but my experience is that the extra time required for those on-the-fly judgement calls is more than compensated for by the time you don't spend counting off grid squares, sketching AoEs, and pushing minis around.

[Charity]

So there's no difference in the way you'd play a sneaky fighter type character in, say, D&D 1st edition and the way you'd play one in, say, Star Wars? The mechanics wouldn't change anything at all? You're either lying or cherry-picking.


No you are neglecting another important possibility here, that my experiance has not been identical to yours.

I stand by my statement, and fear you lack the inclination to discuss anything without resorting to insults [scrubbed].

[AKA_Bait]

Yeah, it's hard to say for sure with this sort of thing. I know a lot of 1e and 2e players who demand that Miniatures be used. The preference runs across editions, but the inability to play without seems confined to 3e (and later versions of 2e). I have run across situations where players suggested they were somewhere else to where I thought they were. Often this is because they want to avoid some effect or other (and they're good naturedly 'trying it on' and expect to be caught out), but sometimes it's an honest misunderstanding. In the latter situation I either roll a dice or make a ruling. In the last campaign I ran, it might have happened two or three times that somebody was disgruntled (I can only remember one occasion and the entire party was in disagreement - my bad on that occasion).
However, I do actually like using Dungeon Tiles and Miniatures, just not all the time.


Yeah. I can see that. I typically use the mini's just to avoid that cropping up at all and really only if they are going to be in a position that I expect them to enter combat from (or want them to think I do).


What we have, I believe, is a difference in vocabulary. At least in this instance.

When 3rd edition talks about balance, they're talking about how a 5th level fighter has as much "power" as a 5th level wizard as a 5th level whatever. And that x number of orcs equals a balanced encounter for party of y level.

Fine, but that's not what 2nd edition talks about when it uses the word balance. For 2nd edition, "balance" wasn't about making all classes horizontally equal, but about being fair. It never meant that all classes of equal level had equal ability or strength.

I don't really think this is what 3.x was talking about either. As far as I can tell the balance that game designers were concerned about was balance within a party (i.e. particular roles being fulfilled) and balance against encounters as a party.

Perhaps I missed reading something, but I don't have a clue where the idea that 3.x was intended to be balanced in terms of class vs. class came from outside of message board discussions.




How, exactly? How, exactly, is D&D3 like a video game? Be specific.

I'd seriously love to have an answer to this question. No matter how often people claim that D&D3 is like a video game, no one ever answers this question.


Don't ask for what you have no chance of getting. The closest answer you will recieve is something along the lines of 'the rules heavy nature of the system along with the power level of the characters make play so limited that it is no longer real roleplaying'.



No you are neglecting another important possibility here, that my experiance has not been identical to yours.

I stand by my statement, and fear you lack the inclination to discuss anything without resorting to insults, might I suggest you take more time to review your posts to avoid embaressing yourself.
You are a very rude individual.


Thanks for the insult, Journey.


Others have noticed a tendency toward derision in Journey's retoric as well. It's been suggested that he tone it down in the past and I'd like to echo that. Everyone else on this thread, and the boards in general, has been quite civil even in disagreement. It's part of what makes these boards such an intelectually fertile place. Everyone ought to do their part to keep it that way. /snarky

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Ars Magica. Shadowrun with a diverse group (rigger, decker, and two types of magician? Oi vey!). Villains and Vigilantes. Early editions of Gamma World. Rifts, if you're not careful and have let your players go hog-wild with world books. MERP was a pain in the butt, but that may have been because my players were die-hard Tolkienaphiles.

Hoo. Ars Magica ... there's a game that had a brilliant concept and a mechanic that sent people into headspins. My regular gaming group played a few sessions of Third Ed. I and my best friend still can't convince the rest to pick it up and try again. Mark ReindotHagen was a creative genius for some of the games I've seen him produce. When it came to game mechanics and dice systems ... well I'm just glad there are other people good at that. WW games, for example, hammered out plenty of the rough edges of their first editions.

Gamma World ... it shard a bizarre system with TSR's "Marvel Superheroes". To this day, I and my friends really don't know how either system worked. We seriously just faked it for both.

MERP was just "Rolemaster Lite", with the added wrinkle of being in a universe established for decades before the game came out. Made doing anything in the game difficult. The charts were fun to read, but clunky to use. If anyone complains about the charts in 1e, I'll point them to MERP.

Yes, there were difficult mechanics in 1e. Compared to some other gaming systems at that time, it wasn't all that bad, really. Things have improved over time. We've gone from a tiny little niche hobby played by a handful, to a large popular hobby with new systems rising and falling every year and new players constantly being added to the fold. Our demands today are stricter than they were in the years past.

On the other hand, it's also possible to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Though 3rd Edition has cleaned up a lot that was just plain messy from previous editions, it was easier to RP in earlier editions than it is in 3rd, at least from my perspective.

On the gripping hand, the game world is going to change over time in any case. The demands of the hobby of yesterday are different thant today's, and will be different than those of tomorrow's. For good or ill, the game changes.

So there.

[Matthew]

I don't really think this is what 3.x was talking about either. As far as I can tell the balance that game designers were concerned about was balance within a party (i.e. particular roles being fulfilled) and balance against encounters as a party.

Perhaps I missed reading something, but I don't have a clue where the idea that 3.x was intended to be balanced in terms of class vs. class came from outside of message board discussions.

I think I read it in the 3e DMG, I'll have to take a look... yeah, page 42 (depending on your interpretation). I'm pretty sure the PHB says something along the lines of 'no class is better than any other', but they might have said that in 2e. :smallwink:

[AKA_Bait]

I think I read it in the 3e DMG, I'll have to take a look... yeah, page 42 (depending on your interpretation). I'm pretty sure the PHB says something along the lines of 'no class is better than any other', but they might have said that in 2e. :smallwink:

I'll check it out when I get back from the office (I can't keep my D&D books here, much as I might want to). I'm not sure that when they said 'no class is better than any other' that they meant 'no class is more powerful than any other'. The latter is patently false. The former might be true. Fighters are fun, if suboptimal.

[Matthew]

Just checked the 3e PHB, no sign of that statement. Must have misremembered. This is what it says in the DMG on page 42:


D&D works best when all the PCs are within a level or two of each other. The classes are carefully balanced against each other at each level, and the Challenge Rating system gives you great freedom to design appropriate challenges that are fun for everyone at the table.

I think it depends on your interpretation, but it does seem like they are saying 'all Classes are equal'. Of course, that's not the same as saying all choices along the way are!

[Mike_G]

Well, go out to the main forums and assert that because I see people saying that any DM ruling that doesn't follow the book is screwing them over all the time. I've been told many times that the DM has no right to introduce something just because s/he thinks the situation is different from what the 3e rules covered.

I agree with you; I just don't think many 3e players do.

I think you're exaggerating. I don't think people actually believe the DM has "no right" to contradict the rules. DM fiat is actually codified as Rule 0.

I think most people play with houserules. I've never seen a group that didn't. Most people argue RAW since it's the common source, and most forums will defer to it when someone asks a question like "Can I wield two light crossbows." Regardless of the RAW ruling on this, any DM worth his salt will say in practice "Sure, so long as you have no interest in reloading."

My big gripe with the 1e boosters is they slam 3e RAW, but when confronted with problems in 1e, cite good DMing and houserules and just plain ignoring bad rules. Nobody has defended Pummeling, Grappling and Overbearing from the AD&D DMG, or level caps for demihumans.

The thing is, 3.5 works fine, and we, veterans of 1e that we are, find it less clunky. the issues it has can be solved with..wait for it... Good DMing and houserules.

[Dausuul]

Just checked the 3e PHB, no sign of that statement. Must have misremembered. This is what it says in the DMG on page 42:

I think it depends on your interpretation, but it does seem like they are saying 'all Classes are equal'. Of course, that's not the same as saying all choices along the way are!

So... if they weren't balancing the classes against each other in 2E, what were they balancing against what?

It's not really possible to balance the classes on power anyway. How do you compare a fighter's iterative attacks against a wizard's ability to cast teleport? Which is more "powerful?" It's apples to oranges. They operate in two different spheres.

The only thing class balance can ever really mean is that everybody is capable of contributing in roughly equal amounts; no one character dominates the game and no character is useless.


My big gripe with the 1e boosters is they slam 3e RAW, but when confronted with problem in 1e, cite good DMing and houserules and just plain ignoring bad rules. Nobody has defended Pummeling, Grappling and Overbearing from the AD&D DMG, or level caps for demihumans.

The thing is, 3.5 works fine, and we, veterans of 1e that we are, find it less clunky. the issues it has can be solved with..wait for it... Good DMing and houserules.

Preach it, brother!

[Starsinger]

... quit reading at page 8.. couldn't deal with it anymore.

But going over what Saph, Matthew, Horseboy, Fax, and others have said made me realize.. I don't like D&D. None of my fond Roleplaying memories have anything to do with D&D. The rules were irrelevant, it was the players who made the difference to me. I never stopped to think after a great game session, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because I prepared X spell today, thank goodness we're using Vancian magic!" or "We never would have won if Mike hadn't stabbed that guy to death with his two weapons, thank goodness we're playing D&D and his rogue can dual wield with a simple feat!" But it was things like, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because my character got to fulfill her quest for revenge!" or "We never would have won if Mike, munchkin that he is, hadn't designed a combat monster."

So I'll probably upgrade.. no that's too much of a non-neutral term. I'll probably change to 4e, because I don't particularly care that it's D&D, so much as that the people I play with will want to change.
~~~

I do have to say though, there are game systems I hate mechanically (That's right WoD, I'm talking about you.) But I don't really have exposure beyond (heavily house ruled) Rifts, and D&D.

[Fax Celestis]

... quit reading at page 8.. couldn't deal with it anymore.

But going over what Saph, Matthew, Horseboy, Fax, and others have said made me realize.. I don't like D&D. None of my fond Roleplaying memories have anything to do with D&D. The rules were irrelevant, it was the players who made the difference to me. I never stopped to think after a great game session, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because I prepared X spell today, thank goodness we're using Vancian magic!" or "We never would have won if Mike hadn't stabbed that guy to death with his two weapons, thank goodness we're playing D&D and his rogue can dual wield with a simple feat!" But it was things like, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because my character got to fulfill her quest for revenge!" or "We never would have won if Mike, munchkin that he is, hadn't designed a combat monster."

So I'll probably upgrade.. no that's too much of a non-neutral term. I'll probably change to 4e, because I don't particularly care that it's D&D, so much as that the people I play with will want to change.
~~~

I do have to say though, there are game systems I hate mechanically (That's right WoD, I'm talking about you.) But I don't really have exposure beyond (heavily house ruled) Rifts, and D&D.

You should try Everway. No dice, just a tarot deck. It's an interesting take on storybuilding RP.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Differences of opinion are inevitable. Discussions of those differences can be interesting and occasionally enlightening. Insulting, attack, or belittling others, whether by name-calling or implication, is not permitted. Take care to be respectful of other posters and their opinions. Thank you.

[Matthew]

So... if they weren't balancing the classes against each other in 2E, what were they balancing against what?

It's not really possible to balance the classes on power anyway. How do you compare a fighter's iterative attacks against a wizard's ability to cast teleport? Which is more "powerful?" It's apples to oranges. They operate in two different spheres.

The only thing class balance can ever really mean is that everybody is capable of contributing in roughly equal amounts; no one character dominates the game and no character is useless.

No idea at all. I know one thing for sure, the Sub Classes in 2e weren't well balanced against one another in a literal sense. The 2e DMG claims that the Game Rules are balanced, but never discusses how or what is meant. It does invoke Game Balance off and on, but only in the most general terms (Artifacts are very powerful, careful how you hand out loot, Spells can unbalance the game, Non Weapon Proficiencies won't impact Game Balance, consider the consequences of releasing Level Caps, etc...). It recognises that as Characters go up in level they can handle bigger challenges, but that's about it.
There is a 'Dungeon Level' table that tells you what level of the Dungeon a certain Experience Point Value of Creatures may be found as a 'Random Encounter'. Each Level is supposed to be equivalent to a Character Level, so Dungeon Level 1 is for a Party of Level 1 Adventurers and features Creatures of Experience Value 1-20. 'Generally, when adventuring in a dungeon, characters should meet random encounters that are equal to or no more than two levels higher or lower than their own.'
On the other hand, 3e defines and discusses Game Balance at length. It also attempts to provide formulae that will let a DM calculate what is a suitable Encounter and tables for Wealth by Level. I think that the attempt is laudable and as a guide for new DMs it's fine, but it quickly becomes apparent that the guide is 'ballpark' in nature.


... quit reading at page 8.. couldn't deal with it anymore.

But going over what Saph, Matthew, Horseboy, Fax, and others have said made me realize.. I don't like D&D. None of my fond Roleplaying memories have anything to do with D&D. The rules were irrelevant, it was the players who made the difference to me. I never stopped to think after a great game session, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because I prepared X spell today, thank goodness we're using Vancian magic!" or "We never would have won if Mike hadn't stabbed that guy to death with his two weapons, thank goodness we're playing D&D and his rogue can dual wield with a simple feat!" But it was things like, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because my character got to fulfill her quest for revenge!" or "We never would have won if Mike, munchkin that he is, hadn't designed a combat monster."

So I'll probably upgrade.. no that's too much of a non-neutral term. I'll probably change to 4e, because I don't particularly care that it's D&D, so much as that the people I play with will want to change.
~~~

I do have to say though, there are game systems I hate mechanically (That's right WoD, I'm talking about you.) But I don't really have exposure beyond (heavily house ruled) Rifts, and D&D.

Sounds like a wise approach to me. I know I will be giving 4e a go, regardless, and I'm quite looking forward to it. I doubt it will become the 'definitive edition' of D&D for me, but it's true to say my enjoyment will have much more to do with the people I play with than the rules themselves. That's also true of Munchkin, Zombies and Settlers of Catan. All good games, but not much fun to play with jerks.

[nagora]

Sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. AD&D doesn't talk about balance in the same way as 3e. It doesn't say, if you take X numbers of Fighters and Y numbers of Orcs you get a balanced encounter.

Which is nonsense anyway, since a lot depends on how experienced the players are and how well they're working as a party, preparedness, equipment, health levels and various other things.

This is another place where the ideal of "rule zero" is routinely ignored, IMO, in favour of "But the RAW say different and the RAW are always right!"

[nagora]

You should try Everway. No dice, just a tarot deck. It's an interesting take on storybuilding RP.

I used a tarot deck to generate scenarios for 1ed back in the 80s. It's fun if you're in the right mood.

[nagora]

But it was things like, "Wow! Today's session was so kick-*** because my character got to fulfill her quest for revenge!" or "We never would have won if Mike, munchkin that he is, hadn't designed a combat monster."


Well said, but then that's why I prefer 1ed - as a player the system is not so distracting, in fact outside of combat and spells I can really ignore it because it is so simple from the players' PoV.

[Muffin_Man]

I'm not sure if that has been said before (I didn't read the whole thread), but I started playing D&D right after 3.x came out, I was about 13 at the time, and being a young kid that had never seen a RPG before (not too popular here) I was immediatly drawn to it, the rules were a bit complex, but it took me a while to find a gaming group, so I read all the rules carefully before my first game.

This group were all first timers (I DMed The Sunless Citadel), and at the same time I was getting addicted to Tolkien books. A couple years after the LotR movie came out, and the whole group was eager to do the same things the characters did in the movie (yes, there was a elven archer and a outcast human ranger).

Then came all the suplements, that kept our characters doing cool things all the time, the mechanics were often complex and usually one character got more powerfull than the others, but we always had fun.

I think the main difference between newer and older players is the game style that makes more sense, I've been in 4 different groups, and in none of them dungeon crawl style was very popular (in fact, most of them hated it).

Tome of Battle was everything that my group wanted in D&D, wizards had all the cool stuff while fighter types were kind of boring, with few moves.

I'm excited about 4th edition, I think they are aiming on the right spot to get more gamers from the new generation, old gamestyle is not popular anymore. Hopefully there will be more people coming to pen and paper and dropping MMORPGs (just a dream though).

[nagora]

I think the main difference between newer and older players is the game style that makes more sense, I've been in 4 different groups, and in none of them dungeon crawl style was very popular (in fact, most of them hated it).


I'd like to point out that many 1ed players stopped doing dungeon crawls long ago. We probably never did another one after about 6th level. We were city and wilderness adventurers for the most part of 5+ years with lots of social and political stuff mixed in.

I've nothing against the occasional tomb or cave system but it's just not the case that 1ed means "just dungeons".

[horseboy]

I'd like to point out that many 1ed players stopped doing dungeon crawls long ago. We probably never did another one after about 6th level. We were city and wilderness adventurers for the most part of 5+ years with lots of social and political stuff mixed in.

I've nothing against the occasional tomb or cave system but it's just not the case that 1ed means "just dungeons".

And it is one of those things they should emphasize in 4th. The whole "mounted fighter gets in the way, unless he's a small race" shows some of the problems here. It would also help make the game more interesting.

[Bosh]

5 years of hardly ever rolling a die outside of combat.
So you don't do skill-type things during combat? That sounds rather boring. Just played in an adventure that included airplane, hang-gliders, a meteor shower, doing swan dives off of hang-gliders and using grappling hooks mid-air. Great action movie-style fun. I don't think my character rolled a straight-up attack role the entire combat :)


Putting aside the quaility if the systems, all you're doing is "screwing the players" in 3ed parlance. That's the whinning I hear all the time when DMs changing the system is mentioned in 3rd editon circles.
Right, I had one player like that. They're not too hard to deal with...


Dude, unless you're talking about a classed individual, NPC's in AD&D all saved as 0-level humans.
All of them? Those are some damn weak NPCs.


It was on the GM's shield!
I don't need no stinking shield ;)


Just because YOU can't write up an NPC off the top of your head doesn't mean that SOMEBODY ELSE can't.
Right but I GM my games, not somebody else. I recognize that other people's brains works differently than mine :)


I can make AD&D as realistic, gritty and dark as I want. I can make it high fantasy. I can make it loopy and zaney. I can make it anything I want.
Of course you can. But does that mean its the best system for doing any of those things? Not really.


It seems, to me, that D&D just isn't your game.
Depends on what you mean by "my game." If I want something rules light I'd use d6 or Fate, I don't see any reason to use D&D over those if I want something rules light. If I want something rules heavy, I think that 4ed will do a better job of that than previous editions of D&D. I don't think (at least in my case) that sticking with old D&D primarily because its rules light makes much sense because there's so many simplier and easier rules light systems out there.


That's it, really. I liked the idea of having more gray area, and letting the DM adjudicate matters that weren't explicitly covered.
Right, but there should be some kind of framework for the DM to adjudicate within. It'd rather play a game that has ten pages of rules that cover everything in a rules light fashion than a few hundred pages of rules that cover some things in detail and some things not at all.


Brust is right next to me, and he's not going to neatly fit into D&D, I have to say (plays very well in Palladium, actually). You could do it, but it would largely involve giving everyone psionic powers
Not sure that would work since Brust psionics is pretty different from D&D psionics. I think that 4ed encounter based and at will spells would do a decent job of simulating Brust sorcery.

As far as the rest I haven't read thing except for Robert Jordan (I was stupid and 10 years old :( ), but I think that D&D would do an awful job at dealing with Middle Earth, Conan or Westeros (George R. R. Martin). And although those books have very different kinds of moods and stories, the general tone of their magic (very limited but powerful, not flashy, not something you can do repeatedly all day, very situational, time consuming, etc.) is the kind I like the best, the closest I've seen to that is probably d20 Conan's magic. D&D would completely fall on its face trying to simulate any of the three without a major overhaul. Same goes for running a historical campaign and limiting magic to the sorts of things that people in the middle ages believed that magic was capable of.


No it wasn't. There was a Cavalier kit in the Warrior's Handbook; a Chevalier in the Paladin's Handbook; there was a Knight kit printed in Dragon magazine and so forth.
Right the old editions had plenty of that kind of garbage.


I like a bit of humour as much as the next man, but you have to keep it grounded!
For the early levels 3.5ed is a bit more balanced than 1ed (although both have problems). At higher levels the balance goes off the wheels in both. However, 3.5ed encourages peopel to gain levels faster so you get more 3.5 groups in the double diget levels where the mechanics break down. Bit of a wash overall.


These powers balance the enjoyment of play against the ability to rise in level."
That is a rather poor form of balancing. "You're more powerful than him until you completely stop gaining any power whatsoever while he continues to gain power." Who thinks up this sort of thing?


Yes, there were difficult mechanics in 1e. Compared to some other gaming systems at that time, it wasn't all that bad, really.
Nope but compared to quality modern Indie games...

Personally I'm converting over to 4ed if all they change is getting rid of round/minute based durations to spells and have all the durations be things like instantaneous/one encounter/one day. Oh how that would help my poor brain.

[Arlanthe]

I guess this is what I have to say about it (as posted in the Wizards thread)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=921895

[Charity]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Differences of opinion are inevitable. Discussions of those differences can be interesting and occasionally enlightening. Insulting, attack, or belittling others, whether by name-calling or implication, is not permitted. Take care to be respectful of other posters and their opinions. Thank you.

Sorry Roland, and all the rest of you, I should know better... what was it I said Matthew?...
Bosh most NPC's in adventures had character levels in my experiance, noble typpes were mostly Fighters, with the occasional Magic user thrown in.


Personally I'm converting over to 4ed if all they change is getting rid of round/minute based durations to spells and have all the durations be things like instantaneous/one encounter/one day. Oh how that would help my poor brain.
Amen to that.

[nagora]

So you don't do skill-type things during combat? That sounds rather boring. Just played in an adventure that included airplane, hang-gliders, a meteor shower, doing swan dives off of hang-gliders and using grappling hooks mid-air. Great action movie-style fun. I don't think my character rolled a straight-up attack role the entire combat :)


Oh, we had skills and used them a lot (in fact the character sheets are usually the totallity of the written rules and they are mostly taken up with the PC's skills), we just don't tent to roll dice except under stress, and combat tends to be the thing that causes stress most of the time.


Personally I'm converting over to 4ed if all they change is getting rid of round/minute based durations to spells and have all the durations be things like instantaneous/one encounter/one day. Oh how that would help my poor brain.

It might help your poor brain but to me it stinks like 3-day old dead skunk. I would never play or GM something like that. Each to their own.

[Dausuul]

It might help your poor brain but to me it stinks like 3-day old dead skunk. I would never play or GM something like that. Each to their own.

Really? Huh. Of all the things to object to in 4th Edition... of course, my hope is that instead of "1 encounter," they'll have "10 minutes" or something of the sort, since "1 encounter" is excessively vague. But I find that tracking round/level durations is a pain and adds nothing to the game.

From Arlanthe's post on the WotC forums...


I do not stand opposed to a 4th Edition per se, nor do many of the people viewing the current project negatively. Many of us wholeheartedly support a new edition or revised rules. What is upsetting to many of us long time D&D players is that there is a) too much change b) too soon c) made behind the backs of the players in a shroud of deception.

a) This is a matter of taste, I guess. But then, I'm in favor of (or at least neutral toward) virtually all the changes WotC has announced, so I naturally have less objection.

b) Again, a matter of taste. Me, I've been wishing for an update to D&D for quite a while. Two years ago would have been fine by me.

c) I'm with you on this. Obviously they didn't want 3.5E sales to tank as a result of announcing too soon, and that's a perfectly reasonable position. But they should have adopted a universal policy of saying "We can't comment or speculate on anything we may or may not release in the future." Actually flat-out lying to your customers is never acceptable.


A product is “market driven” or “customer oriented” when the developer listens to what the customers have to say at each step of the development process, and delivers something that is suitable to as many customers as possible. That WotC was so far along on the development process without so much as informing their customers, let alone putting a focus group together or soliciting feedback, was callous disregard for what their customers have to say.

That's not true at all. Several of the developers have commented on how some recent sourcebooks, such as the Book of Nine Swords, were "test-driving" 4E concepts. If the BoNS had flopped, its concepts wouldn't be in 4E. And Mike Mearls has a post on his blog about how valuable the Internet (e.g., forums such as this one) has been in helping to guide development. Just because they've been surreptitious about gathering feedback doesn't mean they haven't been doing so.


So next time a poster exhibits some skepticism over 4th Edition, either nod to a valid point or address specific issues within it, but avoid blanket statements or straw manning the disputant because there are many valid grounds for rejecting this 4th Edition even while desiring a 4th edition.

As it stands, many skeptics of 4th Edition are in fact, pro-4th Edition: simply not this 4th Edition in the time and manner of its development and execution.

That is certainly a fair point.

[Ulzgoroth]

Really? Huh. Of all the things to object to in 4th Edition... of course, my hope is that instead of "1 encounter," they'll have "10 minutes" or something of the sort, since "1 encounter" is excessively vague. But I find that tracking round/level durations is a pain and adds nothing to the game.
This may be an eccentricity, but I like things with short, scaling durations...A spell's duration making you pick your moment within battle to use it is good in my book.

I suspect "10 minutes" in place of "1 encounter" would dispose of many objections. At least for me, where "duration: 1 encounter" makes me want to set books and people on fire, "duration: 10 minutes" seems perfectly reasonable. Even if they are expected by some to amount to the same thing, one has a clear meaning in and out of game. The other lacks a clear meaning in either, and also bases spell duration on something seemingly irrelevant.

[Dausuul]

This may be an eccentricity, but I like things with short, scaling durations...A spell's duration making you pick your moment within battle to use it is good in my book.

That's a good point, but I'd still rather not have to track a bunch of separate durations. Perhaps some kind of maintenance mechanism instead, where you have to spend [limited resource X] each round to maintain short-duration combat spells.

[AKA_Bait]

That's a good point, but I'd still rather not have to track a bunch of separate durations. Perhaps some kind of maintenance mechanism instead, where you have to spend [limited resource X] each round to maintain short-duration combat spells.

I'm not so sure about this one. Keeping track of how much component you have used round by round seems even worse in terms of bookeeping to me.


@Roland: Apologies also. Annoyance got the better of me. I should have bit my tounge/fingers. Won't happen again.

[Dausuul]

I'm not so sure about this one. Keeping track of how much component you have used round by round seems even worse in terms of bookeeping to me.

It would depend on the resource. The simplest would be to use time as the resource, perhaps requiring a move action to maintain the spell, but I can see other possibilities; you could have a "spell pool," like the token pools in Iron Heroes, where you get X tokens each round and then have to spend for any spells you want to cast or keep going. I always found token pools much easier to work with and track than X-round durations--you only have to track one number, your token count, rather than a separate number for each duration.

[AKA_Bait]

It would depend on the resource. The simplest would be to use time as the resource, perhaps requiring a move action to maintain the spell, but I can see other possibilities; you could have a "spell pool," like the token pools in Iron Heroes, where you get X tokens each round and then have to spend for any spells you want to cast or keep going. I always found token pools much easier to work with and track than X-round durations--you only have to track one number, your token count, rather than a separate number for each duration.

Not a bad idea. I particularly like the time element. Seems to me that anything with a really short casting time should require some effort on the part of the caster to keep the spell active. Needing to expend a move action (or even a swift action if we want to be generous) sounds like a good compromise to me. That way, if a spell caster wants to have multiple buffs or other type spells up at a time they need to use up more and more of their round to maintain the spells.

[Matthew]

Sorry Roland, and all the rest of you, I should know better... what was it I said Matthew?...

Not sure, mate. You should have gotten a Private Message from Roland explaining the reason.


All of them? Those are some damn weak NPCs.



Bosh most NPC's in adventures had character levels in my experiance, noble typpes were mostly Fighters, with the occasional Magic user thrown in.

Yeah, you get three tiers of Characters in AD&D. Classed Characters, Non Classed Characters and Monsters. They follow different rules with regards to creation. A *lot* of NPCs in published Adventures are Classed, but the vast majority of the population are said to be 0-Level.
0-Level is itself a very mutable concept, as it can encompass pretty much anything you like. For the overwhelming majority of cases it means [THAC0 20, HP 1-9, AC (by Armour)], but you can actually do pretty much whatever you like with them in terms of Bonuses.
So for instance:


Munashi the Sword Master
THAC0: 20
Armour Class: 10
Hit Points: 30
Note: When Munashi is using a Katana (1D8) he gains +5 to Hit and Damage. Munashi is such a skilled combatant that his unarmoured Armour Class should be treated as 5.

This guy is still a 0 Level NPC and uses the same 0 Level NPC Save Chart, unless otherwise noted; so, for instance:


Saves: Munashi has the following Saving Throws: 11/11/11/11/11

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Having played some WW games, most recently Exalted, I don't mind the concept of a spell lasting "1 Encounter." It seems nebulous, but taken in context of encounters themselves, it can work.

For example, in Exalted some powers last "One scene" or lasts through combat. It's nebulous time, but since there's untracked time in-between scenes it more or less works out and I've never felt something lasted too long or too short.

In 3e, 1 round/level really only seems to make a big difference in early levels. My 15th level wizard rarely worries about his summoned Dire Apes disappearing before combat ends. Even at 5th level, the timing of the spell isn't much of a concern, as I've rarely had combat sessions last that long. 1 hour/level is a bit trickier to keep track of, but again, trivial at high levels. First level, an 1 hour long spell could last one, maybe two or three encounters with the downtime between (searching for traps, counting loot, exploring halls). By 15th, it's effectively a 1-day long spell. 1/minute per level is almost guaranteed to last one encounter unless the second happens almost immediately after.

Certainly, those are by no means hard and fast rules. Combat could last longer than 20 rounds. Encounters could happen in rapid succession. However, in my experience as a general rule of thumb, a duration of 1 Ecounter or 1 Combt or 1 Day would be simple enough and cover the myriad of durations we have at present.

[AKA_Bait]

Certainly, those are by no means hard and fast rules. Combat could last longer than 20 rounds. Encounters could happen in rapid succession. However, in my experience as a general rule of thumb, a duration of 1 Ecounter or 1 Combt or 1 Day would be simple enough and cover the myriad of durations we have at present.

For the most part I like those but the round/level mechanic, or something similar to what was suggested above, is important for those longer encounters especially since parties, at least mine, tend to like to prebuff befire going through a door they think is likley to lead to trouble with round/level duration spells. I've had improved invisibility wearing off be a big issue toward the end of a combat and I like that. It does mean I need to keep track of it but it puts a little bit of a damper on some of the more useful spells. This, of course, may not even be an issue in 4e depending upon how the spells are designed and distributed...

[nagora]

Having played some WW games, most recently Exalted, I don't mind the concept of a spell lasting "1 Encounter." It seems nebulous, but taken in context of encounters themselves, it can work.


I think the whole notion of "encounters" is a very primitive one and should be consigned to the dusbin of history. To still be talking about the characters' lives as if they were chopped up into neat scenes this long after the hobby started just amazes me. It's like a nightmare where I've become trapped in a 1980's computer adventure game!

I would have no idea most of the time where one encounter ended and another began, even in the wilderness let along anything something more complex like a city.

[Dausuul]

For example, in Exalted some powers last "One scene" or lasts through combat. It's nebulous time, but since there's untracked time in-between scenes it more or less works out and I've never felt something lasted too long or too short.

But White Wolf takes a more relaxed approach to that sort of thing in general. The problem is that D&D is traditionally pretty rigorous about definitions. If the entire system is built around the idea of "scenes," and it's assumed that the GM will sensibly adjudicate what does and does not constitute a scene, that's one thing, but I think it would cause problems in a system like D&D where people expect things to be nailed down and clearly defined.


I think the whole notion of "encounters" is a very primitive one and should be consigned to the dusbin of history. To still be talking about the characters' lives as if they were chopped up into neat scenes this long after the hobby started just amazes me. It's like a nightmare where I've become trapped in a 1980's computer adventure game!

I would have no idea most of the time where one encounter ended and another began, even in the wilderness let along anything something more complex like a city.

It's less of a computer game thing and more of a narrative thing. Typically, a scene/encounter starts whenever you drop out of "summary mode" (DM and players summarizing actions in broad terms, game time passing substantially faster than real time) and into "narrative mode" (DM and players describing actions in detail, game time passing at the same speed as or slower than real time). It ends once you go back into "summary mode."

This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course. You might have a bit of summary in the middle of a mostly-narrative segment, usually to speed up something that could be played out but would just bore everyone; a good example is "I tell the king all about the Evil Plot we uncovered," which saves you the trouble of reciting the plot that everyone present already knows. However, as soon as you go into summary mode and stay there for any length of time, the encounter is over.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

I think the whole notion of "encounters" is a very primitive one and should be consigned to the dusbin of history. To still be talking about the characters' lives as if they were chopped up into neat scenes this long after the hobby started just amazes me. It's like a nightmare where I've become trapped in a 1980's computer adventure game!

I would have no idea most of the time where one encounter ended and another began, even in the wilderness let along anything something more complex like a city.

Actually, the encounter has long been a feature since 1e. And that's essentially my point. The timing during and between encounters is somewhat nebulous and left to the DM's discretion. My thinking is that a new method like this basically saves on what I see as bean counting to just receive the same results as a general rule of thumb. But I'm a simple guy. Simple minds; simple pleasures. Ooo, look! Some string!

[Telonius]

"Encounter" makes about as much sense as "Chapter" or "Scene" does. With a good writer, a lot. With a poor writer, not much.

[Charity]

Not sure, mate. You should have gotten a Private Message from Roland explaining the reason.

Nah, I know what upset the gunslinger, i meant this-

Wise words, though I can extend that quite happily to -
Things that folk you don't know on the internet post, is nothing to get wound up about
One day I will learn to listen to myself...

I have been looking at my thoughts on this subject...
I think 4e moving away from a Vancian system, is a good thing, in fact I think 4e might be entirely a good thing, and here is why.
1e still exists
2e still exists
3e, 3.5e yup they are still here too, so what is 4e doing? it's another edition to chose/steal from. Seriously, if you just look at this as an entirely seperate RPG which you can take or leave it can only be good to have more choice yes?
As long as it is moving/changing it is giving us more choice, love it or hate it you will be able to have your say with your wallet.

[Matthew]

Nah, I know what upset the gunslinger, i meant this-

One day I will learn to listen to myself...

Right, gotcha. I was wondering...


I have been looking at my thoughts on this subject...
I think 4e moving away from a Vancian system, is a good thing, in fact I think 4e might be entirely a good thing, and here is why.
1e still exists
2e still exists
3e, 3.5e yup they are still here too, so what is 4e doing? it's another edition to chose/steal from. Seriously, if you just look at this as an entirely seperate RPG which you can take or leave it can only be good to have more choice yes?
As long as it is moving/changing it is giving us more choice, love it or hate it you will be able to have your say with your wallet.

Yeah, this is rather my point from the beginning of the Thread. If Wizards were basically preventing production of more material for previous editions (and in some cases, such as particular Settings, they are) then I would be very annoyed, but since Publishers are basically now free to support all previous editions of the game (via the SRD, OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord) the playing field is wide open (even if Wizards have most of the players and the best equipment).

[Dausuul]

Right, gotcha. I was wondering...

Yeah, this is rather my point from the beginning of the Thread. If Wizards were basically preventing production of more material for previous editions (and in some cases, such as particular Settings, they are) then I would be very annoyed, but since Publishers are basically now free to support all previous editions of the game (via the SRD, OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord) the playing field is wide open (even if Wizards have most of the players and the best equipment).

It's not quite that simple. As others have pointed out, old editions rapidly fall out of favor with the gaming public. Unless 4E sucks so hard that nobody plays it, it will quickly become as hard to find a 3.5E gaming group as it is to find a 2E or 1E gaming group today. It's not like a solo computer game where you can keep the old version on your hard disk and go on playing it happily for eternity.

Add to that the lack of direct support from WotC, and it's going to be a serious pain to stick with the old edition.

There's not really any way around this, of course. Whenever a new edition is released, anyone who prefers the old edition must choose between converting or getting left behind, and it's hardly reasonable to expect WotC to stick with 3.5E forever and ever. Some people say it's too soon for 4E, and those folks might have a point, although I disagree; but it had to come eventually. And while some say Wizards is making too many changes, I think many more people (I among them) would feel cheated if 4E were just an incremental update the way 3.5E was. If I'm going to buy all new books, I want to see some serious improvements to justify my investment.

[Matthew]

It's not quite that simple. As others have pointed out, old editions rapidly fall out of favor with the gaming public. Unless 4E sucks so hard that nobody plays it, it will quickly become as hard to find a 3.5E gaming group as it is to find a 2E or 1E gaming group today. It's not like a solo computer game where you can keep the old version on your hard disk and go on playing it happily for eternity.

Add to that the lack of direct support from WotC, and it's going to be a serious pain to stick with the old edition.

There's not really any way around this, of course. Whenever a new edition is released, anyone who prefers the old edition must choose between converting or getting left behind, and it's hardly reasonable to expect WotC to stick with 3.5E forever and ever. Some people say it's too soon for 4E, and those folks might have a point, although I disagree; but it had to come eventually. And while some say Wizards is making too many changes, I think many more people (I among them) would feel cheated if 4E were just an incremental update the way 3.5E was. If I'm going to buy all new books, I want to see some serious improvements to justify my investment.

It's not really the degree to which these things are possible that concerns me, but that they are possible at all. Before the SRD, we just had to suck up whatever TSR or Wizards produced for Dungeons & Dragons. Now we can produce whatever we like (though we can't actually call it D&D). I couldn't give a monkeys what the gaming public gets up to, so long as I have a forum to discuss the edition(s) I prefer and that community has the legal right to produce and distribute material to support those editions.
The degree of popularity is no real concern of mine, as I don't have a problem putting a group together for play with old editions. If the community were to evaporate altogether, I would be sad, but what is important to me is the right of that community to exist and operate, rather than the number of people that comprise it.
Now that is not to say I wouldn't like to see that community grow, it's just that I don't really feel that it needs to be hugely popular to flourish.

[Edit] I should also probably point out that the sheer volume of stuff available in PDF form for D&D and AD&D for $4 a go makes the lack of 'official' support a none issue for me. I can't see myself ever running out of stuff to run and read so long as I have $4 to spare.