PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Heavy-handed DMing



graymachine
2008-05-09, 05:34 PM
We got an early release of the core books for D&D 4e in the house and I've been thumbing through it. Up until now I've been avoiding the 4e threads as I wanted to get a direct impression of the game.

Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis), the significant issue I'm having with it is that it sets rules, then adds sidenotes about how the DM can step in and change it as they see fit. For example, there are 3 methods of generating stats. The first is to take a set of averages and the second is a weakened version of the 3.5 point buy, which comes with a handy chart of common spreads. The last option is rolling the good old 4d6. It states, though, that the DM can step in if he/she feels as though your scores are to low or to high for the game. There are other examples of DM manipulation in the character building process.

The thing that bugs me about this is that, at least for me, the character building process in D&D has always been almost completely the player's control; the DM only sets some general parameters based on the campaign world. It seems as though 4e is wanting to both be a storytelling game (ala WoD) and a war game (ala WH40k) at the same time. While I like both, I play those games if that's what I want. I assume that people have been reading the various 4e stuff, so does anyone else think that 4e is going to be too much in the DMs control, making the player feel that they really aren't contributing anything other than to play out some plastic mold they've been put in? Or am I just being a crotchety old gamer?

UserClone
2008-05-09, 05:46 PM
I don't know - why don't you lend me your copy of the 4E DMG and I'll let you know after I've read it?:smallamused:

Matthew
2008-05-09, 05:47 PM
Nah, the DM has always had the authority to alter stats, it sounds as though they are just being more explicit about it. In practice, a DM rarely will interfere, which occasionally leads to so called 'unplayable' characters. Personally, I have no problem with this being emphasised.

Tengu
2008-05-09, 05:49 PM
"The DM should interfere sometimes to make the game more enjoyable" is not a new rule. Heck, 90% of non-DND games have it written, and most non-traditional (traditional used in the worst way possible here) DND groups use it too.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 05:50 PM
FIWiPig: Haha. The DMG is actually, mostly, just a DMing-for-dummies book. Even the magic items are actually in the PHB now.

Matthew: Yeah, I agree with you, but it gives me pause that they would put it explicitly in the rules now.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 05:52 PM
"The DM should interfere sometimes to make the game more enjoyable" is not a new rule. Heck, 90% of non-DND games have it written, and most non-traditional (traditional used in the worst way possible here) DND groups use it too.

Yeah, but, as above, it gives me pause. I'll have to re-think how I approach D&D, since it's always seems seperate to me from the storytelling games.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 05:57 PM
Personally I'm considerably more concerned about other aspects of the game design, very much including some you have mentioned in your OP.

Namely: "Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis)".

I don't really need a book to tell me I have authority as a DM, or that I can change things if I want; nor do I terribly care if it takes pains to do so. I am very much aware of this and do so often.

Tengu
2008-05-09, 06:01 PM
Yeah, but, as above, it gives me pause. I'll have to re-think how I approach D&D, since it's always seems seperate to me from the storytelling games.

Why's that? You can have a game of DND focused on plot where you won't touch the dice a single time during the session, and you can have a game of Vampire consisting entirely of swinging katanas, shooting rocket launchers and players making OOC jokes about Monty Python. Some games handle some things better or worse than the others, but in the end, you can at least try to do any kind of session no matter what system are you using.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:05 PM
Personally I'm considerably more concerned about other aspects of the game design, very much including some you have mentioned in your OP.

Namely: "Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis)".

I don't really need a book to tell me I have authority as a DM, or that I can change things if I want; nor do I terribly care if it takes pains to do so. I am very much aware of this and do so often.

Which is the proper attitude in my mind. The MMORPG aspect bother me a good deal as well, but that's not the issue I'm having at the moment. I dislike the simultaneous downgrading and unscaling of magic. All classes, and a number of races, get Powers (spread out over At Will, Per Encounter, and Daily uses) so everyone has magicks now. Magic items on the other hand, powerfully weakened. It seems like the goal is to make everything uniform and uninteresting.

Starsinger
2008-05-09, 06:06 PM
It states, though, that the DM can step in if he/she feels as though your scores are to low or to high for the game. There are other examples of DM manipulation in the character building process.

The thing that bugs me about this is that, at least for me, the character building process in D&D has always been almost completely the player's control;

Well crap.. turns out I've been doing it wrong again. I'm always very involved with character creation when I DM.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-09, 06:09 PM
I don't understand why a RPG rulebook would ever even need to point out that the GM can change anything. It's so obvious.

If we're playing RuneQuest, I tell the players how they generate their stats, what limitations there are on their characters ("You're all uninitiated teens from the X clan of the Y tribe" or "You're all Imperial hoplites of the X Phalanx").

If we're playing... any other RPG, ever, it's the same thing. Including D&D, any edition. "Roll 4d6, drop the lowest. Elite array. 32-point buy."

This isn't heavy-handed - this is called being the Ref and setting the stage for the sort of campaign you're running. (And if your players don't like the sort of campaign you're running, you suck as a Ref and need to do a better job of creating campaigns or fostering trust in your players.)

That "Rule 0" meme is idiotic precisely because of this: I can't actually think of very many games at all that need to point out that yes, the Ref decides how things work out.

Nothing has changed, functionally.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:10 PM
Well crap.. turns out I've been doing it wrong again. I'm always very involved with character creation when I DM.

No, I understand what you mean. My issue with this in particular is that I don't like the apparent need for explicit rules on this.

Starsinger
2008-05-09, 06:12 PM
No, I understand what you mean. My issue with this in particular is that I don't like the apparent need for explicit rules on this.

I prefer explicit rules saying that a DM can, than to have it thinly alluded to. If the rule says the DM can do it, and the DM doesn't noone bats an eyelash. If the rules don't say so, and the DM does it, people can be very upset. It's easier to ignore a rule, if you ask me.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 06:13 PM
Which is the proper attitude in my mind. The MMORPG aspect bother me a good deal as well, but that's not the issue I'm having at the moment. I dislike the simultaneous downgrading and unscaling of magic. All classes, and a number of races, get Powers (spread out over At Will, Per Encounter, and Daily uses) so everyone has magicks now. Magic items on the other hand, powerfully weakened. It seems like the goal is to make everything uniform and uninteresting.

Yes, those would be a good part of the rest of the things I have a problem with.

Feel free to post a broader review of the 4e PHB when you've had some time to review it, I would very much appreciate your opinion/take on it.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:16 PM
Let me clarify myself here, since I seem to be giving the wrong impression. I don't dislike the DM stepping in and working with the players to make a better game. What I'm trying to say is that the (apparent) need for these rules, along with the other aspects in the rules, make it seem that WotC wants to make the game uniform and bland across the board. Part of the thing I like about D&D, 3.5 and before, is that there is a flexibility to it that can crop up in interesting ways.

Kizara
2008-05-09, 06:17 PM
I prefer explicit rules saying that a DM can, than to have it thinly alluded to. If the rule says the DM can do it, and the DM doesn't noone bats an eyelash. If the rules don't say so, and the DM does it, people can be very upset. It's easier to ignore a rule, if you ask me.

While I stand by my earlier post on the matter, I will add that I appreciate when the books caution you on something or state something as a variant or as questionable.

There's a difference between "this is meant as the default/core material" and "this is something you could do/change if you wanted to change your gameplay". I find having that difference being clearly made to be quite useful.

Noir-Neko
2008-05-09, 06:18 PM
"If done right, they will hardly be able to tell you did anything at all." I'm fimlyar with GM/DM Brute Force, sometimes it's necessary to keep a game from spiraling out of control, but IMO, a requirement of a GM is swift thinking and a level of mental agility to adapt and adjust to the actions of the players without having to resort to "Stonewalling" the players. "A Game Master's plan should always be subject to the will of the Game itself."

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 06:20 PM
Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Hasn't that been debunked enough?

OMG, 3.5 has CRs, and you can use Sense Motive to get a sense of how strong or weak an enemy is! 3.5 IS WOW

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:20 PM
Yes, those would be a good part of the rest of the things I have a problem with.

Feel free to post a broader review of the 4e PHB when you've had some time to review it, I would very much appreciate your opinion/take on it.

I'll probably make a new post on that when I've had the chance; right now 3 nerds (including myself) are vying to read the books and all are prone to violence.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:28 PM
Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Hasn't that been debunked enough?

OMG, 3.5 has CRs, and you can use Sense Motive to get a sense of how strong or weak an enemy is! 3.5 IS WOW

I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs. I grant that MMORPGs have had more money to though at research, so maybe they are on to something. My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?

Kizara
2008-05-09, 06:32 PM
Let me clarify myself here, since I seem to be giving the wrong impression. I don't dislike the DM stepping in and working with the players to make a better game. What I'm trying to say is that the (apparent) need for these rules, along with the other aspects in the rules, make it seem that WotC wants to make the game uniform and bland across the board. Part of the thing I like about D&D, 3.5 and before, is that there is a flexibility to it that can crop up in interesting ways.

While I agree with you conceptually, I do see how this statement of DM power (unneeded as it may be) establishes this.

Saying the DM should have an active role in a game doesn't relate to it being dumbed down/made more bland/uniform in my opinion. I'd like you to share how you arrived at that conclusion, and explain your logic and reasoning.

graymachine
2008-05-09, 06:46 PM
While I agree with you conceptually, I do see how this statement of DM power (unneeded as it may be) establishes this.

Saying the DM should have an active role in a game doesn't relate to it being dumbed down/made more bland/uniform in my opinion. I'd like you to share how you arrived at that conclusion, and explain your logic and reasoning.

Sorry, I got sidetracked on tangent. That conclusion isn't really about the DM issue I was discuss; more of a gestalt of the various problems I'm finding. However, this could be needless worry; with through reading my worries could meld away. I suppose my problems simply come from knowing what D&D use to be like and what it is in this edition. I suspect that if this game was packaged under some other name than D&D I wouldn't have a problem with it; I would simply categorize it within the groups I have in my head for various games, based on what I like and am in the mood to play. I suppose I'm just being stubborn.

Douglas
2008-05-09, 07:07 PM
I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs. I grant that MMORPGs have had more money to though at research, so maybe they are on to something. My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?
Because there are rather crucial differences that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rules mechanics?

The important difference between WoW and D&D is not who can do what in combat. Nitty gritty details of rules mechanics do not make a genre. The important differences are in game setting, plot structure, game environment, etc. An MMORPG like WoW is played on a computer, almost completely automated, with set quests, whenever you feel like it, with no role-playing required and no ability to do things the game designers did not explicitly anticipate. A tabletop RPG like D&D is played face to face, in a group, with whatever degree of automation you like (usually real dice), at prearranged times, in a world designed and controlled by a human who can react and adjust without limit on the fly and usually requires you to act in game as if it were all real. Until and unless these differences start disappearing, the "D&D = WoW" argument is pure foolishness in my opinion.

Citizen Joe
2008-05-09, 07:11 PM
RE: DM modifying characters...
In pretty much every DND game I've seen you have to submit your characters for DM approval. The implication is that the DM can change stuff if he doesn't like it. Most of the time he just pulls out the VETO stamp so he doesn't have to put any effort into it. So, he's always had the right to change characters, 4th Ed. just spells that out.

RE: 4th as MMORPG...
I don't have either but I've read about both. From what I've heard 4th is focusing even more on "kill it and take its stuff" than ever before. There is a reason why that is the primary quest in MMORPGs, it doesn't take too much programming. Going outside the box to solve problems requires actual thought and judgment. Until I hear something about rewarding characters for irregular solutions coming out of WotC, I'm going to have to side with the more MMORPG group.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-09, 07:12 PM
Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Yeah, that's stupid. Everybody knows D&D is becoming a collectible card game, instead. <---- The preceding sentence was sarcastic and should not have been read by anyone with an IQ below room temperature.

Aside from that, I'm not bothered by any book explicitly stating "the DM can change things if he wants to!!!!", even if it states them half a dozen times. My experience with forums like this indicates that some DMs and players really really need to get that message. And the others will just ignore it and skip to the fireball descriptions.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 07:13 PM
I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs.

"Timed powers"? Per Encounter, Per Day, and At Will? That's different from cooldown. And you do realize that 3.5 had those already? What do you think a barbarian's rage is if not a per-day power? Power Attack, Improved Trip, those are basically at-will powers. Later, per-encounter stuff got brought in, too.

The game has roles. Those roles already existed. In fact, MMORPGs got their roles from D&D. How is "the DPS" fundamentally different from "the blaster"? Are you suggesting 3.X didn't have "tanks"?

D&D isn't an MMO, and doesn't play like one. Come 4E, it still won't be an MMO, and it still won't play like one.

3.5 already has all of the "gasp-it's-an-MMO" stuff. It has more of it, including actual aggro mechanisms (from the Knight, to the Goad feat, to spells like Mindless Rage). And yet, somehow, playing D&D is nothing like playing WoW.

"zomg morepig" is a ridiculous argument. It ignores absolutely everything important, and focuses on superficial similarities that exist because MMOs evolved from D&D. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people pretending it's worthwhile, or anything but an attempt at justifying what is in most cases an irrational dislike.

ETA:

RE: 4th as MMORPG...
I don't have either but I've read about both. From what I've heard 4th is focusing even more on "kill it and take its stuff" than ever before. There is a reason why that is the primary quest in MMORPGs, it doesn't take too much programming. Going outside the box to solve problems requires actual thought and judgment. Until I hear something about rewarding characters for irregular solutions coming out of WotC, I'm going to have to side with the more MMORPG group.

You've GOT to be kidding me.
Has D&D ever been ABOUT anything other than killing things and taking their stuff? Does 3.5 support roleplaying somehow? 3.5 gives you Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Yeah, that real developed social mechanics, there! "I make a skill check and you are Friendly, my arch-enemy!" "Curses! I mean, drat my luck, good buddy."

On the other hand, 4E is introducing skill challenges. D&D is finally getting a conflict-resolution mechanism, something other games have been doing for years or even decades, instead of a task-resolution mechanism. These add to player control and allow for more solutions. If you need to sneak out of the city, one player could be making an Easy Hide check to get lost in the crowd, then a Moderate Streetwise check to find back alleys that take him to an unguarded section of the wall, then a Hard Athletics check to get over, and so on. Meanwhile, someone else could be using Persuasion, Insight, and so on.

4E is better at non-hack-and-slash, not worse... which isn't hard, because 3E barely supports it at all.

Citizen Joe
2008-05-09, 07:18 PM
Like I said, the quests are 'MorePig'. I don't know about the mechanics so much.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 07:21 PM
Like I said, the quests are 'MorePig'. I don't know about the mechanics so much.

...what? Players have whatever quests and adventures the DM gives them. How is 4E more suited to "kill it!" quests than 3E (whose published adventures, I'd point out, consisted largely of kill it and take its stuff)?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-09, 07:36 PM
Yeah, 4e just makes the killing easier to craft for a DM. Boohoo. How bad. And they give us a way to use skills without Eigen plots, stupidity, combat, or massive homebrewing! *Bob Dole voice* This'll bring the apocalypse, I tell ya.

Noir-Neko
2008-05-09, 07:43 PM
This'll bring the apocalypse, I tell ya.

Oh I do hope so :smallredface:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-09, 07:44 PM
No, NOT the catgirl and loli apocalypse. I'm talkin' of the Uwe Boll and Pauly Shore apocalypse. I mean, nobody is masochistic enough to enjoy that.

Noir-Neko
2008-05-09, 07:48 PM
Although the "catgirl and loli apocalypse" is an amusing thought, I'd ask where the men fall into it? They're cute tooo!

Anyway, are you kidding? The Uwe Boll and Pauly Shore apocalypse would also be cool, they may get me in the end but not before I watch humanity tear itself apart and everything they once believed in was reduced to a gelatinous ozze!

Tell me you would not want to see that.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-09, 07:56 PM
Not really. Who could I manipulate with catgirls, lolis, and possibly emo kid ninja-wannabe assault squads? I need humanity around to manipulate, and to someday get BGIII and P:T II.

Citizen Joe
2008-05-09, 08:00 PM
...what? Players have whatever quests and adventures the DM gives them. How is 4E more suited to "kill it!" quests than 3E (whose published adventures, I'd point out, consisted largely of kill it and take its stuff)?

I have heard nothing about 4th but 'kill it and take its stuff'. I've even heard mention of NPC's not existing outside their contact with PCs and no powers working outside of combat. So that's more MMORPG without any countering messages from WotC about doing stuff outside of combat. So I stand by my point of siding with the 'MorePig' complainers.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-09, 08:00 PM
Pauly Shore starring in a Uwe Boll film is the equivalent of dividing by zero.

Noir-Neko
2008-05-09, 08:01 PM
Pauly Shore starring in a Uwe Boll film is the equivalent of dividing by zero.

OoooOOoooo, I like that one. *takes note*

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 08:03 PM
Personally I'm considerably more concerned about other aspects of the game design, very much including some you have mentioned in your OP.

Namely: "Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis)".

I don't really need a book to tell me I have authority as a DM, or that I can change things if I want; nor do I terribly care if it takes pains to do so. I am very much aware of this and do so often.

yeah, bad DM can ruin any edition, it doesn't make the edition bad. I"m eager to hear more about 4E


Which is the proper attitude in my mind. The MMORPG aspect bother me a good deal as well, but that's not the issue I'm having at the moment. I dislike the simultaneous downgrading and unscaling of magic. All classes, and a number of races, get Powers (spread out over At Will, Per Encounter, and Daily uses) so everyone has magicks now. Magic items on the other hand, powerfully weakened. It seems like the goal is to make everything uniform and uninteresting.
If this is true, it reminds me of FF actually. the magic items are kinda, you know, just there, you know, state stuff and everybody gets crazy hair and super boomy stuff. True i liked 2E magic items more than 3E but still
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 08:05 PM
I have heard nothing about 4th but 'kill it and take its stuff'. I've even heard mention of NPC's not existing outside their contact with PCs and no powers working outside of combat. So that's more MMORPG without any countering messages from WotC about doing stuff outside of combat. So I stand by my point of siding with the 'MorePig' complainers.

Have you ever considered that you've heard wrong?

Of course powers work outside combat (it seems like Per Encounter = every five minutes). Of course NPCs exist outside of PC view. Something that obviously ridiculous should've tripped your "this person is BSing me" radar.
You SERIOUSLY thought that 4E NPCS won't exist when the PCs aren't looking at them? Seriously fo'reals? I just want to get this straight.


And WotC has already said 4E will have improved social mechanics, and has already SHOWN you skill challenges for out-of-combat things. That's more than 3.5's got. And yet, somehow... it's all about killing things and taking their stuff.
Don't get me wrong, it is about killing things and taking their stuff. But so's 3.5. So's every edition of D&D. 4E doesn't have any more of that than its predecessors.

You have absolutely no reason to stand where you do except "some guy who hates 4E said". It seems like you just want a reason to dislike 4E, rather than actually looking at it.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 08:12 PM
Have you ever considered that you've heard wrong?

Which would be weird, considering what is in the advertisement books. I knew i could trust those WotC bastards, printing lies in their books again.

Really, i'm not even jocking, they do taht too much


Of course powers work outside combat (it seems like Per Encounter = every five minutes). Of course NPCs exist of combat. Something that obviously ridiculous should've tripped your "this person is BSing me" radar.
You SERIOUSLY thought that 4E NPCS won't exist outside of combat? Seriously? I just want to get this straight.
Ignoring dramatics, i think he means that NPCs are now kinda scenery or backgrounds. Which, from everything we have seen is rather risky. Think 2E without the actually flavor (because from the 2E books i have gotten, the attatude seems very directly different)


(BTW, even if they didn't, how is that morepig? Are you suggesting that in WoW, NPCs don't exist outside of combat? Because that's not true.)

Do they actally do anything. But whatever, i'm not on the 4E=MMO crowd


And WotC has already said 4E will have improved social mechanics, and has already SHOWN you skill challenges for out-of-combat things. That's more than 3.5's got.

Depends. I'm eager for social mechanics that don't suck, but depends on what their goal is.



You have absolutely no reason to stand where you do except "some guy who hates 4E said". It seems like you just want a reason to dislike 4E, rather than actually looking at it.
I could be possible he is drawing conclusions from already existing sources you realize. Just as you are in your somewhat temperamental defense
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 08:15 PM
Ignoring dramatics, i think he means that NPCs are now kinda scenery or backgrounds. Which, from everything we have seen is rather risky. Think 2E without the actually flavor (because from the 2E books i have gotten, the attatude seems very directly different)
I misread "contact" as "combat". It's still a ridiculous statement.

NPCs are not "scenery" or "backgrounds" any more than they were (that is, only if you have a bad DM). Nobody rolled out Elminster vs. Bunch Of Zhentarim Wizards unless their PCs were there and participating, anyway.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 08:22 PM
I misread "contact" as "combat". It's still a ridiculous statement.

Fair enough


NPCs are not "scenery" or "backgrounds" any more than they were (that is, only if you have a bad DM). Nobody rolled out Elminster vs. Bunch Of Zhentarim Wizards unless their PCs were there and participating, anyway.
1) Which brings up the can of worms, why are their stats different and inferior as a whole. It is almost like the game is made in a manner inspired by certain games where half a dozen guys are literally the centers of the world, oh wait.....
2) um, what? I don't understand your point. Do you mean NPCs not fighting each other when PCs aren't around? Or Elminster being a horrible character? Bother are rather off on the issue
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 08:25 PM
Fair enough

1) Which brings up the can of worms, why are their stats different and inferior as a whole. It is almost like the game is made in a manner inspired by certain games where half a dozen guys are literally the centers of the world, oh wait.....
I dunno, why do NPCs usually get the Elite Array (or, as in the case of monsters, 10-11-10-11-10-11 stats) in 3.5? Why do NPCs not have a maximized first hit die ("Orc, 1st-level warrior: 1d8+1 (5 HP)")?
Why do PCs always end up being the ones who save the world?
It's because the game is about the PCs. They're not the center of the world, but they're the center of the game. If the PCs were a bunch of caravan guards getting slaughtered while some NPCs saved the day, got a quest, and went off to kill the orc chief and his shaman... that's not really what people look for in D&D. That sort of thing (OH LOOK GUYS WE'RE STARTING AS LEVEL ONE COMMONERS WITH 15 POINT BUY WOOOOOOO) can be an amusing digression sometimes, when you're tired of the typical fare, for some people... but it's not what the game needs to support.


2) um, what? I don't understand your point. Do you mean NPCs not fighting each other when PCs aren't around? Or Elminster being a horrible character? Bother are rather off on the issue
from
EE
I mean you don't need to worry about the mechanics of This Thing Happening In The World Somewhere. You do need to worry about the mechanis of the things happening to the PCs. That doesn't mean NPCs somehow cease to exist.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-09, 08:41 PM
Can this old argument go back to one of the other threads where the same circuitous argument happens for 13 pages?

The dead horse has been kicked. We get it.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 09:09 PM
I dunno, why do NPCs usually get the Elite Array (or, as in the case of monsters, 10-11-10-11-10-11 stats) in 3.5? Why do NPCs not have a maximized first hit die ("Orc, 1st-level warrior: 1d8+1 (5 HP)")?

The average farmer? No. however any NPC with experience, yes. WotC does it in their own adventures

Why do PCs always end up being the ones who save the world?
That isn't a rule actually. PC aren't expected, at least from a game creation
stand point to play the game to save the world. They might in particular games certainly, but taht isn't their design purpose



It's because the game is about the PCs. They're not the center of the world, but they're the center of the game.
Sure, which is why you make your game focus on them, not your world. Ergo, complaint.


If the PCs were a bunch of caravan guards getting slaughtered while some NPCs saved the day, got a quest, and went off to kill the orc chief and his shaman... that's not really what people look for in D&D.
This is a puzzler. How is NPC and PCs having similar stats make PCs automatically have to be saved by NPCs? I don't believe i've advocated taht, and if i didn't know better, i'd say your deliberately misinterpreting me in order to make my complaint seem less valid


That sort of thing (OH LOOK GUYS WE'RE STARTING AS LEVEL ONE COMMONERS WITH 15 POINT BUY WOOOOOOO) can be an amusing digression sometimes, when you're tired of the typical fare, for some people... but it's not what the game needs to support.
yet again, the question comes up, where do you draw this conclusion? NPCs, or at least the ones who are expected to be above average having PC stats as per game design intent doesn't mean the PCs are going to be whiny little weaklings. To the contrary, it just means that other people in the world are acting like them, and the PCs can interact with the world logically.



I mean you don't need to worry about the mechanics of This Thing Happening In The World Somewhere. You do need to worry about the mechanis of the things happening to the PCs. That doesn't mean NPCs somehow cease to exist.
When NPCs have stats simply for the amusement of the PCs, that diminishes their role. Instead of everybody following a consistent rule base, you have most of the world only having stats, the cannon way of effecting the world around you, when half a dozen guys are around. everybody sharing rules doesn't make the PCs no longer the focus of the game
from
EE
edit
Sorry sam

Jayabalard
2008-05-09, 09:20 PM
I don't understand why a RPG rulebook would ever even need to point out that the GM can change anything. It's so obvious.Because recent D&D editions seem to have caused some people to think that the RAW is something special in and of itself, and that GM's that make changes to the holy RAW universally make the game worse.

Raum
2008-05-09, 09:33 PM
<snip>...the significant issue I'm having with it is that it sets rules, then adds sidenotes about how the DM can step in and change it as they see fit. For example, there are 3 methods of generating stats. The first is to take a set of averages and the second is a weakened version of the 3.5 point buy, which comes with a handy chart of common spreads. The last option is rolling the good old 4d6. It states, though, that the DM can step in if he/she feels as though your scores are to low or to high for the game. There are other examples of DM manipulation in the character building process. I agree with your sentiments, though possibly for different reasons. I simply neither want or need a game to tell me how to deal with friends in a social situation. Leave it for the advice columns and concentrate on how to play the game.

Pie Guy
2008-05-09, 09:40 PM
To do an strange quantum physics tangent,
If nobody's looking at something, does it exist? Quantum physics says no.
But the NPCs would still exist, but who cares about NPCs?
Not appliccable to anything, but I like the thoeries.:smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 09:42 PM
To do an strange quantum physics tangent,
If nobody's looking at something, does it exist? Quantum physics says no.
But the NPCs would still exist, but who cares about NPCs?
Not appliccable to anything, but I like the thoeries.:smallbiggrin:

....do you want to go back in the box?
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 09:42 PM
I agree with your sentiments, though possibly for different reasons. I simply neither want or need a game to tell me how to deal with friends in a social situation. Leave it for the advice columns and concentrate on how to play the game.

That's great. Meanwhile, people who are new to DMing may well be grateful for that sort of thing.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-09, 09:42 PM
Ancient D&D Proverb...


If an NPC purchases some turnips at a merchant and the PCs aren't around, does it matter to the game?

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 09:50 PM
Ancient D&D Proverb...

Its weird when you compare how things have changed

2E DMG

"In wilderness areas and abandoned ruins, there may not be a particular culture to consider. However, there is a society of sorts, or more accurately, an ecosystem. This is often overlooked n dungeon setting. Just which creatures feed on which. What relationships exist that allow all manner of diverse creature to live in the same place without annihilating each other? Does a creature random appearance make sense with what the character know about the place? Medusa make poor wandering monster, since logic says there should be statues of their victims in areas where they live. To round a counter and run into a Medusa who just happen to be strolling the caverns grates against logic"
when you read worlds and monsters, statements are made directly against this idea
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 09:58 PM
That's because it's pretty much impossible to make a dungeon into an ecosystem. Monster-filled dungeons just plain don't make sense.
Trap- *and* monster-filled diungeons make even less sense.

But dungeons are Good Ol' D&D (I'm not really a fan, myself, but they're at least as important as Dragons), so you see them anyway, and you don't worry too much about them, any more than you worry about zeppelins being impractical in pulp.

Raum
2008-05-09, 10:00 PM
That's great. Meanwhile, people who are new to DMing may well be grateful for that sort of thing.There are many sources of advice on how to GM. I'm even all for including a "how to run the game" as part of the rules introduction. But when it moves from "how to run the game" into "how to interact with your friends" it's gone too far. Leave it for an advice column.

Seriously. The one thing they never say but should, is "communicate with your friends"! It's unpretentious. It's also difficult for many people.

Instead they state something that boils down to "if you don't like it, make 'em change it." Potentially divisive advice. Not exactly the best way to start a beginner off.

EvilElitest
2008-05-09, 10:06 PM
That's because it's pretty much impossible to make a dungeon into an ecosystem. Monster-filled dungeons just plain don't make sense.

No it isn't. I might be impossible for a lazy or incompetent to make a dungeon, or somebody who simply doesn't care in the least, but it isn't impossible.


Trap- *and* monster-filled dungeons make even less sense.

I don't see why it can't work actually. Lack of imagination maybe, but monster and traps in a dungeon. How is that a problem. I could do them



But dungeons are Good Ol' D&D (I'm not really a fan, myself, but they're at least as important as Dragons), so you see them anyway, and you don't worry too much about them, any more than you worry about zeppelins being impractical in pulp.
1) As i said, nothing make dungeons impossible, or even remotly illogical except lack of imagination.
2) I don't think Zeppelins are very traditional to D&D. WoW maybe.



Instead they state something that boils down to "if you don't like it, make 'em change it." Potentially divisive advice. Not exactly the best way to start a beginner off.
which is made even worst if the fluff isn't well thought out to start with
from
EE

Eldariel
2008-05-09, 10:19 PM
That's because it's pretty much impossible to make a dungeon into an ecosystem. Monster-filled dungeons just plain don't make sense.
Trap- *and* monster-filled diungeons make even less sense.

Isn't the general Dungeon either a castle of some BBEG, some vault of an item too powerful to keep out or some sort of a Tomb? In all of those, some sort of powerful creatures and traps guarding this whatever along with the bodies/statues of those who've come before and failed do seem to make perfect sense, just dependant on who made them.

If we're just adventuring underground, it should be relatively easy for the DM to rationalize, what kinds of creatures could coexist, what kinds of creatures may have migrated to this area and what's keeping them alive. Once you've got those covered, you've got an effective mini-ecosystem.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 10:20 PM
No it isn't. I might be impossible for a lazy or incompetent to make a dungeon, or somebody who simply doesn't care in the least, but it isn't impossible.

I don't see why it can't work actually. Lack of imagination maybe, but monster and traps in a dungeon. How is that a problem. I could do them
Why haven't the traps killed the monsters?

Most D&D monsters are "top predator" types. Any given area can't support very many top predators. Food, water, light, and all that jazz... go on, make me a dungeon that's a viable ecosystem.


1) As i said, nothing make dungeons impossible, or even remotly illogical except lack of imagination.
2) I don't think Zeppelins are very traditional to D&D. WoW maybe.
No, but zeppelins are very *pulp*, like I said. Which is why in pulp you don't care that they're impractical, because Zeppelins Are Awesome. Similarily, in D&D you don't care that dragons flying makes no sense and neither do dungeons.



And it says nothing like "if you don't like'em, make'em change it!" It seems to point out that if you've got someone who rolled 8, 10, 12, 10, 10, 11 in your heroic game, you can have'em reroll, and same goes for the guy with three 18s , two 16s, and a 15 in your gritty game. It's not telling you how to relate to your friends.

Raum
2008-05-09, 10:30 PM
No it isn't. I might be impossible for a lazy or incompetent to make a dungeon, or somebody who simply doesn't care in the least, but it isn't impossible.

I don't see why it can't work actually. Lack of imagination maybe, but monster and traps in a dungeon. How is that a problem. I could do them

1) As i said, nothing make dungeons impossible, or even remotly illogical except lack of imagination. I have to agree with Reel regarding dungeons. I have yet to see one filled with traps and monsters in a way that made internal sense. I'm sure it's not impossible, but it would take far longer to create than to play. There are a lot of questions to consider when just looking at the ecology. How do all the different denizens interact? What is the life cycle? Is it self supporting? If not what is being brought in from outside, by who, and why? So on and so forth. Traps are even worse in most dungeons I've seen. They'd kill the denizens long before the intrepid adventurers showed up. Why are they in the middle of a heavily traveled corridor anyway?

Heh, I'd say a lack of imagination is a prerequisite for spending a lot of play time in dungeons. With imagination you start wondering how it all fits together and why it hasn't gone wrong already!

But I think we're digressing. I'll leave off ranting... :)

skywalker
2008-05-09, 10:34 PM
It seems as though 4e is wanting to both be a storytelling game (ala WoD) and a war game (ala WH40k) at the same time.

I have not read the rest of the thread. However, I would completely agree with you based on the preview material I've read.

Which isn't to say they can't make a successful game like that. I'm turned on by the "greater DM control" actually. I find it kinda funny that they're encouraging DMs to do this sort of thing while simultaneously seeming to promote a lot of rules.

This doesn't bother me at all, I'm in a very zen-like place with 4e tonight, but I am insanely curious as to whether or not this "you got wargame in my story-telling!" "You got story-telling in my wargame!" approach will work out for them.

Raum
2008-05-09, 10:37 PM
And it says nothing like "if you don't like'em, make'em change it!" It seems to point out that if you've got someone who rolled 8, 10, 12, 10, 10, 11 in your heroic game, you can have'em reroll, and same goes for the guy with three 18s , two 16s, and a 15 in your gritty game. It's not telling you how to relate to your friends.Is it not? I haven't seen the text of 4e so can't form a specific opinion. But every time they tell the GM to "have the player re-roll" for reasons unrelated to game mechanics, they're stating an opinion on how you should interact with your friends. Or at least with your players. Specifically, they're implying (even stating in some texts) an autocratic relationship.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 10:38 PM
This doesn't bother me at all, I'm in a very zen-like place with 4e tonight, but I am insanely curious as to whether or not this "you got wargame in my story-telling!" "You got story-telling in my wargame!" approach will work out for them.

Given that oWoD combat played a lot like D&D anyway, I think it definitely can.
(Playing Toreadors who, despite the common sneerings of "girls play Torries" and "Torries are all pansies", make the best combat monsters in old-Vampire, and beating people up when they mock you for being a nancy-boy, was win.)

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 10:41 PM
Is it not? I haven't seen the text of 4e so can't form a specific opinion. But every time they tell the GM to "have the player re-roll" for reasons unrelated to game mechanics, they're stating an opinion on how you should interact with your friends. Or at least with your players. Specifically, they're implying (even stating in some texts) an autocratic relationship.

How is that any different from saying "let anyone with a +4 bonus or less reroll" or even the DM deciding whether you want to give 25-point-buy or 32-point-buy or what? The relationship doesn't have to be autocratic for the DM to decide these things. I'm all for player empowerment--hell, he could ask "what kind of point-buy do you guys want?" or "do you guys thing that Josh should reroll?"--but "for reasons unrelated to game mechanics" makes no sense. Rerolling because the DM decided your stats are too low is no different from rerolling because Monte Cook decided a +4 or lower total bonus is too low.

Raum
2008-05-09, 10:57 PM
How is that any different from saying "let anyone with a +4 bonus or less reroll" or even the DM deciding whether you want to give 25-point-buy or 32-point-buy or what? The relationship doesn't have to be autocratic for the DM to decide these things. I'm all for player empowerment--hell, he could ask "what kind of point-buy do you guys want?" or "do you guys thing that Josh should reroll?"--but "for reasons unrelated to game mechanics" makes no sense. Rerolling because the DM decided your stats are too low is no different from rerolling because Monte Cook decided a +4 or lower total bonus is too low.There's a significant difference between "tell" and "let". It's the difference between one person autocratically claiming ownership of a game and a group playing together. What if the player felt challenged by those low stats and wanted to use them? The important thing is to communicate. Games require interactions, not expositions.

Hell, the mere fact of "player empowerment" being both a common term and a divisive subject should tell you there's a problem. You don't see the banker in a game of Monopoly claiming "it's my game" and "we're playing with my house rules whether you other players like it or not" very often. You also don't see the rules telling the banker to change a player's token when he doesn't like it for some reason. Sadly, I've seen exactly that all too often in RPGs.

And before you say Monopoly can't be related to D&D, I've seen Monopoly games with more intense role playing than any dungeon crawl. It takes work to talk a landlord into an extension! :)

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 11:10 PM
I think they're just assuming that you're smart enough to let the player run with those stats if he really wants to when you tell him to reroll.

Besides which, like I said--the DM often is the authority, if only by group consensus. I'm not sure why it's OK for him to tell you what you're fighting (by deciding what's in the encounter) but not what stats you can have.

Fishy
2008-05-09, 11:23 PM
Hi.

Wizards is hoping to sell a lot of copies of 4E. They want people playing this game who have never heard of 3.5, and who have never played an RPG before in their lives.

So, *of course* there's a sentence in the book explaining Rule Zero. And I'll bet you any amount of money that there's a sentence that explains what HP means. It may be obvious to us, but it needs to be said.

Raum
2008-05-09, 11:28 PM
Besides which, like I said--the DM often is the authority, if only by group consensus. I'm not sure why it's OK for him to tell you what you're fighting (by deciding what's in the encounter) but not what stats you can have.The GM takes the role of the antagonists while the players take the role of the protagonists. When either unilaterally interferes with the other's role, there are communication issues. Done by the GM it's "railroading," "GM fiat" or "deus ex machina." Done by the player it may be "rules lawyering" or simply disruptive.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 11:38 PM
The GM takes the role of the antagonists while the players take the role of the protagonists. When either unilaterally interferes with the other's role, there are communication issues. Done by the GM it's "railroading," "GM fiat" or "deus ex machina." Done by the player it may be "rules lawyering" or simply disruptive.

That has nothing to do with it. Again, how is this different from the GM deciding what point-buy you use (or even that everyone uses the same point-buy)?

Raum
2008-05-09, 11:50 PM
That has nothing to do with it. Again, how is this different from the GM deciding what point-buy you use (or even that everyone uses the same point-buy)?We seem to have our own set of communication issues. I thought we were discussing the decision making process and how decisions / changes should be made when they affect areas of the game not ostensibly (or solely) the GM's responsibility. I didn't realize we were discussing character generation methods.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-09, 11:57 PM
We seem to have our own set of communication issues. I thought we were discussing the decision making process and how decisions / changes should be made when they affect areas of the game not ostensibly (or solely) the GM's responsibility. I didn't realize we were discussing character generation methods.

I think I'm done discussing this, because I think you're making WAY too big a deal of it. If you want to read it as "you, the GM, are a cruel god, ruling with an arbitrary iron fist and crushing all dissent", go for it. Everything in the game is potentially the GM's responsibility, just as it can potentially be left up to the players. D&D has never been the most player-empowering game, and won't be by its nature. If you think a line about having people reroll they're stats is somehow more encouraging of DM Tyranny than having the DM determine what point-buy you use (which you apparently have no problems with) or what creatures you fight or anything else, then go ahead. I'm done for now.

its_all_ogre
2008-05-10, 01:32 AM
ignoring the ongoing....debate...about dm decisions etc.

the 4e is becoming a computer game is daft, we all play dnd because we enjoy some elements of it more than computer games (or else why would we bother?).
i'd like to see a rpg that actually plays EXACTLY like a computer game, that'd be quite interesting, maybe diablo 2 the dnd 3.0 conversion does? got the books but have not played it yet.

to be honest i think the various per day/per encounter/per round powers have not majorly changed. as someone else stated above we have had most for years in the form of spells per day. 3x brought in feats which were on or off at your choice (power attack) and circumstance permitted, cleave for example relies on felling a foe.

i've heard from friends who do play morepigs (love the phrase btw :smallbiggrin:) that the games are actually well balanced, some classes perform certain roles much better than others, true, but comparative to certain 3x issues (full caster power for example) they are closer.

morepigs grew from dnd and learned what people wanted from a computer game, why do you think the rpg community cannot achieve the same thing?

i'm interested in the ruleset and if i can get my hands on it i will, whether i'll run it will depend on having the time to learn it and if i can be arsed to convert my current game over.
ot it'll be the next campaign!

Rutee
2008-05-10, 01:51 AM
I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs. I grant that MMORPGs have had more money to though at research, so maybe they are on to something. My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?

Oh FFS. Evidence my foot. You got jack that's in 4e, that isn't in 3.5, that makes DnD more like a MOREPIG. The frustration comes at the false meme. You don't get it if you buy it.


i'd like to see a rpg that actually plays EXACTLY like a computer game, that'd be quite interesting, maybe diablo 2 the dnd 3.0 conversion does? got the books but have not played it yet.

I don't know about Diablo 2, but the Japanese make roleplaying games that play very similar to console RPGs. They go out of their way to make a lot of CRPG tropes present, actually (One of my favorites took the essence of Roguelikes, turned it into a game where you rebuild a shattered world where the only thing left is the castle 'hub'. You could even change classes at the hub)

Kurald Galain
2008-05-10, 04:20 AM
My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?
WOTC is in fact hoping you would play on a computer, because they want to sell you the subscription to their online playing tools.


Why haven't the traps killed the monsters?
Because the monsters are the ones that set the traps, as is the case in a kobold dungeon.

Seriously though. I believe it is certainly possible to create a dungeon that has a valid ecosystem, economy, and so forth. However, this is putting an extreme amount of work into something most players really don't care about, and I am unaware of the existence of any printed dungeon-based modules that come even remotely close to that.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 09:12 AM
Why haven't the traps killed the monsters?

Plenty of reasons
1) They made the traps. Kobolds, orcs, trolls and what not can make their own traps and then you know, not walk into them. I mean it is like when a human makes a trap. Don't walk into the damn thing
2) Or if these are undead or outsiders, they most likely don't care
3) and if we are talking run of the mill predator, who's to say they haven't set off some traps. They just learned to avoid certain areas, real like animals do that. Also door and chest traps would be set off

yet again, your assuming the DM is a moron. That doesn't prove you point, just that moronic DM suck in any edition


Most D&D monsters are "top predator" types. Any given area can't support very many top predators. Food, water, light, and all that jazz... go on, make me a dungeon that's a viable ecosystem.

1) Actually, your wrong. Most D&D monsters are intellegent, or at least possessing rational thought. Or undead/demon type creatures. When you say monster, that doesn't automatically mean we are using only the animistic monsters. If we are, that can still certainly work with a dungeon.


No, but zeppelins are very *pulp*, like I said. Which is why in pulp you don't care that they're impractical, because Zeppelins Are Awesome. Similarily, in D&D you don't care that dragons flying makes no sense and neither do dungeons.
1) Zepplins aren't cool, there silly.
2) Actually it has been established Dragons fly through magic
3) and your only 'proof' that dungeon don't work is working under the assumption that your DM is a moron. I'm working under the assumption that you DM can use common sense





I have to agree with Reel regarding dungeons. I have yet to see one filled with traps and monsters in a way that made internal sense.
I think your have a problem with your DM then. I always make my monsters and world/dungeons make logical sense, and nothing in the game prevents me (other than drowning rules).





I have not read the rest of the thread. However, I would completely agree with you based on the preview material I've read.

Which isn't to say they can't make a successful game like that. I'm turned on by the "greater DM control" actually. I find it kinda funny that they're encouraging DMs to do this sort of thing while simultaneously seeming to promote a lot of rules.

This doesn't bother me at all, I'm in a very zen-like place with 4e tonight, but I am insanely curious as to whether or not this "you got wargame in my story-telling!" "You got story-telling in my wargame!" approach will work out for them.

Yeah, the few 2E elements that have come back would be nice if the game was story aimed like 2E was but.....



I'm sure it's not impossible, but it would take far longer to create than to play. There are a lot of questions to consider when just looking at the ecology. How do all the different denizens interact? What is the life cycle? Is it self supporting? If not what is being brought in from outside, by who, and why? So on and so forth. Traps are even worse in most dungeons I've seen. They'd kill the denizens long before the intrepid adventurers showed up. Why are they in the middle of a heavily traveled corridor anyway?




I don't see anything in ether 2E or 3E that can't answer that.

You can have monsters interact. THe goblins live on the upper levels of an old keep, and keep their more primitive monsters below
Goblins can go out hunting, monsters can eat each other, or the can all work together.

Traps vary on who made them. THe goblins would make them in places where they wouldn't hurt themselves, while the person who owned hte place before would make them to guard this treasury. That is why the magical loot the PCs get is still there not in the hands of the goblins, who are afraid of the nasty traps
Lore, are you saying 4E becoming a video game is daft, or the theory is daft


Oh FFS. Evidence my foot. You got jack that's in 4e, that isn't in 3.5, that makes DnD more like a MOREPIG. The frustration comes at the false meme. You don't get it if you buy it.
Actually the first video game/4E argument wasn't talking about MMOs. More like JRPG if you ask me or Diablo


Seriously though. I believe it is certainly possible to create a dungeon that has a valid ecosystem, economy, and so forth. However, this is putting an extreme amount of work into something most players really don't care about, and I am unaware of the existence of any printed dungeon-based modules that come even remotely close to that.
It doesn't take a lot of work, just a little common sense and some basic planning skills when your make the Dungeon. I mean DMs make them in advance right? So just plan things out

I can't say for D&D modules, i know that WotC is infamously incompetent, but i thought Raven loft was rather good
from
EE

Oslecamo
2008-05-10, 11:00 AM
In real life it takes a LOT of worck to make a building where everybody worcks togheter well, is economically viable and will last for years whitout exterior supervision.

And this is taking in acount that all there is a single species of creature(humans) in your building, and that nobody with an army or heavy weapons will try to assault it.

So, asking the DM to make a dungeon wich makes sense economically and socially is kinda asking too much.

In my opinion, most dungeons were created by excentric high level beings who had lots of money to burn. The monsters are there probably because they were forced/paid/persuaded to be there.

Except in case of underground lairs, wich make somewhat more sense. It's a dangerous world out there. Only natural to put some watch "dogs" and traps at the entrances to protect your own home.

Oh, and dracomicon confirms that dragons's flight is nonmagical. They can even fly inside an AMF. Wich makes kinda sense since there's no way there would be enough food in a single reason to feed something as massive as a dragon for centuries unless the dragon turned into a farmer.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 11:40 AM
Because the monsters are the ones that set the traps, as is the case in a kobold dungeon.

I do believe he's referring to the type of dungeon that has, say, Gelatinous Cubes, or Gibbering Mouthers, or whatever other huge, unintelligent abomination you care to think about, wandering around in.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 11:47 AM
In real life it takes a LOT of worck to make a building where everybody worcks togheter well, is economically viable and will last for years whitout exterior supervision.

And this is taking in acount that all there is a single species of creature(humans) in your building, and that nobody with an army or heavy weapons will try to assault it.

So, asking the DM to make a dungeon wich makes sense economically and socially is kinda asking too much.

No its not, because unlike real life you simply can simply made the Dungeon in question without too much much trouble. Just drawn the building's interior, and add in what you would have added in anyways, monsters, traps, loot ect, just bear in mind logically how it would work


In my opinion, most dungeons were created by excentric high level beings who had lots of money to burn. The monsters are there probably because they were forced/paid/persuaded to be there.
Why does everyone assume that is automatically the case? Couldn't the building have been taken over? Or made by them? Or just left along then settled in.

Anyways, you can't make an argument that the game somehow prevents you from making logical dungeons in 2E or 3E or that it is impossible. It just takes basic common sense, something 2E encouraged



Oh, and dracomicon confirms that dragons's flight is nonmagical. They can even fly inside an AMF. Wich makes kinda sense since there's no way there would be enough food in a single reason to feed something as massive as a dragon for centuries unless the dragon turned into a farmer.
I thought that some sort of more subtle magic allowed them to fly, just not one that we normally expect and is to magic to be taken away by an AMF. I thought that was the case for most physically impossible monsters


I do believe he's referring to the type of dungeon that has, say, Gelatinous Cubes, or Gibbering Mouthers, or whatever other huge, unintelligent abomination you care to think about, wandering around in.
I'd imagine they would stay in the areas where there is food. I see no reason why the traps wouldn't hurt them, something a DM should have happen
from
EE

Rockphed
2008-05-10, 02:16 PM
Hi.

Wizards is hoping to sell a lot of copies of 4E. They want people playing this game who have never heard of 3.5, and who have never played an RPG before in their lives.

So, *of course* there's a sentence in the book explaining Rule Zero. And I'll bet you any amount of money that there's a sentence that explains what HP means. It may be obvious to us, but it needs to be said.

My biggest gripe against the 3rd edition DMG is that it didn't include enough advice for new DMs. If Experienced DMs can just ignore 90% of the book, then it is actually being a Dungeon Master's Guide, rather than a Dungeon Master's Reference. Sure, it gets somewhat annoying having to wade through all the paragraphs of information for newbie DMs, but if the Tables are well arranged, you shouldn't have too much trouble. Furthermore, if half the DMG is explanations of how to make a good Encounter, Campaign or setting, how hard to make the DCs in skill challenges, and how to effectively run such, then it will truly be worth it.

Farmer42
2008-05-10, 02:53 PM
The lack of guiding actually bugged me about 3.x. When I first started to DM, i borrowed a copy for a couple of days, then decided I was no better off than had I just used the SRD. Instead, I nabbed a copy of DMing for Dummies, which actually had good advice for running games and talked about Rule 0. That's more important to DMs than how to construct magic items and what properties you can put on your swords. Having the random generation tables was nice, having all the rules for things players will want to do in the DM book was not. Period. So, yes, give me more babying in the DMG. That's why it's there.

hamishspence
2008-05-10, 03:31 PM
Trap filled dungeon:

My first intro to the whole thing, when I was MUCH younger, was that Dungeon boardgame with Flame, the Dungeon magazine red dragon, on the front of the box guarding treasure. It was simple, and fun. And it was based around mostly single door rooms, each with a monster, and a few chambers with monsters, a few rooms with traps, etc.

I wondered if the intentionally created Prison would fit that kind of dungeon better: all the monsters are in rooms with the bolts on the outside. The Dungeon as prison might actually fit better (keeper of the prison would have to be hidden away, maybe a wizard who sometimes takes monsters from cells to experiment on)

Might Prison make more sense than Ecosystem?

Eldariel
2008-05-10, 03:39 PM
As I already said, many traditional Dungeon-archetypes make perfect sense with the monsters being the caretakers (therefore commonly undead or constructs; monsters are just those bound there by Magic or contracts-with-the-devil-gone-bad). Old Tombs, sanctuaries, unused refuge tunnels whose secrets have been forgotten, BBEG's Lair guarded by his nameless hordes and so on. Undead might just have no needs and therefore don't leave simply because they have no reason to (or may lack the ability to, if bound). Constructs epitomize that even more. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of a place that's specifically upkept by the bound Demons. Also, there's the whole example of the damn Kobold tribe having moved in and trapped it themselves, knowing each trap and how to bypass them without triggering them.

Seriously, Egyptian Pharaohs did the same stuff with their Tombs; if eternal creatures existed, some would've surely been used as guardians in addition to the traps.

Devils_Advocate
2008-05-10, 05:13 PM
I thought that some sort of more subtle magic allowed them to fly, just not one that we normally expect and is to magic to be taken away by an AMF. I thought that was the case for most physically impossible monsters
Something that is physically impossible by definition doesn't exist. Many D&D monsters are physically impossible in the real world and thus don't exist in the real world. But they exist in D&D settings, which means that they are physically possible in those settings. So obviously those settings have different natural laws than our own universe does.

You can say that something is "magical" if and only if it doesn't follow the real-world laws of physics, but that's really not a very useful distinction. It's not like the characters in the game know what our world is like; they're only familiar with their own world, so that's certainly not going to be their definition of "magical". And, come on, why would a magical fantasy world follow all of the real world's laws of physics anywhere? We're talking about a setting where there are planes of existence filled with elemental earth, air, water, and fire. There's an actual life force and a corresponding death force. There's no reason to assume that, say, atoms exist, unless you actually want your players trying to figure out how what Knowledge check they need to be able to make before they can try to produce anti-osmium.

To borrow from Alexandra Erin: They would no doubt find our world immensely implausible. A whole universe obviously filled with things like trees and books and people and stars, but really made up of invisibly tiny particles that JUST SO HAPPEN to work together in just such a way that trees and books and people and stars appear to exist? How ridiculously contrived is that?

In D&D, the useful definition of "magical" is basically "doesn't work in an anti-magic field."

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 05:56 PM
Something that is physically impossible by definition doesn't exist. Many D&D monsters are physically impossible in the real world and thus don't exist in the real world. But they exist in D&D settings, which means that they are physically possible in those settings. So obviously those settings have different natural laws than our own universe does.

You can say that something is "magical" if and only if it doesn't follow the real-world laws of physics, but that's really not a very useful distinction. It's not like the characters in the game know what our world is like; they're only familiar with their own world, so that's certainly not going to be their definition of "magical". And, come on, why would a magical fantasy world follow all of the real world's laws of physics anywhere? We're talking about a setting where there are planes of existence filled with elemental earth, air, water, and fire. There's an actual life force and a corresponding death force. There's no reason to assume that, say, atoms exist, unless you actually want your players trying to figure out how what Knowledge check they need to be able to make before they can try to produce anti-osmium.

To borrow from Alexandra Erin: They would no doubt find our world immensely implausible. A whole universe obviously filled with things like trees and books and people and stars, but really made up of invisibly tiny particles that JUST SO HAPPEN to work together in just such a way that trees and books and people and stars appear to exist? How ridiculously contrived is that?

In D&D, the useful definition of "magical" is basically "doesn't work in an anti-magic field."

alright, so what makes Dragons fly isn't magic, it is just a different set of physics at work.
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 06:02 PM
Exactly. Possibly the gravitational force was stronger and then waned.

Yeah, Catgirls are dieing, but I have 'nuff DNA to replicate their species.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 06:14 PM
Exactly. Possibly the gravitational force was stronger and then waned.

Yeah, Catgirls are dieing, but I have 'nuff DNA to replicate their species.

My genocide of teh Cat Girls will work

Remember kids


http://www.animeindepth.com/images/1/characters/BradChar.jpg
Cat girls make Fuhrer Bradly mad

You don't want him to come after you next do you?

Be a good person, murder the catgirl scum
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 06:16 PM
*Killsa catgirl*.

Free DNA. I gets to be a messiah!

Tough_Tonka
2008-05-10, 06:40 PM
No, I understand what you mean. My issue with this in particular is that I don't like the apparent need for explicit rules on this.

Two words: New DMs

Tough_Tonka
2008-05-10, 07:00 PM
I really don't understand what this D&D is becoming a pen and paper MMO means? I know that WotC is making online software to let you play with a digital battle mat and AIM and Team Speak. I guess having computer graphics and playing D&D over the internet would make it a MO (Multi-player Online) RPG, since I doubt more than maybe 10 people can use it at a time. However, I get the feeling that statement isn't critiquing that 4e online application.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:00 PM
It means some people are thick as bricks and too conservative to change. Ignore 'em.

Starsinger
2008-05-10, 07:04 PM
AIM

Gasp! I've played on AIM before! And there were 9 of us! Maybe they were being literal with the D&D is becoming an MMORPG thing... IF you count 9 people as massive...

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:05 PM
I really don't understand what this D&D is becoming a pen and paper MMO means? I know that WotC is making online software to let you play with a digital battle mat and AIM and Team Speak. I guess having computer graphics and playing D&D over the internet would make it a MO (Multi-player Online) RPG, since I doubt more than maybe 10 people can use it at a time. However, I get the feeling that statement isn't critiquing that 4e online application.

Personally i don't think 4E is becoming a MMO, i think it is becoming much like a video game in simplifying things, along with general style and tone


It means some people are thick as bricks and too conservative to change. Ignore 'em.

Oh stop that. I have made it clear from teh start that i don't mind change and i don't mind a new edition, nor am i simply whining because i miss 3E. I argued for a new edition when 4E was first announced. I just don't like the changes No straw man, bad
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:07 PM
I never said you were thick as a brick. Contrary, your posts tend to be on the upper scale of insightfullness (Though grammar could improve). Hooray for self accusation! :smallbiggrin:

I'm thinking of other people.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:12 PM
I never said you were thick as a brick. Contrary, your posts tend to be on the upper scale of insightfullness (Though grammar could improve). Hooray for self accusation! :smallbiggrin:

I'm thinking of other people.

1) Thank you, sorry for attacking you
2) Generally however, most anti 4E sentiment doesn't come from conservatism however
3) that being said, i still blame you for everything else taht is wrong in the world. Everything.
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-05-10, 07:13 PM
3) that being said, i still blame you for everything else taht is wrong in the world. Everything.

That's because it's his fault. Sorry Azerian. :smalltongue:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:14 PM
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/549290/2/istockphoto_549290_purple_elephant_w_paths.jpg
:smallbiggrin:

2) You think so? I though most 4e haters dislike it because it does away with classic D&D elements, in their opinion for worse. I'm pro-4th, but I HAVE to admit it's not very much classic D&D, at all. It's a different construct, which has taken up the mantle, and will try to live up to the legacy.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:18 PM
That's because it's his fault. Sorry Azerian.
If there is a problem out there, it is his fault

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/549290/2/istockphoto_549290_purple_elephant_w_paths.jpg
:smallbiggrin:

AH god damn it, don't do that. It makes all of my moral values go away



2) You think so? I though most 4e haters dislike it because it does away with classic D&D elements, in their opinion for worse. I'm pro-4th, but I HAVE to admit it's not very much classic D&D, at all. It's a different construct, which has taken up the mantle, and will try to live up to the legacy.
Anti 4E comes from a few things
1) Traditionalism, which is important. That isn't conservatism, which is more fear of any change, it is more feeling like WotC has no respect for teh game. Which they don't actually
2) dislike of the actual changes and the video game approach
3) the fluff. I'm sorry, the fluff
4) Minor things that wouldn't be bad if it was a generally good edition, but only fan the flames
from
EE

Roderick_BR
2008-05-10, 07:19 PM
Nah, the DM has always had the authority to alter stats, it sounds as though they are just being more explicit about it. In practice, a DM rarely will interfere, which occasionally leads to so called 'unplayable' characters. Personally, I have no problem with this being emphasised.
QFT! DM always had althority, what's the difference now?
Actually, if you read the DMG 3.0 and DMG 3.5, it says exactly the same thing as the 4E's preview says.

Wender
2008-05-10, 07:24 PM
QFT! DM always had althority, what's the difference now?
Actually, if you read the DMG 3.0 and DMG 3.5, it says exactly the same thing as the 4E's preview says.

As did the DMG 2.0 and the DMG 1.0, and the Basic set for that matter.

The first things I thought of when I saw that they specified the DM's ability to adjudicate character creation were all the "HALP!" threads on rec.games.frp.dnd where some player had "rolled at home" an abomination of a Bladesinger.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of, uh, less talented players assumed that character creation was sacrosanct, and the DM only got involved during play. Putting that caveat in the character creation section doesn't help anyone who's already playing in good faith, but it short-circuits the complaints of a lot of munchkins who would otherwise insist that the twin +4 katanas of wounding were a crucial part of their character concept!!!!1OMG

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:26 PM
Aah, that 'splains a lot. I have to agree, though WoTC DOES have no respect. It's mostly because of moolah, really. They have to be ruthless with their previous game to make people flock to the new one. Else, we get the Vista flop.

The fluff is a meh thing. I'm going to hit it away with a big bat because it interferes with my homebrewed settings, so it can go to hell.

Except Planescape and Spelljammer. Those have found their home in my tender arms. :smallbiggrin:

As for the video game approach, I get it. I don't like everyone being at the EXACT. SAME. LEVEL (I'm a big fan of a Favored Soul, ToBBer, Factotum, Binder party, which is at MORE OR LESS the same level, but with variations that keep it interesting), but it's a necessary thing to prevent the caster imbalance. See, there are two basic approaches for magic:

A) Powerful, but costly and inaccessible. The way it was handled in first and second edition.

B) Common and widespread, but weak. The 3.5 approach.

The disaster was that WoTC tried to mix the two approaches, which are fundamentally incompatible. Thus, we get Batman Wizards and Joker Psions, extremely powerful guys who are as common as fighters, and with no personal cost.

They learned that the mix didn't compute, so they decided on a different approach. Problem is, they went just a TEENSY bit overboard, provoking the videogame and anime fears. Which, if they are even half true, will make 4e suck muchly.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:32 PM
Aah, that 'splains a lot. I have to agree, though WoTC DOES have no respect. It's mostly because of moolah, really. They have to be ruthless with their previous game to make people flock to the new one. Else, we get the Vista flop.

I know, in 2E and about 70% of 3E (less as time went on) i got teh impression the writers at least cared. They simply don't anymore


The fluff is a meh thing. I'm going to hit it away with a big bat because it interferes with my homebrewed settings, so it can go to hell.

I just think the fluff is bad as fluff.


Except Planescape and Spelljammer. Those have found their home in my tender arms. :smallbiggrin:

I'm afraid for those settings actually. I love them to death, but i hope they don't get ruined.


As for the video game approach, I get it. I don't like everyone being at the EXACT. SAME. LEVEL (I'm a big fan of a Favored Soul, ToBBer, Factotum, Binder party, which is at MORE OR LESS the same level, but with variations that keep it interesting), but it's a necessary thing to prevent the caster imbalance. See, there are two basic approaches for magic:

A) Powerful, but costly and inaccessible. The way it was handled in first and second edition.

B) Common and widespread, but weak. The 3.5 approach.

The disaster was that WoTC tried to mix the two approaches, which are fundamentally incompatible. Thus, we get Batman Wizards and Joker Psions, extremely powerful guys who are as common as fighters, and with no personal cost.
Actually, 3.5's casters can work, as these boards show. WotC however, has no idea how to play there own game, so yeah.......



They learned that the mix didn't compute, so they decided on a different approach. Problem is, they went just a TEENSY bit overboard, provoking the videogame and anime fears. Which, if they are even half true, will make 4e suck muchly.
I think that was on purpose actually, because they are trying to appeal to the crowd taht saw LotRs and played FF10 and expect taht sort of fantasy
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-05-10, 07:34 PM
I know, in 2E and about 70% of 3E (less as time went on) i got teh impression the writers at least cared. They simply don't anymore


I thought you hated strawman arguments?

Eldariel
2008-05-10, 07:35 PM
So, when will we start making D&D As It Should Be; The Best Of The 4 Editions and have no more reason to complain? I mean, since we seem to know what goes wrong, we should be able to fix it easily enough and if effort was put into that instead of the mess-ups of Wizards, maybe there'd be a time when those mess-ups are no longer net-savvy D&Der's concern.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 07:36 PM
They learned that the mix didn't compute, so they decided on a different approach. Problem is, they went just a TEENSY bit overboard, provoking the videogame and anime fears. Which, if they are even half true, will make 4e suck muchly.

See, this is pretty much wrong. They didn't go overboard; They made the non-magical people have attacks that aren't "I hit it, and do 15 damage". They made Magic not capable of doing everything (I hope and pray.) Neither of these things is out of sync with /western myth/. Forget anime, forget video games; Western myth and heroic fantasy featured people far more capable and interesting then, you know, DnD non-magic types. That's why a change was necessary to bump them up. And quite frankly, DnD Casters, as we've seen them, have pretty much no basis. You usually see magic as rare, unusual.. but not capable of that much power. I fully support ignoring myth on this point and making it more powerful then in myth.. just not to the extend Dungeons and Dragons did it.


Aah, that 'splains a lot. I have to agree, though WoTC DOES have no respect. It's mostly because of moolah, really. They have to be ruthless with their previous game to make people flock to the new one. Else, we get the Vista flop.

You're saying they have no respect because they give newbie GMs advice? Weird.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:36 PM
I thought you hated strawman arguments?

I fail to see your point

In e3 (ok maybe 60%) i felt that hte authors cared. Just that they.......sucked as balance. Like really sucked



See, this is pretty much wrong. They didn't go overboard; They made the non-magical people have attacks that aren't "I hit it, and do 15 damage". They made Magic not capable of doing everything (I hope and pray.) Neither of these things is out of sync with /western myth/. Forget anime, forget video games; Western myth and heroic fantasy featured people far more capable and interesting then, you know, DnD non-magic types. That's why a change was necessary to bump them up. And quite frankly, DnD Casters, as we've seen them, have pretty much no basis. You usually see magic as rare, unusual.. but not capable of that much power. I fully support ignoring myth on this point and making it more powerful then in myth.. just not to the extend Dungeons and Dragons did it.


That might have been their intention, but there way of going about it makes me feel like its appealing to a crowd that prefers general video games


from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:37 PM
Now, there's an idea...

We have the manpower, the wits, and the time. We could do it way better. We need a publisher, and GiTP could take the world by storm by becoming one of the most balanced systems out there, after GURPS.

Anybody up for it?

SamTheCleric
2008-05-10, 07:38 PM
I fail to see your point

In e3 (ok maybe 60%) i felt that hte authors cared. Just that they.......sucked as balance. Like really sucked
from
EE

So in your opinion they don't care. Saying they don't care without actually knowing them personally or having heard the words from their mouth is a pretty large strawman.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:39 PM
See, this is pretty much wrong. They didn't go overboard; They made the non-magical people have attacks that aren't "I hit it, and do 15 damage". They made Magic not capable of doing everything (I hope and pray.) Neither of these things is out of sync with /western myth/. Forget anime, forget video games; Western myth and heroic fantasy featured people far more capable and interesting then, you know, DnD non-magic types. That's why a change was necessary to bump them up. And quite frankly, DnD Casters, as we've seen them, have pretty much no basis. You usually see magic as rare, unusual.. but not capable of that much power. I fully support ignoring myth on this point and making it more powerful then in myth.. just not to the extend Dungeons and Dragons did it.


You're saying they have no respect because they give newbie GMs advice? Weird.


I understand that, Rutee. I'm saying all of that from a traditionalist viewpoint, since I want to reach an understanding of both sides. I'm in favor of 4th, but it's important to get WHY some people aren't. After all, I HAVE read the nordic myths and Cuchulainn's tale, and it's WAY crazier than anything anime or videogame that is not Disgaea.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:41 PM
So in your opinion they don't care. Saying they don't care without actually knowing them personally or having heard the words from their mouth is a pretty large strawman.

Sam, EE is actually right. Monte Cook was an incompetent nincompoop, but Tweet and Williams were HUGE fans of second ed, and wanted 3.X to be close to it, as much as possible. They were just too admiring of it, so they failed to note the flaws of their work.

See, he didn't strawman.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 07:42 PM
So in your opinion they don't care. Saying they don't care without actually knowing them personally or having heard the words from their mouth is a pretty large strawman.


that isn't the definition of a strawman actually. As i said about traditions, in 2E, less so but still in 3E the traditions of D&D were generally be respected, if balance was not. this not being the case is my complaint for 4E



Now, there's an idea...

We have the manpower, the wits, and the time. We could do it way better. We need a publisher, and GiTP could take the world by storm by becoming one of the most balanced systems out there, after GURPS.

Anybody up for it?

Actually i've been secretly recruiting people for about a month now via PM. We need to talk
from
EE
edit



Sam, EE is actually right. Monte Cook was an incompetent nincompoop, but Tweet and Williams were HUGE fans of second ed, and wanted 3.X to be close to it, as much as possible. They were just too admiring of it, so they failed to note the flaws of their work.

See, he didn't strawman.
thank you

Didn't Monte Cook publish his own work? I never read it

Anyways, what 3E needed was organization.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-10, 07:45 PM
that isn't the definition of a strawman actually.


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

You are making a statement claiming that the 4e writers don't care. You are misrepresenting their position.


As i said about traditions, in 2E, less so but still in 3E the traditions of D&D were generally be respected, if balance was not. this not being the case is my complaint for 4e

This game is still D&D. Everyone who has played it says it feels like D&D to them.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:45 PM
Yeah, Cook did his own works. And they sucked, harder than the core. He REALLY doesn't understand balance, and is worse at it that the maker of Synnibarr. Really, the FATAL guy has better balance, or maybe Justin Achilli.

UserClone
2008-05-10, 07:47 PM
Why don't you guys just join the Pathfinder RPG open Alpha Playtest, if you want to try to fix 3E? Or do we dislike Paizo, as well?

Matthew
2008-05-10, 07:49 PM
This game is still D&D. Everyone who has played it says it feels like D&D to them.

Actually, that's not true. I know of at least two people who have claimed to play 4e and said that 'it's a good game, but it doesn't fell like D&D'.

Basically, though, that's hardly an absolute gauge, it's completely subjective and based on an individual's definition of D&D.



Why don't you guys just join the Pathfinder RPG open Alpha Playtest, if you want to try to fix 3E? Or do we dislike Paizo, as well?

I have. I'm not at all clear on the design direction (more power/less power?) and few of the posters there seem to agree. Still, I will be interested to see the final product.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 07:49 PM
Yeah, Cook did his own works. And they sucked, harder than the core. He REALLY doesn't understand balance, and is worse at it that the maker of Synnibarr. Really, the FATAL guy has better balance, or maybe Justin Achilli.

Wh--what? Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is a hell of a lot better balanced than 3.X (core or not).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:50 PM
Because Paizo is doing it wrong. They're better, but they still screw it up.


On the "Not D&D" subject, it's simple, really. 4E IS D&D. But it's D&D in the same way Gaiman's Sandman was The Sandman from the pulpy comic.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:51 PM
Wh--what? Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is a hell of a lot better balanced than 3.X (core or not).

And EVERY other thing he published was worse. Really. Seems like all his talent ended there.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 07:54 PM
I'd say you have an extremely optimistic view of cooperative game building and the skill at game creation of the people who agree that 4e is teh MOREPIG.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 07:56 PM
Yeah, I believe in coordinating skills and talent (And in love, to quote God Part II). I already have quite a few ideas and benchmarks of the balance.

Hell, we would also incorporate 4th elements, don't forget that. The idea is to make a hybrid of all four systems.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 07:56 PM
I'd say you have an extremely optimistic view of cooperative game building and the skill at game creation of the people who agree that 4e is teh MOREPIG.

I am pleased as punch to see that little word (which is owed to Spike, the creator of Templar, Arizona (http://www.webcomicsnation.com/spike/Templar/series.php)) taking off. :)

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 08:00 PM
You are making a statement claiming that the 4e writers don't care. You are misrepresenting their position.

That isn't a strawman. I think the writers don't care because their actions indicate as so, ergo the traditions of D&D being violated and all that

A straw man would be saying that 4E is only a scam to sell more books


This game is still D&D. Everyone who has played it says it feels like D&D to them.
Actually not all of them, but even so, i find it strange that non of these play testers seem to be very good writers. So i'm still waiting. A few dozen doesn't make it D&D. I don't like 4E because of the break with traditions (and a lot of other things)

Yeah, Cook did his own works. And they sucked, harder than the core. He REALLY doesn't understand balance, and is worse at it that the maker of Synnibarr. Really, the FATAL guy has better balance, or maybe Justin Achilli.
what? Is that even possible. Do you mean FATAL the computer game. What!?


Yeah, I believe in coordinating skills and talent (And in love, to quote God Part II). I already have quite a few ideas and benchmarks of the balance.

Hell, we would also incorporate 4th elements, don't forget that. The idea is to make a hybrid of all four systems.
PM me, i could make you an offer

Anyways, i'm very interested in Paizo, but i don't know enough yet
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-10, 08:00 PM
Yeah, I believe in coordinating skills and talent (And in love, to quote God Part II). I already have quite a few ideas and benchmarks of the balance.

Hell, we would also incorporate 4th elements, don't forget that. The idea is to make a hybrid of all four systems.

Apparently you missed the part where you're physically banned from doing it. GSL and OGL content are specifically not allowed to work together, and I doubt OSRIC is much nicer.

And honestly, you really overestimate the skill of the people you're calling on, in pretty much every relevant sense of the word.

As to MOREPIG, I just noticed Rachel Lorelei doing it months ago, and could never remember what it was.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 08:02 PM
Apparently you missed the part where you're physically banned from doing it. GSL and OGL content are specifically not allowed to work together, and I doubt OSRIC is much nicer.

And honestly, you really overestimate the skill of the people you're calling on, in pretty much every relevant sense of the word.
.
1) Solve that problem when it comes.
2) Or your underestimating them.
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 08:04 PM
As to MOREPIG, I just noticed Rachel Lorelei doing it months ago, and could never remember what it was.

I'm pretty sure I was doing it first. But then, my whole intarweb social circle does it, so there's no way to tell.

Eldariel
2008-05-10, 08:04 PM
Yeah, I believe in coordinating skills and talent (And in love, to quote God Part II). I already have quite a few ideas and benchmarks of the balance.

Hell, we would also incorporate 4th elements, don't forget that. The idea is to make a hybrid of all four systems.

I always wanted to combine the earlier systems, but 4E comes with many good ideas, so it only seems logical to incorporate what works there with what works with everything else and slam them together into a whole that works in its entirety.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:04 PM
Who said we were going to work with OGL or GSL? This is a design from the ground up. We will neither use the 4e system, nor the Vancian 9 slots. We'll build a new thing, a hybrid. It'll be D&D in name and spirit, in it's mechanics, it'll be a hybrid.

As for overestimating, say what you will. You're invited to join if you want to help, because I think everyone would love to see a system of GURPS like fairness.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-10, 08:10 PM
That isn't a strawman. I think the writers don't care because their actions indicate as so, ergo the traditions of D&D being violated and all that


Again, in your opinion. Actually, you're probably right... they don't care at all about consumers like you. They care about the people who are interested in Fourth Edition D&D. To WotC, 3rd edition is a sinking ship, they are paying their final respects and getting to the life rafts.

You can continue to cling to 3e and even 2e cosmology/fluff/artwork or whatever else you want to... none of that matters anymore because we're onto a new edition of the game where it all has changed. Different may not mean better, but it also doesn't mean worse.

Every time a fourth edition thread comes up I can always be sure that within 12 hours you'll be there touting that something is inherently wrong and that you're on a personal crusade to keep the people who are looking forward to 4e hide from posting because if anyone even puts forth a positive sentiment you are there to make unnecessarily long posts with multiple quotes talking down to everyone in a condescending manner.

As a person, you seem to be reasonable and quite intelligent, so take a moment to step away, take a deep breath, and let it go. Everyone knows you aren't a fan of how they are desecrating your "holy" d&d fluff. We've all heard it over a dozen times, and usually its the same things you said the day previously, and the day before that... and the day before that.

If you want to go on b****ing about 4e, create your own little "I dislike 4e" thread and keep your animosity, negativity and pessimism there. Take some of the other people with you, you can have a little party with all the Wahhh-mburgers and French Cries that you want.

:smallannoyed:

Rutee
2008-05-10, 08:10 PM
Yeah, sure, waste my time on a "Take That!" of Dungeons and Dragons, of all things, when I'm pretty sure 4e is going to actually be awesome (And easy to adapt out of Greyhawk mode, compared to 3e). I'll sign right up for that, soon as I figure out where I left the form to voluntarily have the IRS Audit me for the last 10 years.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:15 PM
Suit yourself. You can bet I'll be playing 4th too, but I know it's gonna have flaws and fall down in three or four years (Or eight or ten, if it has 1st ed. like longevity), and I want something more eternal. I want something perfect. It's a bit idealistic and delirious, but why not aim high? It's an opportunity to do something good and forget our differences.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 08:18 PM
Suit yourself. You can bet I'll be playing 4th too, but I know it's gonna have flaws and fall down in three or four years (Or eight or ten, if it has 1st ed. like longevity), and I want something more eternal. I want something perfect. It's a bit idealistic and delirious, but why not aim high? It's an opportunity to do something good and forget our differences.

Everyone wants to make the perfect game. Nobody's done it for a reason.

You should be a lot more familiar with various game design theory and practice before doing things like that. Hang out at indie-game sites, play a few things like Nobilis and Polaris (a DMless, pretty intense game) one the one hand, and really-good-at-what-they-do games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century on the other. Try to deconstruct them.

I used to think "man, I could do better than this" before I realized how complicated and hard good game design is.

"I want a perfect version of D&D" isn't a very clear design goal, either. What do you want it to be good at? There's already people who have made it simpler and more old-school--check out Castles and Crusades. There's already various d20 systems to emulate certain genres, like Conan d20. You want, what... 3.5 But Well-Balanced And Without X, Y, and Z?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:19 PM
It REALLY is not that hard. It requires the vision.

And before you say "You don't know what you're talking about", take it back. It's EXACTLY because you drop it that you never get to it.

Mando Knight
2008-05-10, 08:19 PM
I've seen Monopoly games with more intense role playing than any dungeon crawl. It takes work to talk a landlord into an extension! :)

Heh. I've had Monopoly games like that...

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 08:22 PM
It REALLY is not that hard. It requires the vision.

No, it requires technical competence in game design. This isn't something you just have. How many games have you designed before? How do they stand up to the published popular stuff, much less the good, more obscure indie games? Seriously, check out Vincent Baker (of Dogs in the Vineyard and now In A Wicked Age fame (and kill puppies for satan too, i guess!)). He makes small, simple-ish games with innovative mechanics and rules that make them good at what they do, and does a pretty good job, but he's still improving and they're hardly perfect--and that's for small indie games; the aforementioned ones all have a *much* tighter focus than D&D. Making something like D&D is a lot harder.

Plenty of people have "the vision". The World of Synnibar guy did. I don't think you can do a better job on D&D than the guys who put together stuff like the Tome of Battle, the Magic Item Compendium, etc, and I'm not sure why you do.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 08:24 PM
More important then hard, in my opinion, is time consuming. Based on previous experience, I /can/ design good games. But it takes so freaking long that I don't have the inclination to use my ability to see it all through to the end.


It REALLY is not that hard. It requires the vision.

And before you say "You don't know what you're talking about", take it back. It's EXACTLY because you drop it that you never get to it.
If you don't think ti's hard, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but designing a system from the ground up, and /especially/ if you want it to be as DnD pretends to be (It's not, but that's beside the point), is /hard/. It takes a lot of /hard work/. If at any point in time game concepts from a system can not be grasped at a conceptual level (A common complaint I've seen with Encounter powers and people not understanding the concept behind limiting things to an encounter), you don't have the capability to design a good game system, because you can't work with concepts outside your preconceived notions on how things should work.

That doesn't so bad, but consider; The most critical aspect of good game design is self criticism, and the willingness to call nothing sacred. If you can't conceive game concepts that are outside your experience, you probably can't keep from calling your experience sacred.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:31 PM
Ahem. Basic fixes, will refine later, until the beginning version is almost not there:

Combat skills: There will be an array of skill and maneuvers you can perform a la Charge or Overrun, but varied and useful.

Spells: Toned down to level 6 or 7. Certain higher level spells will get toned down to fit. Spell levels are acquired on a 2-3-4-2-3-3 basis, in regards to spell levels. You still gain the normal number of spells. Of course, a large number of spells will be taken out. Might replace with a Binder system.

Skillmonkeys: Possibly something Factotum-like. Varied, versatile, not that powerful, but with some kind of tool for the task.

Divine casters: Will be aiming for Favored soul power. Once again, the spell levels will be reduced and many spells taken out.


That already is a good (If veeeeeeeeeeeeery small) start. Of course, there's a TON of work to be done. And I need help.

So I invite you to participate. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas. I also believe that you have plenty of skill. I'm sure you're all tired of gross imbalances in rules done by incompetent designers. So why not make the rules, and make them ironclad?

And as for time...we aren't under deadlines. We can take our time. That should not be an issue.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 08:44 PM
Sam, i've always liked you, but please


Again, in your opinion. Actually, you're probably right... they don't care at all about consumers like you. They care about the people who are interested in Fourth Edition D&D. To WotC, 3rd edition is a sinking ship, they are paying their final respects and getting to the life rafts.

3E is a sinking ship. I never said it wasn't an as i said before, i supported the idea of a new edition. Not this one.


You can continue to cling to 3e and even 2e cosmology/fluff/artwork or whatever else you want to... none of that matters anymore because we're onto a new edition of the game where it all has changed. Different may not mean better, but it also doesn't mean worse.
Ergo, my problem with 4E. Lack of respect for traditions. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Destroying cool things to make room for badly thought out things isn't a sign of a good edition. And with a lot of the fluff we have seen so far, well ouch, it is very badly handled


Every time a fourth edition thread comes up I can always be sure that within 12 hours you'll be there touting that something is inherently wrong and that you're on a personal crusade to keep the people who are looking forward to 4e hide from posting because if anyone even puts forth a positive sentiment you are there to make unnecessarily long posts with multiple quotes talking down to everyone in a condescending manner.
Cute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SarcasticClapping)
Yes, you've found me. This is a giant conspiracy, i work for White Wolf, who in turn work for the lords of hell and i need to destroy this game to prevent it from bring about happiness for everyone.

Now lets get back to reality for a second and think about it.
1) Actually, i have supported quite a few 4E ideas on these boards. No body pays attention, because that hurts the theory that EE is launching an personal crusade, but it is true
2) I find a lot of things annoying about 4E, but nothing new recently. what normally happens ironically enough actually, is that on a thread where i don't even care, somebody else makes some sort of annoying, incorrect, or misguided statement, and i respond, which escalates into a person


As a person, you seem to be reasonable and quite intelligent, so take a moment to step away, take a deep breath, and let it go. Everyone knows you aren't a fan of how they are desecrating your "holy" d&d fluff. We've all heard it over a dozen times, and usually its the same things you said the day previously, and the day before that... and the day before that.

Thank you for the compliment but please don't ever make such an argument of attempted silence. It amounts to nothing. Why? Because if you tell somebody to not voice their option on what is wrong with 4E, then you can't say what is wrong with 3E, or somebody else can't say what they don't like about Exalted ect ect. Pretty soon, you can't even mock FATAL anymore.
I don't like 4E, in part because of its total lack of respect for traditions. I also don't like a lot of other thing about the game, and i like a few others. As of such, i can and will express my distaste, just as others have, and others express their enjoyment in 4E and any other product i see taht makes me upset. And i will defend my self when criticize by others or misinterpreted.
Just as you will defend 4E if I or anyone else attacks 4E. Don't try to silence another party however


If you want to go on b****ing about 4e, create your own little "I dislike 4e" thread and keep your animosity, negativity and pessimism there. Take some of the other people with you, you can have a little party with all the Wahhh-mburgers and French Cries that you want.

Sam i expect your having a moment of passion, so i'll forgive you this once, but really, try better than this. I'm not running an anti 4E crusade, i'm critical. And i express that

I"m sure you should calm down and consider what you've said



Now on the note of new edition, i love the defeatism shown here. I mean come on, why bother, it is not like you can possible make it better. Quite while your ahead, yadda yadda.

Defeatism doesn't solve anything. I'm sure he can do better than WotC
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 08:45 PM
Ahem. Basic fixes, will refine later, until the beginning version is almost not there:

Combat skills: There will be an array of skill and maneuvers you can perform a la Charge or Overrun, but varied and useful.
Good luck with that. Making a bunch of varied, useful (but not too useful, or everyone who's good at it will do it all the time, like tripping) combat maneuvers is a nice idea. It's also not easy, and probably not even worthwhile--how many of things are you going to have?


Spells: Toned down to level 6 or 7. Certain higher level spells will get toned down to fit. Spell levels are acquired on a 2-3-4-2-3-3 basis, in regards to spell levels. You still gain the normal number of spells. Of course, a large number of spells will be taken out. Might replace with a Binder system.
Way to shaft low- and mid-level casters. Also, way to not address the real problems. There's plenty of level 7, 8, and 9 spells that are Just Fine. Nobody complains about Meteor Storm or Moment of Prescience or Polar Ray (well, except to say it sucks) or Mass Hold Monster. The problem is specific spells, and the vague, handwave-y approach to spell design, as well as what entire types of spells can do. Arcana Evolved has much better-balanced spellcasting--even though there's 9 (or even 10?) spell levels and spellcasters have a better casting mechanic (sort of the best parts of both prepared and spontaneous casting).

Take a look at Arcana Evolved, BTW.


Skillmonkeys: Possibly something Factotum-like. Varied, versatile, not that powerful, but with some kind of tool for the task.
Skillmonkey classes are by and large just fine. The Factotum is hardly perfect.


Divine casters: Will be aiming for Favored soul power. Once again, the spell levels will be reduced and many spells taken out.
It's not "Favored Soul power" if they have reduced spell levels and spells taken out. Man, who wants to be casting Aid or Bull's Strength at level 7? "Favored Soul Power" also varies wildly with spell level and spell selection--a level 20 Favored Soul who can drop seven Miracles a day is pretty damn hardcore. A level 3 Favored Soul who's got Cure Light and Bless and stuff kicking around, not so much.


That already is a good (If veeeeeeeeeeeeery small) start. Of course, there's a TON of work to be done. And I need help.
No, it's a badly-thought-out start. You're trying to fix various symptoms without looking at the underlying causes, much less the underlying design philosophies/techniques/mistakes.


So I invite you to participate. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas. I also believe that you have plenty of skill. I'm sure you're all tired of gross imbalances in rules done by incompetent designers. So why not make the rules, and make them ironclad?
Because I could spend that time playing the game. Or playing other games. Really fixing 3.5e properly--which will still only satisfy a small subsection of the population--would take for-freaking-ever, and would have to involve some from-the-ground redesigns. The result would look a lot like 4E seems to, because they seem to be designing it for quality of actual play around the table. And who would you play it with?

3E is playable. If you're in a group that doesn't know the system too well, or in a group that does know it quite well, there's plenty of ways to enjoy it, as long as nobody at the table is a jerk. For all that we rag on it, plenty of people have plenty of fun playing it, often including us (when I'm in the mood for something crunchy, it's not bad). A competent DM and communication--which, sure, not everyone has--handle most of the problems as they come up.
I'd rather play more 3E than spend time doing amateur game design that still won't be as good as what the professionals are doing. Maybe if I were Rebecca Borgstrom (but then, if I were Rebecca Borgstrom, I wouldn't be working on D&D).


I'm sorry to be harsh, man, but you're really better off nipping this thing in the bud than working for months on your own personal Fantasy Heartbreaker.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 08:46 PM
Uh. Time is always an issue. You don't get it, do you? People get bored. Initial surges of emotion wear off. People would rather do other things with their time.

And if ToB-like Melee was not point the first you don't understand DnD's problems well enough to fix it in the first place. Further, every point is predicated on comparison to Dungeons and Dragons; You don't build a system from the ground up by looking at aspects of a system you want fixed.

I'll give you a freebie. Step 1 is "What do I want this game to do?" Answer that before you do ANYTHING else.

Quite frankly, it feels like an initiative to fix 3.5 and disguise it by calling it a huge hybrid of all editions as a sort of collaboration of the editions.

You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd handle Task Resolution. You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd like to treat character creation. You haven't asked yourself what kind of 'encounters' you want the system to model. You haven't asked yourself what kind of model that is. You haven't done anything that you have to do at the beginning to make a new /system/.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 08:53 PM
I'll give you a freebie. Step 1 is "What do I want this game to do?" Answer that before you do ANYTHING else.

I don't know if even that is a good starting point for D&D. I mean, for focused indie games like Dogs or genre games like Spirit, sure, but for D&D... my answer would be, what, "feel like D&D, but play more smoothly and be better balanced but still with room for optimization"? Games that get really big and evolve gradually are hard to do that with. What D&D does is D&D. It's its own genre.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:55 PM
Reel: Notice I didn't mention core only lists.

EVERY SPELL. OUT THERE. Yeah, not so shafted.

Rutee: Isn't it obvious? a Hybrid of all the D&D systems, from 1st to 4th, which takes the best out of them and fuses it into a coherent, complete whole.

And notice I mentioned things on the style of charge or overrun, but useful. Something of a mix of classical and ToB melee.


Both: Really, guys, is it so hard to believe we could make it? That we can do it, where the professionals failed, since we have neither the time nor money or manpower constraints? I know you're feeling a burst of jaded cynism, but shake it off. Try to see it as if you already knew it's going to work. Imagine your perfect system, and now think you can shape it. Yes, it'll take time, and effort, I won't lie. But the payoff of a system of an excellence on par with GURPS is worth the effort. We can do it. Trust me.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-10, 08:55 PM
Everyone wants to make the perfect game. Nobody's done it for a reason.

You should be a lot more familiar with various game design theory and practice before doing things like that. Hang out at indie-game sites, play a few things like Nobilis and Polaris (a DMless, pretty intense game) one the one hand, and really-good-at-what-they-do games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century on the other. Try to deconstruct them.

I used to think "man, I could do better than this" before I realized how complicated and hard good game design is.

"I want a perfect version of D&D" isn't a very clear design goal, either. What do you want it to be good at? There's already people who have made it simpler and more old-school--check out Castles and Crusades. There's already various d20 systems to emulate certain genres, like Conan d20. You want, what... 3.5 But Well-Balanced And Without X, Y, and Z?
Well, maybe there are better games around already, but they don't get the recognization they deserves.
And yes, game making is hard. I tried my hand at homebrewing many times, but never tried anything from scratch.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 08:58 PM
Also, consider this is NOT doing this alone. Consider there's thousands of people out there, ready to give something to the project. They might not individually be Steve Jackson's, but together, they can do much more.

Rutee: Do you REALLY think I have so recklessly jumped on this? I already have the power benchmarks, the idea of what I want, the prototype, and a small team who will help. I wouldn't be trying this alone and in the dark.

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 09:02 PM
As i said, great idea. But we need to work out what we want

But really, everybody stop with the defeatism.
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-10, 09:04 PM
I don't know if even that is a good starting point for D&D. I mean, for focused indie games like Dogs or genre games like Spirit, sure, but for D&D... my answer would be, what, "feel like D&D, but play more smoothly and be better balanced but still with room for optimization"? Games that get really big and evolve gradually are hard to do that with. What D&D does is D&D. It's its own genre.

That's part of the problem DnD has, I'd say. The only genre I'd ever play DnD in is Medieval Low Power Heroic Fantasy, where Heroic Low Power Fantasy is restricted to beating the hell out of things, and that's only because nobody has the courage to try and fight DnD in its own genre (For good reasons). It frankly sucks at everything else; You have to start with "What do I want it to do", because you can't get away with a claim of being that broad as a no name (DnD isn't that broad, but it can /say/ it is, and people will buy it from WotC). And Azerian claims to want to make a new game from the ground up, even if he's clearly lying, so he's got to start from the beginning.


Rutee: Isn't it obvious? a Hybrid of all the D&D systems, from 1st to 4th, which takes the best out of them and fuses it into a coherent, complete whole.
Fail. This isn't a design philosophy or a goal. It's a strategy. What kind of game do you seek to make? What do you want it to do? If at any point in time you make a comparison to Dungeons and Dragons, you have failed in answering this question. Your answer to the question must be self referential, ESPECIALLY if you seek to make this a co operative effort; There are a lot of different opinions on what a system that pretends to be as broad as DnD really is, and what it tries to do. You /have/ to get people on the same page. Therefore, your answer to the question must be fairly unequivocal, and must make its point with no outside reference whatsoever to another system


Both: Really, guys, is it so hard to believe we could make it? That we can do it, where the professionals failed, since we have neither the time nor money or manpower constraints? I know you're feeling a burst of jaded cynism, but shake it off. Try to see it as if you already knew it's going to work. Imagine your perfect system, and now think you can shape it. Yes, it'll take time, and effort, I won't lie. But the payoff of a system of an excellence on par with GURPS is worth the effort. We can do it. Trust me.
First off, no. No it wouldn't be. My perfect system has all its notes sitting on a message board, begging for me to go back to writing it. This would be /your/ perfect system, or a compromise. That' snot my perfect system.

Second, Yes. Yes it is that hard to believe you're capable of it. Look at things you did not even ponder that I editted into my post.

You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd handle Task Resolution. You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd like to treat character creation. You haven't asked yourself what kind of 'encounters' you want the system to model. You haven't asked yourself what kind of model that is. You haven't done anything that you have to do at the beginning to make a /new/ system.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 09:04 PM
Trust us, guys. We know what we want, and we know how to get it ("We want the world, and we want it, NOW!" -The Doors :smalltongue:). What we need is more people working with us, intelligent people like you. We can use the hand, and you could see your mark left on a system that, if it works, will be a standard for excellence. Why not do it? It's not like you have a Job to lose, or something.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 09:07 PM
Reel: Notice I didn't mention core only lists.

EVERY SPELL. OUT THERE. Yeah, not so shafted.
No, still shafted, and no fun to play at all--either you rely on a handful of specific, too-good spells, like Glitterdust, to make up for it, or you cast lame spells if those are gone.



That's a description of what you're trying to make, not what you want the game to do.

[quote]And notice I mentioned things on the style of charge or overrun, but useful. Something of a mix of classical and ToB melee.
ToB melee is just fine. Overrun and its kindred are almost unsalvageable.


Both: Really, guys, is it so hard to believe we could make it? That we can do it, where the professionals failed, since we have neither the time nor money or manpower constraints? I know you're feeling a burst of jaded cynism, but shake it off. Try to see it as if you already knew it's going to work. Imagine your perfect system, and now think you can shape it. Yes, it'll take time, and effort, I won't lie. But the payoff of a system of an excellence on par with GURPS is worth the effort. We can do it. Trust me.
"Excellence on par with GURPS"? Man, screw GURPS.

There's no such thing as a "perfect system". I want different things out of Spirit of the Century than I do out of D&D, and no system is gonna be able to provide both. If you mean the perfect D&D, it's gonna be easier to adjust 4E a little than to build it from the ground up. Why do you think 4E took WotC as long as it did? Game design is hard. And WotC has a lot more resources.
On top of that, people like Richard Baker are vastly better at game design than you or I, because they have vastly more training and experience.

Yes, it is so hard to believe that we could make it. Stop trying to inspire us, because what you're suggesting isn't a good idea. We know what we're talking about. We're well-informed about game design. We've pointed out about a billion problems with your idea... like the fact that even if you make your perfect D&D, a couple of years from now (optimistically)... who are you going to get to play it?

Rutee
2008-05-10, 09:11 PM
What, let someone with less vision (Re-design DnD? You call /that/ a vision? A vision would be a glorious /new/ system), less ability, and less charisma be /above/ me? For free? WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!? *Puts on Kamina Shades, dramatic point to the Heavens*

Also, if you're going to redesign DnD, Put up or shut up. Get out and redesign DnD. Hackmaster did. If you don't have the will to do that, go make your own system. Gary Gygax did it. If you won't do either, stop making noise about it.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 09:16 PM
Also, consider this is NOT doing this alone. Consider there's thousands of people out there, ready to give something to the project. They might not individually be Steve Jackson's, but together, they can do much more.
No, they can't, because they want different things and have different ideas about what needs doing and how to doing.


Rutee: Do you REALLY think I have so recklessly jumped on this? I already have the power benchmarks, the idea of what I want, the prototype, and a small team who will help. I wouldn't be trying this alone and in the dark.
You also apparently don't have much knowledge of game design. When I said you should read some indie-game sites (and the games themselves), I meant it.



Trust us, guys. We know what we want, and we know how to get it ("We want the world, and we want it, NOW!" -The Doors :smalltongue:). What we need is more people working with us, intelligent people like you. We can use the hand, and you could see your mark left on a system that, if it works, will be a standard for excellence. Why not do it? It's not like you have a Job to lose, or something.
You know why not?
Because it's never going to happen.
You're going to work on this for a while. You're going to put it off to post on GitP. You're going to do some stuff, and talk about it, and talk about playtesting it. Either you won't do it, or a thorough playtest will take tons and tons of time, over the internet. People will disagree on what they want. People will get bored and lose enthusiasm. People will leave, procrastinate, and argue. And then everyone's going to deprioritize this thing and all it'll be is a bunch of notes on people's computers. That's how this sort of thing.

Seriously, man, if I can't be bothered to do a comprehensive spell level adjustment (say)--Fireball to second level, Glitterdust to third, Maw of Chaos and Shapechange and the like gone entirely, Bite of the WereX gone entirely, etc--because that in and of itself is an enormous, complicated project, what makes you think I want to actually spend months addressing issues like finding a way around the various powerful spells the challenge system more or less depends on without turning spellcasters into pure blasters, while simultaneously balancing them against other classes and against monsters?


People can't even agree on how to fix the monk. There isn't even a clear idea of what a feat is worth, what power range it should have, how prerequisites tie into that, etc in D&D. This is thoroughly pointless.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 09:16 PM
That's part of the problem DnD has, I'd say. The only genre I'd ever play DnD in is Medieval Heroic Fantasy, where Heroic Fantasy is restricted to beating the hell out of things, and that's only because nobody has the courage to try and fight DnD in its own genre (For good reasons). It frankly sucks at everything else; You have to start with "What do I want it to do", because you can't get away with a claim of being that broad as a no name (DnD isn't that broad, but it can /say/ it is, and people will buy it from WotC). And Azerian claims to want to make a new game from the ground up, even if he's clearly lying, so he's got to start from the beginning.


Fail. This isn't a design philosophy or a goal. It's a strategy. What kind of game do you seek to make? What do you want it to do? If at any point in time you make a comparison to Dungeons and Dragons, you have failed in answering this question. Your answer to the question must be self referential, ESPECIALLY if you seek to make this a co operative effort; There are a lot of different opinions on what a system that pretends to be as broad as DnD really is, and what it tries to do. You /have/ to get people on the same page. Therefore, your answer to the question must be fairly unequivocal, and must make its point with no outside reference whatsoever to another system


First off, no. No it wouldn't be. My perfect system has all its notes sitting on a message board, begging for me to go back to writing it. This would be /your/ perfect system, or a compromise. That' snot my perfect system.

Second, Yes. Yes it is that hard to believe you're capable of it. Look at things you did not even ponder that I editted into my post.

You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd handle Task Resolution. You haven't asked yourself how you think you'd like to treat character creation. You haven't asked yourself what kind of 'encounters' you want the system to model. You haven't asked yourself what kind of model that is. You haven't done anything that you have to do at the beginning to make a /new/ system.

Okay. Point by point:

A) Much like you say, the plan is a Heroic high fantasy game (And now that we're at it, if we have to design a setting, you can bet I won't be stupid enough to go a Grayhawk route. A world with magic of great power will have embraced it eons ago.). Princesses to be saved, Good trimphing over evil, and most importantly, MAGIC EVERYWHERE. With a huge impact. Changing everything. It would only approach medievalism in the broadest of senses. Magic would be an appropiate substitute to technology, but with greater and more versatile application.

B) As said above, the game is Heroic High fantasy. It must represent Combat, social events (Outside of roleplaying, that can ALWAYS be well represented, but is dependent on the players), possibly mental puzzles, though that is less of a priority.

And you mention there are many views. So, what is your view of D&D?

Addendum: Lie. Something self referential is a genre makes, which this game doesn't end to be. It's like writing a novel: I don't care who you are, if you write an adventure novel, you borrow from Gilgamesh, it's just omitted because it's obvious. Really, Pale Fire and Finnnegan's Wake are the last truly new works, and I don't want to make something that merits this statement: "Nothing so far as I make out, nothing short of divine vision or a new cure for the clap can possibly be worth all the circumambient peripherization."

C) Then, friggin' stop complaining and contribute. If YOU have it so planned, share and we'll make something in between our two visions.

D) D'you think I'm placing EVERYTHING I've thought of here, right now? There's much already planned. Of course, there is even more left undone, but I do not expect it to already be complete.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-10, 09:18 PM
Sam i expect your having a moment of passion, so i'll forgive you this once, but really, try better than this. I'm not running an anti 4E crusade, i'm critical. And i express that

I"m sure you should calm down and consider what you've said


You're right, I got a little stressed out today and took it out on the forums. I apologize. Thank you for being the bigger man and being respectful. Twenty Six years of being partially passive aggressive, you'd think I'd figure out a better way to let go of aggression. I don't mean to say you're not entitled to your opinion, I'm just frustrated with all the negativity (not just from you)... then again, its the internet... if we took away all the internet there would only be Porn left.

Again, I am sorry for my little tirade.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 09:37 PM
That about settles it.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!? *Dramatic lens flare off of Kamina Shades*

You genuinely don't get it. Go. Read. Indie. Game Sites. Seriously. Those people will generally describe the process they use. You don't have to use it. There are lots of ways, I'm sure. I know what I did didn't match what any of them did. But you had damn well better examine what people who've finished making their games had to say about it. And I'd say you shouldn't start for 2 weeks. Two weeks of total noncontact with Dungeons and Dragons. You want your game design to be for /you/. Not for any feelings of irritation you're feeling.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-10, 09:38 PM
"Timed powers"? Per Encounter, Per Day, and At Will? That's different from cooldown. And you do realize that 3.5 had those already? What do you think a barbarian's rage is if not a per-day power? Power Attack, Improved Trip, those are basically at-will powers. Later, per-encounter stuff got brought in, too.

While I will certainly will not debate that 3.x has many of the fundamental principles that 4e has. I do disagree that 'per day' is the same as a 'cool down'. The difference being you have to plan better for the day with 'per day' abilities than things that recharge (like maneuvers). 'Per day' abilities limit your effectivness for the rest of in game day time (Which as a dm I always keep track of, for benefits or trouble). Cool down abilities generally allow you to do something again and again within the same in game day without having to worry too much about what abilities you have left. So while anything that replenishes can be construed as having a cool down (hell you could argue power attack has just a really short cool down), I feel like per encounter abilities match that far more accurate than per day.



The game has roles. Those roles already existed. In fact, MMORPGs got their roles from D&D. How is "the DPS" fundamentally different from "the blaster"? Are you suggesting 3.X didn't have "tanks"?

Again, you have infallible logic. MMORPG roles clearly come from there predecessors. I think that most people just get hung up on the emphasis of roles that are common to mmos. While not hearing much of roles like the: Face (or Sly and Socially Savvy), The Woodland (Knowledge of plants animals and herbs, tracking), The Diviner, The Trapsmith, The Disguise Artist, The Builder. While there is still more than enough time to bring these roles in (and could very well be in 4e PHB) there has been the impression of getting locked into various combat roles.


D&D isn't an MMO, and doesn't play like one. Come 4E, it still won't be an MMO, and it still won't play like one.
I have thought this for a long time until reading about the online dnd.


"zomg morepig" is a ridiculous argument. It ignores absolutely everything important, and focuses on superficial similarities that exist because MMOs evolved from D&D. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people pretending it's worthwhile, or anything but an attempt at justifying what is in most cases an irrational dislike.

This is exactly why I don't like 4e. It is so much like 3.5 and there is no conversion. The flaws of 3.5 are most likely going to be repeated in 4e, I have little doubt in this. The game is so similar that I see no reason to purchase it, especially since other flaws that I might find in the game (like the ones mentioned above) still exist in the new system.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 09:46 PM
I have thought this for a long time until reading about the online dnd.

Open RPG didn't make Dungeons and Dragons a MOREPIG. WotC making /the same thing/ won't do it either.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 10:05 PM
That about settles it.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!? *Dramatic lens flare off of Kamina Shades*

You genuinely don't get it. Go. Read. Indie. Game Sites. Seriously. Those people will generally describe the process they use. You don't have to use it. There are lots of ways, I'm sure. I know what I did didn't match what any of them did. But you had damn well better examine what people who've finished making their games had to say about it. And I'd say you shouldn't start for 2 weeks. Two weeks of total noncontact with Dungeons and Dragons. You want your game design to be for /you/. Not for any feelings of irritation you're feeling.

Someone too skeptical and insecure to ever reach higher than the mid levels, the stagnant pool where time ticks away, you have nothing to do, and insanity creeps ever closer.

Really, d'you think advice from other designers is gonna work? It's the first thing you have to shun. If you're building from the ground up, you claw and carve your own way. You make it alone (With your designers, of course), not taking the advice of could-have-beens who couldn't make it to the big lists. I'd rather aim for Thriller than Goo success, thank you very much.


And really, you underestimate what me and my associates can do. I don't know 'bout them, but I've been planning a game series which I plan to be my big score for three years now, not a word written, but the systems prepared and built up for the first six installments of at least twelve. It's probably a Pontormo-esque mess, but that is not going to stop me from getting at least a finalized version out there.

Now, if you're too scared or pissed off to join in and provide something, we cut communication. I have a whole system to think up and to make ironclad. And wasting time on this talk is not getting me any closer to the goal.

So Azerian's out.

Mike_G
2008-05-10, 10:08 PM
Okay. Point by point:

A) Much like you say, the plan is a Heroic high fantasy game (And now that we're at it, if we have to design a setting, you can bet I won't be stupid enough to go a Grayhawk route. A world with magic of great power will have embraced it eons ago.). Princesses to be saved, Good trimphing over evil, and most importantly, MAGIC EVERYWHERE. With a huge impact. Changing everything. It would only approach medievalism in the broadest of senses. Magic would be an appropiate substitute to technology, but with greater and more versatile application.


See, right there? I frigging hate it. I want magic to actually be rare and powerful, something that peasants have never seen and only believe in as a superstition. I want Wondrous Items to be, let's say it: Wondrous.

My low magic approach, lot's of people will hate that.

One person can have a vision for how much magic is enough and how much is awful, or for how much a PC should be able to bend reality with a leap from a 100 foot tower or shatter stone with his sword or what's "Too Anime/MMORPG" etc. Many people, and the conflicting perceptiosn will make a very inconsistent whole.

That's why I have no faith whatsoever in a collective design project.

I did a ground up game design back in college, It worked and my group played it for years, but was a lot of work, since there was no source material unless I wrote it. It just became easier to use D&D off the shelf. More people were familiar with it so more players and DMs were availible, and, while I liked a lot of my homebrew system a lot better, it's nice to not spend hours and hours on the game every week and just kick back and play.

I wish you all the luck in the world, but you can't have a dozen chefs in the kitchen. That way, somebody's working on a pizza and the guy next to him wants to put sushi on it and the other one is looking to tie in escargot to the concept. Not many Italian/Chinese/Indian/Vegan Kosher Steakhouses out there for a reason, ya know?

tyckspoon
2008-05-10, 10:08 PM
Again, you have infallible logic. MMORPG roles clearly come from there predecessors. I think that most people just get hung up on the emphasis of roles that are common to mmos. While not hearing much of roles like the: Face (or Sly and Socially Savvy), The Woodland (Knowledge of plants animals and herbs, tracking), The Diviner, The Trapsmith, The Disguise Artist, The Builder. While there is still more than enough time to bring these roles in (and could very well be in 4e PHB) there has been the impression of getting locked into various combat roles.


Although those are technically roles, they are mostly small roles. You can't build an entire character out of one and expect to participate effectively in the majority of the game, especially with a game that is as combat-centric as D&D (if anybody wants to argue about that.. let's not. Yes, you can play D&D with little to no combat. No, that's not what the system was built for.) They are also roles that you can easily cover *at the same time* as you fill a combat role. Take a Ranger. His class features make him a Striker, according to everything that has been released. Now use one of his skill picks to get training in Forestry or Geography or whatever they renamed Know: Nature. Looky there, he's also your Woodland role! Which is exactly the same way you would cover one of those sub-roles in 3.5, it's just going to be a lot harder to accidentally bone yourself out of having any combat effectiveness as well.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 10:17 PM
See, right there? I frigging hate it. I want magic to actually be rare and powerful, something that peasants have never seen and only believe in as a superstition. I want Wondrous Items to be, let's say it: Wondrous.

My low magic approach, lot's of people will hate that.

One person can have a vision for how much magic is enough and how much is awful, or for how much a PC should be able to bend reality with a leap from a 100 foot tower or shatter stone with his sword or what's "Too Anime/MMORPG" etc. Many people, and the conflicting perceptiosn will make a very inconsistent whole.

That's why I have no faith whatsoever in a collective design project.

I did a ground up game design back in college, It worked and my group played it for years, but was a lot of work, since there was no source material unless I wrote it. It just became easier to use D&D off the shelf. More people were familiar with it so more players and DMs were availible, and, while I liked a lot of my homebrew system a lot better, it's nice to not spend hours and hours on the game every week and just kick back and play.

I wish you all the luck in the world, but you can't have a dozen chefs in the kitchen. That way, somebody's working on a pizza and the guy next to him wants to put sushi on it and the other one is looking to tie in escargot to the concept. Not many Italian/Chinese/Indian/Vegan Kosher Steakhouses out there for a reason, ya know?

Answer to all of that: The mythical Man month.

The lead programmer or designer leads the pack and marks the way. It shapes up with a majority of him, and dashes of others. Problem solved.

Also: D&D is simply not a low magic game, so it's obvious it won't shape up. Maybe low cinematic GURPS or Warhammer would be a better base.

Rutee
2008-05-10, 10:22 PM
Someone too skeptical and insecure to ever reach higher than the mid levels, the stagnant pool where time ticks away, you have nothing to do, and insanity creeps ever closer.

Really, d'you think advice from other designers is gonna work? It's the first thing you have to shun. If you're building from the ground up, you claw and carve your own way. You make it alone (With your designers, of course), not taking the advice of could-have-beens who couldn't make it to the big lists. I'd rather aim for Thriller than Goo success, thank you very much.


And really, you underestimate what me and my associates can do. I don't know 'bout them, but I've been planning a game series which I plan to be my big score for three years now, not a word written, but the systems prepared and built up for the first six installments of at least twelve. It's probably a Pontormo-esque mess, but that is not going to stop me from getting at least a finalized version out there.

Now, if you're too scared or pissed off to join in and provide something, we cut communication. I have a whole system to think up and to make ironclad. And wasting time on this talk is not getting me any closer to the goal.

So Azerian's out.
This is truly a case of the blind wishing to describe color to a person with sight.

Mike_G
2008-05-10, 10:22 PM
Answer to all of that: The mythical Man month.

The lead programmer or designer leads the pack and marks the way. It shapes up with a majority of him, and dashes of others. Problem solved.

Also: D&D is simply not a low magic game, so it's obvious it won't shape up. Maybe low cinematic GURPS or Warhammer would be a better base.

Well, good luck, but I hope you have a better business plan than "Claw your way to the top."

I wonder how this egalitarian collective of designers are going to fall in line behind you.

For free.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-10, 10:24 PM
This is why I love high fantasy.

I can answer that simply: MAGIC!

And if it works out, we'll find a publisher. Who said this was going to END free?

"You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
Every time we start to shake she brings eyesight to the blind..."

Mike_G
2008-05-10, 10:27 PM
This is why I love high fantasy.

I can answer that simply: MAGIC!

And if it works out, we'll find a publisher. Who said this was going to END free?

"You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
Every time we start to shake she brings eyesight to the blind..."

And once my band gets a huge recording deal I'm quitting my job at Kinko's and buying a mansion on each coast and a Bentley for every day of the week.

I have a concept for a 10 hour rock opera. I haven't actually written any music yet, or learned an instrument, but it's the Vision, Man.

skywalker
2008-05-10, 10:29 PM
Skywalker sneaks back in to drop some knowledge:
1. Guys, don't be so hard on Azerian. Y'all were basically in agreement at around 8:30 tonight. WTF happened?
2. Kudos to both SamtheCleric AND EE, for *being positive to someone else on the internet,* before someone got hit with the b&hammer. You guys rock.
3. Two comments that caught my eye:
A. 3e was a sinking ship, etc. Yes, and wizards are the ones who sank it.
B. 4e is just a scam to sell books. Uh, duh! What did you think they were doing, trying to better the world?

EDIT: Oh, yeah, I'll be playing 4e tomorrow afternoon(the dealer preview) so I can give actual reports of how the game plays. I let you know whether it "feels like D&D."

EvilElitest
2008-05-10, 10:35 PM
can we, you know, get off the plans to remake D&D from teh bottom up until later please?
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-05-10, 10:53 PM
While I will certainly will not debate that 3.x has many of the fundamental principles that 4e has. I do disagree that 'per day' is the same as a 'cool down'. The difference being you have to plan better for the day with 'per day' abilities than things that recharge (like maneuvers). 'Per day' abilities limit your effectivness for the rest of in game day time (Which as a dm I always keep track of, for benefits or trouble). Cool down abilities generally allow you to do something again and again within the same in game day without having to worry too much about what abilities you have left. So while anything that replenishes can be construed as having a cool down (hell you could argue power attack has just a really short cool down), I feel like per encounter abilities match that far more accurate than per day.

Per-encounter abilities get used... once per encounter. This is exactly like per-day but with a shorter time frame. Cooldown abilities work differently--you have to track cooldowns, and you use them multiple times, setting up a pattern of short- and long-cooldown abilities. Wow and City of Heroes play nothing like D&D.
That said, ToB--one of the best things to happen to 3.5--uses per-encounter abilities. ZOMG 3.5 IS WOW.

4E doesn't have "cooldowns" any more than 3.5 does. Because, hey, you know what does have cooldowns? The Binder from Tome of Magic. He has abilities you can use, not "per encounter", but every five rounds. That's a cooldown. All 4E has are some monster abilities that recharge every (6/5 or 6/whatever, depends on the ability) on a d6 you roll every round.
But, hey, you know what has a cooldown and is right in the 3.5 core books? Breath weapons. Also, the Horizon walker's D-Door ability.

So what it comes down to is that if having cooldowns makes D&D a morepig (how freaking superficial!), then 3.5 is a morepig too.


Again, you have infallible logic. MMORPG roles clearly come from there predecessors. I think that most people just get hung up on the emphasis of roles that are common to mmos.
The roles are common to MMOs because MMOs took those roles from D&D.


While not hearing much of roles like the: Face (or Sly and Socially Savvy), The Woodland (Knowledge of plants animals and herbs, tracking), The Diviner, The Trapsmith, The Disguise Artist, The Builder. While there is still more than enough time to bring these roles in (and could very well be in 4e PHB) there has been the impression of getting locked into various combat roles.
...those aren't "roles". "Trapsmith" isn't even a role in 3.5, it was merged with Skillmonkey. 3.5 had Skillmonkey, Tank, Healer, and (theoretically) Blaster.
4E has Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller. None of those match up exactly with MMO roles (and not all MMOs have identical roles). 4E isn't any more MMO-like in its roles than everyone else is; it's slightly more combat oriented, but not entirely (parties will still have a face--it's gonna be the high-CHA guy with Persuasion and Bluff--but "face" isn't a party role, it's a subrole; parties will still have a trapmonkey), because they want everyone to have stuff to do out of combat. If one guy has all the skills and your fighter has "smash" and "smash harder", that's awfully limiting when it's not time to smash.


I have thought this for a long time until reading about the online dnd.
Do you know what happens in the play-by-post section of this site, dude? It's online D&D. How does being online make something like WoW?
There's a site called OpenRPG, where you can play online in real time, with interactive maps and everything (you move your virtual mini, etc). It's not that great. What WotC is offering--offering, you're under zero obligation to use it--is a virtual gaming table, so you can play by chat and have maps and stuff while you do it. It's an improved OpenRPG. How is that remotely related to WoW?
Virtual gaming tables already exist. WotC knows that people play D&D over the internet. They're creating a service that will make this easier and more convenient. What does this have to do with morepigs?


This is exactly why I don't like 4e. It is so much like 3.5 and there is no conversion. The flaws of 3.5 are most likely going to be repeated in 4e, I have little doubt in this. The game is so similar that I see no reason to purchase it, especially since other flaws that I might find in the game (like the ones mentioned above) still exist in the new system.
...except that you have no reason to believe that the flaws of 3.5 are going to be repeated. In fact, one of the major design goals was eliminating the flaws we know they recognized, because they described them. For example, they fixed the "balance rests on four encounters per day" problem by giving everyone at-will and per-encounter and per-day abilities, which also fixed the 'clerics and druids know all the spells ever published' problem and the 'spellcasters are ridiculous' problem. They fixed traps wonderfully; they're now a lot more interesting and interactive than "Search. Disable Device. Take damage or make a save every failed roll". The fixed "roll a skill; OK, you succeed" and gave it greater roleplay support, while simultaneously letting players get creative and play to their strengths, with skill challenges.

Once again: absolutely everything that's "like WoW" in 4E is plentiful in 3.5. 4E has demonstrably fixed plenty of issues. None of the arguments you make here hold water, but I find the insistence that "it IS a morepig!" for reasons like "there are cooldowns" (there are cooldowns in 3.5, NOT in 4E) and "it's online" (it's just an official implementation of software that's already around and already sees use; it's a facilitator for playing on an online table, not a move to make D&D into a NWN persistent world) to be downright mindboggling. There is absolutely zero way to back that up. Any argument that might have any merit applies in equal or greater strength to 3.5.

4E underwent major redesigns. They designed it to play well, which by all accounts (from people who've run first-level 4e one-shots with the already-availible material. They even playtested it this time, thank goodness (3.5, not so much).

Yahzi
2008-05-11, 12:06 PM
no powers working outside of combat.
This is what concerns me. Not that powers might not work outside of combat (as silly as that would be); but that they will, and the designers won't have thought about what that means.

There's already a huge problem in D&D: death is supposed to be dramatic, even though any priest worthy enough to head his own church can cure it. The worlds presented in the various modules and source books don't seem to account for this. Or for the effects of Cure Disease, Zone of Truth, Teleport, Scrying, Commune, or any number of other medieval-destroying bits of magic.

I'm worried that 4e will be worse: that when somebody points out that the Ice Wizard's at-will Frost Ray effectively allows him to recreate the Arctic Circle given 2.7 months, the designers will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Then don't let your players do that."

Darn it, the whole reason I buy rule books is to tell my players what they can and can't do. If I have to make up all the rules, what am I paying WotC for?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 12:10 PM
Apparently, they have. Teleport is Epic, for example, and I believe Flight is a Paragon power. Few people will have them.

Of course, they will still omit how magic affects the world, but that is something that's been missing since 1st.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-11, 12:49 PM
That said, ToB--one of the best things to happen to 3.5--uses per-encounter abilities. ZOMG 3.5 IS WOW.

I am not arguing that 3.5 does not have cool downs, just that perday abilities =/= cool downs. My rational behind it is that: the basic function of cool downs is that: while you have a time limit before you can use it again, most cool downs are small enough that you use them a few times or once per encounter. Which is similar to abilities in dnd (again I would never think to argue this point). I liked the per day system because it forced players to plan out there day better (A barbarian would have to plan more than a swordsage), there was danger of running out of spells/turn attempts/stunning/whatever. We all know there were magic items that gave you more uses per day and made things easier in 3.5, but it is never out of the dms power to have an item pick pocketed or disjoined (not all the time, but when your adventure is trying to play out a certain way). If everyone has per encounter powers I see this threat being eliminated (I know there are per day powers in 4e, I just don't like how everyone seems to get per encounter powers).


So what it comes down to is that if having cooldowns makes D&D a morepig (how freaking superficial!), then 3.5 is a morepig too.

Chill. I can tell you must have had this argument before. Since both are more akin to an MMO, this would be one of the flaws I see in 3.5 that 4e does not fix.



The roles are common to MMOs because MMOs took those roles from D&D.

I understand that, perhaps I am being vane in thinking DnD should continually raise the bar. That 4e should have classes and types that can not be defined by roles.


...those aren't "roles". "Trapsmith" isn't even a role in 3.5, it was merged with Skillmonkey. 3.5 had Skillmonkey, Tank, Healer, and (theoretically) Blaster.

You have never played someone whose sole "job" was setting up and disabling traps? Have you ever played a character whose only abilities where for social situations? If you haven't I recommend it at least once, especially party face (I know I am taking the name from Serenity and Shadowrun, but social monster is the best I could come up with). I am not sure about you, but when I dm a game I try hard so that the party does not need your common healer, tank, skillmonkey, damager group. I always feel ashamed as a DM when any of my games gets related to a MMO.


Do you know what happens in the play-by-post section of this site, dude? It's online D&D.

This is where a line needs to be drawn. Yes it is playing dnd online, I have many pbp games, albeit not at here and I frequently use map tools. Yes, it is playing dnd online. It offers no more graphics or rules support than NORMAL PEN AND PAPER. Once things get automated it opens up a whole world of nasty, patches, support, hacks, ect. And the worse part is the 3d icons. I usually don't get bent out of shape when graphics do not seem good, but look at those. Why even bother with that when there are so many good VTT that are more akin to the dnd experience (table, speaking, and the biggest part: imagination). I am not saying that the online game will kill this, it is just a big step in the wrong direction, and appears to be look a lot more like an MMO than Maptools. That and the monthly fee...



Except that you have no reason to believe that the flaws of 3.5 are going to be repeated.

What I meant by flaws was its relation to mmos (not specific skills/spells/feats as those could be houseruled. Edit: However, we also have no reason to believe that there won't be spells/powers/bloodied effects/comboes that will not be game breaking). Sure MMOs took there ideas from dnd, but I was really hoping WotC would raise the bar to something completely different, maybe ideas that would soon be incorporated (copied) in other MMOs, who knows.

As you have very well illustrated 3.x is like an MMO and 3.x is like 4e (when in regards to what others do not like). In this respect, I see no reason to purchase it. I am content with 3.x and maptools.


Once again: absolutely everything that's "like WoW" in 4E is plentiful in 3.5. 4E has demonstrably fixed plenty of issues. None of the arguments you make here hold water, but I find the insistence that "it IS a morepig!" for reasons like "there are cooldowns" (there are cooldowns in 3.5, NOT in 4E) and "it's online" (it's just an official implementation of software that's already around and already sees use; it's a facilitator for playing on an online table, not a move to make D&D into a NWN persistent world) to be downright mindboggling. There is absolutely zero way to back that up. Any argument that might have any merit applies in equal or greater strength to 3.5.

I should have made myself more clear then, I am not, and will not debate one thing is more MMO than the other. Just that I find it to be a flaw (in both systems) one that I do not feel is going in the right direction. And I suppose time will tell how 4e goes. Since we still do not 100% know what the entirety of the game is like (and there are so many 3.x books out there already) until it is on shelves.

hamishspence
2008-05-11, 12:53 PM
now 3.5 ed dragon breaths, those were cooldowns, with randomly determined periods, always fairly short.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-11, 01:07 PM
Although those are technically roles, they are mostly small roles. You can't build an entire character out of one and expect to participate effectively in the majority of the game, especially with a game that is as combat-centric as D&D (if anybody wants to argue about that.. let's not. Yes, you can play D&D with little to no combat. No, that's not what the system was built for.)

Agreed completely, some roles smaller than others. It has been my experience that most people who play, try and specialize one aspect, so the amount to which they can participate in other rolls becomes more and more difficult. Depending on your game you could make those rolls essential.

I do see that, while one can be combat centric-ed in 4e and still take part in other activities; It seems more than likely that it won't happen. I suppose I should reserve this judgment until actual powers are fully listed, but it appears to have more combat abilities and less out of combat abilities so far (it would be interesting if they made a book with no combat abilities in it at all, probably won't happen, but it would be interesting).

MartinHarper
2008-05-11, 03:46 PM
I'm worried that 4e will be worse: that when somebody points out that the Ice Wizard's at-will Frost Ray effectively allows him to recreate the Arctic Circle given 2.7 months, the designers will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Then don't let your players do that."

The Ice Wizard can't recreate the Arctic Circle with Frost Ray for the same reasons the Fighter can't destroy the Amazon rain forests with Cleave.

Sebastian
2008-05-11, 05:50 PM
Oh, and dracomicon confirms that dragons's flight is nonmagical. They can even fly inside an AMF. Wich makes kinda sense since there's no way there would be enough food in a single reason to feed something as massive as a dragon for centuries unless the dragon turned into a farmer.

By that logic either an undead is destroyed in a AMF or undead are not created/work essentally by magic. Replace undead with outsiders (demons, angels, elementals, etc), constructs, fey or any other magic-based creature of your choice.
Just because something works in an AMF it doesn't mean it is not magical.

Norsesmithy
2008-05-11, 07:50 PM
Just because something is extraordinary doesn't mean it is magical.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-11, 08:16 PM
It REALLY is not that hard. It requires the vision.

And before you say "You don't know what you're talking about", take it back. It's EXACTLY because you drop it that you never get to it.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Creating a good gaming product, let alone an entire system, requires a hell of a lot more than just vision. Best of luck to you, keep an eye out for the following:

Startup Capital
A Cheap Lawyer
Reliable Designers who don't already have jobs
People who will donate time in excahange for fun

Oh, that reminds me, VP is looking for playtesters now... (http://faxcelestis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=237&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 09:06 PM
You really don't know what you are talking about. Creating a good gaming product, let alone an entire system, requires a hell of a lot more than just vision. Best of luck to you, keep an eye out for the following:

Startup Capital
A Cheap Lawyer
Reliable Designers who don't already have jobs
People who will donate time in excahange for fun

Oh, that reminds me, VP is looking for playtesters now... (http://faxcelestis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=237&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10)

*Cheesy line*

THIS! IS! THE! INTERNET!

Just from that I have access to all the last three, and I have a sizeable amount of the first one. Methinks I stand a good chance.

Not to mention I have unlimited critics, no deadline, I'm not pressed for da moolah, and I don't have a big name as a burden. If anything, I have the high ground over the traditional designer, whose company is going to press, who's working under a deadline, who depends on limited playtesting, and who risks his job on the release.

Kompera
2008-05-11, 10:14 PM
It REALLY is not that hard. It requires the vision.

And before you say "You don't know what you're talking about", take it back. It's EXACTLY because you drop it that you never get to it.
You don't know what you're talking about. It is hard. If it wasn't hard there would be 200 more playable, balanced, exciting, absorbing RP game systems out there of all genres.

Or even a single one which didn't have holes in the rules large enough to drive a truck through, or design flaws which rendered it nearly unplayable for one reason or another.

It is hard. Start with that premise firmly in mind and you just might get somewhere. Refuse to believe that this will be a hard, hard road you've started down and you'll turn back the first time you get a rock in your shoe.



But the payoff of a system of an excellence on par with GURPS is worth the effort.

You're invited to join if you want to help, because I think everyone would love to see a system of GURPS like fairness.


Consider there's thousands of people out there, ready to give something to the project. They might not individually be Steve Jackson's, but together, they can do much more.

I played GURPS Fantasy for many years. That was ~10 years ago, and things might have changed. But the fact remains that GURPS of 10 years ago was neither balanced, 'fair' (I'm not sure what context you intend for that word, but none can apply to GURPS), or on the whole a good and playable system. It took much work by the GM and the players to make it work, and still the simplest combat could take hours to resolve. And to touch on balance again, in GURPS the spell casters told the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, while the melee types swung a blade which did some damage if it managed to connect. Sound familiar? Yep, the exact disparity of balance which D&D 3.5 is correctly criticized for. And yet you seem to regard the game and the designer with a reverence which is unwarranted. If GURPS is your concept of what a balanced RPG should be, you can not hope to succeed.

My group of gaming friends and I have designed no less than three RPG from the ground up. And many tabletop games. Guess how many were ever published? We had a running joke about the RPGs which started with the first one and came back on every other iteration. "I've got all of the rules worked out, except the magic system. That'll take another two weeks." That two weeks on the first go-round became two months, and finally was never completed. And for each of the other attempts as well, the most complete one is now referred to as The Lost Game, as the person who was holding all of the design notes lost them somehow and that project died on the vine.

And that's assuming that your group of designers can even agree on what you're creating. I was the prime designer of the The Lost Game. I brought my notes to the first meeting, featuring a system of archetypes as loosely defined 'character classes' from which players could point buy their abilities, and a couple people hated the concept and dropped out of the design sessions. Which left myself and 'notes lost' boy as the remaining designers. This is something you need to be prepared for. I thought my system was sheer elegance, others hated it without even seeing it fully formed and were no longer interested in pursuing the project if that was a basic design element. And that's between friends of 20+ years. How many conceptual clashes do you think you'll have between yourself and people you know only through the Internet? Or even your close friends who enjoy the same games you enjoy? You not only need to be prepared for this kind of reaction, but get used to it over and over on every step of the design process.

And then, play testing. Several of our tabletop games have made it through draft, to published (read: printed) rules sets, and we've demoed them at conventions and solicited feedback. We go to cons 2-3 times per year as a group, with each person attending anywhere from 0-2 of those. That's not a lot of play testing, as far as a product development cycle goes, but it's more than a lot of working adults with spouses and families are able to handle in any given year. Sure, we play test amongst ourselves, but there is an inherent flaw in any designer play testing their own game. You know what you want a rule to do. So you play it as you intended. Which can be and often is completely different than the way your rules paragraph 7b will be read by any random person you hand the rules to and say "Here's the game you signed up to play. I'm here to explain and answer any rules questions, and the board is set up so you can begin play as soon I run down the turn sequence." So play testing amongst yourselves has a very limited value. You need fresh eyes, which haven't been hashing over the rules with you and which have zero preconceptions about how the game is supposed to be played.

And asking for help here on this forum... You've said that you don't intend for it to end free. And a couple of people have pointed out that you're asking for their input and hard work for free. So here's a challenge for you:

Form a business and acquire a business license. It's fairly cheap. It should be well under $500 depending on the laws of your state and whatever fees the state and county charge. My wife is an independent contractor and has had to go through this process, I know a little bit about this. Then, write a contract. You can find contract templates online, or possibly at your county courthouse. The contract should state what you're developing, and that all contributions become yours, and also that contributors are entitled to a share of any proceeds from any sales. I'm not a lawyer, I'm sure you can find something suitable, or pay a lawyer to craft such a document for you for a nominal fee.

For those who you are asking to contribute to your RPG project, have them sign the contract. If you're serious about this, treat it seriously. Don't expect people to contribute their time, creativity, and intellectual property to something you intend to sell without any expectation of compensation other than a promise. That's not how business is done.

If you form a licensed business, that's when I'll take you seriously. If it's not worth your time and money to go through that process, then it appears as though you're just another hobbyist with some unformed ideas which will probably never come to fruition. My group of friends never had any illusions about publishing any of our games. We designed them as intellectual exercises, or because we hoped to create a better game than the ones we were playing, which always seemed to need some extensive house rules in order to make them work as we thought they should work. So our casual approach, which actually generated two RPGs (minus the magic systems :smallamused:) and several tabletop games, was fine for us. But for anyone seeking to publish, such a casual approach is not going to be successful.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-11, 10:25 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. It is hard. If it wasn't hard there would be 200 more playable, balanced, exciting, absorbing RP game systems out there of all genres.

Or even a single one which didn't have holes in the rules large enough to drive a truck through, or design flaws which rendered it nearly unplayable for one reason or another.

It is hard. Start with that premise firmly in mind and you just might get somewhere. Refuse to believe that this will be a hard, hard road you've started down and you'll turn back the first time you get a rock in your shoe.






I played GURPS Fantasy for many years. That was ~10 years ago, and things might have changed. But the fact remains that GURPS of 10 years ago was neither balanced, 'fair' (I'm not sure what context you intend for that word, but none can apply to GURPS), or on the whole a good and playable system. It took much work by the GM and the players to make it work, and still the simplest combat could take hours to resolve. And to touch on balance again, in GURPS the spell casters told the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, while the melee types swung a blade which did some damage if it managed to connect. Sound familiar? Yep, the exact disparity of balance which D&D 3.5 is correctly criticized for. And yet you seem to regard the game and the designer with a reverence which is unwarranted. If GURPS is your concept of what a balanced RPG should be, you can not hope to succeed.

My group of gaming friends and I have designed no less than three RPG from the ground up. And many tabletop games. Guess how many were ever published? We had a running joke about the RPGs which started with the first one and came back on every other iteration. "I've got all of the rules worked out, except the magic system. That'll take another two weeks." That two weeks on the first go-round became two months, and finally was never completed. And for each of the other attempts as well, the most complete one is now referred to as The Lost Game, as the person who was holding all of the design notes lost them somehow and that project died on the vine.

And that's assuming that your group of designers can even agree on what you're creating. I was the prime designer of the The Lost Game. I brought my notes to the first meeting, featuring a system of archetypes as loosely defined 'character classes' from which players could point buy their abilities, and a couple people hated the concept and dropped out of the design sessions. Which left myself and 'notes lost' boy as the remaining designers. This is something you need to be prepared for. I thought my system was sheer elegance, others hated it without even seeing it fully formed and were no longer interested in pursuing the project if that was a basic design element. And that's between friends of 20+ years. How many conceptual clashes do you think you'll have between yourself and people you know only through the Internet? Or even your close friends who enjoy the same games you enjoy? You not only need to be prepared for this kind of reaction, but get used to it over and over on every step of the design process.

And then, play testing. Several of our tabletop games have made it through draft, to published (read: printed) rules sets, and we've demoed them at conventions and solicited feedback. We go to cons 2-3 times per year as a group, with each person attending anywhere from 0-2 of those. That's not a lot of play testing, as far as a product development cycle goes, but it's more than a lot of working adults with spouses and families are able to handle in any given year. Sure, we play test amongst ourselves, but there is an inherent flaw in any designer play testing their own game. You know what you want a rule to do. So you play it as you intended. Which can be and often is completely different than the way your rules paragraph 7b will be read by any random person you hand the rules to and say "Here's the game you signed up to play. I'm here to explain and answer any rules questions, and the board is set up so you can begin play as soon I run down the turn sequence." So play testing amongst yourselves has a very limited value. You need fresh eyes, which haven't been hashing over the rules with you and which have zero preconceptions about how the game is supposed to be played.

And asking for help here on this forum... You've said that you don't intend for it to end free. And a couple of people have pointed out that you're asking for their input and hard work for free. So here's a challenge for you:

Form a business and acquire a business license. It's fairly cheap. It should be well under $500 depending on the laws of your state and whatever fees the state and county charge. My wife is an independent contractor and has had to go through this process, I know a little bit about this. Then, write a contract. You can find contract templates online, or possibly at your county courthouse. The contract should state what you're developing, and that all contributions become yours, and also that contributors are entitled to a share of any proceeds from any sales. I'm not a lawyer, I'm sure you can find something suitable, or pay a lawyer to craft such a document for you for a nominal fee.

For those who you are asking to contribute to your RPG project, have them sign the contract. If you're serious about this, treat it seriously. Don't expect people to contribute their time, creativity, and intellectual property to something you intend to sell without any expectation of compensation other than a promise. That's not how business is done.

If you form a licensed business, that's when I'll take you seriously. If it's not worth your time and money to go through that process, then it appears as though you're just another hobbyist with some unformed ideas which will probably never come to fruition. My group of friends never had any illusions about publishing any of our games. We designed them as intellectual exercises, or because we hoped to create a better game than the ones we were playing, which always seemed to need some extensive house rules in order to make them work as we thought they should work. So our casual approach, which actually generated two RPGs (minus the magic systems :smallamused:) and several tabletop games, was fine for us. But for anyone seeking to publish, such a casual approach is not going to be successful.

Y'know, your group missed the memo that says "craft your own advantages that allow you to do fancy schmancy maneuvers", apparently. :smallamused:

THAT is where the balance kicks in, when the ease of homebrew is great and you are EXPECTED to do it.

And you also missed the memo that says "I have the internet at my disposal". That means unlimited, or close enough playtesters, loads and loads of people which will want to participate (Albeit with varied degrees of competence), and that the Lead Designers are already there, thus reducing the Mythical Man Month effect by a LOT.


And yeah, if the system ends as a paragon of balance, I intend to find a way to get it published. Which doesn't seem anytime soon, and anyone who participates would get a cut of the profits. Not to mention the system would probably be available for free in it's complete form for a long while, even before I attempt to publish it. Money is not a concern here, just a nice bonus if all ends very well.


Tsk tsk, dearie. You can't see the big picture and are too concerned with the details. Look at the list of advantages, size them up, and compare to the disadvantages. It simply ends wayyyy on my favor.

Rutee
2008-05-11, 10:33 PM
No, it ends in our favor. Because you're giving us all a great laugh.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-11, 10:39 PM
Azerian, this thread has become a serious embarassment to you. The Internet is not going to design or playtest your game for you. Not properly.

Tell me when all these people who want to participate bring you something useful. Tell me when you even have a vague outline of what you're doing--"Balanced High Fantasy RPG" doesn't count.

You're talking down to everyone like you're some kind of unsung genius. Like talking about how all you have to do is have THE VISION and you can do what even the best game designers in the business can barely do, and that's with tons of professional help--not flaky, never-hear-from-them-again online help.


You obviously have a poor understanding of game design, from everything you've said. But somehow, that won't stop you. Because when you get 50 people with a poor understanding of game design together on the internet, they'll form a magical brilliant designer robot ("and I'll form the head!"), right?
You obviously have a poor understanding of how any kind of multi-person project works. But somehow, that won't stop you. Because people on the internet will do the work for you, enthusiatically and for free, without dropping out, arguing over differences, etc etc.
You obviously want to ignore the facts. Because it doesn't matter if thousands of people have tried to do what you're doing, you can't possibly fail. None of their problems will be your problems. None of their flaws are your flaws. I'm so very sure.

...whatever. Look, just keep in mind that we told you so.

Kompera
2008-05-11, 10:45 PM
And you also missed the memo that says "I have the internet at my disposal". That means unlimited, or close enough playtesters, loads and loads of people which will want to participate (Albeit with varied degrees of competence), and that the Lead Designers are already there, thus reducing the Mythical Man Month effect by a LOT.
[...]
You can't see the big picture and are too concerned with the details. Look at the list of advantages, size them up, and compare to the disadvantages. It simply ends wayyyy on my favor.
And anything anyone posts on the Internet is under their own copyright. So without a legal agreement in place between you and anyone of your free contributors, if you use their idea and publish, you're in for a lot of legal woes.

So, yeah, being concerned with the details is a huge part of the path to success. And all of the disadvantages to not paying attention to the details makes that list end wayyyyy not in your favor.

But hey, knock yourself out. In 15 years when you're ready to publish (since you're under no time pressures), I'll be interested in checking out your new game system.

Easy money is on "You don't know what you're talking about", but I encourage you to go for it even if you don't take my advice and treat it seriously. It's just shy of March 12th, 2008 in my time zone. I'll mark this date and we'll see how long it takes you to design your game and present it to the world. *GO!*

Rutee
2008-05-11, 10:46 PM
Because when you get 50 people with a poor understanding of game design together on the internet, they'll form a magical brilliant designer robot ("and I'll form the head!"), right?

Wait, you can do that in real life? Tom Sawyer, you tricked me! Life is less mundane then previously indicated! :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Hush! Let him learn the hard way that those kinds of details are crazy important!

Norsesmithy
2008-05-12, 10:03 AM
It's just shy of March 12th, 2008 in my time zone. I'll mark this date and we'll see how long it takes you to design your game and present it to the world. *GO!*

You mean May 12, right?:smallamused:

@Azerian, You need to know that we aren't being such downers because we desire you to fail, but because what you propose is indeed a Titanic undertaking, and one that many of us have seen fail personally. The internet isn't a good place for collaborative work, nothing can match sitting face to face with someone. Having said that, it is often a good compromise.

I highly recommend incorporating a company if you wish to continue, and drawing up contracts that contain a profit distribution line.

www.LegalZoom.com will help you incorporate a business for as little as $139. I think that that doesn't include the fees you may be liable for in your jurisdiction, but where I live, for instance, the state and local fees are less than $200.

kc0bbq
2008-05-12, 01:57 PM
This is why I love high fantasy.

I can answer that simply: MAGIC!

And if it works out, we'll find a publisher. Who said this was going to END free?

"You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
Every time we start to shake she brings eyesight to the blind..."You need to start working on licensing NOW then, because you are creating a derivative work of two closed systems, and two open licensed systems that are expressly prohibited from being used together. I don't expect WOTC to be any less protective of their property than TSR was. Gygax couldn't even get away with it.

You won't find a publisher for a nonlicensed derivative work. They're not in business to turn over that business to another company because of lawsuits, and because you've made public the fact that it's derivative you're pretty much going to have no way of denying it when it comes down to it. And you're not going to get license for this project for obvious reasons.

Idealism != business sense.

I wish you luck, if you ever start to understand what you're getting into. This goes beyond just mechanics. You'll get C&D letters as soon as you start putting up material somewhere. You've already poisoned the project. Seriously. You have to start from scratch, avoid all but the most generic and non-protected mechanics of D&D.

kc0bbq
2008-05-12, 01:59 PM
This is why I love high fantasy.

I can answer that simply: MAGIC!

And if it works out, we'll find a publisher. Who said this was going to END free?

"You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
You talk about your woman, I wish you could see mine...
Every time we start to shake she brings eyesight to the blind..."You need to start working on licensing NOW then, because you are creating a derivative work of two closed systems, and two open licensed systems that are expressly prohibited from being used together. I don't expect WOTC to be any less protective of their property than TSR was. Gygax couldn't even get away with it.

You won't find a publisher for a nonlicensed derivative work. They're not in business to turn over that business to another company because of lawsuits, and because you've made public the fact that it's derivative you're pretty much going to have no way of denying it when it comes down to it. And you're not going to get license for this project for obvious reasons.

Idealism != business sense.

I wish you luck, if you ever start to understand what you're getting into. This goes beyond just mechanics. You'll get C&D letters as soon as you start putting up material somewhere. You've already poisoned the project. Seriously. You have to start from scratch, avoid all but the most generic and non-protected mechanics of D&D.

Kompera
2008-05-12, 11:00 PM
You mean May 12, right?:smallamused:
I said my time zone. :smallwink:
Heh, thanks for the correction.

Edit: Thought I'd add this for Azerian:

Myths about working in the games industry. (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2007-03-14)

MartinHarper
2008-05-13, 02:26 PM
Loads of people which will want to participate ... thus reducing the Mythical Man Month effect by a LOT.

This makes me smile, because the entire point of Mythical Man Month is that having loads of people often results in slower delivery and lower quality. Hence the word "mythical".

Ralfarius
2008-05-13, 02:32 PM
I must say, this thread evolved quite well from 'just another 4E deprecating thread' to something actually quite entertaining to read. Kudos to all involved.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-13, 03:22 PM
Suit yourself. You can bet I'll be playing 4th too, but I know it's gonna have flaws and fall down in three or four years (Or eight or ten, if it has 1st ed. like longevity), and I want something more eternal. I want something perfect. It's a bit idealistic and delirious, but why not aim high? It's an opportunity to do something good and forget our differences.

This is actually funnier than all the "Im a genious!!" stuff.

Learn some RPG history and try to be realistic.

There is pretty much no RPG that was actually in print for many years that did not get revised into new editions over and over, changing in small or huge ways between editions. WoD, RuneQuest, Cyberpunk 2013/2020/203X, Traveller, GURPS, Rolemaster, and so on.

Games are not eternal. You can't just keep printing out the same thing over and over - especially if you're actually professional ( = commercial, "need to make profit and find new customers to replace old ones"). All RPGs go through the same cycle as D&D/AD&D/D&D has - D&D has just done better, financially, than the others.

Although, from a player's perspective, every single RPG is eternal. I have the original Traveller rulebooks (a reprint), and can use them to play Traveller just fine. I also have RQ3 books (the edition is from, what, '89?) and could use them to play RuneQuest just fine (if MRQ weren't better). I have the Cyberpunk 2020 rulebooks, from the very early 90s, and can use them to play that game better than the newest edition. And so on... So that was nonsense, too - they don't "fall down." Sure, there's problems, but if you play a game for 10 years, you'll have worked out all the kinks. (Like with Traveller. "Gee, maybe characters shouldn't die permanently and irreversibly 2 hours into character creation... let's houserule that.")


And why on earth would anyone trying to make a perfect game choose D&D as a model? There's already 3 or 4 perfect D&Ds - they're the most D&D any game can ever be. If you want to make a better game, ditching the unbearable and unreasonable cliches and opting for a system that supports a specific dramatic style (like many do; L5R, Fading Suns, WoD, HeroQuest...), and creating an interesting setting with versimilitude to go with that system and dramatic style would be a much better idea.

This is actually sort of what good d20 ports, like Conan d20, Call of Cthulhu d20, Star Wars Saga, or Mutants & Masterminds, do. They take the basic mechanic, and make it fit a specific style by changing a lot of the rules, either in small or radical ways. (M&M changes the most, and is the best - probably no coincidence.) Bad d20 ports, like Fading Suns d20, Wheel of Time, M&M 1st ed., and a ton of others just bolt on some superficial changed mechanics onto D&D, and do absolutely nothing to alter the dramatic style of the game.


Edit:
Some points that came to mind...
- Many of your D&D improvements are already found in other d20 games. Conan d20 has a constantly-expanded list combat maneuvers ("If meet the ability, BAB, and feat prerequisites, you can do this"). It also salvaged stuff like grapple, bull rush, and overrun with something as simple as a "armor-as-DR" system, where you need to get heavily-armored opponents prone or grappled so you can hit where their armor doesn't protect them. Check out... well, every single d20 game, I guess.
- Your "magic everywhere, and everyone embraces it" setting was done ~30 years ago, and has since developed into the single most detailed, broad, deep, and philosophical-debate-inducing setting ever: Glorantha. Check out Mongoose's new RuneQuest, and Issaries, Inc.'s HeroQuest. HeroQuest, especially, is pretty much the most "heroic high fantasy" game there is.

Rutee
2008-05-13, 03:58 PM
Oh you silly person. Only a fool looks at the past, or at the experiences of those who have set out to do what you do. God forbid you should say that someone who wants to set out a BLAZING NEW DIRECTION (By aping Dungeons and Dragons) should learn from the past.

OwlbearUltimate
2008-05-13, 04:12 PM
I actully have a question that is worrying me. Does this edition relie heavily on the use of miniatures? I have never liked the idea of using miniatures, just a rulebook, character sheet, and imagination, and I am hoping this book does not ruin my groups style of play. :smalleek:

Rutee
2008-05-13, 04:19 PM
No more then 3.5, though some will swear to you you need a map and minis /more/ rather then "Exactly as much as you did before".

Honestly I can't imagine /needing/ minis.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-13, 04:24 PM
No more then 3.5, though some will swear to you you need a map and minis /more/ rather then "Exactly as much as you did before".

Honestly I can't imagine /needing/ minis.

Of course you'll be needing minis! The rulebooks contain an addictive substance that adheres to your hands when you touch them, and then infects your brain forcing you to walk into game stores and buy them!

Furthermore, the WOTC enforcement units will take your not-minis away from you if you try to not play with minis. So there!

Rutee
2008-05-13, 05:42 PM
Cunning plan, WotC. But it will be foiled by DTRPG.