The Direction of Dungeons & Dragons

[Matthew]

Over on the 4th Edition: A Collection of Facts Thread, I accidently sparked off a debate about what is desirable in an RPG and particularly in Dungeons & Dragons. Obviously, though, that kind of debate was a bit far from the point of that Thread. So, I have started a new Thread for the subject and I will attempt to insert as much of what was said below:

The more I read about 4e, the more grateful I am for the SRD and the people who used it to create OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord as allternative outlets. Whilst, I will reserve final judgement until May 2008, I suspect I will be playing 4e even less than I do 3e. That is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with them, just that it is increasingly looking as though 4e is not going to be for me (I am fairly sure it is not even aimed at me).

I'm starting to share your sentiment.

When 4th ed comes out, it seems as if they have to compete with:

1) 3.5 - tons of gamers might stick with it just because they've invested so much time, effort, and money learning the rules. Plus, its a good game. I enjoy playing 3.5 D&D. With the right group, it's a great balance between roleplaying and combat. If 4th ed is fundamentally a different game, then I'll stick with 3.5.

2) MMORPGs - which has the benefit of being constantly and easily available to play, superior graphics, gameplay that works well with the interface, etc.

3) Wizkids and Games Workshop: Superior miniature combat games.

4) White Wolf and a million basement publishers: Games with a much clearer focus on roleplaying.

Knowing this, I'm not sure how they are going to design 4th ed to keep the same balance between roleplaying and combat, while expanding into the online world, but without losing any of the tabletop character that has defined the genre.

My guess is that the online support will suck (as witnessed by their server crashing on the day of their announcement, and by the cruddy graphics in their demonstration). Because their online support will suck, any aspect of the tabletop game which relies on the online support will suck. They've said that the online support will be fully optional - but will it truly be so? Will they modify combat so that it makes more sense online but less sense at the table? Will they modify Skills so that everything is directly relevant to combat, with no support for interesting roleplaying, scouting, diplomacy, etc?

We'll just have to wait and see.

I know exactly what you mean, Matthew. As a guy who grew up playin' 1st Edition, I feel like the game's kinda leavin' me behind. Not that I'm not good enough, or smart enough to embrace the new rules. I actually like some of the mechanics they've come up with for 3rd Edition, and I imagine I'll like some of the mechanics for 4th as well. But I just don't feel like the direction of the overall game is going in the right direction. I feel like it's being influenced more and more by videogames and anime. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a lot of people, but it just doesn't feel like D&D to me, anymore.

It blows my mind to join a game, and get berated for not maximizing my "build" to within an inch of its life. There just don't seem to be many players these days who understand that I have a vision in my head of a character who wields two daggers, even though he'll do a statistically significant lesser amount of damage, amortized over 20 levels, than if he had a oversized two-handed sword with Monkey Grip, Power Attack and Shock Trooper.

I know that was a bit of a digression, but my point is this: I'm much more concerned about the direction they take the game, than I am with any additions or subtractions they could possibly make to the rules.

Preach it, brother!!

I build the character I want to play. If that's a Rapier and Dagger fighter, that's what I'm making up, and screw anybody who doesn't like it.

Of course, my group is a bunch of veterans of 1st ed, so we just like the nice clean mechanics of 3e, but play like it was an old game, not InuYasha.

In other words: it's a kiddie's game.

I'd give it another 5 years tops before Hasbro flogs the name off to anyone that wants it. Any RPG which is designed around reducing the challenge for the players is in a death-spiral.

Leveling up does not inherently reduce challenge, it changes it. As long as players are still being challenged at higher levels, the level increase doesn't matter. All it means is that the swarm of goblins becomes a swarm of orcs which becomes a swarm of demons which becomes a swarm of tarrasques. It's only if WotC fails to keep higher levels a challenge that leveling up faster become a problem.

Game 1 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 60 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 2 has PCs at level 10 who are engaging in encounters which are appropriate for level 10. It took the players 30 sessions to reach level 10.

Game 1 is more challenging than game 2. More reward in less time = easier game = kiddie's version. Adults enjoy working towards a reward, children can't wait and want instant gratification. Ironically, if you give them it, they generally get bored more quickly too, which is why this is a suicide option for any game.

I take severe umbrage with this mentality. I DM a thoroughly mature game, but us being adults, we only have 1 session a month to play, for 4-6 hours.

That's 1 adventure per month. That means over the course of 60 sessions, we'd have spanned 5 years in real time. Methinks my players would be a little bit pissed off if they only reached level 10 after 5 years of gameplay.

As it stands now...it's been about 1.5 years, and they're all level 9 or 10. They're averaging a level roughly every 1.8 sessions. I know that's fast. But I want to advance my storyline, and I don't think my players would appreciate being level 5 and being called upon to perform heroic deeds beyond their abilities.

Level-up rate has no correlation to game "difficulty" or whether a game is for "kiddies" or not. If you sincerely believe otherwise, I challenge you to sit at my table and say that out loud when 2 PCs die in one session, as happened a few months back.

My players weren't. After 90+ sessions over three years they finally reached the heady heights of Level 6. One of the best AD&D campaigns I ever ran.

While I agree with you about 100% on the issue, you do have to realize that 3rd edition (and apparantely 4th edition as well) are designed for a different mind-set and audience.

The idea of spending years at a time developing characters and enjoying campaigns simply does not appeal to "modern" gamers. It became abundantly clear to me in a discussion on another board that many people today view an RPG as something with a beginning, middle, and end, a lot like a basic game of monopoly.

To me, and to you and your group it seems, the concept of "finishing the game" is all but abhorent.

It's the same thing that creates the mentality that leadership is a feat you take at 6th level instead of something your character does.

Sir, you have my uttmost respect. The day I discovered Labyrinth Lord was the day I realized what D&D should be. While I can admire the efforts wizards have made to bring about cohesive rules and options, I think that basing every new edition on the old, instead of modifying the original with the best changes of the last has reduced to D&D to something that can no longer be called by that name.

While I agree with you about 100% on the issue, you do have to realize that 3rd edition (and apparantely 4th edition as well) are designed for a different mind-set and audience.

Sure, I recognise that. Interestingly, though, about half of my six regular players in that above mentioned campaign were completely new to D&D and all of them were in the 18-25 Age Range. I think its definitely designer mentality and not necessarily anything to do with the potential audience.

The idea of spending years at a time developing characters and enjoying campaigns simply does not appeal to "modern" gamers. It became abundantly clear to me in a discussion on another board that many people today view an RPG as something with a beginning, middle, and end, a lot like a basic game of monopoly.

I think that this is probably true, but I also think that it is not really 'modern gamers', but 'casual gamers' that this applies to [sometimes referred to as 'Part Timers' in the working world (or even in my local pub)]. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, but just literally people who are looking for a 'quick fix', rather than a long term commitment.

To me, and to you and your group it seems, the concept of "finishing the game" is all but abhorent.

In the sense of going from 1-20, I would tend to agree. I do happily finish campaigns, though. Usually somewhere between Level 7 and 9.

It's the same thing that creates the mentality that leadership is a feat you take at 6th level instead of something your character does.

Yeah, I hate that.

Sir, you have my uttmost respect. The day I discovered Labyrinth Lord was the day I realized what D&D should be. While I can admire the efforts wizards have made to bring about cohesive rules and options, I think that basing every new edition on the old, instead of modifying the original with the best changes of the last has reduced to D&D to something that can no longer be called by that name.

OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord have been great steps forward. I hear Goblinoid Games have a trademark on Advanced Labyrinth Lord as well as Labyrinth Lord, so we might see OSRIC repackaged with some nicer interior artwork in the future.
Dungeons & Dragons is just a trademark (which is very important to companies), but the content is ultimately what matters for gamers, which is why I don't mind what Wizards do with it. They have released almost all the old stuff as PDFs at very reasonable prices and the SRD has made it possible for others to legally recreate the old rules to support previous editions with new product. On the other hand, I can understand the anger expressed by The Great Fane.

<Some fairly lengthy posts, you'll have to go to the Thread to read>

First edition didn't let the DM do anything, it simply didn't provide an alternative or support for mechanical representation. It didn't have anything at all in regards to that, the DM was just expected to work it out somehow. By the logic that no support for situations is better than mechanical representation, the ideal roleplaying game would be just a blank page. It's ludicrous, present some basis for your claim if you expect to be taken seriously.

If, as a DM in 3.x, you cannot or even choose not to make your NPCs realistic, then you're being a terrible DM. There's no getting around that, it's a part of the job and a skill people have to learn. I personally resent the implication that because I DM in 3.x, that I'm just making my NPCs empty collections of numbers. They aren't. Again, you've made an insulting and baseless claim.

How, precisely, are NPCs realistic in a system where they are given the exact same DC to imfluence, whether they are a suspicious and world weary old coot, or a child? Where any player, even at low levels, has the ability to convince a crowd of people to fanatically follow him to their deaths in six seconds? If that's what "roleplaying" support looks like, I will take ODND anyday.

Only if the DM sets them that way. Name one who is that lazy. I sure don't. Hell, I don't use it most of the time, only when the player wants their character to do something they can't effectively roleplay (or they can and their character can't, and I want to remind them of that).

Not unless you're using the epic handbook and letting players get away with absolutely anything. Not using epic, the best you can do is make them like you, if you're really really good. I've met people in real life who can accomplish similar. Who are you to say that players can't be someone like that?

Well, if you decide that you like being myopic about what the system allows and supports, and figure you'll just force your players to suck it up and deal with your whims, then that's your option.

Put succinctly, the system isn't broken unless you're lazy and allow absolutely everything. Everything is that way, in any game. So if you can't put forth the minimal amount of effort to let it work, that reflects badly on you.

Precisely. Having no rules for a situation is better than having bad rules. Having no rules encourages people to think of a solution; having bad rules encourages people to use them anyway because they'll assume the rules are good or they wouldn't have been written that way. You'll get more flak for on-the-fly houseruling something that doesn't have a rule, than for on-the-fly going against the written book.

[Pokemaster]

Any edition of D&D is just a set of rules. It's the DM's job to adapt those rules to his campaign and his group. If your game is too easy or too hard, then you need to either talk to your DM about what you'd like to play or find yourself a new group.

[Matthew]

Sure, but then there's what you pay for. A lot of people want D&D to play 'out of the box'. I don't view the game that way, personally, but I would say 3e was attempting to cater to that sort of audience.

[Thinker]

Sure, but then there's what you pay for. A lot of people want D&D to play 'out of the box'. I don't view the game that way, personally, but I would say 3e was attempting to cater to that sort of audience.

I think that it depends on how you want to play when it caters to playing 'out of the box'. If you are only interested in dungeon crawls, it is fairly easy to just get a group together and start playing.

The beauty of RPG systems is that they are a set of mechanics that can be separated from one world and put into another. The themes may be generally the same between worlds, but each one can be unique. As long as it maintains this and makes it easier to have balance within a group of PCs I feel it is a good system.

[Charity]

See more and more I find myself being an 'out of the box' type of gamer.
I want to say, if it's in the book it's fine, I want to just pick up an adventure and run it without fear of slaughtering the party, or worse boring them with no challenge worth it's title.
I don't think 3e came within a country mile of that myself but as the eternal optomist that I am, I'll give 4e a whirl.

[Dhavaer]

I think Wizards needs to have a clear view of what they want to do. A few of the problems with Modern were due to conflicting levels of realism (see: shotguns). If they can get a fairly firm grip on the magic level (fighters, I'm looking at you) it should come off okay.

[Matthew]

I think that it depends on how you want to play when it caters to playing 'out of the box'. If you are only interested in dungeon crawls, it is fairly easy to just get a group together and start playing.

The beauty of RPG systems is that they are a set of mechanics that can be separated from one world and put into another. The themes may be generally the same between worlds, but each one can be unique. As long as it maintains this and makes it easier to have balance within a group of PCs I feel it is a good system.

I think that style of play has a huge impact on how you perceive RPGs, but there's no denying that some RPGs are closely tied to the Settings for which they are intended. One of the problems with D&D as an 'out of the box' game is that it contains virtually no information about the setting. D&D is a game that claims to be adaptable to many settings, and it can be, but unless there is very little diversity amongst those settings, it won't look like 'out of the box' D&D.

See more and more I find myself being an 'out of the box' type of gamer.
I want to say, if it's in the book it's fine, I want to just pick up an adventure and run it without fear of slaughtering the party, or worse boring them with no challenge worth it's title.
I don't think 3e came within a country mile of that myself but as the eternal optomist that I am, I'll give 4e a whirl.

I find that when it comes to a lot of RPGs, including 3e, I am very 'out of the box'. I don't produce material for those games, I just buy or borrow Adventures and play the game as close to 'as intended' as possible (with some obvious caveats).
On the other hand, I never use any published material for my House Ruled AD&D game and have adapted the rules to suit the setting. It is a game with an entirely different subset of enjoyment for me. I get a lot more out of it because it really is the focus of 'my hobby' and it is where most of my energy goes. It's not just me who gets more out of it, either, the players do as well. It really is 'my hobby' in a completely different way from other RPGs.

[Skibybadoowap]

In my opinion as long as an upcoming dnd's combat is streamlined, the duration of spells and effects don't end at some random time (such as they last for one encounter or one scene) and the game setting promotes roleplay, I'm good to go.

And as for dnd4 facts and rumors, wouldn't hurt to check out dnd4.com

[Charity]

I never use any published material for my House Ruled AD&D game and have adapted the rules to suit the setting. It is a game with an entirely different subset of enjoyment for me. I get a lot more out of it because it really is the focus of 'my hobby' and it is where most of my energy goes. It's not just me who gets more out of it, either, the players do as well.

I feel this may illustrate the fundemental differance between those that want to DM, and those that have DMing thrust upon them... though with the opposite emphasis to the donor phraze.
I would much rather be a player... unfortunately so would everyone else.

*chucks a log on the tracks*
So Matthew are you comming to Brum in Dec? eh? eh?

[Dizlag]

Familiarity with a given ruleset brings an RPG to a whole new level. When you don't have to be bogged down with detailed rules, then you can focus more on the roleplaying and story aspect of the game. Those of us who have played D&D since the late 70s and early 80s while using that white crayon to color in the numbers on our dice are VERY familiar with the old skewl rules. We haven't been given a chance to have the rules of D&D 3.5 become second nature yet.

The game I ran 20 years ago is MUCH different than the game I'm running now. But it's not just the rules though, it's me ... it's my group and the time we've got. I remember playing D&D from friday night after school until sunday afternoon. My buddies would come over and we'd game for almost 48 hours straight. We'd wake each other up when it was our turn.

Now, I've got 4-5 hours every other friday night. I want my players who leave their families, drive for 30-45 minutes to my house to feel like they've accomplished something. The number one reason why we all play the game is to watch our characters get more powerful and we do this in D&D by leveling them up. It's the single most enjoyable part of playing a character in a roleplaying game. Watching them grow into something more than what they where at character creation. All of the encounters, parleying, and decisions that got them there is a ton of fun.

The direction of D&D seems to be heading in the direction that will be right for my group. I don't have the time I had before to create something from scratch. I've got a labyrinth for friday night I'll be taking my characters though, but that's smack dab in the middle of Barrow of the Forgotten King. I've got the next two adventures waiting for them in the wings as well. So, yeah ... 20-25 years ago my game was "off the cuff", now it's "out of the box".

Dizlag

[hamlet]

Any edition of D&D is just a set of rules. It's the DM's job to adapt those rules to his campaign and his group. If your game is too easy or too hard, then you need to either talk to your DM about what you'd like to play or find yourself a new group.

Yeah, you're right, except there's a big problem with that. The current incarnations of the rules pidgeon-hole D&D into a specific play style and if you don't want to play it, then you have to change how things work.

We saw it clearly with the low magic thread that was floating around. People who said that 3.x could be used for low magic all had one answer consistantly: limit it to below 6th level. Either that, or pick up Iron Heroes. The game just isn't built to support that kind of play at any point beyond a few months of play. Character ability is so tightly joined with equipment and magic that taking away some magic, or denying it's ready availability, throws everything out of whack.

That simply wasn't so with older editions. I could play high magic, low magic, proliferant magic, scarce magic, whatever and the only thing I had to do as a DM was say the words "This campaign will be low and scarce magic." No modification of rules was neccessary.

The paradigm shift that has occured is that now, with all the rules spelled out, that the rules make the game. In older editions, the rules were a foundation, a starting point, a kernal upon which the DM built the game/campaign.

The best way I can illustrate it, I think, is by taking an example of a knight. In 3.x, to be a knight, you pick up the right book, choose the knight base class, pick up a list of feats, and on and on.

In 2nd edition, if you wanted to be a knight, you found a local lord or king and say "I want to be a knight" performed some sort of service maybe, or did whatever was required in game, then got yourself knighted. It was based entirely on in game concepts rather than in rules concepts.

In 3.x, as has been often said on these boards, people can't see the point of being anything if there isn't some mechanical benefit or difference from something else. The game has become about the rules rather than being facilitated by them.

[Dausuul]

Precisely. Having no rules for a situation is better than having bad rules. Having no rules encourages people to think of a solution; having bad rules encourages people to use them anyway because they'll assume the rules are good or they wouldn't have been written that way. You'll get more flak for on-the-fly houseruling something that doesn't have a rule, than for on-the-fly going against the written book.

That's an important point (although I think you meant "less flak," not "more"). I hadn't really thought of it in those terms... but it does ring true. And while I like most of the changes that took place in 3E, the game does suffer from a tendency to extend the rules way beyond the point where they should have just stopped and said, "Okay, we're getting into such specific cases that it's pointless to try to define rules systems, so from here out you're on your own."

I don't think this is likely to change much in 4E, but apparently they are at least cleaning up some of the problems 3E's rule extensions introduced.

[Journey]

Most of those points are very good. I wrote it in another thread, but it's just as appropriate here.

The 3rd edition was written with the cRPGs and fledgling MMOGs of the day (1998-2000) in mind. Older gamers had either already purchased all the supplementals they ever would for the existing systems or had moved on to other systems for whatever reason. Wizards needed a way to generate a lot of revenue off a product that they spent a lot of money to buy in a relatively short time. They chose the best way they could have, I think: make what amounts to a table-top version of the cRPGs and MMOGs that kids and even older gamers found enjoyable.

It especially targets the entry-level adolescents they require to build a solid base of new gamers, because this demographic is used to the style of cRPG gaming (which is mainly combat with a general theme or story that can only be called "interactive" with a smirk). They're used to rules that are given by authoritative fiat, which the players (including DM) have little or no input in, and expected a table-top "RPG" to reflect this expectation. Wizards delivered.

I discovered a quote from Gygax in a Gamespy article published in 2004. He said exactly what I've said in a couple of other threads: D&D isn't about cooperative play and storytelling anymore so much as it is about character power and superhero-style characters where the DM isn't the narrator and referee so much as he is an entertainer/human computer.

Sure, it's possible to play D&D as it used to be played under the 3.x rules. It's also possible to adapt Amber to the use of dice. That doesn't mean it's suited for it.

I see 4th edition, if the implied use of "talent trees" and the like is confirmed, advancing further along this MMOG/superhero/DM-as-entertainer path.

[hamlet]

Matthew: A response to your post from the other thread since this is the first chance I've gotten to reply to it.

Yes, I realize that most of what we've got from 3.x is the WOTC designers' version of D&D. It's the game they have always wanted and have always played, and the fact is that the modern crop of gamers (and no offense is intended) have inhaled this as if it were gold. It's become the de facto way of playing D&D (not to mention the industrialized dumping on older editions that is not only condoned by the designers, but flat out encouraged).

My biggest problem isn't that the new version of D&D is one that millions love and play all the time and enjoy. More power to them. My problem is that it's not one that I enjoy, and there's no realistic way to make it what I enjoy.

The common rejoinder is "well then just stick with the old edition." Yeah, all fine and good, except that it's getting more and more difficult to find any D&D gamers that are willing to try anything other than 3.x. Most, when I broach the subject, look at me as if I'd grown another head and then reel off a list of back handed (or front handed often enough) insults against me and the game I play and those I game with and then demand that I change my game to meet their needs. Right now, we've got three people. Three in the middle of NJ who are willing to play an older edition. Our campaign has been going on for years because they've all grown to love it, but the original three are beginning to get discouraged, especially after the last guy we invited demanded that we convert to 3.x (no, he didn't say I'm not interested in an older game, just flat out demanded that we change to suit his needs).

The attitude and mind set has changed, much for the worse I fear.

[Dausuul]

That simply wasn't so with older editions. I could play high magic, low magic, proliferant magic, scarce magic, whatever and the only thing I had to do as a DM was say the words "This campaign will be low and scarce magic." No modification of rules was neccessary.

That's a little misleading. Adjusting the magic level affected game balance just as much in 2E; the only difference was that 2E's balance was a joke to begin with, so nobody noticed the impact. A +X sword was as powerful in 2E as in 3E--in fact, it was more so, since there were fewer ways to boost your damage output, and some monsters had flat-out immunity to damage from weapons of less than +X enchantment. Consequently, the impact of including or not including a +X sword was greater.

And I remember well the headaches I and my fellow DMs endured trying to achieve a low-magic feel in a setting where a PC wizard could cast invisibility and have it last all day. The abuses that were possible for a 2E wizard in a low-magic world...

The only reason it seems harder to adjust the magic level in 3E is that 3E has an explicit baseline and tries to balance things on that baseline (if not always very successfully), where 2E just threw numbers at a wall and hoped they landed someplace good.

In 2nd edition, if you wanted to be a knight, you found a local lord or king and say "I want to be a knight" performed some sort of service maybe, or did whatever was required in game, then got yourself knighted. It was based entirely on in game concepts rather than in rules concepts.

I'm pretty sure there was some sort of kit somewhere in 2E for being a knight. Classic D&D had explicit rules for becoming a knight at 9th or 10th level. Regardless, the knight class is just a set of mechanics for folks who want to do knight-like stuff. You can be a knight (the class) without ever having sworn a knightly oath or given your service to a lord.

The common rejoinder is "well then just stick with the old edition." Yeah, all fine and good, except that it's getting more and more difficult to find any D&D gamers that are willing to try anything other than 3.x. Most, when I broach the subject, look at me as if I'd grown another head and then reel off a list of back handed (or front handed often enough) insults against me and the game I play and those I game with and then demand that I change my game to meet their needs. Right now, we've got three people. Three in the middle of NJ who are willing to play an older edition. Our campaign has been going on for years because they've all grown to love it, but the original three are beginning to get discouraged, especially after the last guy we invited demanded that we convert to 3.x (no, he didn't say I'm not interested in an older game, just flat out demanded that we change to suit his needs).

I agree that "stick with the old edition" is not really a very good solution. It's my hope that 4E will offer more flexibility in adjusting the "feel" of the game. If not, well... house-ruling is a long tradition in D&D, and I'm sure that will stay the same no matter what edition we're on.

[nagora]

See more and more I find myself being an 'out of the box' type of gamer.
I want to say, if it's in the book it's fine, I want to just pick up an adventure and run it without fear of slaughtering the party, or worse boring them with no challenge worth it's title.
I don't think 3e came within a country mile of that myself but as the eternal optomist that I am, I'll give 4e a whirl.

I have to wonder why you're DMing in that case. If you don't want to have to even read over an adventure to decide if your players' group will find it entertaining then why are you even bothering? No designer can know what the make up of your group is nor what they find entertaining or who is going to be unavailable for a couple of weeks because they're on holiday. How can any pre-printed adventure ever hope to do what you're asking for?

EDIT: ok, I read your post where you said you don't want to DM. That pretty well explains it!

[DeathQuaker]

In 2nd edition, if you wanted to be a knight, you found a local lord or king and say "I want to be a knight" performed some sort of service maybe, or did whatever was required in game, then got yourself knighted. It was based entirely on in game concepts rather than in rules concepts.

Or you just waited till you got your stronghold at 10th level.

It's funny to hear people talk about wanting to play D&D "out of the box." I remember my first D&D game that I bought in the mid 80s. It was bright red and said "Dungeons and Dragons" in big white letters and, indeed, came "in a box" along with some dice and stuff (I still have some of those dice). I read over the basic rules and played the solo adventure that it came with by myself. Pretty dang "out of the box" to me.

D&D got more complex after that. I discovered "Advanced" and all kinds of other stuff. It required a little more reading, but still pretty much played from the get-go if you wanted it to.

3.x changed the mechanics a bit, though the core principles still applied. Apart from some mathematical shifts, on paper, D&D, AD&D, and D&D3 don't look that different to me. Your character advances based on a table. You have random charts than can tell you what happens when you do certain things, and difficulties stated which you have to roll a die to beat. None of this has changed.

It's funny that people say D&D is now being designed for computer gamers, because I recall most computer RPGs all the way back to when they first started making them use mechanics that are largely based upon D&D's mechanics, some loosely, some quite exactly. So D&D's mechanics -- and 2nd edition largely -- informed how computer RPGing should go, not the other way around.

I played 2nd ed D&D games that were awful. I played some that were good. Same for 3rd ed D&D. Not to mention Storyteller games, Tri-Stat games, GURPS, etc. etc. etc. In all of these, sometimes character advancement was slow, sometimes fast, sometimes rule-obsessive, sometimes freeform.

Beyond quibbles about preferences for a given mechanic (which are all ultimately according to one's personal tastes and aptitudes), what made the difference between a 2nd ed game I hated and a 3rd ed game I enjoyed -- or vice versa -- wasn't what was found within the rulebook.

It was the players I played with. They made the difference. They were the ones who made it creative and challenging, or dull and "by the book"; they were the ones who determined whether it was going to be "roleplay" or "roll-play."

4th Edition may or may not change many things, but not that.

I don't mind seeing people criticise what they know about 4th ed, based on a mechanic they don't like or what-have-you, but I get the sense a lot of gamers are confusing their nostalgia or great experience with a good GM in the past with the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of previous D&D rulesets. Any version of D&D you can "play out of the box" with, you can powergame and care only about your class progression on a chart, you can count up and hoard your XP voraciously like a dragon does gold.

If 4th ed "encourages" those same things, it's just par for the same course that I've been playing on for the last 20 years.

What will make it a good roleplaying experience will be ultimately up to you. No rule or lack thereof will ever help with that.

[Journey]

Or you just waited till you got your stronghold at 10th level.

It's funny that people say D&D is now being designed for computer gamers, because I recall most computer RPGs all the way back to when they first started making them use mechanics that are largely based upon D&D's mechanics, some loosely, some quite exactly. So D&D's mechanics -- and 2nd edition largely -- informed how computer RPGing should go, not the other way around.

It's true that the mechanics of early editions influenced games; that's one of the factors that drove the popularity of these computer games in the first place. That doesn't mean that the system has not come full circle now.

What will make it a good roleplaying experience will be ultimately up to you. No rule or lack thereof will ever help with that.

Unfortunately some systems support certain play styles, regardless of the players playing them, and some don't, so your statement is largely unsupported by the facts. Or, I suppose I should say, it's only true in the trivial sense that it's true for any game. One can play, e.g. EverQuest in a way different from the way EverQuest's system actually supports, but it will be an uphill battle. Your sentiment strikes me as being no different, essentially, than claiming "Super Mario Brothers" is a "role-playing game" because you "play the role of a plumber saving a Mushroom Kingdom."

[hamlet]

Or you just waited till you got your stronghold at 10th level.

Or, you could go back and realize that you don't "get" a stronghold (or followers for that reason) when you make name level. It's specifically stated that you have to go out and build it, then maintain it, clear the area of monsters, put out notices that you're the new guy in town, etc. You didn't get anything. Name level was, more than anything else, another giant adventure hook that lead into a new dimension of the game.

It's also good to realize that nothing was stopping you from having a stronghold way before name level. I've played a character who became baron of a moderate feif at only 4th level (and subsequently regretted it greatly when he realized that part and parcel of his title was driving off the drider that had come to terrorize the area.

It's funny to hear people talk about wanting to play D&D "out of the box." I remember my first D&D game that I bought in the mid 80s. It was bright red and said "Dungeons and Dragons" in big white letters and, indeed, came "in a box" along with some dice and stuff (I still have some of those dice). I read over the basic rules and played the solo adventure that it came with by myself. Pretty dang "out of the box" to me.

D&D got more complex after that. I discovered "Advanced" and all kinds of other stuff. It required a little more reading, but still pretty much played from the get-go if you wanted it to.

3.x changed the mechanics a bit, though the core principles still applied. Apart from some mathematical shifts, on paper, D&D, AD&D, and D&D3 don't look that different to me. Your character advances based on a table. You have random charts than can tell you what happens when you do certain things, and difficulties stated which you have to roll a die to beat. None of this has changed.

It's funny that people say D&D is now being designed for computer gamers, because I recall most computer RPGs all the way back to when they first started making them use mechanics that are largely based upon D&D's mechanics, some loosely, some quite exactly. So D&D's mechanics -- and 2nd edition largely -- informed how computer RPGing should go, not the other way around.

I played 2nd ed D&D games that were awful. I played some that were good. Same for 3rd ed D&D. Not to mention Storyteller games, Tri-Stat games, GURPS, etc. etc. etc. In all of these, sometimes character advancement was slow, sometimes fast, sometimes rule-obsessive, sometimes freeform.

Beyond quibbles about preferences for a given mechanic (which are all ultimately according to one's personal tastes and aptitudes), what made the difference between a 2nd ed game I hated and a 3rd ed game I enjoyed -- or vice versa -- wasn't what was found within the rulebook.

It was the players I played with. They made the difference. They were the ones who made it creative and challenging, or dull and "by the book"; they were the ones who determined whether it was going to be "roleplay" or "roll-play."

4th Edition may or may not change many things, but not that.

I don't mind seeing people criticise what they know about 4th ed, based on a mechanic they don't like or what-have-you, but I get the sense a lot of gamers are confusing their nostalgia or great experience with a good GM in the past with the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of previous D&D rulesets. Any version of D&D you can "play out of the box" with, you can powergame and care only about your class progression on a chart, you can count up and hoard your XP voraciously like a dragon does gold.

If 4th ed "encourages" those same things, it's just par for the same course that I've been playing on for the last 20 years.

What will make it a good roleplaying experience will be ultimately up to you. No rule or lack thereof will ever help with that.

On the other hand, I've never played in a 3rd edition game that I cared to be in. It just isn't at all fun for me. And this is coming from a guy who regularly plays in dozens of different rules systems from Arduin to AD&D to RIFTS to CAPES. I've played, run, or tried just about every system I could ever get my hands on and and 3.x is really the only one I won't even consider playing in any more.

[Matthew]

I feel this may illustrate the fundemental differance between those that want to DM, and those that have DMing thrust upon them... though with the opposite emphasis to the donor phraze.
I would much rather be a player... unfortunately so would everyone else.

Heh, you may well be right about that. It's certainly something worth considering alongside the 'casual' player as a reason for desiring 'out of the box' games.

*chucks a log on the tracks*
So Matthew are you comming to Brum in Dec? eh? eh?

I don't think at this point it's too likely. I was rather hoping it would be in London, as I can make a much better case for my going there.

That's an important point...

Hey Dausuul, I just noticed that you're attributing something Kurald said to me (though I think I agree with his sentiment). Just thought you should know.

[Charity]

How can any pre-printed adventure ever hope to do what you're asking for?

By offering a flexibility in tactics for the encounters, creatures, and players, by using gauging encounters early on to base further encounter difficulty levels on... and various other ingenious methods that I can't be bothered to think of.

EDIT: ok, I read your post where you said you don't want to DM. That pretty well explains it!

Generally considered a winning strategy.
I would like to add, that I don't get nothing from the games I run, nor do my players. I prefer to play, but will DM to fill the void.


Oh, and DQ, I heartily agree.
*doffs hat*

I don't think at this point it's too likely. I was rather hoping it would be in London, as I can make a much better case for my going there.

bah excuses, excuses.

[Kiero]

I think that style of play has a huge impact on how you perceive RPGs, but there's no denying that some RPGs are closely tied to the Settings for which they are intended. One of the problems with D&D as an 'out of the box' game is that it contains virtually no information about the setting. D&D is a game that claims to be adaptable to many settings, and it can be, but unless there is very little diversity amongst those settings, it won't look like 'out of the box' D&D.

With 3.x it's worse than that; there's no setting material provided, and yet there are quite a few setting assumptions hard-coded into the rules. Like the availability of magic items, certain spells (such as healing) and so on.

[Truwar]

I really have to take issue with the idea that “4th edition will kill (or continue the process of killing) the spirit of D&D”. For all of you fans of AD&D, the original (Basic D&D, Expert D&D etc.) D&D players said the same thing about AD&D. They claimed that all of the extra rules were simply a straight jacket that stifled the true creative spirit of D&D.

There were a LOT of terrible rules and flaws in AD&D and there are flaws in Third Edition as well. I personally think that 3ed had less flaws than 2ed and that 3.5ed was an improvement over 3ed but I do not believe any of them “Violated the Spirit of TRUE D&D”. There have always been Min-Maxers D&D, there are have always been bad RPers and there always will be.

The spirit of the game comes down to how the game is played. This means that a larger and larger percentage of players will not be playing D&D like we did back in the 80’s (I missed the 70’s ) because a larger and larger percentage of players will not be influenced by the things we were influenced by when we were younger but this is not really a reflection of the rules, it is more a reflection of our current culture.

I am looking for a system that will move smoothly enough to allow RP and will lend itself more easily to all of the players being able to make regular contributions. What I have heard about 4ed makes me somewhat hopeful about this. The radical rule changes make me a bit nervous but I am hoping they will contribute to a better system. Nothing I have heard so far worries me though… well except for their online stuff. That system sounds like an absolute wreck of a hunk of junk. Luckily my friends and I have Gametable which should work just fine for 4ed.

[Thinker]

It's true that the mechanics of early editions influenced games; that's one of the factors that drove the popularity of these computer games in the first place. That doesn't mean that the system has not come full circle now.

Unfortunately some systems support certain play styles, regardless of the players playing them, and some don't, so your statement is largely unsupported by the facts. Or, I suppose I should say, it's only true in the trivial sense that it's true for any game. One can play, e.g. EverQuest in a way different from the way EverQuest's system actually supports, but it will be an uphill battle. Your sentiment strikes me as being no different, essentially, than claiming "Super Mario Brothers" is a "role-playing game" because you "play the role of a plumber saving a Mushroom Kingdom."

So then what is your feeling on statements that there will be less skills in 4E that "should have been in the background to begin with"? If you want to be a cook, do you feel that you should just say you're a cook, or do you feel that it should be reflected with numbers on your sheet?

The reason this RPG and many others focus so much on combat is because it is the only thing that really has to be calculated in the interest of fairness. The reason that Mario is not an RPG is because there is no real advancement for Mario. He advances the plot, but his character does not grow throughout the game.

As far as Everquest goes, there are roleplaying servers meant for others to do just that. That is true of most MMORPGs, though admittedly that does not generally take place.

[Dausuul]

Hey Dausuul, I just noticed that you're attributing something Kurald said to me (though I think I agree with his sentiment). Just thought you should know.

Whoops, forgot to update the quote tag. Fixed.

So then what is your feeling on statements that there will be less skills in 4E that "should have been in the background to begin with"?

Where is this quote from? I'd very much like to read the source... if true, this will be a substantial improvement.

[Thinker]

Whoops, forgot to update the quote tag. Fixed.



Where is this quote from? I'd very much like to read the source... if true, this will be a substantial improvement.

I remember reading it somewhere on here as a quote by Andy Collins. Let me look for it and then I will edit this post.

Edit: I found it, see the spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

I can't provide a quote, because it was something said at GenCon. But this might be close to the truth, at least in part. One thing they said, and I'll paraphrase:

You want to be a cook? Then write it down on your character sheet. You shouldn't have to burn skill points on the Profession skill just to support something that should, really, be part of your character's background.

[hamlet]

With 3.x it's worse than that; there's no setting material provided, and yet there are quite a few setting assumptions hard-coded into the rules. Like the availability of magic items, certain spells (such as healing) and so on.

QFT and to say that this is what I meant to say in that long rambling post above.

Truwar: I never said that 3.x "killed D&D" or anything like that. I merely said that there were a LOT of assumptions built into how the game works that can't be taken out and that those assumptions on style of play make the game un-fun for me.

[Matthew]

Now, I've got 4-5 hours every other friday night. I want my players who leave their families, drive for 30-45 minutes to my house to feel like they've accomplished something. The number one reason why we all play the game is to watch our characters get more powerful and we do this in D&D by leveling them up. It's the single most enjoyable part of playing a character in a roleplaying game. Watching them grow into something more than what they where at character creation. All of the encounters, parleying, and decisions that got them there is a ton of fun.

I can definitely appreciate this point of view, but it doesn't strike a chord with me. Levelling up has never been the focus of the game for me.

Matthew: A response to your post from the other thread since this is the first chance I've gotten to reply to it.

Yes, I realize that most of what we've got from 3.x is the WOTC designers' version of D&D. It's the game they have always wanted and have always played, and the fact is that the modern crop of gamers (and no offense is intended) have inhaled this as if it were gold. It's become the de facto way of playing D&D (not to mention the industrialized dumping on older editions that is not only condoned by the designers, but flat out encouraged).

Yeah, I know, though I wonder how far it is what the designers wanted and how far it was a product that was built to sell.

My biggest problem isn't that the new version of D&D is one that millions love and play all the time and enjoy. More power to them. My problem is that it's not one that I enjoy, and there's no realistic way to make it what I enjoy.

Yeah, I can sympathise.

The common rejoinder is "well then just stick with the old edition." Yeah, all fine and good, except that it's getting more and more difficult to find any D&D gamers that are willing to try anything other than 3.x. Most, when I broach the subject, look at me as if I'd grown another head and then reel off a list of back handed (or front handed often enough) insults against me and the game I play and those I game with and then demand that I change my game to meet their needs. Right now, we've got three people. Three in the middle of NJ who are willing to play an older edition. Our campaign has been going on for years because they've all grown to love it, but the original three are beginning to get discouraged, especially after the last guy we invited demanded that we convert to 3.x (no, he didn't say I'm not interested in an older game, just flat out demanded that we change to suit his needs).

The attitude and mind set has changed, much for the worse I fear.

That's a serious problem. I can't say I have encountered it much myself (though there was one new player who was a bit baffled by the idea that we weren't playing 3e). Hard to know what to do about it. For the longest time I only ever played D&D with my friends or at a Games Club, so this was no problem at all. We all knew the score with these games, but that was before I ever encountered 3e.
The last full on AD&D campaign I ran was with guys I didn't know at all (with the exception of my girlfriend). I basically recruited them from the University Games Club in order to make new friends. None of them seemed to care at all about the edition we played; some of them had played before, some of them hadn't. They turned out to be a great bunch of guys and I think that was the most important element.
I think its less to do with the mindset and more to do with the people. I think the guy who wanted you to change systems was probably just a jerk. Even if he had been happy to play an earlier edition, he probably would have been a jerk. It's a sad truth of D&D and gamer culture that we have our fair share (perhaps more than out fair share) of socially inept idiots.

bah excuses, excuses.

Heh, maybe, but that's all I can offer in place of 'no' or 'yes'.

[AKA_Bait]

It was the players I played with. They made the difference. They were the ones who made it creative and challenging, or dull and "by the book"; they were the ones who determined whether it was going to be "roleplay" or "roll-play."

QFT. The system is only a background for the gameplay. It always has been and is true with pretty much any game you are playing be it D&D, Risk or Chess (Kasparov doesn't like playing computers because there isn't a person on the other side of the table for example).

Personally, I like the 3.x system better than the older editions. The reason I disliked the 2ed rules was that they seemed counter intuitive and overly complex to me when, around 11 years old, I looked at them and wanted a game less dependant upon number crunching and rolling on tables. Looking back at some of the 2ed books I now own (which I peruse for stuff I might bring into my 3.5 games) I find that still to be the case. I tend to have a 'burn the fluff in the book' mentality when I DM and I found that was actually easier to do in 3.5 without upsetting the game balance.

I think it is very interesting that many of the serious 2.x players have the exact same problem with 3.x that I did with 2ed. Perhaps it says more about what kind of game we are used to playing, and who with, than a whole lot about the system.

Yeah, all fine and good, except that it's getting more and more difficult to find any D&D gamers that are willing to try anything other than 3.x. Most, when I broach the subject, look at me as if I'd grown another head and then reel off a list of back handed (or front handed often enough) insults against me and the game I play and those I game with and then demand that I change my game to meet their needs. Right now, we've got three people.

Ok, well, I will look at someone funny if they ask me to play a 2ed game. I will probably also make a comment about how much I loathe THAC0. But insluting the person who plays the game, their group and telling them to change to suit your needs is totally unacceptable behavior. That guy is a jerk. Be happy he won't game with you.

The attitude and mind set has changed, much for the worse I fear.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I, and most of my friends who game, don't hang about in gaming stores. I think the vast majority of people who D&D is aimed at these days are the kind of player who does. When I buy gaming books it's online or at Barnes and Noble unless I'm looking for something really specific, need it right away, and must go down to a gaming store to get my hands on it. Mind you, there are two pretty sizeable gaming places within 15 blocks of my office.

I'm not sure if that says something about the mindset of the 'new gamer.' I don't really think that there is one mindset that covers us all. In fact, I'm sure there isn't, probably never has been, and that fact has nothing to do with the system being played and everything to do with the type of person you meet who is playing it.

Unfortunately some systems support certain play styles, regardless of the players playing them, and some don't, so your statement is largely unsupported by the facts. Or, I suppose I should say, it's only true in the trivial sense that it's true for any game. One can play, e.g. EverQuest in a way different from the way EverQuest's system actually supports, but it will be an uphill battle. Your sentiment strikes me as being no different, essentially, than claiming "Super Mario Brothers" is a "role-playing game" because you "play the role of a plumber saving a Mushroom Kingdom."

I simply cannot understand why people think that the rules of the D&D system are equivalent to that of a MMORPG or Supermario brothers. The ruleset for 3.5 is pretty much completley customizable, and frequently is houseruled and homebrewed. You cannot do that with an MMORPG or video game. Much of the issues I see people raising with the 3.x system are the results of DM's deciding to run a game a particular way and allow some things, which the DMG specifically says are options and not requirements (like the leadership feat, PRC's and having access to magic items and spells everywhichwayfromsunday). I personally will not blame the system for the DM.

Regarding where 4.0 is headed... I honestly don't know enough to say. I like the incorporation of ToB style stuff into the system. I like powering down, or slowing down the power of, arcane spell casters in exchange for warlockish abilities. For the rest, I really don't know yet and frankly don't expect to know until a good year after the system comes out.

[Indon]

The spirit of the game comes down to how the game is played. This means that a larger and larger percentage of players will not be playing D&D like we did back in the 80’s (I missed the 70’s ) because a larger and larger percentage of players will not be influenced by the things we were influenced by when we were younger but this is not really a reflection of the rules, it is more a reflection of our current culture.

I dunno about that. Sure, the rules don't neccessarily affect how the game is played.

But it can affect how the game _can_ be played. Or how easy or difficult the game is to play a certain way.

In that, I think 3.x became better, as it became more modular and thus versatile.

But I'm sure there are downsides, as well, that I just can't think of offhand.