Re: http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/625418542/item.html

Gaming is on the verge of encount4rdation, the willing and sane must be vigilant!

2) You are mixing things up, just a little bit. Second Edition is a totally fine rulesset. We are in total agreement about the flavour choices they were making, and the effect the abominations that call themselves "modules" posed. The storyfication of 2e was a crime, no fuss about that. But the Zeb-Cookian body of rules is totally okay. And the mindset behind the rules design was valid, too.

So, when you are saying you are smelling the stench of 2e mindset, we must differentiate:

Settembrini´s grand table of even numbered edition comparison

elements of 2e                        mindset

presence in 4e

----------------------------------------------------------------
custodian model of rules
redesign

no; revolutionists at helm (encount4rdist4s)

lack of economic savvy or
business strategy
undecided

overall decision
driven by IP-squabbles

possible; maybe OGL/Greyhawk/DL/DragMag etc. decisions are influenced; Dungeonpunk


curtailing of flavour based
on contemporary fashion/pressure

yes; obviously

storyfication

encounterization

Dud, I didn't know you were the creator of Hybrid.

In other words, what?

me re-edit post. now mey-B bettar?

Ahh, yes, much better. It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. Like this point for instance:

Quotecurtailing of flavour based
on contemporary fashion/pressure

yes; obviously

I don't know if 4th ed following CRPG/MMO ideas and fashions is the same idea as the kind of compromises 2nd ed made to counter accusations of the occult.

You are right, this is debatable.

At least, if we are in agreement about the 2e change drivers, we can compare to 4e. It´s a start.

You missed the one big similarity: Both were an "inside job" of so-called experts (even though you'll note that the big names were the creators of 1st and 3rd ed, and not 2nd and 4th), without consulting, playtesting with, or even giving a fuck what the average roleplayer cared about.

And the recent decision regarding pantheons leads me to believe that many of the people in charge there now are throwbacks who are nostalgic for the 2e days, which may be why their current marketing seems to focus so much on declaring that 3e sucks.

RPGPundit

Man, it was an interesting thought but again

Quotelack of economic savvy or
business strategy
undecided

Don't let the internet echo chamber get to you. Remember that D&D is now part of a huge corporation that has very little interest in losing money. I really don't think they are lacking in a plan. It's effectiveness can be debated, but D&D 4 is definitely not some spontaneous lark

But really, the rules changes and artwork are the complete opposite of 2e Nostalgia.

I DMed 2e yesterday, and I liked it, believe me.
2e Nostalgia works differently.


Although I think on the more abstract level, there are similarities, the "we know what is good for you" attitude is definitely there.
Alas, you were encouraged to keep using your older books, and they had rules Qs and add-ons way into the nineties for 1e in official 2e products.

Maybe it´s some sort of weird patricide going on with those guys.

They are approaching midlife crisis, maybe it´s their Motorcycle and ultra-hip new gilfriend they are leaving the family for?

That´s it.
It´s game-designer midlife-crisis.

Case settled.

Quote from: JamesVMan, it was an interesting thought but again



Don't let the internet echo chamber get to you. Remember that D&D is now part of a huge corporation that has very little interest in losing money. I really don't think they are lacking in a plan. It's effectiveness can be debated, but D&D 4 is definitely not some spontaneous lark

Well, I mostly question the quality of the plan, not the professional meetings, ppts and versioning software.

The PR is shoddy,shoddy shoddy and the DI still looks like ass and it´s PR looks like an ovulating bears vagina (or so I´m told).

Settembrini, I think you're giving them too much credit re. midlife crisis and what not. That at least would assume a coherent design master plan or at least impulse.

Instead, across the board we're getting this patchwork of fiddly little micro-changes that don't add up to anything.

I mean, what do the Greyhawk gods plus Bane, the new Planes, Encount4rism, and a Tiefling and a kid on the PHB cover, painted with a late 2E feel, have in common?

Nothing... besides the hope to somehow have quantity of micro-changes flip over into quality, and so make people feel they're shelling out cash for a whole coherent new edition, not a slapdash collage of old and new.

I do see some corporate strategy parallels - both revisions are made after the last successful batch of people are gone, both revisions are based on corporate profit mandates, both revisions were designed to appeal more to the mass-market and less to the current gamers, etc.

But there are still plenty of differences:

* Zeb Cook was around for AD&D 1e.  He wasn't some 3rd party publisher who re-molded the game to fit his own style.  The core 2e rules were basically just cleaned up versions of 1e (minus the more "objectionable" content).

* The core 2e rules actually contained very little story-ness to them.  Most of the metaplot, etc, came much later at the tail end of the 2e setting books.

* 2e decided to go after the mass market by trying to appeal to a younger crowd and become more of a traditional "family" game.  4e is trying to touch upon the current teen zeitgeist of what's "kewl".

I'll take 2e over the stuff I've heard about 4e any day.  And I don't think 4e designers have any nostalgia for 2e, I think it's just more of the same where they throw in whatever sounds cool into the D&D game blender.