:piss2:

"'Fallen Angels', that's a nice WoDdy word." [/gratuitous Monty Python reference]

Quote from: Caesar SlaadReading that again, I freakin' hate it.

Oh yeah?

Passive-aggressive snark bullshit on my part aside ( )aside, I'm not really sure what's so 'WoDy' or 'metaplotty'. It's about as generic as you can get without just handing out stats for a monster and saying "There ya go, bud."

And really, that may be what you want, which is fine. I just homebrewed a whole cosmology not too long ago to fit my game. But if you want to run something out of the box, a little framework is kind of needed. If you're a homebrewer and you home-brew, you can just change that anyhow.

It's just the difference between creating whole cloth and... creating whole cloth. There's no functional difference, is there?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadReading that again, I freakin' hate it. I don't hate the cosmology description itself. Actually it's pretty intriguing. It would be rockin' material for a campaign setting.

No, I hate it because this is core material and it defines too many specifics. I'm a wayback homebrewer.

The old structure for the planes was in the 1E DMG. Descriptions of the structure of the planes have been core material for a long, long time. They're also incredibly easy to homebrew out or change, because 99% of the rules will work precisely the same with whatever cosmology you want to come up with. What's wrong with giving a little structure for the people who aren't homebrewers, since the homebrewers will fend for themselves perfectly well?

Quote from: WarthurThe old structure for the planes was in the 1E DMG. Descriptions of the structure of the planes have been core material for a long, long time. They're also incredibly easy to homebrew out or change, because 99% of the rules will work precisely the same with whatever cosmology you want to come up with. What's wrong with giving a little structure for the people who aren't homebrewers, since the homebrewers will fend for themselves perfectly well?

Speaking from the homebrewer perspective, I WANT "a little structure". I never had a problem with the 1e and 2e cosmology because I could put my own dark gods in and give them their own schemes. So structure was there I could use, but it was toolkit style structure that I could fill in the blanks about.

This is not how the article comes across to me. It seems less like what I expect of D&D authors and more what I expect of authors of games like (yes) WoD. (Funny, I didn't get what someone meant by "WoDdy above, until that came up as the first example I thought of as too specific.)

Quote from: Thanatos02Passive-aggressive snark bullshit on my part aside

After that blast of shit over in the "18s/random gen" thread at TBP, you need never fear I would accuse you of being passive agressive.

QuoteIt's just the difference between creating whole cloth and... creating whole cloth. There's no functional difference, is there?

I didn't create whole cloth in 1e-3e. I started from a baseline. The baseline being the existing material in the core (non-setting) books like the monster books and the core cosmology.

But I consider this a worrying sign, as if anything I build is going to require ripping the newer, stronger metasetting out, akin to extracting a creature from a realms or Eberron book to fit my own setting.

I don't like the trend in RPGs (since like...what?... the late *80s*?!) of putting WAY too much explanation for everything in the books that all the players end up reading.

Where's the sense of mystery in the imaginary world if everyone playing the game already knows the backstory to all the "secret" and mysterious things they encounter... like Devils and Demons.

I think that's one of the things that wrecked WoD for me.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAfter that blast of shit over in the "18s/random gen" thread at TBP, you need never fear I would accuse you of being passive agressive.

I dunno, man. I think that's a little overblown.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI didn't create whole cloth in 1e-3e. I started from a baseline. The baseline being the existing material in the core (non-setting) books like the monster books and the core cosmology.

But I consider this a worrying sign, as if anything I build is going to require ripping the newer, stronger metasetting out, akin to extracting a creature from a realms or Eberron book to fit my own setting.

I think I see where you're coming from. Is it the difference between something like 1st Ed.'s planar manual and, say, 2nd Ed.'s extensive background? I mean, all of 2nd Ed.'s stuff was canonical, but unless you were trying to follow adventure modules, static.

I don't think we've gotten much indication that 4e's gonna be any more plot-driven then 3e's.

Musings & ultimate personal insight:

4e is a postheroic design.
1e was the heroic effort of Gygax and his creative millieu. 2e was Zeb Cooks post-heroic consolidation and many second gen authors patricide.
3e was a small troupe´s heroic effort to save D&D and Gaming itself.
4e is...postheroic technocratic encounterefication.

4e has no mission besides being 4e. There´s nothing heroic about it.


That´s why I´m left cold by it.

Quote from: SettembriniMusings & ultimate personal insight:

4e is a postheroic design.
1e was the heroic effort of Gygax and his creative millieu. 2e was Zeb Cooks post-heroic consolidation and many second gen authors patricide.
3e was a small troupe´s heroic effort to save D&D and Gaming itself.
4e is...postheroic technocratic encounterefication.

4e has no mission besides being 4e. There´s nothing heroic about it.


That´s why I´m left cold by it.

Eh? Heroic? Non-heroic? What are you smoking?

1st ed was an attempt to produce a game that did wat a significant number of gamers wanted; they wanted a game that would work for tournaments and at your own table. But it was designed specifically to be modular; further monster manuals and additions like Unearthed Arcana were to be the norm. A second edition was described quite early on, this would be the rational result of a modular game. The game would grow, then be consolidated, and then grow again. Organic. Heroic? Have you read the chapter on pole arms in Unearthed Arcana?

Remember, 1st ed was Advanced. It wasn't a simple game, for that there was basic. You were meant to learn basic and move on to advanced.

Now, things got complicated; a 2nd edition was needed, and the company wanted rid of Gygax's input. 2nd ed achieved that; in many ways I think that the writing in the books is better for it, but the system creaked a bit. But it was essentially the same game. It grew, and grew, and needed consolidating in a new edition. Didn't happen thoug; through spectacular mismanagement and ill thought out product lines fracturing the market to ever smaller slices, the company went bust.

3rd ed... Rather missed the point in some ways, the lesson of what new editions of a game were about was rather lost. A very different game, quite playable, but then the same thing has happened with 3rd ed as happened with 1st and 2nd ed; its too big. It needs consolidating, its the inevitable result of being a modular game. Now, if that consolidation does what it should then 4th ed will be more playable; if instead we get another revolutionary change then I predict that they'll lose players (more than were lost in the move to 2nd ed). What I've read about 4th ed so far makes me think that its another revolutionary change, its very much re-aligning the game to compete with WoW and suchlike. Time will tell on that.

The question I can't find an answer for is what happens to sales between editions; what are the relative figures for units of, say, players guide and DMG's shifted for each edition? Is the trend towards growth of an edition, consolidation and re-issuing a new edition a good one for the game? Are evolutionary or revolutionary changes better for the game, and/or better for sales? I'd need to see the numbers.

Your post and my post don´t have much of common ground.
be informed though, that I´m informed on the History of TSR and D&D.

post-heroic is alluding to a generation that follows a generation that did something grandiose and suffered a lot.

Quote from: Settembrinipost-heroic is alluding to a generation that follows a generation that did something grandiose and suffered a lot.

Yeah, but I can't see the point of what you're saying. Saving gaming itself with 3e? Gygax and a heroic effort? Email him that, I think he'd have a good chuckle

Cab, Set... it's interesting to talk about evolution, consolidation and revolution. The thing to remember though, it that D&D4e is not the 4th edition of the game.

From Chainmail to today, this game has had a shitload of different editions, be they upgrades, evolutions, revisions, consolidations or revolutions.  

The point being, it's really not that big of a deal. I'm interested in knowing what the edition will look like. But the fact there is a new one? Aside from raging grognards, everybody knew it had to come.

And since D&D has been the numero uno game for a long time, I guess it doesn't hurt to come up with new editions from time to time. My personal theory: it doesn't really matter in terms of sales whether the new edition is a revolution or evolution. All it needs is two things:

1-The brand name to drive sales
2-The content must appeal to the greatest number of gamers possible

I don't think there is a single key to success here. There are many ways to make D&D attractive, as long as they keep most of the core concepts (which they are).

What are the core concepts of D&D in your book?
Right now, it looks like Palladium Fantasy would be more like D&D than 4e.

Quote from: Consonant DudeCab, Set... it's interesting to talk about evolution, consolidation and revolution. The thing to remember though, it that D&D4e is not the 4th edition of the game.

From Chainmail to today, this game has had a shitload of different editions, be they upgrades, evolutions, revisions, consolidations or revolutions.  

The point being, it's really not that big of a deal. I'm interested in knowing what the edition will look like. But the fact there is a new one? Aside from raging grognards, everybody knew it had to come.

All of that is true. But you can divide those edition jumps up into two kinds; evolutionary (1st ed to 2nd ed, Moldvay to Mentzer) and evolutionary (D&D to AD&D, 2nd ed to 3rd ed). An evolutionary change can be smooth (basic to advanced, because they became two seperate product lines) and some are less smooth (2nd ed to 3rd ed marked the biggest single change).

Does it matter? In so much as games can matter, yes. Those bigger changes do impact on the hobby as a whole.

QuoteAnd since D&D has been the numero uno game for a long time, I guess it doesn't hurt to come up with new editions from time to time.

I'd say that its essential. D&D remains modular even now; that means an edition is published, it grows, it risks becoming unwieldly, and a new edition is needed. The question really is what kind of change a new edition should bring in, what kind of change is healthy for sales and for the hobby.

QuoteMy personal theory: it doesn't really matter in terms of sales whether the new edition is a revolution or evolution. All it needs is two things:

1-The brand name to drive sales
2-The content must appeal to the greatest number of gamers possible

I don't think there is a single key to success here. There are many ways to make D&D attractive, as long as they keep most of the core concepts (which they are).

I've seen it claimed (but never seen the figures) that 1st to 2nd ed saw sales of new hard backed books drop by 50%. I haven't seen figures for 2nd to 3rd ed. The D&D brand carries a lot, of course, I agree with that. But there comes a point where you have to ask whether revolutionary change in a product line (or even radical evolutionary change) benefits the hobby, or even whether it is good for sales. I don't have the answer to that, I'd need to see numbers.