TheRPGSite

At last more information!

I haven't had the chance to let it sink in but my initial impression is favorable.  Next to a 3e stat block, the streamlining is fairly obvious and nice to see.

Of course, some of the simplifications are due to loss of special abilities. I'd like to see complex creatures just for fun. But that looks good to me!

(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1532.jpg)

It is really sweet. I am super pleased that things have been slimmed down in this way.

OTOH, do my eyes decieve me, or does a 19 STR confer a +9 bonus??!??!?

Quote from: JamesVOTOH, do my eyes decieve me, or does a 19 STR confer a +9 bonus??!??!?

The stats read:

STR +7 (19)
CON +5 (14)
DEX + 5 (15)
INT +5 (15)
WIS +5 (14)
CHA +5 (15)

The speculation on other boards vary. But what I've heard is that the base stat bonus are the same, except you get an additional bonus of half your level. Since this is a level 6 skirmisher, this would make an added +3 and map exactly with old 3e base bonus (a 19 was +4 and a 14-15 was +2).

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe speculation on other boards vary. But what I've heard is that the base stat bonus are the same, except you get an additional bonus of half your level. Since this is a level 6 skirmisher, this would make an added +3 and map exactly with old 3e base bonus (a 19 was +4 and a 14-15 was +2).

That would be an elegant solution instead of throwing in every skill you think may be important for monsters. I hope that's what they're going for, and sice that's pretty similar to Star Wars Saga, I find it likely.

Quote from: JamesVThat would be an elegant solution instead of throwing in every skill you think may be important for monsters. I hope that's what they're going for, and sice that's pretty similar to Star Wars Saga, I find it likely.

We completely agree, James. Skill shopping lists are a boring task I can do without. Just throw a few "specialty skills" if needed, for particular strengths and be done with it.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe stats read:

STR +7 (19)
CON +5 (14)
DEX + 5 (15)
INT +5 (15)
WIS +5 (14)
CHA +5 (15)

The speculation on other boards vary. But what I've heard is that the base stat bonus are the same, except you get an additional bonus of half your level. Since this is a level 6 skirmisher, this would make an added +3 and map exactly with old 3e base bonus (a 19 was +4 and a 14-15 was +2).

Couldn't they just add +1 to ability scores per level and have the same results as far as modifiers go?

Where's the image from?  Is there any further context or explanation?

The simplification is the result of the five round philosophy. Basically give a creature something cool to do for five rounds or so.

I had an argument about this over the stat blocks in Badabaskor and lost. This aspect of 4.0 is a win for me.

Less stat block than 3rd ed, which is a good thing. Still more than should be needed though.

Quote from: jhkimWhere's the image from?  Is there any further context or explanation?

I picked it up from ENWorld/RPG.net. It's apparently a card from some tournament event or something. This is the backside of a D&D mini card, which lists the roleplaying stats of a creature.

Quote from: beejazzCouldn't they just add +1 to ability scores per level and have the same results as far as modifiers go?

Unless I don't understand what you mean, mathematically, it's impossible to get the same results. They probably wanted to avoid bigger numbers, especially with a 1-30 level progression.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI picked it up from ENWorld/RPG.net. It's apparently a card from some tournament event or something. This is the backside of a D&D mini card, which lists the roleplaying stats of a creature.

I would not say "no" to decks of such pretty and useful cards, arranged by theme, and sold at an inflated-but-doable price along the model of CCG expansions.

Man, I hope they combine Listen and Spot as they did in SWSE...  Sadly, it doesn't look like it from that card.

OTOH, if the stat bonuses are working as guessed, I can get behind that.  Good idea.

-O

I nearly posted a link to this earlier, but didn't, because my initial thoughts were negative. It's great that the stat line is simpler. I'm all for that, but something about it doesn't jive with me. It might be irational, but the presentation of the two cards seems off for starters, before you even compare the two sets of stats. The 4e one just looks like it's been sucked of its flavour. No picture (like i said, a bit irational) for starters. I dunno, it seems more like a CCG card than the stat block for a meaningful opponent. I'm sure that the full entry in the MM will add bits of flavour, but i was sort of meh when i saw it. I wait to be proved wrong when the stuff actually comes out.

Quote from: TonyLBI would not say "no" to decks of such pretty and useful cards, arranged by theme, and sold at an inflated-but-doable price along the model of CCG expansions.

I'm not up to date on mini stuff, but isn't that what they currently do with 3rd edition?

If I understand the concept right, you get a bunch of minis, along with cards. On one side of the card you have the rules for the mini game and on the other side, the rules for the RPG.

I'm not stating this, mind you. I'm asking. That was my understanding of how things worked but I have zero interest in miniatures of any kind.

PS: Of course, to get the cards, you need to purchase the minis. Which is a bummer. But if all you want is cards, you could easily make up a template, fill it up for each creature and stick it to an OOP, cheap CCG set.

Quote from: obrynMan, I hope they combine Listen and Spot as they did in SWSE...  Sadly, it doesn't look like it from that card.

The speculation (that's pretty much all this is) is that they are actually combined. This would be just a further "specialization" to further differenciate certain creatures and characters. I guess it would make sense that some creatures or characters have one "super sense", or other focused skills but I could have lived without it.

Quote from: One Horse TownI nearly posted a link to this earlier, but didn't, because my initial thoughts were negative. It's great that the stat line is simpler. I'm all for that, but something about it doesn't jive with me. It might be irational, but the presentation of the two cards seems off for starters, before you even compare the two sets of stats. The 4e one just looks like it's been sucked of its flavour. No picture (like i said, a bit irational) for starters. I dunno, it seems more like a CCG card than the stat block for a meaningful opponent. I'm sure that the full entry in the MM will add bits of flavour, but i was sort of meh when i saw it. I wait to be proved wrong when the stuff actually comes out.

I agree a little. My biggest worry is that the 5 round idea will mean that the fun bits like ecology will get the short shrift, even in the MM.

OTOH, this slimmed down block will be even better if they decide to keep the template system alive. It's like having the stripped down body of a monster so if I wanna add spoilers and spinning rims on that bad body, the block will still be managable.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm not up to date on mini stuff, but isn't that what they currently do with 3rd edition?

Yes.  Nothing new here.

One side's mini game stats, the other side is RPG stats.

There's no sinister plan here.  Or at least, no more sinister plan than there was in 3e. :)

-O

You call that streamlined!  :eek:

That makes the back of a baseball card look like a forgie game.  I wasn't really expecting 4e to appeal to me, but I expected something a little easier than that.  I could probably fit the stats for an entire Savage Worlds adventure into the back of that card.

Thank god I have alternatives to D&D in my gaming life.

Quote from: walkerpYou call that streamlined!  :eek:

That makes the back of a baseball card look like a forgie game.  I wasn't really expecting 4e to appeal to me, but I expected something a little easier than that.  I could probably fit the stats for an entire Savage Worlds adventure into the back of that card.

Doubtful. A have the stat blocks for wolves and zombies for a SW adventure I ran and they are less detailed than these, but it's still a lot of information. Don't even get me started on the vampire. Maybe they've streamlined them comsiderably in further editions? I have the first one.

Quote from: walkerpThank god I have alternatives to D&D in my gaming life.

Good for you. Savage Worlds was not a hit with my group at all.

But this makes me curious. What does a stat block look like in Aces and Eights? I seem to remember you liked that game.

Quote from: walkerpThat makes the back of a baseball card look like a forgie game.  I wasn't really expecting 4e to appeal to me, but I expected something a little easier than that.  I could probably fit the stats for an entire Savage Worlds adventure into the back of that card.

The bottom card is from an older edition isn't it? The top card is certainly a vast improvement in ease of reference and isn't at all overwhelming.

What's up with the 'Bloodied' thing? Is D&D going to have wounds affect your abilities, now? Pretty interesting, if so (and a HUGE change).

Tim

Quote from: TimThe bottom card is from an older edition isn't it? The top card is certainly a vast improvement in ease of reference and isn't at all overwhelming.

Oh, it's two cards!  D'oh!  I thought the whole thing was the new stat block.  :o Well, that's not so bad then.  Though you have to admit that the one above benefits a lot from superior layout.  Still it does seem to be a bit more boiled down.  Not my cup of tea, but I take back my initial shock.

Quote from: TimWhat's up with the 'Bloodied' thing? Is D&D going to have wounds affect your abilities, now? Pretty interesting, if so (and a HUGE change).

Tim

That's what jumped out at me, too. I didn't see any alternate diminished stats for a bloody state, so I wonder what the effects are.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's what jumped out at me, too. I didn't see any alternate diminished stats for a bloody state, so I wonder what the effects are.

Good point. Maybe it will be some sort of across-the-board flat rate penalty. Or not! :)

Quote from: Consonant DudeUnless I don't understand what you mean, mathematically, it's impossible to get the same results. They probably wanted to avoid bigger numbers, especially with a 1-30 level progression.

I mean that if you've got a 14 strength and add +1 to your modifier every even level, isn't that the same as adding +1 to your ability score every level? So instead of a constant 14 with a +2 modifier at first level, a +3 at second, and a +4 at fourth, couldn't you just start with a 15 (+2) and go up one every level (+3  mod at second, +4 mod at fourth, etc.)

Or something like that.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI picked it up from ENWorld/RPG.net. It's apparently a card from some tournament event or something. This is the backside of a D&D mini card, which lists the roleplaying stats of a creature.

Link to source?  i.e. Who's claiming this is a real 4E card?

I'm not doubting it exactly, I just want to see exactly what it is.

From your travelling 4e simian, I bring the following:

That's almost certainly an accurate stat block - there's almost nothing on it we didn't know, though the +1/2 your level to stats thing is new and almost certainly for monsters only, to reduce the skill shopping element.

The D&D Game Day Mini is to be the Spined Devil, so I'm fairly certain that image is accurate.

A variation of 'Bloodied' appears in MM5; it's just 1/2 your HP, and certain effects or abilities are triggered by entering the Bloodied state, may only target Bloodied creatures, or has additional effects on Bloodied creatures. Some of this may be extrapolation from what's actually been said.

What i ideally want to see is not every creature having a single role statblock. All Spined Devils = 6th Level Skirmishers? or is the example that of a 6th level Skirmisher? With the smaller space required for each gribbly, can we expect a similar statblock for Spined Devil mooks, brutes, masterminds etc?

Barring that, i want information on how to alter the creature statblocks so as to alter their role. Templates would be the easiest way to do this, i guess. But the thought of each monster entry only fulfilling one role sort of gets my back up. I really hope there is at least advice on how to change the roles. You could do this at the beginning of the relevant sections. There's loads of Devils. If you started off with advice on how to change the roles, with typical powers added etc, they become customisable. I don't think this will happen though, which is a shame.

Over in games like Microlite 20 and Castes & Crusades, characters and critters get a nearly-global attribute check bonus based on level or hit dice.  

I think that's a brilliant idea.  It's fast, it's simple, it makes a kind of "Okay good now roll!" sense.

That's not to say, "Well, C&C already HAS that, blah mwah snark feh blaaargh".  On the contrary, seeing it applied to D&D rules is very, very cool.  

Because it's NEAT!

Mmmm...:


 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231&d=1192309591)

The design work is certainly superior on the new card vs the previous one.

I like Sett's version the best. :keke:

something about the new edition one reminds me of an almost B/E d&d simplicity.

now just slap on a bunch of asterisks after the HD and we're in business!  :D

Quote from: beebersomething about the new edition one reminds me of an almost B/E d&d simplicity.

now just slap on a bunch of asterisks after the HD and we're in business!  :D

Indeed. It looks very clean and manageable. I'm a big proponent of complexity for the players and simplicity for the GM, which this seems to be a step towards. Good stuff.

Quote from: DrewIndeed. It looks very clean and manageable. I'm a big proponent of complexity for the players and simplicity for the GM, which this seems to be a step towards. Good stuff.

Why? Shouldn't it be simplicity all around?

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy? Shouldn't it be simplicity all around?

As a player I prefer games which have plenty of options and fiddly bits to fine tune my character. In a gamey sense it's the only playing piece I have, and extended customisation and choice maintains my interest at the system level.

As a GM my playing pieces are unlimited. Not only do I have to manage them but also keep a rein on multiple character plots, setting info and overarching adventure goals. Simplicity and ease of use is a must have for me when behind the screen.

Does that clarify things?

I'm with Drew. I enjoy more complexity on the player's side.

Drew sums up my feelings perfectly. PC creation should have plenty of options and customizations, but I do think you have to balance that against complexity. Luckily I do think that there are ways to give plenty of options without making PC creation subject to classroom instruction.

Hey speaking of 4e monster design, has anyone heard the latest podcast, where they talk about monster design?

One thing scares me all to the get out about their approach. The names.
Mooks, brutes, controllers, artillery, etc  several of the names Clicked in my head.

Most notably, brutes and controllers.  Then it dawned on me today.  These guys are going to push MMORPGS aspect familiarity with regards on how certain classes work with each other into their monster development!

Controllers, and brutes, if you dont know are classes in a popular MMORPG game called city of heros / Villians.  They whay they describe elete monsters and controllers sent a shiver down my spine, as the controller, does what it does in the MMORPG which is to add buffs and debuffs.  Brutes are easy to hit but have lots of hitpoints, and im going to assume some sort of taunthing aspect, atrillery sounds alot like a blaster, or a hunter, etc.

Did anyone else get that feeling??

Quote from: sithson

I don't.

-O

Quote from: sithsonThese guys are going to push MMORPGS aspect familiarity with regards on how certain classes work with each other into their monster development!

God, I certainly hope so.  Folks who play these games have this immense body of skills and knowledge around certain types of tactical games (just as wargamers did in ye olde days) and it'd be great for them to have an avenue to use that stuff productively at the table.

It seems plausible, but doesn't bother me. I see no problem with using words that are familiar to gamers from both sides of the computer screen. "Brute" meaning "guys with strength and hit points" is the way it's worked for me for decades.

Controller though, sounds to me more like someone that has a bunch of mooks on their side, not a buffer/debuffer.

Basically, if the word usage makes sense, I don't care what the source of it is. If it doesn't though, I'll be peeved (but almost certainly still buy at least the PHB, DMG, and MM).

I'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

But these sorts of general archetypes have always been with us. Easy ways to categorize stuff. Like the "bricks" and "blasters" of the super genre, for instance.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

But these sorts of general archetypes have always been with us. Easy ways to categorize stuff. Like the "bricks" and "blasters" of the super genre, for instance.

Hell, I hope they have an index in the MM where they're sorted by archetype then level. That would be gold.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm with James. I don't really give a fuck what the source is as long as the D&D experience is sweet. You'd have to be naive not to think they've looked at computer games, which themselves took several pages off of TTRPG anyway.

Yep, the inspirational traffic between tabletop and computer games goes both ways.

Besides, all they're doing is applying tags to tactical elements that have existed for decades anyway.

Quote from: sithsonOne thing scares me all to the get out about their approach. The names.
Mooks, brutes, controllers, artillery, etc  several of the names Clicked in my head.

It's the same approach that includes splitting the PC classes into Defenders, Leaders, Strikers and Controllers, and I personally think it's a good one.

It doesn't originate in MMORPGS, D&D did it first and MMORPGs stole it. Not D&D is killing them and taking its stuff back.

There is a reason the archetypal PC group includes a fighter, a cleric a rogue and a wizard afterall.

Quote from: DrewYep, the inspirational traffic between tabletop and computer games goes both ways.

No doubt. But some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon. Heck, I don't play MMORPGs, or platform games, or watch anime, or read modern fantasy-schlock, or watch all the TV shows that are so influential to RPGs today, etc. I'm completely out of the loop of gaming geek culture. And so are the guys I play with.

Now, I don't expect WotC to worry much what people like my group think. They've no doubt written us off as a fringe market of grognards. But the more 4E comes framed in cross-platform gaming jargon, the less appealing it will be to casual and older gamers.

The fact is, catering to the assumptions of both younger players and grognards who joined the tabletop hobby in its heyday is getting more and difficult for RPG publishers, as every new trend in geek culture reduces the common ground and shared assumptions of the market. The smart money is on going with the younger market & highly geek-literate hardcores, rather than the aging, casual players. However, it's naive to think there's no tension between the two, or that WotC won't have to make tradeoffs between using terms the MMORPG players and comic-store guys expect, and being intelligible to the 36-year-old casual players whose only contact with geek culture is D&D itself.

Quote from: HaffrungNo doubt. But some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon. Heck, I don't play MMORPGs, or platform games, or watch anime, or read modern fantasy-schlock, or watch all the TV shows that are so influential to RPGs today, etc. I'm completely out of the loop of gaming geek culture. And so are the guys I play with.

Now, I don't expect WotC to worry much what people like my group think. They've no doubt written us off as a fringe market of grognards. But the more 4E comes framed in cross-platform gaming jargon, the less appealing it will be to casual and older gamers.

The fact is, catering to the assumptions of both younger players and grognards who joined the tabletop hobby in its heyday is getting more and difficult for RPG publishers, as every new trend in geek culture reduces the common ground and shared assumptions of the market. The smart money is on going with the younger market & highly geek-literate hardcores, rather than the aging, casual players. However, it's naive to think there's no tension between the two, or that WotC won't have to make tradeoffs between using terms the MMORPG players and comic-store guys expect, and being intelligible to the 36-year-old casual players whose only contact with geek culture is D&D itself.

Bingo.

And before someone claims Haffrung is just on some version war or something, please note he's saying it's "smart money" for WotC to take this tact.  As I've said when piled on for not liking some of the stuff I've seen for the very reasons Haffrung mentions.

This is simply a recognition that the game is going in a different direction.  It's not a bad one.  In fact, from a market perspective, it's probably a damn good one. And it's not meant (at least I know in my case it's not, and I get the sense it's not in Haffrung's either) as an insult. It's just...different. And that's fine - I hope it's a great game and brings in tons of players. And I'll probably even buy it - I mean, it's D&D after all.

But when you start to tag things with this kind of tactical meta-information, it loses, to me, another piece of the...I don't know...feeling of the game.  For others, it's just what the doctor ordered.  I hope it scratches your itch!

Quote from: James J SkachBingo.

Or not. Because its still very much a personal opinion.

I cut my D&D teeth on OD&D, I've never played WOW, I'm not a big anime fan. By your reconning I should fall squarely into the grognard category.

Yet I find nothing disturbing in the terminology applied to monster and class types, and in fact applaud WotC for making explicite what was always a fairly obvious underlying feature of the game.

Just becasue they put a name to it that derives from some other media I see no reason to run in personal horror from monster categories.

Let's not forget, folks, that the Pundit himself drew heavily on NetHack for inspiration for FtA!, and I don't recall anybody here raising a stink that he was polluting the purity of the RPG medium by using ideas from computer games. Is there some kind of cut-off year or something - say, 1995 - and you're not allowed to use ideas from any computer game published after that point?

Quote from: HaffrungBut some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon.

The irony in this sentence is turning the walls of my cubicle red.

I don't see this as some VG ripoff, intead, it's more of a cyclical thing. D&D had it's roots in wargaming, where it was only natural to archetype units in a orderly military style. MMOs, liking the useful order that comes with archetyping uses it now to help guide the difficulty and tactics of their mobs. GMs have been doing this for years to be sure, but as D&D creatures became more organic, it had its problems. Archetyping may be a little too solid and regulated for some, but I see it as helping busy or new GMs to assemble their fights quickly and with a quick idea of how the monsters will work best. D&D fight creation is simpy becoming more wargamey. I have my own worries about this turn of events, but so far, they've have not been confirmed.

Quote from: TrevelyanBecause its still very much a personal opinion.

Never said it was anything but a personal opinion.

Look, jargony language mystifies and alienates me. That's just my personal reaction. Nothing anyone says is going to change that, or make me not mystified and alienated. And I'm not suggesting WotC should do anything different. Just pointing out things change, and sometimes they evolve outside someone's comfort zone.

For me, language and images can be as off-putting as mechanics. Mechanically, 4E looks like it has a lot of stuff I like. In terms of tone and feel, commercial D&D left me in the dust long ago. And why shouldn't it leave me in the dust? I'm clearly not the target audience.

Edit: I agree with what James says above. D&D is becoming more explicit in its wargaming tactics and mechanics. Fine. I happen to have shelves full of wargames. But when I sit down to play an RPG, I'm looking for an entirely, 180 degree different game experience than a wargame. And my players aren't wargamers either, and have never expressed the slightest interest in playing D&D as a tactical miniatures game, and they have never played or expressed interest in MMORPGs. So the proposed jargon that surrounds the mechanical tactics of 4E are off-putting. They take me out of the immersion in a setting, and into the realm of standing over playing pieces and directing them in a tactical combat challenge.

Quote from: TrevelyanOr not. Because its still very much a personal opinion.

You will note, of course, that I made it explicit that this was a personal opinion, right?  I mean, I even put "to me" in italics so that nobody would interpret my statements as some kind of assertion of objective truth.

Quote from: TrevelyanI cut my D&D teeth on OD&D, I've never played WOW, I'm not a big anime fan. By your reconning I should fall squarely into the grognard category.

By my reckoning you should...like whatever you like. It's my conjecture that there will be people who find the influences of concern, regardless of their source.  I happen to also believe the sources are those things you mention, but we (the forum, not you and I) had that argument in a different 4e thread when everybody got up in arms for me quoting the Book of Nine Swords). But I draw no conclusions about your particular play based on you history - that would be silly.

Quote from: TrevelyanYet I find nothing disturbing in the terminology applied to monster and class types, and in fact applaud WotC for making explicite what was always a fairly obvious underlying feature of the game.

I hope you enjoy it! I'm sorry that it wasn't that obvious to me[/B] as an underlying feature of the game in various existing versions.

Quote from: TrevelyanJust becasue they put a name to it that derives from some other media I see no reason to run in personal horror from monster categories.

The name isn't important - it's the concept of classifying behavior by category designation that has me concerned - not running in personal horror (my lord, I even said I was likely to buy the damn game).

I'm sure for others it's the cat's meow. Play on!

There are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

My players would certainly be baffled by that comment. The only reason I understand most of it is because I read RPG boards on the internet.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

And back in the day, you'd have had the same people alienated by the same sort of thing, substituting "THAC0" for "AoO" and "11 HD" for "CR 11", right?

Quote from: WarthurAnd back in the day, you'd have had the same people alienated by the same sort of thing, substituting "THAC0" for "AoO" and "11 HD" for "CR 11", right?

I think we should note that there's a difference between technical game terms like AC, HD, and CR, and geek-culture jargon like Big Bad, Mooks, Artillery, Tank, etc.

Quote from: HaffrungI think we should note that there's a difference between technical game terms like AC, HD, and CR, and geek-culture jargon like Big Bad, Mooks, Artillery, Tank, etc.

Yes, although the new role assigned titles are technical game terms from here on. Each fulfils a distinct tactical purpose, and have stats and abilities calibrated to reflect that.

Quote from: DrewYes, although the new role assigned titles are technical game terms from here on. Each fulfils a distinct tactical purpose, and have stats and abilities calibrated to reflect that.

Fair enough. But when you start creating terms for PCs and monsters in terms of tactical roles - especially if those terms are anachronistic ('tanks'), or taken from other gaming or geek genres ('mook', 'big bad'), you're jarring my sense of immersion in the D&D world and, worse, relying on my familiarity with those other genres.

This is part of a broader issue for me; the increasing cross-polinization of D&D mechanics and terms with other geek genres, like superheroes, video-games, etc. More and more players want RPGs to be like their favourite TV show, movie, or comic. Since I am completely oblivious to that source material, this can only serve to alienate me and my group further from the mainstream commercial D&D scene.

IMHO, this is becoming more of a problem for WotC as their market stretches to include 12 to 45-year-olds, at the same time when there's increasing pressure to reflect youth-culture trends. The more you cater to the younger or more geek-literate gamers by making PCs more like superheroes, or using anime motifs in the artworks, the more you alienate the older players.

As I've said, I'm probably a write-off to WotC anyway. But maybe there are enough of us that Necromancer Games will find a viable market for 4E rules, 1E feel (that is, if the 4E mechanics even support such a style of game).

For the record, since there seems to be some confusion : The top (front) card is a preview of the Spined Devil stat block for the D&D4 skirmish game. The bottom (back) card is the current D&D3 roleplaying stat block.

Now, in D&D4, the stat block for the skirmish game and the roleplaying game might be the same, I don't know.

Quote from: MarionPoliquinFor the record, since there seems to be some confusion : The top (front) card is a preview of the Spined Devil stat block for the D&D4 skirmish game.

It says 'ROLEPLAYING STATS' in caps and everything.

Quote from: HaffrungThis is part of a broader issue for me; the increasing cross-polinization of D&D mechanics and terms with other geek genres, like superheroes, video-games, etc. More and more players want RPGs to be like their favourite TV show, movie, or comic. Since I am completely oblivious to that source material, this can only serve to alienate me and my group further from the mainstream commercial D&D scene.

Hell, I've known DMs and even game designers to want that. I hear this one "Gygax" dude stole shamelessly from the popular fiction of the day, and even ripped his magic system off from some novelist. That's not good honest D&D!

QuoteIMHO, this is becoming more of a problem for WotC as their market stretches to include 12 to 45-year-olds, at the same time when there's increasing pressure to reflect youth-culture trends. The more you cater to the younger or more geek-literate gamers by making PCs more like superheroes, or using anime motifs in the artworks, the more you alienate the older players.

Well, those older gamers who don't like new things. I mean, you're by all means welcome to hate everything made after 1984, that's your option, but based on the number of middle-aged guys playing Yu-Gi-Oh down at my LGS says it's not universal.

Quote from: darIt says 'ROLEPLAYING STATS' in caps and everything.

You're right, I thought that line referred only to the attributes line just above, but I may very well be mistaken. As I said, maybe in D&D4 the stat blocks for the skirmish game and the roleplaying game are the same. I don't know.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWell, those older gamers who don't like new things. I mean, you're by all means welcome to hate everything made after 1984, that's your option, but based on the number of middle-aged guys playing Yu-Gi-Oh down at my LGS says it's not universal.

I'm 32 (nearing 33) and I've been playing RPGs for at least 23 years - apart from a dry spell in college.  I'm a veteran DM of quite a few play-styles, and have run D&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, Earthdawn, Paranoia 2e and XP, Mythus, MERP, CoC d20, FATE, SWSE, and WFRP2 (with some moments of MERP and DC Heroes thrown in, many years back.)

I have never played an MMORPG, only played CCGs for a good year or two, and while I enjoy CRPGs, I think they're poor models for RPGs in general.  (Except maybe for Oblivion, which is the One Sandbox Game to Rule them All)  I'm not a big fan of most anime or superhero comics, and I prefer artsy drama movies.

And yet, I love new RPGs, new mechanics, and most of the stuff I've heard about 4e.  I love getting new WotC books since they tend to be both entertaining to read and somewhat fun to use in play.

From this discussion, I guess I'm not supposed to exist.

-O

Quote from: obrynI have never played an MMORPG, only played CCGs for a good year or two, and while I enjoy CRPGs, I think they're poor models for RPGs in general.

I think there's a big difference between using CRPGs as a model for a tabletop RPG and using innovations and ideas from CRPGs, MMORPGs and the like to inform RPG design decisions. The D&D rules, by themselves, are a poor model for a computer game - they rely on the GM being able to make all sorts of on-the-spot, improvisational decisions which a computer simply won't be able to make, for example - but they've still inspired some awesome CRPGs. The reverse can be just as true.

Quote from: HaffrungFair enough. But when you start creating terms for PCs and monsters in terms of tactical roles - especially if those terms are anachronistic ('tanks'), or taken from other gaming or geek genres ('mook', 'big bad'), you're jarring my sense of immersion in the D&D world and, worse, relying on my familiarity with those other genres.

I can all but gaurantee you that there will be zero reliance on knowledge of MMORPGs incorporated into the book, and that every archetype will have its uses and differences fully explained in the rules.

Quote from: WarthurAnd back in the day, you'd have had the same people alienated by the same sort of thing, substituting "THAC0" for "AoO" and "11 HD" for "CR 11", right?

Definitely. The point I was hoping to make is that alienation is a very personal thing, and no matter what 4e does, the jargon it includes will alienate someone.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe point I was hoping to make is that alienation is a very personal thing, and no matter what 4e does, the jargon it includes will alienate someone.

And all I'm saying is count me among the alienated. And there are others like me. And it's probably inevitable. And I don't expect WotC to care.

Quote from: MarionPoliquinAs I said, maybe in D&D4 the stat blocks for the skirmish game and the roleplaying game are the same.

That would be cool, if done well.

And good point. I think 'roleplaying stats' is there for the same reason its there on the old card, but grouping/placement does look odd, now that you mention it.

Quote from: WarthurI think there's a big difference between using CRPGs as a model for a tabletop RPG and using innovations and ideas from CRPGs, MMORPGs and the like to inform RPG design decisions. The D&D rules, by themselves, are a poor model for a computer game - they rely on the GM being able to make all sorts of on-the-spot, improvisational decisions which a computer simply won't be able to make, for example - but they've still inspired some awesome CRPGs. The reverse can be just as true.

Oh, no doubt - I'm agreeing with all of that!

I'm all for them taking good innovations from wherever they come from.  I like this creature role concept; I think it's helpful.

-O