TheRPGSite

So with the playtest heading into the home stretch, Mearls' summary of the feedback gives me a lot of reason for optimism.

The Final Countdown (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130819)

So, what did we learn from the public playtest? In some cases you confirmed things, in others you dispelled some notions that had become lodged in R&D's view of you.

• You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.
• You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.
• You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.
• You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.
• You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

[/I]

I know there are some grognards who are fiercely opposed to pretty much any mechanical changes from D&D circa 1980. Safe to say WotC has written them off. But for someone who wants to play an old-school style game, who is open to modern mechanics, it looks like WotC has me square in its sites as the market for Next.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. There have been some head-scratchers in the playtests. And I frankly think they're still clinging to too many sacred cows. But it's starting to look like I'll be buying more than just a core book or two for a new edition of D&D to mine for ideas; I might actually become a fan of the in-print system. And that's a weird feeling.

I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead by appealing to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

This list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Quote from: Haffrung;682976I know there are some grognards who are fiercely opposed to pretty much any mechanical changes from D&D circa 1980. Safe to say WotC has written them off.

Same with the 4vengers, or 3etards, I'm guessing.  Next isn't a direct clone of any one edition.  The key is does it allow you to play the style you want?

QuoteBut for someone who wants to play an old-school style game, who is open to modern mechanics, it looks like WotC has me square in its sites as the market for Next.

Same here.  I'm not adverse to new games.  I did not like the system mastery and overly complex character building in 3e.  I did not like the Japanimation take over in 4e (where every character has uber powers and hp bloat ranges into the hundreds or even thousands of points).  I use Japanimation because it's like they took D&D and emulated it after JRPGs in that regard.  I'm also not a fan of pretty much requiring a grid to play

QuoteOf course, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ;)

Quote from: Benoist;682978I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead to appeal to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

To be fair, I don't think the WoTC team is pandering the product as "it's in the style of the old school."

I think those phrases are coming from 4vengers who keep saying that since it's not a 4e clone, clearly it's pandering to old school players.

And I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into those claims.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682980To be fair, I don't think the WoTC team is pandering the product as "it's in the style of the old school."

I think those phrases are coming from 4vengers who keep saying that since it's not a 4e clone, clearly it's pandering to old school players.

And I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into those claims.

Yeah, I haven't heard Mearls or anyone at WotC using the term 'old-school' or otherwise pandering to any kind of trend. I think they sat down and honestly assessed where they may have gone astray with 4E, and made a genuine effort to find out what the core elements of D&D were to the broad, diverse player-base. It turns out (as many of us had long suspected) that the crunch-loving char op and hardcore system-balance wankers were in fact a vocal minority of the player base, and catering to their desires was corroding the appeal of the game to the larger, more casual market. And whatever the merits of Next as a system when it's finally published, I for one will be glad that the flagship game of the hobby will be a more accessible game than the last two editions.

I will reserve judgment when I see the final rules and the terms of third party licensing (if any). Right now I am cautiously optimistic.

However I feel D&D Next's potential downfall will not be in the rules but in the presentation of the product line. I think it will be all right if they do what they have been doing in the playtest adventures. Some new style, some old style (i.e. the conversions), and stuff in-between.

Right now my guess is that the final results will allow for more customization than classic D&D but less than 3e. It will have some tactical options but less than 3e or 4e. That their primary pitch that it will quick to get going in the style you prefer. Which takes aim at Pathfinder's 3e heritage.

So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

Sound good to me.


Of course I've been saying that for so long my tongue is about to fall out.

I'm guessing this means we're probably looking at Gencon '14?

Quote from: Melan;682999So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

I think the feel and atmosphere are pretty much set, but now they are going and looking for broken exploits or builds.  So I expect some of that to change.

Just my opinion mind you, but from what I've seen and played, I see support for the following styles of play:

Simpler:
*Warrior fighter (not a lot of extra abilities, but overall combat effectiveness increases.  Things like increasing crit hits to a 19 or 18 instead of just 20
* attribute increases instead of feats

Complex:
*Gladiator fighter (several maneuvers and abilities that can be used in combat, like trip, ringing the bell, etc)
* use feats instead of attribute increases


Is it as complex as 4e's powers, or 3e's char op?  No, but then again, it isn't nearly as simple as B/X either.  I call it the 80% rule.  80% of simplicity or complexity can be replicated in Next

Quote from: Melan;682999So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

I forgot when they released the higher level stuff but it been a playable version of D&D for a while. The biggest "issue" is that they veer between various tweaks.

I don't consider it much of an issue because it is a playtest of a game and I am assuming they are trying things out. Despite the bitching and moaning, it not like they ditched whole sections of the game. Keep of the Borderlands and other older conversion are still in the packet as well as newer style modules including Murder in Baldur Gate.

I think the final result will be a game tolerable to classic edition gamers but there won't be wholesale adoption of it. But there will be a "common" grounds of sorts to had at game stores and convention event. And I feel some D&D Next products will be directly useful to classic edition campaign.

I lost interest because my main interest is whether I can publish for it. At this point it seems that the fundamentals are pretty much there so the next step for me is to see what kind of third party license they use (if any) and what the final details look like.

I am feeling that it going to be a lot like the Mongoose Traveller playtest. There was a lot of bitching through the playtest particularly over the combat rules. And when they released the final product much of the playtest document was in it but much of it was revamped particularly combat. And it was much better than I expected aside from Mongoose's issues with the pricing and physical presentation of their product. And Mongoose Traveller has continued to be well received.

Quote from: Benoist;682978I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead by appealing to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

The only mention of "old school style" was from Haffrung's commentary at the end of his post, not from Mearls.  Did you think it was Mearls saying that?

QuoteThis list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Fuck, I hope so! Him saying the game will be what customers want it to be is a good thing.  That's about the biggest "feature, not bug" there is.  Are you implying it was a negative?

I think the list is more what Mearls really hopes is true. Some of it may well be true, and some of it different degrees of wishful thinking.  But as a mission statement, its a promising starting point.

RPGPundit

Yeah, another cautiously optimistic poster here.

If you can choose between complex and simple characters and they're actually roughly equal, that's good.

If they're putting "class balance" on the scenario/campaign level rather than the itty-bitty details level that is also good.

I still think D&D is two games:

1) a character build game where character power is important
2) a story-telling adventure game (not in the same sense as a story game)

Games 1 and 2 are ever in conflict as flexibility makes #2 work much better whereas you really need rigidity to be able to flawlessly analyze a build.

I feel like the statements are a little vague, like a cold-reading or a horoscope or a campaign speech. Generic enough to sound applicable to almost everyone's beliefs without actually offering a concrete plan. I dunno. It seems to me that someone has to be disappointed and I wish he'd come out and say who he expects will or won't be. This is one of those times where it might actually be good to dictate a little.

Quote from: Votan;683576I still think D&D is two games:

1) a character build game where character power is important
2) a story-telling adventure game (not in the same sense as a story game)

Games 1 and 2 are ever in conflict as flexibility makes #2 work much better whereas you really need rigidity to be able to flawlessly analyze a build.

I think there are 2 types as well, and are very similiar to yours.

1. You can do only what is in the rules
2. You can do things even if there isn't a rule for it.


For example, let's look at a 4e fan's comment  (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/30052623/4e-style_tactical_grid_in_5e_DMG?pg=3)about how Next is failing as a tactical game:

QuoteTactics also involves every player working as a cog in a machine. Codified roles helped this quite a bit actually. Each class had a job to do that uniquely affected combat. In 5e each class is basically playing solo. It rarely matters what your team-mates do in 5e. In 4e it was very important what your teammates were doing in the round before yours. You could set up awesome combos with 2+ classes working together as a team. A group with good synergy and tactics could finish combat a good 50% faster than a group without it in 4e. Playing smart and playing to eachother's strengths mattered in 4e. Part of this was the fact that all classes could Nova, so setting up a nova was highly beneficial. In 5e, most non-caster classes are at-will, and there are almost no abilities that help set up or benefit team play.


..........

In 5e combat, what your ally does on their turn has almost 0 impact on your decision process on your turn. In effect, each individual is completely autonomous. In a tactical game, it matters significantly what your allies do on their turn.

This is clearly a person who can only think on point 1.  If something is not codified in the rules, then you can't do it or it doesn't happen.  For this player, the concept of creativity and out of the box thinking is an alien concept.

Quote from: Haffrung;682976So with the playtest heading into the home stretch, Mearls' summary of the feedback gives me a lot of reason for optimism.

The Final Countdown (https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130819)

So, what did we learn from the public playtest? In some cases you confirmed things, in others you dispelled some notions that had become lodged in R&D's view of you.

• You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.
• You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.
• You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.
• You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.
• You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

[/I]

I know there are some grognards who are fiercely opposed to pretty much any mechanical changes from D&D circa 1980. Safe to say WotC has written them off. But for someone who wants to play an old-school style game, who is open to modern mechanics, it looks like WotC has me square in its sites as the market for Next.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. There have been some head-scratchers in the playtests. And I frankly think they're still clinging to too many sacred cows. But it's starting to look like I'll be buying more than just a core book or two for a new edition of D&D to mine for ideas; I might actually become a fan of the in-print system. And that's a weird feeling.

I think they are trying to appeal to broad soectrum of gamers that includes old school folks but isn't limited to them. It also looks like they are making an effort to listen this time around. I'd say these points look good so far, and the playtest material has made me optimistic. But the final product will not be laser focused for just a single crowd of people, nor should it be (in many ways, 4E made that mistake in my opinion). It looks like a game where I can get my friends who like 1E and my friends who moved onto other games, at the same table. But really won't know until I see the final product.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683581I feel like the statements are a little vague, like a cold-reading or a horoscope or a campaign speech.

Yeah. 'The results of our extensive feedback campaign is that people like games that are fun'.

Quote from: soviet;683599Yeah. 'The results of our extensive feedback campaign is that people like games that are fun'.

Aka, "Games that aren't 4e" :p

Quote from: LibraryLass;683581I feel like the statements are a little vague, like a cold-reading or a horoscope or a campaign speech. Generic enough to sound applicable to almost everyone's beliefs without actually offering a concrete plan. I dunno. It seems to me that someone has to be disappointed and I wish he'd come out and say who he expects will or won't be. This is one of those times where it might actually be good to dictate a little.

Mearls hasn't come out and explicitly said who will be disappointed, but there are some pretty clear hints out there.

[Parphrasing]

We lost track of what most players really wanted out of D&D.

Next is based on the belief that players don't care about the mechanics as much as they care about cool stories.

We want Next to be a game that a group of friends could play out of the box casually for a couple hours and have a good time.

It seems pretty clear to me that Next will disappoint people who want:

* System-first design with the mechanics in the foreground

* Elaborate char op metagame

* A complex game that rewards system mastery

add people who obsess about mechanical character balance to that list, they are explicitly killed under point two.

Quote from: jadrax;683684add people who obsess about mechanical character balance to that list, they are explicitly killed under point two.

I have my doubts about how many of those people actually play D&D. I suppose they'll be disappointed in the game and piss and moan about it endlessly, but it's not like WotC will be losing them as customers.

Quote from: Haffrung;683657Mearls hasn't come out and explicitly said who will be disappointed, but there are some pretty clear hints out there.

[Parphrasing]

We lost track of what most players really wanted out of D&D.

Next is based on the belief that players don't care about the mechanics as much as they care about cool stories.

We want Next to be a game that a group of friends could play out of the box casually for a couple hours and have a good time.

It seems pretty clear to me that Next will disappoint people who want:

* System-first design with the mechanics in the foreground

* Elaborate char op metagame

* A complex game that rewards system mastery

Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

Quote from: Haffrung;683657Mearls hasn't come out and explicitly said who will be disappointed, but there are some pretty clear hints out there.

[Parphrasing]

We lost track of what most players really wanted out of D&D.

Next is based on the belief that players don't care about the mechanics as much as they care about cool stories.

We want Next to be a game that a group of friends could play out of the box casually for a couple hours and have a good time.

It seems pretty clear to me that Next will disappoint people who want:

* System-first design with the mechanics in the foreground

* Elaborate char op metagame

* A complex game that rewards system mastery

I'm okay with these things.  Avoiding those things is exactly why I drifted back to D&D from playing mostly GURPS.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683869Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

I'm 41, and have been playing for thirty years.  Am I an old-schooler?

Frankly 5e interests me more than 3e or 4e do.  It's for the *most part* what I would have wanted in an update - additional flexibility, cleaned up rules, but maintaining the core simplicity of earlier versions.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683869Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

I doubt I'll be running D&D Next, but from what I've seen of DDN it looks like I will be able to pick up adventures and settings for it and be able to use them in my old school campaigns without completely rewriting them. A complete rewrite is what 3.x and 4e adventures needed, which means I seldom was interested enough to buy one. Assuming DDN is anything like the playtest stuff, adventures and settings should be easily usable with the TSR D&D and clones I use. This means WOTC has a chance of getting some money from me -- something they haven't had much of from me in the past.  I know a number of other old school fans who feel as I do.

Quote from: robiswrong;683870I'm 41, and have been playing for thirty years.  Am I an old-schooler?

Frankly 5e interests me more than 3e or 4e do.  It's for the *most part* what I would have wanted in an update - additional flexibility, cleaned up rules, but maintaining the core simplicity of earlier versions.

Sure, but you wouldn't deny there's a specifically old-school market that's... okay, it's not huge, but by RPG standards it's robust enough, no?

I think they can't rely on winning over that market in large numbers because a lot of old schoolers are happy using existing systems (or their clones). Making B/X available on DnDClassics and the 1e and OD&D reprints is, I think the acknowledgment of this. 4e's history shows that they're not likely to capture a large segment of the "casual" market on name recognition. And the 3.5 market is pretty wrapped up in Pathfinder for the most part, so I think winning them over is a long shot.

I'd love to be wrong and have 5e be a genuinely fun game that makes them a lot of money and gets a lot of people playing the same game, but I'm not holding my breath, because it's not clear to me where the large market share they want is meant to come from.

Quote from: RandallS;683875I doubt I'll be running D&D Next, but from what I've seen of DDN it looks like I will be able to pick up adventures and settings for it and be able to use them in my old school campaigns without completely rewriting them. A complete rewrite is what 3.x and 4e adventures needed, which means I seldom was interested enough to buy one. Assuming DDN is anything like the playtest stuff, adventures and settings should be easily usable with the TSR D&D and clones I use. This means WOTC has a chance of getting some money from me -- something they haven't had much of from me in the past.  I know a number of other old school fans who feel as I do.

Maybe. WOTC's track record on adventures is a bit on the spotty side if you ask me. I can count the number of decent 4e adventures on one hand, and I think I could probably count the number of (EDIT: First-party) 3.x adventures that existed at all on two hands. Their business model has traditionally shown much more focus on supplements.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683881Sure, but you wouldn't deny there's a specifically old-school market that's... okay, it's not huge, but by RPG standards it's robust enough, no?

I don't know - it'll be interesting to see.  If 5e actually hits a lot of the old-school feel, with a cleaned up ruleset and a bit of flexibility added?  I could see old-school players making a switch.

I mean, I love old-school, I really do.  But the rules are clunky.  I don't think there's many people that can argue that.  While B/X is comparatively clean, AD&D 1e really shows that it's an organically grown "thing" more than anything else.

Whenever I've considered running an old-school game, that's been a factor in deciding to or not.

If they don't hit the same notes as older versions, then no, 5e won't have any impact on the old-school crowd.

Quote from: Haffrung;683740I have my doubts about how many of those people actually play D&D. I suppose they'll be disappointed in the game and piss and moan about it endlessly, but it's not like WotC will be losing them as customers.

I have met and played with the breed, but they are a definite minority of D&D players.  They also tend towards being extremely obsessed with following the letter of the rules.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683869Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

The lapsed/old-school D&D market is way, way bigger than the retroclone OSR, which is largely an online thing. Just as indie gamers have their heads up their ass when they suggest 13th Age will be popular alternative to Next, old-schoolers on the forums who think an amateur retroclone that sells 1,000 or 2,000 copies is any kind of a rival to official D&D lack any sense of perspective.

The indie publisher scene is talked up online out of all proportion to its size in the overall RPG hobby. Sure, WotC would like to get all those guys who downloaded Labyrinth Lord and have DCC RPG on their shelves to buy and play Next. But they don't need them. The channels that Next will be publicized through will reach a vast cohort of lapsed old-school players who have never heard of the OSR, RPGnet, DCC, or OSRIC. Heck, it already has:150,000 downloads of the playtest rules. And none of the guys I play with had heard of Next or the playtest until I told them about it a few months ago, including a guy who has bought and played every edition of the game from Moldvay Basic through to 4E. The population of gamers out there who only see a game on their radar once it has official D&D commercial status is huge. That's who WotC has to win over with Next, not a few hundred cynical grognards who have accounts at Knights and Knaves Alehouse and Grognardia.

Quote from: Haffrung;683889The lapsed/old-school D&D market is way, way bigger than the retroclone OSR, which is largely an online thing. Just as indie gamers have their heads up their ass when they suggest 13th Age will be popular alternative to Next, old-schoolers on the forums who think an amateur retroclone that sells 1,000 or 2,000 copies is any kind of a rival to official D&D lack any sense of perspective.

The indie publisher scene is talked up online out of all proportion to its size in the overall RPG hobby. Sure, WotC would like to get all those guys who downloaded Labyrinth Lord and have DCC RPG on their shelves to buy and play Next. But they don't need them. The channels that Next will be publicized through will reach a vast cohort of lapsed old-school players who have never heard of the OSR, RPGnet, DCC, or OSRIC. Heck, it already has:150,000 downloads of the playtest rules. And none of the guys I play with had heard of Next or the playtest until I told them about it a few months ago, including a guy who has bought and played every edition of the game from Moldvay Basic through to 4E. The population of gamers out there who only see a game on their radar once it has official D&D commercial status is huge. That's who WotC has to win over with Next, not a few hundred cynical grognards who have accounts at Knights and Knaves Alehouse and Grognardia.

I don't think those retroclones compete with D&D, I just think most old-schoolers, lapsed or not, already have the D&D they want, and if they don't, as of this year they can buy a reprint of it anyway. I don't think there are more than ten or twelve thousand active players of old school games and I think most of the lapsed ones can't be arsed to get back into it no matter how good 5e is.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683930I don't think those retroclones compete with D&D, I just think most old-schoolers, lapsed or not, already have the D&D they want, and if they don't, as of this year they can buy a reprint of it anyway. I don't think there are more than ten or twelve thousand active players of old school games and I think most of the lapsed ones can't be arsed to get back into it no matter how good 5e is.

You know, I was kind of thinking about that.  How do you appear edgy enough to gain new players, while still remaining traditional enough to maintain the brand history.

Maybe the answer is to make the old new again.  Forget the "look how awesome and heroic you are" crap, and do something that RPGs don't really do any more.

Go old-school.  Not rules, but feel.  Go for the whole survival horror/fantasy Vietnam vibe.  Make the rules explicit.  Promote the idea of campaign as the characters that survive.  Give players that old "PTSD&D" feeling.

Well, I'd buy it, anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;683889Heck, it already has:150,000 downloads of the playtest rules.

First off, I agree with pretty much everything Haffrung said in the mail I lifted this quote from. However, I have seen this number of downloads quoted a few times now. Does anyone know where it comes from? And if it refers to total downlaods of all of the different playtest packs they've put out, or just the latest one?

Quote from: robiswrong;683945You know, I was kind of thinking about that.  How do you appear edgy enough to gain new players, while still remaining traditional enough to maintain the brand history.

Maybe the answer is to make the old new again.  Forget the "look how awesome and heroic you are" crap, and do something that RPGs don't really do any more.

Go old-school.  Not rules, but feel.  Go for the whole survival horror/fantasy Vietnam vibe.  Make the rules explicit.  Promote the idea of campaign as the characters that survive.  Give players that old "PTSD&D" feeling.

Well, I'd buy it, anyway.

I'd buy it in a heartbeat, too! :)

"Awesome & heroic" is what surviving PCs become, way down the road.
They shouldn't be super special awesome down at level 1. But at level 10? Sure.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683869Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

People who assume this don't understand how 3e got popular in the first place.

Quote from: J Arcane;683970People who assume this don't understand how 3e got popular in the first place.

"Back to the dungeon"?

Quote from: The Ent;683972"Back to the dungeon"?

See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

I'll confess that may have been just a little before my time-- keep in mind that I started playing at all during the tail end of 3.0, in the fall of 2002 or thereabouts. Even in those days I remember WOTC CharOp being a fairly happening spot, something that eventually pushed me away from 3.5, and in time, from 4e as well (though I still like it when sufficiently reigned in. Sadly I have not been able to regain my taste for 3.x)

The thing that worries me about that though, is will WOTC again make the same mistake of catering to the twinkers and push away their regained market share? If so, then when twice burned, will these lapsed and casual fans dare to fall for it a third time, no matter how much WOTC promises it'll be different?

Quote from: J Arcane;683973It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it

That's true, but to be fair, it showed some signs of that even pretty early on.

I honestly don't think that the designers thought that the multiclass rules would end up being used the way that they are in practice.  The exp penalty was supposed to be a control on that, but it seems to be the first thing that most tables houserule away (and is it even still in 3.5?)

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

We're in agreement! :)
(Wasn't being sarcastic about "back to the dungeon" btw, I just remember the catchphrase. I suppose that, while I guess 2e is "my" edition, it did go a bit far away from its roots at times etc etc etc.)

Took a while before the big bad flaws in 3e became apparent to me. I mean sure there was stuff I wasn't entirely happy with even from the beginning (I didn't really like the dungeonpunk artstyle at any time, allthough some of it was pretty imaginative and good actually) but it did seem like a bunch of fun and at the time I was pretty tired of certain brokennesses of 2e's (like two-weapon fighting, say). But, early on in the line? Sure, it was fun, and it was fun to experiment with stuff like say rogue/fighter dudes and psychic warrior dudes and so forth. Fun was had. It was only some years down the line that it became obvious that at high levels, fighters = suck even with great items.

Quote from: robiswrong;683986That's true, but to be fair, it showed some signs of that even pretty early on.

I honestly don't think that the designers thought that the multiclass rules would end up being used the way that they are in practice.  The exp penalty was supposed to be a control on that, but it seems to be the first thing that most tables houserule away (and is it even still in 3.5?)

It is.

Quote from: Haffrung;683889The lapsed/old-school D&D market is way, way bigger than the retroclone OSR, which is largely an online thing. Just as indie gamers have their heads up their ass when they suggest 13th Age will be popular alternative to Next, old-schoolers on the forums who think an amateur retroclone that sells 1,000 or 2,000 copies is any kind of a rival to official D&D lack any sense of perspective.

I agreed and disagree. Individual OSR publishers are mostly at the hobbyist level, a few are a small RPG company. Collectively however it is a solid third tier or even second tier market. While not dominated by a single company in the way 3.X gaming is dominated by Paizo, there is a higher degree of cohesion because the OSR is centered around the classic D&D mechanics.

Basically the result is that the collective impact of the OSR is no more or no less than any other company that is not Paizo or Wizards.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683930I don't think those retroclones compete with D&D, I just think most old-schoolers, lapsed or not, already have the D&D they want, and if they don't, as of this year they can buy a reprint of it anyway. I don't think there are more than ten or twelve thousand active players of old school games and I think most of the lapsed ones can't be arsed to get back into it no matter how good 5e is.

As said before the point has been nothing more than to play, publish or promote a classic edition of D&D. If what TSR, Wizards, or Paizo is producing is not classic D&D or useful to a classic D&D then these gamers are not particularly interested in it.

It like expecting all people in a chess club to like Go. Sure some of them may like it or play it a lot but when they are at chess club the point is to play chess.

Classic D&D is no different.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

Yep. A lot of the people who returned to the fold with 3E hadn't played D&D in years. Then they read about a new edition in Wired magazine, or some other mainstream source. And when they bought the core books, it looked like the D&D they knew but with some fixes and some new stuff that looked cool. Then Necromancer Games ('3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel') hit the ground running with Crucible of Freya, an old-school adventure which (IIRC) sold in the high five-figures. People who hadn't played D&D in 10 years could come back to the game and play something clearly recognizable as the game they played back in the day.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

The 4E fans on forums like RPGnet, dominated by the system-first theory-wanks, lack all perspective of how big the potential D&D audience is. They think the game-specific traffic on RPGnet maps to the real world. So to them, the old-school crowd is already sewn up with retroclones. It would shatter their fragile indie delusions if they learned that the market of people who would buy an official, professionally-produced D&D game with an old-school feel dwarfs the online OSR presence by a couple orders of magnitude. I suppose some are too young to remember D&D as a huge commercial market of casual players. Others have always hated D&D and willfully deny its success. They trumpet the commercial success of 4E without recognizing that the market for a genuinely D&D-like edition of D&D is far higher. But WotC knows how many customers they left on the table with the mistake of 4E. That's the whole reason for 5E.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

The notion that gamers are fiercely loyal to the edition they play is another delusion fostered by forum-think. If it has D&D on the cover and hits a number of key elements, it's D&D to most players. 4E failed at the latter. Doesn't mean another game with D&D on the cover will fail too. And yeah, I suppose I could still play AD&D. If it weren't for the fact that I've had to houserule the shit out of to address wonky mechanics. And the fact that it's not actively supported, and I'm at a stage in my life where making up all my own setting and adventure material is not practical. 40-somethings tend to have a fair amount of disposable income. And we're not all reactionary dinosaurs like some of the more vocal OSR forum-trolls.

Quote from: J Arcane;6839733e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

Quote from: Glazer;683955First off, I agree with pretty much everything Haffrung said in the mail I lifted this quote from. However, I have seen this number of downloads quoted a few times now. Does anyone know where it comes from? And if it refers to total downlaods of all of the different playtest packs they've put out, or just the latest one?

The number is from WotC, and I don't know what the qualifications are. Even if it's total downloads of all the packs, that's still a huge number. Especially when you consider that in a lot of groups (like mine) only the DM would have downloaded the rules. And I suspect few people have downloaded every pack.

Quote from: Haffrung;684071The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

Jesus, Haffrung, I really hope you're right about that.

Quote from: estar;684065I agreed and disagree. Individual OSR publishers are mostly at the hobbyist level, a few are a small RPG company. Collectively however it is a solid third tier or even second tier market. While not dominated by a single company in the way 3.X gaming is dominated by Paizo, there is a higher degree of cohesion because the OSR is centered around the classic D&D mechanics.

Basically the result is that the collective impact of the OSR is no more or no less than any other company that is not Paizo or Wizards.

Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

Quote from: Haffrung;684071The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

I believed that when the first packet was released. I'm not as sure now.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684085I believed that when the first packet was released. I'm not as sure now.

I don't think Next will be as simple as B/X D&D. It will still have feats and more robust customization options. Just not anywhere near as elaborate and punishing as 3.x. If Basic D&D is a 3/10 in complexity, and 3.x & Pathfinder are a 9, I'm expecting Next to settle in as a 5 or 6. Well, hoping anyway.

We've been playing the playtest for a while now, and at least for me it feels much more old-school in style than either 3e or 4e.  Players are role playing a lot more, thinking their way through situations more than simply using abilities to kill things in standard ways, and overall it's triggering all the 1e sort of tone I used to enjoy years ago.  

I don't know if that will carry through to the rules once they actually come out, but that's what gives me hope for a good game more than anything Mearls says.  It plays in a manner I like.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

I think they like to prop up that myth by latching onto comments by people like 1989 and a few others.  Especially from Old Geezer, since he's very visible.  At least once a week it seems like he will stay with OD&D dammit!

In my experience, these people don't make up or represent the "old school" crowd any more than a theory wank 4venger represents current players.

QuoteBut the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.
.

This is pretty much it.  I don't avoid 3e or 4e because I hate change and refuse to look at any book other than my AD&D books.  I play modern games too.  Hell, I design games; I'm hardly adverse to trying new things.

What people need to understand is that D&D has always had a certain experience and feel to it.  WFRP is a fantasy game too, but it has a much different feel and experience.  I play lots of games, but when I want that D&D experience, that's what I play.  The problem is that 4e feels nothing like D&D.  3e even feels like it's that close to not feeling like D&D as well.

5e feels a lot more like D&D to me, and that's why I'm enjoying playing it.  I get really frustrated by the 4e crowd who keep saying that they are catering towards old school players while totally forsaking 4e.  It's an objective fact that there are more elements inspired by 4e in Next then there are from 1e or 2e.  This can be proven by taking some 5e rules and pointing to where they first showed up in 4e and not any other edition.  5e does not use THAC0, or discretionary thief progression skills, or anything else was unique to 2e.  There are no rules in 5e that are clearly inspired by 2e.  Even the "Vancian" magic in 5e isn't like 1e or 2e, or even 3e.   It's a hybrid between the two, between at wills and arcane recovery.

So yeah, I find it very irritating that us "older edition" players are willing to accept a lot of compromise compared to AD&D, but the vocal 4e players aren't.  Just go look at the offical WoTC forums.  There is an entire group of people (not just 4e players, but char oppers too) who sincerely think that the most important part of playing D&D is getting the most DPR (damage per round) builds, and NOT playing the type of character you want from a thematic standpoint.  People that argue that the PCs must leverage their power combinations off of other players, or otherwise there's not tactical combat and everyone is just playing solo.

Talk about missing the whole point of what D&D has always stood for.  I sincerely hope that's what Mearls is referring to in his comments.  That if those types of games are you favorite, there are plenty of computer games that can do that.  Heck, there are RPGs that build around that too now.  But D&D, in its history, is not about that nor should it.

Quote from: Haffrung;684084Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

My view is more nuanced. What I have witnessed, multiple times, is that a lapsed gamer will come into the store (or buy online) the latest D&D game and expect something similar to what he originally played with.

D&D 3.X was similar enough so that older gamers were happy with it. D&D 4.0 was not. I personally seen the confusion and heard the store owner compliant about the situation.

D&D Next in its present form is close enough to classic edition D&D for this type of customer. In fact is probably better than 3.X due its simplified design.

On a different topic, after thinking about it I think there is a path for Wizards to recover market share from Paizo with D&D Next. First is positioning the company as the good guy in doing the reprints, using older modules, and putting up stats in multiple edition.  

Second is to position D&D Next as a game that has customization and tactical options but is quicker to setup and play than 3.X. However they be laid back in presenting this. Opting to show rather than tell or saying that 3.X/Pathfinder sucks.  

One example of this is using Keep on the Borderland that is essentially the same except for the stats.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

Yes. That's the gist of it.

Quote from: Haffrung;684084Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

This I don't agree with. The simple truth is that the large market of lapsed D&D players who may or may not still play their own D&D game once in a while with friends and family, and who haven't bought product for a while, are not familiar with ENWorld, this site, RpGnet and whatnot. They are simply not online, and the existence of these retroclones simply does not register on their radar. It's not that they'd never play an OSRIC or LL compatible module, it's that they're not even aware these things exist!

These people might be thrilled being able to pick up a classic B/X package to play with their kids, or might appreciate new AD&D modules for them to play. I actually suspect some would. But they are simply not aware of what's going on with the Online forums and all that.

Quote from: Benoist;684103This I don't agree with. The simple truth is that the large market of lapsed D&D players who may or may not still play their own D&D game once in a while with friends and family, and who haven't bought product for a while, are not familiar with ENWorld, this site, RpGnet and whatnot. They are simply not online, and the existence of these retroclones simply does not register on their radar. It's not that they'd never play an OSRIC or LL compatible module, it's that they're not even aware these things exist!

This people might be thrilled being able to pick up a classic B/X package to play with their kids, or might appreciate new AD&D modules for them to play. I actually suspect some would. But they are simply not aware of what's going on with the Online forums and all that.

Yeah, we forget sometimes just how small online gamer communities are because of how active we are on them and how vocal the community is.

I do think the number of people who are aware of these products are greater than just the relative few who post online. Those who actually create accounts on messageboards, follow them regularly, and actually post are an even smaller minority than those who are gamer-internet aware.

Its like comparing the number of blogs/forums that someone might occasionally read or check out vs the number they are active on.

The active/posting loudmouths (like me ;)) are simply the only voices heard and shouldn't be mistaken for the only ears listening.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684107The active/posting loudmouths (like me ;)) are simply the only voices heard and shouldn't be mistaken for the only ears listening.

I can say that of all the gamers I've ever met in over 17 years of gaming there have been maybe 8-9 that posted/read/cared about online 'communities'.

Out of hundreds of gamers.

I'm usually the only person in a group active on-line (my Korea group being a notable exception).

Quote from: Benoist;682978This list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Bingo is your name-o.

Quote from: Votan;683576I still think D&D is two games:

1) a character build game where character power is important
2) a story-telling adventure game (not in the same sense as a story game)

Games 1 and 2 are ever in conflict as flexibility makes #2 work much better whereas you really need rigidity to be able to flawlessly analyze a build.

Flawlessly analyzing a build is a task for MMOs and cRPGs, not for TT games.

Another consideration might be - 4e players may eventually grow out of the inanity of 4e style play.

I remember how thrilled I was at 3e - all new and shiny. But after playing... and things not going right... I tried it again. Hrrmm... was okay, but something is wrong here. Then I did it again... then I started writing for it in Dragon and making changes that I felt needed to be changed. It was then that my Rosy Tinted Glasses of Dumbassery were pulled from my eyes and admitted - this system is fucked up.

Amidst the sewage of third-party designs in d20 - there were some real gems that do salvage the 3.x system in my opinion, but they of course are considered apostates to the generation that grew up ON 3e - and later 4e - that cleaved to the System-as-God mentality (despite the fact that the system itself is broken. There is a good metaphor in there somewhere).

But people can wake up. And with the advent of 5e - a lot of 4e players will move over just because, some won't... and that's fine. The end-result is the "pie" of players will be that much more fractured. That will lead to more general discontent and mistrust of the brand. When that happens - players who stay in the hobby go looking for other things. And that's where the good stuff actually thrives - picking up players wanting to see something better than the mass-market shit they've been consuming.

I think it's a good thing. If anything I would like Hasbro to drop the brand altogether (they probably won't sell it unfortunately). I think there are "indy" RPG's out there that do D&D better than Hasbro. And then there's the fact that OSR games are still producing great stuff in the vein of 1e and 2e (not to take anything away from the fact that you can play 1e or 2e with no problem at all!).

D&D Next to me, is a commercial-based distraction. Nothing more.

Quote from: tenbones;684141Amidst the sewage of third-party designs in d20 - there were some real gems that do salvage the 3.x system in my opinion...

I, for one, would be very interested in a new thread that started with what you think these are.

Quote from: CRKrueger;684140Flawlessly analyzing a build is a task for MMOs and cRPGs, not for TT games.

And even then it sucks.

The important decision-making should be when you're playing the game, not before you play the game.

Quote from: Glazer;683955First off, I agree with pretty much everything Haffrung said in the mail I lifted this quote from. However, I have seen this number of downloads quoted a few times now. Does anyone know where it comes from? And if it refers to total downlaods of all of the different playtest packs they've put out, or just the latest one?

I've downloaded it twice and have never played it including the latest one, so take that number with an entire salt shaker of salt (not just the grain). I'm guessing there are lots of folks like me out there and that helped them decide to quit squandering resources on the play tests. I'm sure there are folks playing it but, just as many browsers.

I'm interested in 5e and follow Mearls post every Monday but no matter how interested I am it is going to be tough for me to get my group to buy in. Cynicism rules with us and the quote I hear most often is, "I'm not buying another book just because WOTC decides to revamp the game to sell more books". I liked the 4.5 edition (Essentials) and could tell they were trying to put some flexibility back into the system then. I think it needed to be re-done but I'm afraid it isn't going to make any of the folks I know buy more books unless it is nothing short of amazing. They will play the older versions just because they own them already.

And I've downloaded all packets, but I'm the only one in my group of 7 that has.  I just share it.  so that one download is the equivilant of 7 players.

Quote from: robiswrong;684146And even then it sucks.

The important decision-making should be when you're playing the game, not before you play the game.

For decades, the munchkin player was considered to be a horrible aspect of the genre.  Luckily there was only a small % of them.

WotC took over, and decided that munchinism should be the default play style.  Theory wankers and math obsessed people lost sight of actually playing the game.  The whole "role-playing" part was thrown to the side.  You were encouraged not to role-play an archetype, but instead encouraged to play a set of formulas.  The most important parts of the character sheet went from "race, class, name" to "HP, AC, DPS."  I think that's where they went critically wrong, and hopefully Mearls recent statement about losing direction means that they've realized this flaw.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684195For decades, the munchkin player was considered to be a horrible aspect of the genre.  Luckily there was only a small % of them.

My personal belief is that "munchkin" referred to *age* primarily, and the playstyle typically played by that age, more than anything else.  To make sure I insult everyone equally, I'll call the adult players of that time period (ending in the early 80s) the "grognards"

Chances are that the vast majority of people on this board are munchkins.  We're the second generation, with some few exceptions.

I only came to this realization after playing in a 10+ year old campaign in the 90s run by a friend's father.  They played "D&D" (actually, a mix of The Fantasy Trip and AD&D 1e) in a very different way than I or my friends ever did - a way that I really grew to appreciate.

I think that most people around my age or even slightly older (I'm 41) don't realize this, as they never got the chance to play with the "grognards", who'd all be about 60 by this point.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684195WotC took over, and decided that munchinism should be the default play style.

To a certain extent, "munchkinism" (as I define munchkins above) *was* the default play style, as most people playing the game were my age or younger when it came out.  Few of the grognards were left, and few of the "paleo" campaigns survived.  That's just reality.

I don't know that WotC really made a conscious decision to focus on charop and the like.  I don't think they realized how abusable their multiclassing rules were (which really became a very coarse-grained skill system), and the multiplicative effect of adding more classes (which is more problematic than in a traditional class-based system).  I think that in good faith, they tried to make a more "modern" version of D&D, and give players increased flexibility.

I think they *also* made a conscious decision to focus more on player supplements than GM supplements, under the very correct business idea that there are more players than GMs, so why not hit the larger audience?

I think that these two things combined together in a way that created, unintentionally, the charop explosion that was 3.x.  At some point they decided to run with it, I think, but I don't think that was the original intent, or they wouldn't have added things like the multiclassing exp penalties.

I think that when they were playtesting the game, they mostly used people that were D&D players that had expectations about what D&D and multiclassing were, and playtested generally within those expectations.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it,

Yes, absolutely!  I think its crazy most people forgot that.  Back when 3.0 was first release it was all about "back to the dungeon" and "the kick-in-the-door style of play".  I mean shit, the DMG literally disses Storytelling and outright states its where RPGs went wrong (in very subtle diplomatic words, of course, much more subtle than the nWoD manual's "all D&D players are 'unwashed masses' and its your duty to show them the better way" speech a few years later).

RPGPundit